In this chapter I begin by considering the prospects for the type of transcendental argument that has recently been attributed to Emmanuel Levinas's ethics by Diane Perpich. I then go on to argue that this is not a convincing way to deal with moral skepticism, as it fails to achieve what it sets out to do. I then turn from Levinas to the Danish philosopher K. E. Løgstrup and go on to show that one can find transcendental reflections in his thought too, but used in a different way: not to answer the moral skeptic via a transcendental argument, but to help us show how certain fundamental misconceptions underlie moral skepticism nonetheless. In this role transcendental reflections can be more successful—and that perhaps this is the way we should understand Levinas's comments, too.