ABSTRACT
The distinctions between moral and non-moral judgments, moral and non-moral values, moral and non-moral practices are, on the face of it, quite relevant to the arguments. It looks very much as though the contexts which raise the grounding question for thoughtful people are precisely, exhaustively, the ones we want to call moral. It should be remarked that no attempt has been made here to rank whole types of valuational act, to try to show that calculative valuations always outweigh conflicting affective ones. Yet some suggestions are in order about why it might be that this criterion is operationally effective. Not all these 'involvements' must be met to a specified degree to move one to use the description. For if, in effect, all the value judgments we are concerned to ground are the moral ones, to have exhibited value grounding procedures will be to have exhibited procedures for moral judgments.
