 It is clear that studies eliciting criterion judgments and justification categories demonstrate that children respond quite differently to different sorts of normative transgressions. But why should we think that in most or  all[10]  cases, when a participant judges that an action is wrong and then offers what Turiel and other social domain theorists take to be the moral pattern of criterion judgments, that the participant’s judgment that the action was wrong really was a moral judgment? The question is an important one for assessing Turiel’s achievement. It’s also important, as we will see in  Section 10,  because facts about Turiel-style criterion judgments and justification categories have been used to support claims about the nature of moral judgments and claims about the moral capacities of various groups of people, including children and psychopaths.