Abstract:  This paper discusses two questions about epistemic prescriptions.  First, are all beliefs governed by epistemic prescriptions, or are there some to which these prescriptions do not apply? Second, when faced with a conflict between what the epistemic norms dictate and what morality or prudence dictates, why be epistemic?  I’ll argue that standard accounts of epistemic prescriptions do a good job at answering the first, but cannot give a satisfactory answer to the second.  Other accounts give good answers to the second, but less satisfying answers to the first.  If these exhaust our options, we should reject standard accounts of epistemic prescriptions for the non-standard accounts I discuss.