 These last two objections are understandable, given how often Stevenson appeals to the uses and purposes of moral language. Nevertheless, they miss their mark, for Stevenson’s theory of meaning is not an “instrumentalist” theory of meaning, but rather a dispositional theory  (Section 3.2;  Urmson 1968, Ch. 4; Warnock 1978, Ch. 3). Stevenson associates the meaning of a word or sentence with neither perlocutionary intentions nor with illocutionary force, but rather with the conjunction or union of its passive and active dispositions.