 Not surprisingly, both the Indian and the American participants judged the behavior described in (1) to be wrong, and using the questions that Schweder and colleagues constructed to determine whether participants regarded a judgment to be moral or conventional, both groups regarded (1) to be a moral transgression. That, of course, is what Turiel would predict. But the responses to (2) and (3) appeared to be much more problematic for Turiel. Though the American participants did not judge them to be wrong at all, the Indian participants judged them to be quite serious transgressions, and their responses to questions designed to determine whether they viewed the transgressions as moral or conventional indicated that they viewed them as moral. Since neither the son’s behavior in (2) nor the widow’s behavior in (3) does any obvious harm, commits no obvious injustice, and seems to violate no one’s rights, Shweder and colleagues argued that these responses, along with the Indian participants’ responses about many of the other vignettes, posed a major challenge for Turiel. The class of transgressions treated as moral by the Indian participants was much larger than Turiel’s definition of morality predicted, and the class of conventional transgressions was vanishingly small.