Your example is riddled with emotive content. Theoretically, there is a difference between cognitive function and affective function. If we assume at any point that the two are interdependent, then we have a million extraneous variables to account for which could affect one's emotive response in any given situation. These may include shock, which is neuroscientifically distinct from instinct. People report different instincts and show huge variation in behaviour in a state of shock. Other extraneous variables include: socialisation, hormonal composition, nervous composition, content of memories, childhood conditioning, pre-natal care, etc. It is important to not only measure the influence of every one variable but also the interactions between all these. In psychological research, one unaccounted for variable, can skew results substantially and therefore the conclusion.
The problem with gaining a comprehensive understanding of morality is rooted in the origins of consciousness (arguments of which I am sure you are versed in). I do not feel that I am in a position to judge that person X has done an immoral thing because what I know is not his consciousness and it would be a fallacy for me to assume blindly that his consciousness is roughly the same as mine. I can take the perspective of the victim, but I cannot be sure that the victim even feels victimised. Often they do not. I cant judge the contents of anyone's consciousness - AT ALL. All I know is what I do/do not like and likes and dislikes are culturally dependent. In the UK, being slashed across the face with a sharp object would qualify for arrest. In Africa, the natives celebrate such an event, even though the child never chose it. The child is socialised into experiencing this as a great reward and not an immoral act.
To what extent do we have free will to decide to remove ourselves from the cuture we are born into, however small? In English culture, a wife who has a cheating husband will be very upset, need therapy, and have problems trusting again, ALL because she perceives his actions towards her as immoral. Fundamentally, she's taken by surprise at finding out, she's thinking "how could he" and some wives even will inflict serious harm on the husband/other woman as punishment for doing her wrong. In the Arab culture, a man can have several wives, treating them accordingly, and the wives will be completely unmoved by it whilst staying unquestionably devoted to obeying the commands of their one husband. Still, in the buddhist culture, people are encouraged to let go of all attachments. In all three, judgements about morality would be worlds apart because what we consider the be (im)moral is contingent on our socialisation and lacking much free will, giving the illusion of "innateness." If one exercises their small amount of free will, they will reap the benefits of our extremely adaptable brain, and what they consider to be immoral can change with time, whilst some will maintain their initial learning. This feeds into theories of depression/mental health and theories of depression/mental health feed into people escaping a prison sentence, for commiting an "immoral" act, due to being mentally unstable at the time of incident. Similarly, in the west people kill kattle for food, whereas in India, cows are a sacred animal. Calling a child sinful for eating beef would seem immoral in Britain, whereas calling a child sinful for eating beef in India would be right. What came first? The chicken or the egg?