Many contemporary metaphysicians are Mooreans---they claim that philosophical considerations are not epistemically powerful enough to compel us to significantly revise our ordinary, prephilosophical beliefs about what the world is like. Consequently, we should reject any philosophical argument that seeks to show that those ordinary beliefs are seriously mistaken. And many contemporary metaphysicians are skeptics about personal identity---they think that philosophical arguments show that our ordinary, prephilosophical beliefs about ourselves are seriously mistaken. These two groups, it would seem, cannot both be right. I will consider a particular skeptical argument offered by Derek Parfit in Reasons and Persons, and argue that a broadly Moorean approach to metaphysics supports turning that argument on its head, yielding interesting nonrevisionary metaphysical conclusions.