1. What are the main reasons why many students are skeptical or cynical about the possibility of finding correct answers to moral questions? (p. 4)

2. Which of these reasons seems most persuasive to you? Are there any others that were left out?

3. What answers does the book offer to the arguments against the possibility of finding correct answers to moral questions (pp. 6-7)?

4. What is the ambiguity involved in saying that morality is relative? What is the difference between the two senses of relative?

5. What are the main objections against saying that whatever the social consensus in a society takes to be right is right for that society?

6. Table 1.2.1 on p. 9 lists seven contrasts between factual and evaluative claims. Do you think that these contrasts are defensible? Which (if any) are exaggerated?