@Tom_Storm is a bit out of his depth. I’m not convinced that he understands the issues and arguments at stake. Most of what he says is ignoratio elenchi.
For an introduction to some of the complexities of the word ‘good’ see Simpson’s Goodness and Nature, from the bottom of page 69 to the top of page 71. There, in his section on Hare, he introduces what contemporary philosophers call the “supervenience” of the concept of goodness. This is but the first of many issues that Tom is probably not aware of.
(Incidentally, @Banno is largely a follower of Hare when it comes to moral philosophy, with some Searle mixed in.)