Abstract

The discussion about deep disagreement has gained significant momentum in the last several years. Intuitively, two parties deeply disagree if they do not only disagree about particular propositions but, more generally, about how to settle the disagreement in general.

I think that the notion of deep disagreement is too ambiguous and unclear for being useful. I suggest to theorize about rationally irresolvable disagreement instead, which occurs between subjectively rational parties who follow their own distinct views about rationality.

In this paper, I reflect on the moralaspects of rationally irresolvable disagreement. In particular, I will discuss whether subjectively rational persons, who consequently follow their own standards of rationality, can be held responsible for not reaching agreement.