No determinate facts, no objective oughts?

According to objectivists, what we objectively ought to do depends on the facts. According to defenders of metaphysical indeterminacy, there are cases in which no determinate facts exist. What, then, ought we objectively to do when there are no determinate facts? This paper pursues two objectives in response to this question. The first is constructive: on behalf of the objectivist, we present two proposals for addressing what we call the ‘problem from metaphysical indeterminacy’. The second is critical: we argue that, despite their intuitive appeal and close alignment with prominent positions in the literature, neither proposal succeeds. We conclude that objectivists still owe us an account of what we objectively ought to do when no determinate facts obtain.