This chapter provides an analysis of the disagreement about the moral status of animals. To check whether epistemically justified disagreements are possible in practice, two paradigmatic cases of peer disagreement are discussed: the first regarding the admissibility of the use of animals in research laboratories and the second regarding the problem of weighing animal suffering. The purchase of this idea is that our best available arguments and evidence in a condition where competent epistemic peers disagree show that, at least over certain issues, the parties are equally justified in holding their positions. Hence, reasonable disagreement is possible and relevant.