ABSTRACT
Several recent debates within the literature on moral judgment hinge on whether the moral domain is unified. These debates encompass the status of the moralconventional distinction, and the status of moral foundations theory. I aim to bring these debates together to show how they each reflect a fundamental tension regarding the unity of the moral domain. I also aim to illustrate why unified views of the moral domain are more amenable to the idea that moral judgments are underpinned by inferential processes. Compared with disunified views, unified views imply that simpler deductive inferences underlie moral judgments. Unified views also imply that moral disagreements are resolvable in principle, whereas disunified views imply that some moral disagreements may be irresolvable.
