  Another way to argue for premise (2) invokes science. Psychologists have found that many moral judgments are subject to a variety of distorting influences, including framing effects and certain misleading emotions. Biologists then suggest that moral judgments evolved in ways that seem independent of their truth. Such indications of unreliability are supposed to show that moral judgments are not justified without inference (Sinnott-Armstrong 2006, Chapter 9, pp. 184–219; but see replies by Beaulieu 2009, van Roojen 2013, and May 2018). That would support premise (2).