What makes knowledge more valuable than mere true belief? This is the so-called value problem. Some epistemologists think that providing a solution to this problem is a key desideratum for theories of knowledge. One simple argument for this position starts with the claim that knowledge is intuitively more valuable than true belief. A more subtle and ambitious argument is rooted in the idea that theorists about knowledge must explain why knowledge is distinctively valuable, on pain of embarrassment; for without such an explanation, the thinking seems to go, epistemologists must confront the awkward possibility that they are spending time and energy on an unworthy subject. In what follows, I flesh out each of the arguments sketched above in a number of ways, and I argue that none of these versions succeed. The moral is that the value problem does not have the metaepistemological significance that is sometimes attributed to it.
