According to R.M.Hare, the primary function of the value-words is to commend Also, in his opinion, whenever we commend something, it is always in order to, at least indirectly, guide choices. This thesis was very often questioned. In his article 'Objectivism and Mr. Hare's Language of Morals' professor Sidney Zink attempts to prove that Hare's central thesis is incorrect. My primary contention in this paper is to demonstrate that professor Zink's argumentation is quite unworkable. At the same time, this contention represents one step further in justification of internalism.