Moral Judgments, Cognitivism and the Dispositional Nature of Belief: Why Moral Peer Intransigence is Intelligible

Abstract Richard Rowland has recently argued that considerations based on moral disagreement between epistemic peers give us reason to think cognitivism about judgments, i.e., the thesis judgments are beliefs, is false. The novelty of Rowland’s argument tweak problem descriptively, not focusing what one ought do, but disputants actually do in light peer disagreement. basic idea intelligible. However, if were and beliefs track perceived evidence, then would be Hence, beliefs. both novel interesting, this paper argues it fails establish conclusion. Beliefs plausibly analyzed as constituted by dispositions respond can always interfered with. Provided a background explanation why disposition manifested, intransigence quite