 Enoch’s argument has its limitations, as he admits. His argument assumes that, on a given mind-dependence view, when two agents disagree morally, their disagreement reduces to or is relevantly analogous to a disagreement of conative attitudes. But if you have a view on which all moral agents necessarily share certain attitudes, thus entailing that certain moral truths are necessary, then all or at least many moral disagreements will not be relevantly analogous to a disagreement of conative attitudes. Hence mind-dependence views of these kinds avoid Enoch’s objection since his argument does not show that disagreements, as understood by such theories, are governed by Impartiality. (Similarly, cultural relativism, “no priority” views, and any view which gives an irreducibly normative constraint on which mental states can ground moral facts, also avoid Enoch’s objection, according to Enoch.)