While ordinary decision theory focuses on empirical uncertainty, real decision-makers also face normative uncertainty: uncertainty about value itself. Normative uncertainty is comparable to (Harsanyian or Rawlsian) uncertainty in the 'original position', where one's values are unknown. A comprehensive decision theory must address twofold uncertainty — normative and empirical. We present a simple model of twofold uncertainty, and show that the most popular decision principle — maximising expected value ( 'Expectationalism') — has rival formulations, namely Ex-Ante Expectationalism, Ex-Post Expectationalism, and hybrid theories. These rival theories recommend differend decisions, reasoning modes, and attitudes to risk. But they converge under an interesting (necessary and sufficient) condition.