Abstract

The paper focuses on a neglected question in political philosophy: what stance should liberal democracy adopt to factual disagreements about vital matters? This question will be discussed in terms of what will be called epistemic neutrality. Epistemic neutrality is the term for the well-known idea of liberal neutrality extended to disagreements about matters of fact. Various forms of epistemic neutrality will be presented, and it will be suggested that there is a genuine question in political philosophy about epistemic neutrality. Defending a specific stance on the questions posed throughout the paper would require much more work, though a few general remarks about these matters are offered in the concluding section.