Disagreeing is not being disposed to issue conflicting prescriptions

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

Michael Ridge has argued that normative disagreement consists in being disposed, if honest, to issue conflicting prescriptions. This is a surprising claim. Most accounts construe disagreement as a conflict between contentful mental states. In contrast, Ridge provides what is, on its face, a behavioral account of disagreement. Here, I argue for two main claims. First, the account is extensionally inadequate: being disposed to issue conflicting prescriptions is neither necessary nor sufficient for disagreement. Second, even if the account were extensionally adequate, disagreement does not consist in being so disposed. Although I focus on Ridge’s theory throughout, I briefly suggest why its fate is unfortunate news for perspectival metanormative accounts more generally.