But from what I understand the basis of the research is that it's wrong for us to use morals when judging perceived risk to a child. They base this on the fact that there's x% chance that a certain risk will happen to any child.

But that statistic is based on general population. My contention is that our moral judgement can be used to heighten perceived risk to a child, even though it might blow it well out of proportion. So just because the average child is at a perceived risk of being injured at x% when left alone, I don't think it's wrong to say a child of parent I judge to be amoral or willfully negligent is most likely at an increased risk of being injured.

In my experience that isn't always the case.

For those circumstances where that is the case then ok.

Your experience doesn't matter here, because we're really talking about a physics problem. There is no known physical process by which parent's intent for leaving the child at home could alter the risk profile of that action.

Now that the people really answered a different question that they were actually asked is another thing. Not uncommon with humans in psychological studies.

Yes, but the parent's intent is indicative of their general lifestyle and choices. The point I'm trying to make is that our moral judgements of that intent, while likely being well overinflated, does give us reason to believe that that person's child is at a higher risk when left alone in the environment the parents have given them as compared to the general statistic of perceived risk given to the average child.

Even drug addicts leave the house to go to work. What makes the house safe for a child when that happens?

It isn't. I'm saying under all circumstances the house is less safe for the child based on my assessment of the parents actions. If you were to ask me to rate the risk to a child in their house given only the information that the parent left them to go to work then I wouldn't know they are a drug addict. But if you say one child is left home alone mistakenly by a caring parent versus a parent that intentionally left them home alone to play pokemon go, then I'm going to assume the willfully negligent parents are leaving their kid in a house that is likely less safe.

This research is saying we shouldn't change our assessment of the risks to a child in a situation based on our moral assessment of their parents. I'm saying the fact that the parents are drug addicts or willfully negligent is likely indicative that the child IS at higher risk that the statistical average.

Not sure how I can make this any clearer in any of my responses.