Non-cognitivists about the normative have attempted to explain our intuition that people with conflicting normative judgements disagree by (i) identifying some type of non-cognitive attitude such that people with ‘clashing’ attitudes of this type intuitively disagree, and (ii) hypothesizing that normative judgements are attitudes of this type. For this sort of explanation to be wholly successful, the intuitions of disagreement elicited by ‘clashes’ among the relevant non-cognitive attitudes must be as strong and robust as the intuitions elicited by normative disagreements. Intuitive non-cognitive disagreements of this kind do exist, but only, I argue, when a certain type of trust relationship holds between the disagreers. After defending a theory of ‘robust’ non-cognitive disagreement, I consider the costs and benefits of positing that moral disagreement is non-cognitive disagreement of this sort.