ABSTRACT
Moral disagreement seems to have implications in political philosophy for what laws and states are legitimate. It is not clear that considerations regarding moral disagreement show that only democracies are legitimate, though if these considerations do not show this, this is only because certain forms of deliberative democratic/epistocratic procedures may also be legitimate. There is also a good case that, in light of moral disagreement, the readers should, at least in principle, adopt political policies that amount to moral compromises. The most salient to the author are those issues surrounding the upshot of moral disagreement for normative ethical theorising and applied ethics. The implications of moral disagreement for normative ethical theory are also relatively under-explored. Do the disagreements about what moral theory is true or about which reasons the readers have yield implications for the moral theory that the readers should accept, or for what moral reasons the readers should hold that there are.
