Drawing on findings from the study of prejudice and prejudice reduction, we identify a number of mechanisms through which religious communities may influence the intergroup attitudes of their members. We hypothesize that religious participation could in principle either reduce or promote prejudice with respect to any given target group. A religious community's influence on intergroup attitudes will depend upon the specific beliefs, attitudes, and practices found within the community, as well as on interactions between the religious community and the larger social environment in which it is embedded. Basing our proposals on findings from the literature on prejudice formation and prejudice reduction allows us to outline useful directions for future studies of religion and prejudice.

What should we do with statues and place‐names memorializing people who committed human‐rights abuses linked to slavery and postslavery racism? In this article, I draw on UN principles of transitional justice to address this question. I propose that a successful approach should meet principles of transitional justice recognized by the United Nations, including affirming rights to justice, truth, reparations, and guarantees of nonrecurrence of human rights violations. I discuss four strategies for handling contested heritage, examining strengths and weaknesses of each strategy. Examples from Bristol, England, highlight common challenges and positive lessons.

The concept of biodiversity has played a central role within conservation biology over the last thirty years. Precisely how it should be understood, however, is a matter of ongoing debate. In this paper we defend what we call a classic multidimensional conception of biodiversity. We begin by introducing two arguments for eliminating the concept of biodiversity from conservation biology, both of which have been put forward in a recent paper by Santana (Biol Philos 29:761–780. doi:10.1007/s10539-014-9426-2, 2014). The first argument is against the concept’s scientific usefulness. The other is against its value as a target of conservation. We show that neither of these objections is successful against the classic multidimensional conception of biodiversity. Biodiversity thus understood is important from a scientific perspective, because it plays important explanatory roles within contemporary ecology. Moreover, although it does not encompass all valuable features of the natural world, this does not show that we should abandon it as a target of conservation. Instead, biodiversity should be conceived as one of many grounds of value associated with ecosystems. This is consistent with concluding that a central aim of conservationists should be to protect biodiversity.

In an influential paper, James Lenman argues that consequentialism can provide no basis for ethical guidance, because we are irredeemably ignorant of most of the consequences of our actions. If our ignorance of distant consequences is great, he says, we can have little reason to recommend one action over another on consequentialist grounds. In this article, I show that for reasons to do with statistical theory, the cluelessness objection is too pessimistic. We have good reason to believe that certain patterns of action will tend to have better consequences, and we have good reason to recommend acting in accordance with strategies based on those advantageous patterns. I close by saying something about the strategies that this argument should lead us to favour.In his 2000 paper entitled 'Consequentialism and Cluelessness', James Lenman argues that consequentialism can provide no basis for ethical guidance.1 Our actions have profoundly far-reaching consequences, only a small portion of which are within view when we make our decisions. There is every reason to think that overall consequences will largely be determined by unforeseeable ones, and there is no reason to believe one thing or another about how these unforeseeable consequences will turn out. In our epistemically impoverished states, maximizing subjective expected utility is hardly more promising as a strategy for bringing about better consequences overall than, say, choosing acts randomly or choosing the acts that look worst. 2For reasons related to statistical theory, Lenman's account is too pessimistic. We have good reason to think that murder tends to have terrible consequences. We also have grounds for making many other consequentialist judgements. Of course, we will often make mistakes, including believing that we have a more accurate view of

One aim of moral education is to help society progress from morally imperfect conventions towards more perfect ones. According to a popular view, reflecting judgment is the vehicle of this progress. In this paper, I argue that although reflection is important, it is not enough; moral development also requires practical synthesis. Moral development takes place by securing new connections—conceptual, affective, volitional and behavioural—that bring thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions into alignment with higher reason, to instantiate respect for all who are ends in themselves. Constructing parallels from Kant's theoretical philosophy, I identify three kinds of synthesis that are central to moral practice. If I am right, then a key task for moral education is to support the development of these capacities of practical synthesis.