Abstract

Orthodox cognitivist and noncognitivist accounts of disagreement in judgment understand such disagreement directly in terms of the contents and attitudes that constitute such judgments. In this talk, I first argue that the current prospects for orthodox accounts are bleak, as illustrated by moral disagreement and disagreements in taste. I then propose an alternative, indirect, account of disagreement in judgment in terms of the characteristic expressions of such judgments, arguing that this account not only straightforwardly avoids problems plaguing the orthodoxy, but also points us to a deeper understanding of why certain subjective or perspectival domains but not others involve cross-perspectival disagreement.