Normally, there is a sharp distinction between a better theory of X and a theory of a better X.   That the theory of a better X is a theory according to which things are different from the way one’s best theory says they are is (normally) no reason whatsoever to think one’s best theory is wrong, just reason to wish X were different.  Yet, I argue, when the subject matter is normative, this normally sharp distinction is elided and the difference between one’s theory of the best X (the best morality, the best standards of inference, the best rules of justification…) and one’s (so far) best theory of X necessarily provides a reason (though perhaps not a decisive reason) to think one’s (so far) best theory is wrong.