ABSTRACT Quinn, Houts, and Graesser (this issue) have misconstrued my earlier commentary, attributing several conclusions to me that I neither made nor intended. Moreover, they continue to confuse moral thinking, reasoning, and related constructs with thinking about the meaning of the term “morality.” If Quinn et al. are ever to achieve their aims of using the “question-answering” method to study naturalistic moral reasoning and/or to assess the merits of value-prescriptive theories of morality, they will have to ask questions that can indeed illustrate the underpinnings of subjects' moral thought.