 The idea seems to be that our moral evaluations—our beliefs about what is good or bad, wrong or right—can be explained without supposing that they correspond to facts involving Moorean properties of “absolute” goodness or badness. And since our evaluations can be accounted for without supposing that there are any such properties, and since the only reason for we believing in them is the evidence of our evaluations, we have no reason to suppose that such properties exist, and some reasons (of an Occamist sort) for supposing that they do not.