Abstract: Many authors argue that facts about how we can form beliefs through deliberation put constraints on what considerations we can and ought to take to bear on what to believe. Nishi Shah and David Velleman argue that when we deliberate about whether to believe some proposition p, we can only answer that question by reference to considerations that bear on the truth of p. Richard Moran argues that when we ask ourselves whether to believe that p, we ought to answer that question via deliberation about whether it is true that p. Both views are mistaken, I shall argue. We are not forced always to answer whether to believe that p by way of answering whether p is true, as nothing prevents us from doing so with recourse to considerations that are not truth-related. And we ought not always answer whether to believe that p via deliberation about whether it is true that p, since sometimes we ought to do so by deliberating whether p is to be made true.