While it is not controversial to claim that it is often difficult to figure out what one morally ought to do, many philosophers reject the idea that it is sometimes – let alone always, or even often – impossible to find out what one should do. Morality, they hold, is essentially a practical matter: its point or purpose is to guide our behavior, and morality has normative force for us only if we can come to know what it requires. Because morality is essentially a practical matter, there are no epistemically inaccessible obligations: obligations we cannot know about. If this view were correct, it would place significant restrictions on what an adequate moral theory could look like. In this dissertation the main arguments supporting the view that there are no inaccessible obligations are examined, and ultimately rejected. In addition, a positive argument for the opposing view is outlined.