This paper examines whether doxastic dilemma pose a challenge to pragmatism. A doxastic dilemma arises when epistemic reasons support believing p, while practical reasons support believing not-p, raising the question of what one ought to believe all things considered. Evidentialists argue that pragmatists must answer this question and determine which belief is normatively required. This challenge, however, depends on a belief principle: if one ought to believe p, then one ought not to believe not-p. I argue that pragmatists need not accept this principle. By considering cases in which practical reasons conflict with one another, I show that even incompatible belief contents may each be supported by distinct reasons and thus possess their own normative standing. Therefore, the fact that one cannot simultaneously hold both beliefs does not show that only one has normative support. Doxastic dilemmas, thus, do not successfully undermine pragmatism.
