Disagreement over moral issues is not uncommon and usually is not considered an obstacle in the search for the right solutions. Differences among individuals’ moral beliefs can be explained by the application of different non-moral facts, i.e., by different epistemology. Some ethicists believe that such a problem is not for ethics to solve. This paper aims to show that this conviction is mistaken, as moral and epistemological aspects present two sides of the same coin. Although on the moral level, one might be optimistic and hope for finding an agreement with peers based on relevant argumentation, on the epistemological level, such optimism is impossible. The main reason is deep disagreement, which occurs sooner or later when solving controversial moral dilemmas. The paper tries to explain how certain types of deep disagreement might be normatively solved within the framework of naturalized ethics.
Applied ethics, Deep disagreement, Justification, Moral intuitions, Naturalized ethics, Normative ethics, Reflective thinking