There is a problem that pyrrhonian skepticism seems incompetent in practice. Sextus Empiricus describes skepticism as not theoretical but practical, but does not provide sufficient explanations for human behavior and ethical practices. Furthermore, it seems difficult to answer the apraxia argument that a pyrrhonist, who has created tropoi to refute dogmatic arguments and has made it possible to the suspension of judgment on anything, cannot construct beliefs and cannot act. However, the pyrrhonists argue that the appearances of enforced assent is the criteria by which our actions are made possible, without presupposing that belief is necessary to do them. The appearance is already accepted before the examination of reason, so skeptics can live without belief. Such life can explain human activity as an animal behavior, but it is difficult to explain the act of choosing one from what has an alternative, especially ethical actions. In response, the pyrrhonists suggest more specific criteria for the appearance and argues that the criteria of ethical conduct is convention. That is given, and already applied as norms of a society, so that deserve to be a appearance, make action choices without preference, and even set life goals. However, That is not sufficient to explain how to act in exceptional situations and in the presence of conflicting ethical options. I It seems to me that the pyrrhonists solve this problem through adiaphora and prolepsis.