 We should note that it is not entirely fair to ask whether the Pyrrhonist’s moral life is one that we, non-Skeptics, would deem good or praise-worthy. For, as Sextus would say, we are part of the dispute regarding what kind of life is morally good and praise-worthy. To claim that nothing really matters to the Skeptic, for example, presupposes some account of the mental state of caring. In the end, the question of how or whether a Skeptic might be morally good is equivalent to asking what role belief, or knowledge, plays in the moral goodness of people and their actions. If we suppose that one must, at a minimum, have adequately justified evaluative beliefs informing her actions in order for those actions, and the underlying character, to count as morally good, then the Skeptic will be immoral, or at least amoral. On the other hand, if the Skeptic manages to undermine our confidence in that supposition, we will have to suspend judgment regarding whether the Skeptic, or anyone else for that matter, is in fact capable of performing morally good and praise-worthy action, or whether their reasoned account of eudaimonia is true.