This chapter frames Pyrrhonian scepticism and epistemic relativism as meta-philosophical threats that rely on the same argument: the Agrippan trilemma. Philosophers have traditionally attempted to neutralize both threats by means of a common response to this argument. The chapter surveys a number of such responses before outlining a more promising, dialectical argument against epistemic relativism that has no anti-sceptical ambitions. In doing so, it elucidates the book's central claim that Pyrrhonian scepticism and epistemic relativism are distinct threats that require different responses.