 There is a subtly different version of naturalist normative conceptualism. On this version, there are normative states of affairs and properties, but their being normative is entirely derivative from the normativity of the normative ways of thinking that represent these states of affairs and properties. Their being normative consists in their being represented by normative propositions or concepts. Their normativity is extrinsic, rather than intrinsic. It would seem to follow that these states of affairs and properties could exist, or might have existed, without being normative. The property we represent in thought as wrongness is normative only because we think of it this way, and we might not have thought of it in this way. This implication should be compared with the implication, of the other version of naturalist normative conceptualism, that there are no normative states of affairs or properties.