<p dir="ltr">This dissertation explores intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts that result from differing axiological stances. A stance is one’s orientation towards a subject and one’s axiological stance is one’s orientation towards what they take to be valuable. An axiological stance also influences how one responds to practical reasons. Stances currently enjoy some attention in epistemology and the philosophy of science, but I provide a novel treatment of stances in the practical domain. Comprised of three chapters, this dissertation explores the psychological and normative contributions of one’s stances in normative ethics, then extends this work to the philosophy of religion. In chapter one, I unpack the psychological contribution of axiological stances. I introduce the concept of an axiological stance in the context of the debate surrounding “hard choices,” arguing that an intrapersonal conflict of axiological stances explains the characteristic difficulty of hard choices. In chapter two, I explore the normative side of axiological stances, drawing from Peter Winch. While Winch has been associated with various forms of relativism, I suggest that he is better understood as defending a moral analog to epistemic permissivism. In this chapter, I suggest that a plausible version of his view is an axiological stance permissivism where an axiological stance can modify the weights of one’s normative reasons. Lastly, in chapter three, I address aspects of God’s practical life that may comprise an axiological stance. The normative import of these aspects, I argue, provide a model of God’s practical life that is not objectionably robotic. On such a model, God has some control over what his weightiest reasons are.</p>