In this article I argue against the proportionality test in human rights adjudication. I engage with two conceptions of proportionality. One sees proportionality as a doctrinal tool that allows for the optimization of rights and public interests. The other sees proportionality as allowing for open-ended moral reasoning. I argue against both conceptions separately, and conclude that defenders of proportionality are in the following dilemma: either proportionality is insensitive to important moral considerations related to human rights and their limitations, and thus it is an unsuitable tool for human rights adjudication; or proportionality can accommodate the relevant moral considerations, but at the price of leaving the judge undirected, unaided by the law. I will further argue that lack of guidance is a deficiency in legal adjudication, which has some concrete negative effects.