What is so intriguing to me is that although there are no preset standards of what is morally correct and what is not, there is still this association with certain terms that imply and help us identify what is considered morally good or bad. Though these words are supposed to be used to help indicate a moral argument, I believe they are also valuable in demonstrating how even though morality is objectionable, there is still a common sense of conventional knowledge surrounding certain ideas. 

Further I also think that the discussion of the murky territory between values and morals is interesting and yet sort of troubling. In the article the authors include the claim that everything an individual does is dependent on moral claims and that when one partakes in a specific action it is because they value some aspect of whatever it is that they are doing. This is significant, and particularly interesting to me, for the simple fact that terms like values are so loosely interpreted and objectionable and are yet still being used in correlation with other relative terms. 

All in all, I think the article is extremely valuable and useful for the indication and interpretation of moral arguments as it pertains to critical thinking.