2) Intuitionists can develop their account. Suppose that pleasure is good - is it self-evident that pleasure is good, or can we give a further explanation? Suppose we can (Pleasure is good because it forms part of a flourishing life for human beings), is it, then, self-evident that being part of a flourishing life makes something good? If you give a further explanation, we can ask whether this explanation is self-evident etc. Therefore, through a chain of logical analysis, the self-evidence of a claim can be established and hence, disagreements in the truth value of these claims are merely down to flawed/incomplete analysis of the claim, hence showing that moral claims are self-evident, but not obvious/superficial and that the self-evidence of a claim can be established by examining explanations. REFUTAL - Non-Naturalism may argue that no judgement is self-evident as all moral claims can be supported by other beliefs. When we question those beliefs, we can give reasons for believing them, but must, in turn, assume others. Our reasoning, then, involves a matter of interpreting applying and adjusting a framework of reasons. In our reflections on reasons, we will be guided by trying to make sense of our moral attitudes generally. Reflection itself will be guided by what seems plausible or implausible to us. We justify moral judgements by appealing to the overall coherence, the balanced between our judgements in individual cases and our general moral beliefs, the 'reflective equilibrium' that we reach. Therefore, truths are not self-evident but merely established after an internal casuistic approach of evaluating these judgements in context to the individual case and our own believed moral frameworl.