The aim of this paper is to confront the main arguments employed by advocates of Universal Moral Grammar (UMG) with the results obtained in empirical studies from different fields of cognitive science and also with constructivist arguments proposed by Prinz and Sterelny, among others. From this analysis, I conclude that the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument is unconvincing when applied to the field of morality. The research with the trolley problems , often used to support the existence of UMG, is also insufficient to sustain the thesis that morality works similarly to language, especially when the existence of simpler explanations is considered. Furthermore, in spite of the universality of morality, the unlimited variation in moral norms across groups is a serious problem for any account relying on the principles and parameters model of the linguistic analogy.
展开▼
