 Now it is, of course, a consequence of Russell’s later view both a) that it is impossible to have a rational argument about “what things are such as ought to exist on their own account” and b) that in such disputes there can be nothing beyond “an appeal to individual tastes”. But though you can argue from emotivism and the non-existence of objective goodness to the truth of a) and b), can you argue from a) and b) to the non-existence of objective goodness?