and wrong are, accordingly, by theories of this type, identified with assertions about the will of some non-human being. And there are two obvious reasons why we should hold that, if judgments of right and wrong are judgments about any mental attitude at all, they are judgments about the mental attitude which we call willing, rather than about any of those which we call feelings.
The first is that the notion which we express by the word "right" seems to be obviously closely connected with that which we express by the word "ought," in the manner explained in Chapter I (pp. 31-39); and that there are many usages of language which seem to suggest that the word "ought" expresses a command. The very name of the Ten Commandments is a familiar instance, and so is the language in which they are expressed. Everybody understands these Commandments as assertions to the effect that certain actions ought, and that others ought not to be done. But yet they are called "Commandments," and if we look at what they actually say we find such expressions as "Thou shalt do no murder," "Thou shalt not steal"—
