ABSTRACT
Companions in guilt arguments against moral error theory allege that the odd features that the error theorist ascribes to moral properties, causing him/her to doubt their existence, are also features of other forms of normativity whose existence the moral error theorist does not want to doubt. The strategy is unconvincing on several fronts, most prominently because it fails to appreciate what it is that the error theorist finds so troubling about moral properties. This paper delineates the significant differences between moral normativity and epistemic normativity, showing that doubt about the former does not commit one to doubt about the latter.
