[b]I have a paper about Stephen Cohens’ book Moral reasoning…I need ideas and thoughts regarding this topic…Is there really a limit to argument in moral reasoning?.. 
Lemme know what you guys think… 
[/b]
Morals need be only divided in to two catagories in my experience:
You either have them or you don’t.
As for your paper, I’m not sure how you can argue moral reasoning.
Of course there’s a limit to that argument, just as there’s a limit to pretty much every argument under the sun. If person A says “morals are knowable” and person B says “morals are not knowable”, there’s the limit right there. Every argument comes down to basic premises. Don’t think that’s the kind of critique you were going for, but sorry. I haven’t read the book, nor your paper, and thus can’t really intelligently comment on either.