Perhaps the primary motivation for subscribing to nonexistent objects is the conviction that they are useful, if not required, to account for the truth of certain propositions, especially certain notoriously problematic ones. It might then be claimed that the best case for theories of nonexistent objects lies in trying to give the most adequate semantic analysis of these propositions.¹ In this chapter I wish to set out and to discuss critically what I take to be the two main arguments for nonexistent objects found in Meinong, viz. the argument from negative existentials and the argument from intentionality.² I will argue that neither of these is a convincing argument for beingless objects.