 Even if we restrict our attention to more moderate cases of undermining, one still might wonder whether rationality can ask us to doubt so much that we end up skeptics about large and important domains (even if we are not skeptics across the board). Could it be rational for us to come to doubt, for example, all of our moral or religious beliefs on the basis of higher-order undermining? Elga (2007) argues (again in the context of peer disagreement) that we should not worry about this possibility. In order to doubt all of our moral beliefs, for example, we must have independent grounds to judge these beliefs to be unreliable. But if we set aside all of our moral beliefs, Elga argues, we won’t have enough left over to make any sort of reliability judgment—and therefore, won’t have rational grounds for doubt. So undermining can only happen locally. (And even then, he argues, many of our religious and moral beliefs will be safe, since on any particular occasion, the targeted religious or moral belief will be supported by our other moral and religious beliefs—the ones that aren’t called into question.) See Vavova 2018 and Christensen 2011 for further discussion of this point. Vavova and Christensen both differentiate between two possible ways to formulate Independence: one on which you must revise your beliefs insofar as you fail to have good independent reason to trust them, and one on which you must revise insofar as you have good independent reason to think that you’re mistaken. They argue that the first formulation has skeptical results, while the second avoids them.