 Turiel was not convinced. In a lengthy response, Turiel, Killen, and Helwig (1987) argued that Shweder’s putatively troubling examples relied on profound differences between the non-moral beliefs of Shweder’s Indian and American participants. For the Americans, getting a haircut, eating chicken, and eating fish are all entirely harmless, so it is no surprise that they judged the son’s behavior and the widow’s to be unproblematic. But, as Shweder himself had noted in an earlier paper, the Indians believed that if a son were to eat chicken the day after his father’s death, it would result in his father’s soul not receiving salvation (Shweder &amp; Miller 1985: 48). They also believed that fish is a “hot” food that would stimulate the widow’s sexual appetite and might lead her to have sex, which would offend her husband’s spirit and lead to great suffering (Turiel, Killen, &amp; Helwig 1987: 209). The Indian participants classified more transgressions as moral, Turiel and colleagues argued, not because they have a more inclusive definition of morality, but rather because they believed many more actions to be harmful.