I would like to know if the grammar if acceptable. Thanks.

1) Annas contends that the view which denies the existence of objective moral values arises from the idea that moral realism conflicts with our knowledge of the world. That is to say, the underlying idea is that the ethical theories that assert the existence of objective moral values conflict with a view of the world which is objective and shared by all, and which affirms the existence of other kinds of entities.

2) The other line of argumentation put forward by modern moral skepticism does not focus on the apparent shortcomings of moral inquiry. Rather, it advances a particular conception of its subject matter: moral values do not exist independently of us, but are merely our projections.

The fact that the conflicting positions seem to have the same weight renders the conflicts undecidable (anepikritoi). More precisely, the Pyrrhonist finds (a) an undecidable disagreement among moral doctrines which have differing views about what the good, the bad, and the indifferent are, (b) an undecidable disagreement about what things these notions apply to, and (c) an undecidable disagreement between the doctrines which assert that things are good, bad, or indifferent by nature, and those that deny this. 

3) However, the Pyrrhonist does not have this kind of confidence: he is agnostic about all beliefs, and not only about moral beliefs.

4) One might object that the unresolved disagreements that exist among the defenders of moral realism show that moral values are not real. However, the fact that a disagreement is unresolved does not imply that none of the conflicting views is correct. Even if the disagreements among moral realists were in themselves undecidable, this would not be sufficient for denying that moral values are objective. For the existence of an undecidable disagreement only manifests the impossibility of determining which of the positions in conflict, if any, is correct. Hence, to deny the objectivity of morality, one needs more than undecided or undecidable conflicts of moral realistic positions; one needs an objective conception of the world with which moral realism is at odds.

3) However, the Pyrrhonist does not have this kind of confidence: he is agnostic, not only about moral beliefs bit about all beliefs, no comma or and 

Perhaps: "not merely about moral beliefs but about all beliefs in general". I feel that sth. must be added after "all beliefs", but don't know what exactly.

 4) One might object that the unresolved disagreements that exist among the defenders of moral realism show that moral values are not real. However, the fact that a disagreement is unresolved does not imply that none of the conflicting views I'd say 'are' correct. Even if the disagreements among moral realists were in themselves undecidable, this would not be sufficient reason for denying that moral values are objective, comma for the existence of an undecidable disagreement only manifests the impossibility of determining which of the positions in conflict, if any, is correct. Hence, to deny the objectivity of morality, one needs more than undecided or undecidable conflicts of moral realistic or should one say realistic moral, or perhaps morally realistic? I guess moral realism is the name of a school of thought? But as adjectives here, it rings a touch odd positions; one needs an objective conception of the world with which moral realism is at odds.

First, none may be singular, ritght? Second, I think I could just say "moral positions". 

How about something like he is agnostic as regards all beliefs, including the moral ones?

First, none may be singular, ritght? It can be either here. I think plural 'reads better'.

But in the context I'm talking about each one of them.

Cheers, Sextus