A yes unless it is nihilism which has no moral

a. Yes, unless it is nihilism, which has no moral standards, because there are no morals
11. What is a contradiction?
a. A claim that is simultaneously affirmed and rejected
12. Can subjectivism and relativism allow for moral disagreements? Why?
a. Subjectivism does not allow for moral disagreements because each individual is entitled
to his or her own opinion, and your opinion cannot contradict with his or hers because
they exist separately
b. Relativism runs into the same problem, unless there is an individual in more than one
society where the societies have contradicting views. In this case, that person would
have to deal with a moral disagreement
13. What is global skepticism?
a. Global skepticism is the view that there is no objective truth at all, anywhere.
14. What is the argument from global skepticism? Is it valid? Is it sound?
a. Global skepticism is true. Global skepticism entails moral skepticism. Therefore, moral
skepticism is true.
b. Valid: yes

c. Sound: no (global skepticism is not true; not all of the premises are true, therefore the
conclusion cannot be true)
15. Is global skepticism self-refuting?
a. Yes
i. Global nihilism: no truths at all, therefore there cannot be moral truths
1. Problem: “no truths at all” must be true for this to work
ii. Global subjectivism: truth in every area is in the eye of the beholder
1. Problem: claim is true if and only if I believe it; if something (like global
subjectivism) is true, and I don’t believe it, it cannot be true
iii. Global relativism: all truth is relative to a society
1. Problem: false for all societies that do not believe in global relativism
16. Is moral skepticism self-refuting?
a. No, at least not according to Shaffer-Landau
I am still somewhat confused about the difference between entail and require . Could you please explain
these again?