1.Against what? Against morality/the ethical life/consideration.
Amoralism is accompanied with ethical skepticism. What is ethical skepticism? Williams defines the conception by comparisons:
Ethical skepticism& Other skepticism :1) Ethical skepticism raises question.-->2) and the questions cannot be treated by the same mothds.-->3)ethical skepticism is to be skeptical about the force of ethical considerations rather than knowledge.
Even ethical skepticism is taken in this way, it doesn't necessarily imply that the amoralist goes against consideration--he just suspends moral judgement.
But, it is doubtful that the ethical skeptic could bring that off—engage himself to use the ethical vocabulary, but with regard to every ethical question, suspend judgment. There are difficulties in the very idea of doing that. It is hard, for instance, to use the vocabulary of promising and at the same time to sustain the position that there is nothing decisive to be said, for or against, on the question whether one ought to keep promises. Moreover, the skeptic has to act, and if he includes himself in the world of ethical discourse at all, then what he does must be taken as expressing thoughts he has within that world.引自 The Archimedean PointThe motivations the amoralist could be left with constitute one thing that the ethical claims might seek a justification against. Yet it is a mistake to think that there is some objective presumption in favor of the nonethical life, that ethical skepticism is the natural state, and that the person we have been imagining is what we all would want to be if there were no justification for the ethical life and we had discovered that there was none.引自 The Archimedean Point
2. To Whom?
The justification he(the amoralist) is looking for is in fact designed for the people who are largely within the ethical world, and the aim of the discourse is not to deal with someone who probably will not listen to it, but to reassure, strengthen, and give insight to those who will.引自 The Archimedean Point
Williams discussed Plato's view of the necessity to make ethical justification into the force.
Even though it is possible for us to discuss a problem without the shared ethical system,
Yet for the most part this is not possible, because rational conversation between two parties, as an actual event, needs something to hold it together.引自 The Archimedean Point
It is hardly possible for most of us to live outside the ethical life, however, it is possible that an indvidual is able to live outside it. Then we need to know how can an individual justify the ethical life from the ground up.
3. From where
In the ethical life... we would need to find a point of leverage in the idea of rational action. That idea in itself, as we have seen, does not immediately display a commitment to the ethicalIf they are right, then there is what I have called an Archimedean point: something to which even the amoralist or the skeptic is committed but which, properly thought through, will show us that he is irrational, or unreasonable, or at any rate mistaken.引自 The Archimedean Point
And 'where is the ponit', the question remians to be answered in C3&C4.
He is indifferent to moral considerations, but there are things that he cares about, and he has some real preferences and aims. They might be, presumably, pleasure or power; or they might be something much odder, such as some passion for collecting things.…Presumably such things as his caring about other people's interests, having any inclination to tell the truth or keep promises if it does not suit him to do so, being disposed to reject courses of action on the ground that they are unfair or dishonourable or selfish. These are some of the substantial materials of morality引自 The Archimedean Point
2）it's all right
In one way, it is possible for a man to think it 'all right' for everyone to behave selfinterestedly, without his having got into any distinctively moral territory of thought at all: if, roughly, 'it's all right' means 'I am not going to moralize about it'. He will be in some moral territory if 'all right' means something like 'permitted', for that would carry implications such as 'people ought not to interfere with other people's pursuit of their own interests', and that is not a thought which, as an amoralist, he can have... What he cannot consistently do is resent it or disapprove of it, for these are attitudes within the moral system...This illustrates, as do many of his activities, the obvious fact that this man is a parasite on the moral system, and he and his satisfactions could not exist as they do unless others operated differently.引自 The Archimedean Point
It does not follow from this that having sympathetic concern for others is a necessary condition of being in the world of morality, that the way sketched is the only way into morality. 引自 The Archimedean Point
故而，
The model is meant to suggest just one thing: that if we grant a man with even a minimal concern for others, then we do not have to ascribe to him any fundamentally new kind of thought or experience to include him in the world of morality, but only what is recognizably an extension of what he already has. He is not very far into it, and it is an extensive territory: as we saw in drawing up the amoralist, you have to travel quite a long way to get out of it.But the man with the extended sympathies, the ability to think about the needs of people beyond his own immediate involvement, is recognizably in it.引自 The Archimedean Point
