 The strategy can be illustrated by a concrete example. Allan Gibbard talks about the infamously cruel Roman emperor Caligula, and imagines that he wants to torture for fun while harboring no conflicting attitudes (1990: 145). The argument is, then, that Caligula plainly would be wrong to torture just for fun despite the fact that his desire to torture for fun is coherent with his other attitudes and resistant to change under any idealization process. So the wrongness of his torturing for fun is not grounded in his actual attitudes nor is it grounded in the attitudes of his that would survive some idealization process.