Abstract
This chapter critically examines how Parfit’s On What Matters addresses skeptical arguments based on (1) the causal origins of our normative beliefs, and (2) the appearance of pervasive moral disagreement. In both cases, Parfit concedes the first step to the skeptic, but draws a subsequent distinction with which he hopes to stem the skeptic’s advance. This chapter argues, however, that these distinctions cannot bear the weight that Parfit places on them. A successful moral epistemology must take a harder line with the skeptic, insisting that moral knowledge can be had by those with the right kind of psychology—no matter the evolutionary origin of the psychology, nor whether we can demonstrate its reliability over the alternatives.