Self-Exempting Conciliationism is Arbitrary

Abstract

Abstract Self-exempting conciliationism is the view that it is rational to give weight to the opinions of peers in disagreement, except in disagreements about how to respond to disagreement. The special treatment of disagreements about disagreement, which is important to avoid self-undermining, seems arbitrary. Two arguments against this objection were put forward. Elga [3] aims to show that there is an independent motivation for conciliationism to be self-exempting. Pittard [5] argues that the special treatment is not arbitrary because the concern for epistemic deference motivates conciliatory responses only in ordinary disagreements, but not in disagreements about disagreement. I will argue that both replies fail|none of them can provide a consistent justication for why one ought to be conciliatory in disagreements except in cases of disagreement about disagreement.