English Notes Defenders of the Universal Moral Grammar Theory argue that the behavior and the moral discourse of adults to which children are exposed would not include sufficient information to allow the acquisition of moral competence unless there were learning mechanisms dedicated exclusively to the moral domain. The first difficulty with this argument is the fact that moral principles, as a rule, are made explicit. Regarding language acquisition children do not receive a significant amount of explicit negative information because different languages are full of enigmatic principles that are not consciously known to the language speakers. In general, ungrammatical sequences are not produced and labeled as deviant, they are simply not produced. With respect to morality, prohibited acts are produced and described, the prohibitions are explicit and there is intensive instruction. However, Hauser and Mikhail believe that moral judgments are also mediated by principles inaccessible to our consciousness. They defend this thesis based on the results found in researches on the trolley problems. In the opinion of Hauser and Mikhail, respondents applyed the principle of double effect to find the answers to these dilemmas, although they did not know how to formulate it. As this principle is rarely articulated and is not an obvious generalization of particular cases, there would be a difficulty in explaining how it is learned. If people do not know it consciously, they are not able to teach children explicitly. If children nevertheless learn it, they seem to be somehow prepared for this. The alleged solution is that principles such as these would be inscribed on the morality of each individual as part of a universal moral grammar. Nevertheless, constructivists do not see in the decisions taken by respondents the application of unconscious rules or principles specifics to morality. Prinz, e.g., believes people learn that killing is wrong through paradigmatic cases and they are more tolerant of behaviors that deviate from these ones. The great convergence of answers found in the classic trolley problem could be explained by the fact that the solution considered morally forbidden - pushing the fat person over the tracks - combines a set of characteristics normally considered reprehensible in different societies: the fat person is being employed as a means, the case is much like the paradigmatic cases of murder and there is a strong personal element.