The Moral Skeptic is a good book. It is immersed in the literature and syntheses it well, while making new and interesting philosophical moves of its own. Its goal is modest: not to defeat the moral sceptic but to show what would be required to defeat the moral sceptic. Indeed it is successful in pushing the dialectic between the defender of morality and its sceptic forward, sharpening it while broadening it, by subsuming within it issues and concerns which have not, heretofore, been taken as relevant within the literature. All this is good and important. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the ultimate goal of the book is not met and that there are fairly quick responses open to stubborn sceptics which would allow them to escape the ‘defeat’ which might follow from the picture which Superson draws.