Arguably, not all natural-language sentences concern objective matters. Many philosophers, and indeed non-philosophers, would deny that it is an objective matter whether a work of art is beautiful. Many would deny that it is an objective matter whether a stew is tasty. Still many, though fewer, would deny that it is an objective matter whether an act is morally bad. Again, some people would deny that there are objective probabilities. Nevertheless, it can be the content of utterances that something is probable, bad or tasty. Does it follow that all these people have to abjure truth-conditional semantics? Does it follow that they must all restrict the range of applicability of logic? Do they have to stop calling certain contents true? The aim of this book is to show how the assumption of global truth-evaluability can be made compatible with the view that not everything is objective.