In this paper I examine Clarke-Doane’s suggestion that normative pluralism is untenable and argue that it should be rejected. To see this, I believe we need to examine not just our mathematical and normative beliefs, but also our perceptual beliefs. I’ll argue, first, that if Clarke-Doane’s suggestion holds for our normative beliefs, it also holds for our perceptual beliefs. That is enough, I suggest, to make normative pluralism a viable position. I then return to the mathematical case, and argue that the apparent difference in what pluralism implies for our deliberative practices in the mathematical vs. normative cases can be explained away.