 Another example. Epistemic Infinitists embrace the infinite regress of reasons and argue that it is not vicious (see, e.g., Aikin 2005, 2011, Klein 1998, 2003, Peijnenburg 2007 and Atkinson &amp; Peijnenburg 2017). One response for the Infinitist to make to the regress argument is the response from section 3: to hold that each belief is justified in virtue of the next one being justified, but to claim that this is not a problem: that while the regress means we do not have an explanation for why anything is justified in the first place, this is not what the sequence was meant to explain—all that we need is an explanation for each belief concerning why it is justified, and this we have. (See e.g., Aikin 2005, 197 and Klein 2003, 727–729.)