We conducted a four-part study to map out the conceptual space of a diverse set of immoral items, including those that are extreme and/or intergroup (e.g. child sex abuse, genocide, slavery), with the goal of identifying attributes spontaneously used in moral judgment. In Part 1, we identified 56 immoral items. In Part 2, participants completed a similarity-based card sort task of the 56 immoral items. Multidimensional scaling (MDS) indicated that three-dimensional space was needed to capture the perceived differences among the (...) items. In Part 3, regression analysis indicated that perceived similarity among the immoral items related to their commonness, objectivity, forgivability, and legality. In Part 4, regression analysis indicated that the configuration of immoral items corresponded to the amount of anger and disgust the items elicited and items’ perceived harmfulness. We attempt to synthesize these results and answer questions about the roles of anger, disgust, and harm in moral judgment. (shrink)

Recent arguments trying to justify further free speech restrictions by appealing to harms that are allegedly serious enough to warrant such restrictions regularly fail to provide sufficient empirical evidence and normative argument. This is also true for the attempt made by Bonotti and Seglow. They offer no valid argument for their claim that it is wrong to direct “religiously offensive speech” at “unjustly disadvantaged” minorities (thereby allegedly undermining their “self-respect”), nor for their further claim that this is not the case (...) when such speech is directed at “established majorities.” Moreover, their account has either counter-intuitive moral implications or succumbs to logical or pragmatic incoherence. Thus, they have not adduced convincing reasons to further restrict speech. In fact, some of the reasons for this failure provide, in turn, positive reasons in support of free speech. Two important (not new, but newly confirmed) reasons are that restricting free speech undermines both equal civic standing as well as fact-guided (as opposed to blindly ideological) policies. Free speech, in contrast, is indispensable for both. (shrink)