Proponents of the view that there is an ought simpliciter struggle when it comes to explaining how epistemic reasons relate to the reasons the ought simpliciter is to be based on. In one crucial respect, epistemic reasons are too much like moral and prudential ones, and in another, they are too much like reasons arising from social norms (like rules of etiquette). In my talk, I will suggest a way out of this dilemma that consists of two components: First, epistemic normativity is best taken to be purely evaluative. As a consequence, epistemic reasons do not directly enter into deliberations on what we should believe all-things-considered. Second, we always have moral pro tanto reasons to believe in accordance with our evidence. These moral reasons suffice to explain our intuitions regarding the general (albeit often low) significance of evidential considerations for what we ought simpliciter to believe.