 Russell might reply that his suggestion is not intended as an account of what “right”, “wrong” and “ought” actually mean, but as proposal about what they ought to mean. His theory is not intended as a description of our current semantic slum, but as a scheme for linguistic reform. It may be that at present we take those whose “oughts” are indexed to different ends to be contradicting one other but Russell is hoping to change all that. Given current usage, when Hitler says “We ought to bomb London” and the pacifist says “Nobody ever ought to bomb anything”, the two claims contradict each other, but once Russell’s reform is has been implemented this disagreeable dispute will be smoothed into non-existence.