  Naturalists in moral epistemology deny (5) when they try to derive a conclusion that an act is morally wrong from purely non-normative features of the act. However, moral skeptics retort that such derivations always depend on a suppressed premise that all acts with those features are morally wrong. Such a suppressed premise seems moral and, hence, normative. If so, the naturalist’s inference does not really work without any normative premises. Naturalists still might invoke inferences to the best moral explanation, but then moral skeptics can deny that any moral hypothesis provides the best explanation independently of prior moral assumptions (see above).