 Negotiating classificatory practices through heterogeneous epistemic and non-epistemic values raises complex methodological questions. A more restricted pluralism may accept non-epistemic values when epistemic considerations alone are not sufficient to come to a decision. While this “epistemic priority” view of non-epistemic values as tiebreakers follow prominent accounts in debates about theory choice (Steel 2017), one may also adopt a “joint satisfaction” view that conceives epistemic and non-epistemic values equally important in shaping classificatory norms (Conix 2020). Cases from the human sciences such as psychiatry may even motivate a more radical “social priority” view that puts concerns such as “well-being” at the center of psychiatric classification and integrates epistemic concerns insofar as they contribute to better explanation, prediction, and intervention in the service of socially desirable psychiatric practice.