Emotion and cognition are shaped by culture --> moral judgments (whether an act is right or wrong?) and given explanations for moral judgments will also be shaped by culture

Whether an emotion is appropriate or not depends on culture - cultural context of where this particular emotion is expressed. Connecting the emotional component of moral judgments with this cultural-relativist argument (for which ample empirical evidence exists), it is perfectly plausible to assume that moral judgments  (pushing the individual to the railway tracks which will stop the trolley from killing five lives, but cause this one person's death) will change from culture to culture (and ultimately also whether one act is morally right or wrong???). Given that human cognition is also shaped by culture, the way moral judgments are explained will also differ based on the cultural contexts.

culture is an emotional learning ground.
moral socialization.


One consequence of an emotional view about morality is that we shouldn't think too much about which moral system is the right system, but recognize that as result of a socialization people end up with different moral systems. If we want to assess morality, we have to step aside from this whole emotional framework and start to think about things like implications and consequences - what are the social consequences of having one set of  moral rules over another moral rules? If we lay out a clear set of goals for our society we may be able to pick a moral rule that helps society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbH-KN3geRQ

Recent research in psychology supports this conjecture. It seems that we decide whether something is wrong by introspecting our feelings: if an action makes us feel bad, we conclude that it is wrong. Consistent with this, people’s moral judgments can be shifted by simply altering their emotional states. For example, psychologist Simone Schnall and her colleagues found that exposure to fart spray, filth, and disgusting movies can cause people to make more severe moral judgments about unrelated phenomena.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt and colleagues have shown that people make moral judgments even when they cannot provide any justification for them. For example, 80% of the American college students in Haidt’s study said it’s wrong for two adult siblings to have consensual sex with each other even if they use contraception and no one is harmed. And, in a study I ran, 100% of people agreed it would be wrong to sexually fondle an infant even if the infant was not physically harmed or traumatized. Our emotions confirm that such acts are wrong even if our usual justification for that conclusion (harm to the victim) is inapplicable.

If morals are emotionally based, then people who lack strong emotions should be blind to the moral domain. This prediction is borne out by psychopaths, who, it turns out, suffer from profound emotional deficits. Psychologist James Blair has shown that psychopaths treat moral rules as mere conventions. This suggests that emotions are necessary for making moral judgments. The judgment that something is morally wrong is an emotional response.