In this thesis I clarify, and then argue against, the “Fact/Value Dichotomy”, which is, roughly, the notion that there is some sort of fundamental difference between descriptive and evaluative language. To accomplish this, I engage with the arguments of both advocates and critics of this Dichotomy, including Paul Johnston, Hilary Putnam, and Sabina Lovibond. I distinguish between two forms of the Dichotomy and, after identifying weaknesses with extant criticisms of the Dichotomy, give a new argument against it. I then explore the consequences of my argument against the Dichotomy for meta-ethical Naturalism, arguing that my approach allows Naturalists to successfully solve Derek Parfit’s “Normativity Problem”.