LAUSR

(rightly?) shoots a villain despite her pacifism, and (rightly?) experiences remorse. Gill takes this to be a vote in pluralism’s favour: non-pluralists hold that, if the shooting was right, the remorse is misplaced, or if the remorse is justified then the shooting was not. Gill’s analysis of the film is terrific, though I think it poses a theological puzzle he cannot answer. The traditional Christian answer to the puzzle is sin, a sufficiently rich account of which captures Amy Kane much better than Hume’s moral psychology (recall that in the film, Kane is a Christian). Yet this poses a challenge to Christians too, at least of the Thomist sort, for whom it is difficult to fit sin together with moral tragedy. I take this to be a vote in pluralism’s favour as well. John Perry University of St Andrews, St Andrews, KY16 9JU, UK [email protected]