人類是有理智的，能分辨是非，認識真假，然而由於理論或事實的複雜，再加上習俗與教育的不同，在認知，不免會發生錯誤，特別是在倫理道德方面，更容易混淆，而難以分辨的正確，於是乎就發生懷疑主義和相對主義，在有關真理的主張上，我們在這裡不去論，我們只就倫理學方面，加以考察。希臘在古代就產生了倫理上的懷疑主義和相對主義，在近代人們更加堅持，不承認有統一或普遍性的典範存在，其實這是錯誤的想法，無論古今的倫理學者，連主張懷疑或相對論的人也不例外，他們都相信善當行，惡當避，夠了，這種承認，不就承認了道德或倫理普遍性、絕對性了嗎？倫理懷疑主義或相對主義的主張者對他們的主義不懷疑，也又不是陷於自我否定，而以他們的主張，有普遍為典範的價值了嗎？

Human Beings possess the knowledge to differentiate between right and wrong, the true and the false. Due to the complexities of different theories or practices, however, and to differences in customs and educational backgrounds, it is hard to avoid mistakes in judgment. This is especially true in the realm of ethics where it is easy to become confused and difficult to make accurate assessments. This leads easily to the occurance of ethical sceptism and relativism. We will not discuss the possibility of truth here, but rather concentrate on ethical matters. Sceptism and Relativism were born in ancient Greek philosophy. People today are even more adamant as to the lack of any unifying or universal model of existence. This misconception, whether it be from ancient or modern moralists, has led to the belief that it is ethically sufficient to just act well and avoid evil. Does not this sort of statement admit to an absolute and universal morality? Moral skeptics and relativists neither doubt their own tenets nor slip into the quagmire of self denial; would not this in itself lead to a model of universal value?