 Another route to doubt about higher-order defeat is what’s sometimes called the “self-undermining” objection. As several epistemologists have pointed out, there are strange consequences for anyone who believes a theory on which higher-order evidence has first-order effects: it seems that this belief is liable to undercut its own justification. Let’s consider a candidate principle on which higher-order evidence can defeat first-order beliefs; call it “HOD” (for “higher-order defeat”). Now consider a person, Sam, who believes that HOD is a true principle of rationality. What happens if Sam’s belief in HOD is itself a target of higher-order defeat? This might happen through peer disagreement (which is the focus of most of the literature on this objection) or other means. Afterwards, according to HOD, Sam cannot rationally believe HOD.