The conciliationist and steadfast approaches have dominated the conversation in
the epistemology of disagreement. In this paper, drawing on Jennifer Lackey’s justificationist
approach and the casuistry paradigm in medical ethics, I will develop a more contextual
epistemology of political disagreement. On this account, a given political disagreement’s
scope, domain, genealogy, and consequence can be helpful for determining whether we
should respond to that disagreement at the level of our confidence, beliefs, or with policy.
Though some may argue that responding with policy is a practical consideration instead of
an epistemic matter, I argue that even policy responses to disagreements have an epistemic
dimension to them that we should not ignore.