Yes, I suppose it depends upon how each of us defines it. I mean, some of the authors who have written on morality (or on ethics) give different definitions of it. I personally think that morality at least presupposes, or is based upon, some

Ok, perfect, with these remarks I think I've got it. Thanks.

By the way, in this sentence: "Julia Annas has affirmed that the kind of modern moral skepticism which denies the existence of objective moral values rests on a contrast between morality and some other system of beliefs about the world which is

1) "Although the affirmation that science does not describe the world as it is in itself does not entail the abandonment of moral skepticism, the claim that both morality and science are faulty necessarily presupposes the possession of some view

Hi, Clive. Yes, I suppose I could say "unresolvable disagreement". But you know, I've seen the expression "undecidable disagreement" used in some papers and books. I've also seen "undecidable dispute" and "undecidable anomaly". Cheers.

Perhaps: "For from the fact that, to deny the objectivity of morality, it is not necessary to be confident about ( in? ) the truth of every other system of beliefs about the world, Bett invalidly infers that, to deny the objectivity of

I prefer to take them out, but I want to make sure that in this way it is clear that the disagreement is between two groups of theories, one of which affirm and the other deny the same proposition.

"and those which deny". Thanks, Sextus

the objectivity of any other system of beliefs about the world ." Cheers, Sextus

at the world/view of the world/ way of talking about the world/view of the world ." Cheers, Sextus