Common arguments for modal realism refer to their "theoretical usefulness" for modal reasoning and to commonly accepted expressions in natural language that seem to imply "ontological commitments" to possible worlds. A common objection to modal realism is that it leads to an "inflated ontology", which violates Occam's razor. Critics of modal realism have also pointed out that it is "counterintuitive" to allow possible objects the same ontological status as actual objects. This line of thought has been further developed in the "argument from morality" by showing how an equal treatment of actual and non-actual persons would lead to highly implausible consequences for morality, culminating in the moral principle that every choice is equally permissible.