Abstract

This paper examines two prominent frameworks in moral psychology that aim to explain the foundations of moral judgments: the Universal Moral Grammar (UMG) and the Emotional Moral Sentimentalist (EMS) frameworks. UMG theorists propose that moral judgments are guided by innate, unconscious principles analogous to linguistic grammar, whereas EMS advocates emphasize the role of automatic emotional responses, such as anger or guilt, in shaping moral decisions. By reviewing recent neuroscientific evidence, this paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of each approach and argues that neither framework is fully substantiated by current empirical findings. Instead, it advocates for an integrative perspective that treats UMG principles and emotional processes as complementary, hypothetical models for understanding moral cognition. This approach offers a pathway for more comprehensive investigations into the neural mechanisms underlying moral judgments, addressing the limitations of the ongoing UMG-EMS debate.