The nature of harm—and therefore moral judgment—may be misunderstood. Rather than an
objective matter of reason, we argue that harm should be redefined as an intuitively …

We propose that moral condemnation functions to guide bystanders to choose the same
side as other bystanders in disputes. Humans interact in dense social networks, and this …

Do moral disagreements regarding specific issues (eg, patriotism, chastity) reflect deep
cognitive differences (ie, distinct cognitive mechanisms) between liberals and …

Minimizing the costs that others impose upon oneself and upon those in whom one has a
fitness stake, such as kin and allies, is a key adaptive problem for many organisms. Our …

When something is wrong, someone is harmed. This hypothesis derives from the theory of
dyadic morality, which suggests a moral cognitive template of wrongdoing agent and …

Moral judgments differ across cultures and politics, but they share a common theme in our
minds: perceptions of harm. Both cultural ethnographies on moral values and psychological …

Moral violations are typically defined as actions that harm others. However, suicide is
considered immoral even though the perpetrator is also the victim. To determine whether …

Mind perception is the essence of moral judgment. Broadly, moral standing is linked to
perceptions of mind, with moral responsibility tied to perceived agency, and moral rights tied …

Many acts are disgusting, but only some of these acts are immoral. Dyadic morality predicts
that disgusting acts should be judged as immoral to the extent that they seem harmful …

What leads children to moralize actions that cause no apparent harm? We hypothesized that
adults' verbal instruction (“testimony”), as well as emotions such as disgust, would influence …