The fifth premise P5 of the Argument of Supererogation holds that moral actors may omit supererogations without needing to feel shame nor fear reproach from others. As demonstrated, however, the Argument of Supererogation faces an Indecency Problem since (in some cases) refusing a supererogation seems indecent (see Sect. 2.3.4). Chapter 11 resolves this problem distinguishing two Arguments of Supererogation (see Sect. 11.2). Since decencyerogations do not endanger the actor as such, observers are allowed to consider a systematic refusal of decencyerogations indecent because that signals a fundamental disinterest in refining one’s moral self (see Sect. 11.1.2). Therefore, the Argument of Decencyerogation fulfills the advising function sometimes to do decencyerogations for being liked (see Sect. 11.3.2). By contrast, omissions of ultraerogations are exempt from any negative moral evaluation because ultraerogations endanger the actor as such (see Sect. 11.1.1). Because that must not be demanded in the name of morals, the Argument of Ultraerogation fulfills the meta-ethical function of marking limits to morals (see Sect. 11.3.1).