Assumptions of vulnerability matter

People hold implicit templates about which targets count as vulnerable (group‑based: environment, othered, powerful, divine) and those templates predict moral judgments, implicit attitudes, and charitable choices. The templates differ by ideology: liberals tend to treat vulnerability as group‑based while conservatives treat it as individual and evenly distributed. Experiments show these assumptions can be shifted and causally change moral evaluations. — If who we see as a victim drives moral disagreement, then debates about policy, media framing, and charitable appeals depend less on competing values and more on changing perceptions of vulnerability.