 It is well known that Quine fiercely objects against the ontology of non-actual possible objects. Referring to an unoccupied doorway, he asks whether the possible fat man in the doorway and the possible bald man in the doorway are one possible man or two possible men (Quine, 1948). The point of this rhetorical question is that there is no serious issue here because we have no non-trivial criterion of identity for non-actual possible objects. No respectable ontology should embrace objects for which we have no non-trivial criterion of identity. Quine encapsulates this in his famous slogan: “No entity without identity”. Actual ordinary mid-sized objects have vague boundaries, so the sorites argument may be used to show that we have no coherent non-trivial criterion of identity for them. Quine’s slogan then appears to apply to such objects. Some take this to be good reason against the ontology of actual ordinary mid-sized objects, whereas others take this to be good reason against Quine’s slogan. Whatever the ultimate fate of Quine’s slogan may be, there is an objection against possibilist realism which, while not explicitly invoking Quine’s slogan, is at least Quinean in spirit. It goes as follows: