Recent work in moral psychology that claims to show that human beings make moral judgements on the basis of multiple, divergent moral foundations has been influential in both moral psychology and moral philosophy. Primarily, such work has been taken to undermine monistic moral theories, especially those pertaining to the prevention of harm. Here, I call one of the most prominent and influential empirical cases for moral pluralism into question, namely that of Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. I argue that Haidt (...) et al.’s argument is not as strong as it is often made out to be, given significant problems with the design of one of the key experiments used to ground the claim that there are divergent moral foundations across cultures. The flaws that I point out pose a significant challenge to Haidt et al.’s findings and have a detrimental impact on subsequent work based on this immensely influential experiment. Accordingly, I argue that both empirical and normative claims made on the basis of Haidt et al.’s findings should be treated with caution. I conclude by making some suggestions as to how some of the problems that I point out might be addressed. (shrink)

From the late-1990s onwards, anti-social behaviour has been high on the political agenda in Britain. This chapter draws on philosophical, criminological and other writings to unpick some influences of aesthetic taste on what is perceived to be anti-social. The meaning and subjectivity of aesthetic judgment are considered, with examples given that may lead to censure and ‘banishment’ – such as wearing a hoodie, writing the wrong sort of graffiti or being visibly homeless. Due to its influence on British policy, Wilson (...) and Kelling’s (1982) ‘broken windows’ is given particular attention and, in line with Ferrell (2006), is seen as an aesthetic theory that makes various assumptions as to what – or who – act as signals of urban decay. The chapter considers whether it is ever right to censure aesthetic taste and simply banish the unsightly. Instead, it is suggested that respect for difference could alternatively be promoted. (shrink)