Thus, in addition to being agnostic on whether (i) is true, Pyrrhonian moral skepticism denies (ii).

Dogmatic moral skepticism, on the other hand, affirms (ii) and cites (ii)'s truth as the reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim.

There are two different opinions that follow from moral skepticism.

Criticisms of moral skepticism come primarily from moral realists.

Holmes espoused a form of moral skepticism and opposed the doctrine of natural law, marking a significant shift in American jurisprudence.

Most moral epistemologies, of course, posit that moral knowledge is somehow possible, as opposed to moral skepticism.

Forms of moral skepticism include, but are not limited to, error theory and most but not all forms of non-cognitivism.

Approaches such as ethical egoism, moral relativism, moral skepticism, and moral nihilism are also considered.

Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism.

This would amount to an endorsement of a type of moral skepticism, rather than nihilism.