This chapter argues that, due to the kind of normative disagreement found in philosophical ethics, Audi's epistemology of self-evident normative principles will not properly apply to any specific first-order view, such as the Rossian pluralism he endorses. This chapter states that if our normative intuitions are denied by others who are in an equally good epistemic position, then we should suspend judgment on the matter. Granting that there is strong consensus on some normative claims, Crisp insists that there is much disagreement on underlying principles (“at the level of theory”) among equally well-placed participants in philosophical ethics. This chapter closes with a discussion of how we should proceed in philosophy and in life in the face of this normative disagreement.
Keywords: ethics, disagreement, skepticism, philosophy, Ross, Sidgwick