 This, Enoch argues, is a morally odious entailment: in many moral disagreements, it is not only permissible but required that we stand our ground. Imagine – to use Enoch’s case – disagreeing with someone about whether a dog’s pain counts, morally speaking. And imagine you then have to decide on a particular case, for example, on whether to cause a dog serious pain, about which you also disagree. Should you split the difference and cause just a small amount of pain, or flip a coin, or pursue some other compromise? No, Enoch argues: you should stand your ground. In this way, moral disagreements are analogous to (non-moral) factual disagreements and unlike conflicts of conative attitudes.