Two counterarguments, given by Scott Soames and José Zalabardo, to Saul Kripke's Wittgenstein-inspired 'normativity' argument against dispositional theories of meaning are evaluated. Both counterarguments proceed by distinguishing two different readings of Kripke's argumentation, an 'epistemological' and a 'metaphysical' reading. Two results are established. First, Kripke intended the latter, metaphysical, reading. Second, the counterarguments presented by Soames and Zalabardo against the metaphysical reading of the argument are both unsuccessful.