Moral skeptics argue that their evolutionary explanation is more parsimonious than moral realists’ evolutionary explanation of why we have the mental capacity to make moral judgments, and that their evolutionary explanation supports moral skepticism, according to which no moral judgment is justified. I object that there are several alternative metaethical views whose evolutionary explanations are as economical as moral skeptics’ evolutionary explanation. In addition, I offer six objections to moral skepticism and error theory, and then argue that none of them applies to several alternative metaethical views.