{ 1 } - they conflict with how we use language.
{ 2 } - the conventions they propose wouldn't be useful to adopt.
{ 3 } - they turn moral judgments into empirical statements (which she dislikes).

Ima accepts Moore's refutation of naturalism. She says that it's consistent to say that some socially approved things aren't good; so "good" and "socially approved" don't have the same meaning.

She adds that naturalistic definitions fail because they try to define an emotive term (like "good") using purely descriptive terms (like "socially approved").