ABSTRACT
Foundationalism and coherentism are typically understood as theories about the structure of epistemic justification. Foundationalist theories hold that some beliefs are basically or immediately justified and all other beliefs derive their justification, at least in part, from what is immediately justified. Coherence theories deny that any beliefs are basically justified and hold, roughly, that beliefs derive their justification from their coherence with other beliefs. In this essay I discuss some of the problems each view faces, both in general and in the context of moral epistemology. Among the questions considered are: Is coherence sufficient to justify any moral beliefs? Can any moral beliefs be immediately justified? Can any beliefs about particular cases be immediately justified?
