 The problem, of course, even assuming that normative facts would be non-natural, is that it is not clear what exactly the objection is to the idea that there are non-natural facts. Clearly metaphysical naturalists would reject the idea, for metaphysical naturalism is the view that the only facts are natural ones. But we cannot simply assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, or that it would be objectionable to reject it. If the argument from queerness rests on this assumption, it will only be convincing to those who already are naturalists. For an error theorist who hopes to convince anyone who’s not a dyed-in-the-wool naturalist, this is not the right way to run the argument from queerness.