Niko Kolodny has argued that some (local) rational requirements are narrow‐scope requirements. Against this, I argue here that all (local) rational requirements are wide‐scope requirements. I present a new objection to the narrow‐scope interpretations of the four specific rational requirements which Kolodny considers. His argument for the narrow‐scope interpretations of these four requirements rests on a false assumption, that an attitude which puts in place a narrow‐scope rational requirement somewhere thereby puts in place a narrow‐scope rational requirement everywhere. My argument against Kolodny is analogous to arguments which use holism about reasons to defend moral particularism.