Abstract: This talk is an early version of an intended contribution to a long-standing debate about justification. This is the debate between the internalists and the externalists. Confession. I’ve often struggled to understand why anyone would be an externalist. Additional confession. This makes me worry. If externalists struggle to understand why other externalists accept similar conclusions (e.g., I find the rationales for reliabilism quite opaque), it seems that my side is at a serious disadvantage. What I’ll do is offer a new(ish) rationale for externalism, one that builds on some previous arguments but addresses the issues that, in my view, are the interesting ones that we should explore further. There’s no point in denying, I think, that we sometimes speak as if justification is an internalist notion, but that might either be because this way of speaking tells us a part of what justification or justification-talk is for or because that’s all there is to justification. I think the internalist picture leaves some important things out that the externalist can account for. Moreover, I think the externalist picture gives us explanatory resources that the internalist views lack. I can imagine that some internalists will respond by saying that there’s some deep and important insight into the nature of normativity that their view captures and that externalists either overlook or deny, but I shall explain why I think this response is interesting, important, and probably mistaken. I hope that it’s mistaken in an interesting and important way.