While attempting to decipher Anscombe and Hursthouse’s virtue theories (mainly Anscombe’s), Hurka sees a flaw. Anscombe doesn’t necessarily include morality in her theory of virtue but instead opts to center virtue around rationality. I think Hurka sees this as false because he wants to believe there is some moral rightness and goodness by following virtues as well as some form of moral wrongness by following vices. Hurka claims that someone living through Anscombe’s theory of virtue can’t decipher what is right or wrong through morality, but instead what someone should or shouldn’t do through rationality. But there is a kind of obvious premise that Hurka’s claim implies. The premise Hurka is proposing is that someone cannot use rationality to come to a conclusion about morality, which I think is false. And I definitely think it’s untrue since Hurka does acknowledge that virtue plays a role in Anscombe’s thinking. How could someone use virtues in rational thinking and not be able to come to some moral conclusion? An example I bring up is the virtue of generosity. Someone can think generosity is a virtue because logically they come to the conclusion that being generous leads to others being happy and the more people that are happy then the more pleasure exists in the world. Using more rational thinking, that person can then come to the conclusion that if generosity leads to pleasure then generosity is morally good because (according to Hurka) pleasure is morally an intrinsic base good. I might just have misunderstood what Hurka was trying to get at with Anscombe’s theory, but I don’t see how he can say morality has no role in it at all.