In this talk, we offer a semantic diagnosis of “relativized ‘oughts’”, i.e. statements concerning what we, legally, morally, prudentially, etc., ought to do. According to this diagnosis, these are effectively equivalent to attitude ascriptions (“According to Creon, Antigone ought to…”). We propose to treat these ascriptions in the semantic framework of Gibbardian expressivism. In doing so, we offer a defense of the view that there is an “ought simpliciter” in addition to relativized “oughts” of legality, prudence, etc., against challenges from Baker (2018) and Coop (2007). Moreover, Wodak (2016) has argued that expressivists are particularly ill-placed to account for the relativization of “ought” to different standards. Our argument shows that this is not so.