Abstract: Tangible cultural heritage is often severely damaged or completely destroyed in the event of armed conflict, as revealed by both past and recent events. Besides the question of what, if anything, ought to be done in order to protect tangible cultural heritage during conflict, this also gives rise to difficult questions concerning the reconstruction of cultural heritage monuments or cultural heritage sites. In this paper we argue against a claim found in both public and philosophical debates on reconstructions, namely that it is morally wrong to reconstruct cultural heritage monuments or historical artworks, granting that the reconstruction would not be numerically identical to the original. In contrast to this dismissive view, we argue that reconstructions can be both morally permissible and largely desirable. We also discern a number of arguments made against reconstruction and attempt to demonstrate that these arguments are either exaggerated or lack support.