 Another problem is that the later Russell’s account of “ought”-judgments runs foul of Moore’s Open Question Argument (as his earlier self could have told him). To say that A ought to do X (with respect to B) is to say that on the available evidence A’s doing X would be most likely to maximize what some contextually specified person or group B takes to be good and to minimize what B takes to be evil. But, construed as an account of what we actually mean, this is obviously incorrect. As Russell himself had nearly put it thirty years earlier: