In an interesting recent paper1 Mr R.M.Hare examines the notion of universalizability. One interesting issue that emerges is the connection between universalizability and morality. By means of an imaginary dialogue (pages 304 and 305) and his comments on it, Hare conveys that he considers the connection between these two notions to be analytic. Roughly: if ‘moral’ does not mean, at least, ‘universalizable’, what else could it mean? If it were not allowed to mean or entail that, we should not be able to assign any meaning to it, Hare suggests. If recommending some act with the help of the word ‘ought’ does not entail or imply that we are recommending the same for analogous situations, what could it mean?