Jonathan Dancy challenges moral generalists to "come up with a picture of moral thought and judgment which, though it respects the truth of reasons-holism, still requires (rather than merely makes possible) a provision of principles that cover the ground" (Ethics without Principles, p. 82). The aim of this paper is to provide a response to Dancy's challenge. I argue that if one's particular moral judgments face doubts about specific cases then one is required to explain what makes them true, and that such explanations commit one to unhedged moral generalizations which cover more and more ground as one considers more and more cases.