<p>Philosophers have tried to find an intuitively plausible principle that explains puzzling patterns in people’s moral judgments on ethical dilemmas. Moral psychologists have shed light on the cognitive processes of moral judgment by using neuroscientific techniques. Joshua Greene integrates a dual-process theory of moral judgment with a mental representation theory of action plans and proposes the modular myopia hypothesis that explains how people make moral judgments in trolley dilemmas. We provide a microeconomic foundation for the dual-process representation model of moral judgment, in which his hypothesis is represented by three real-valued functions. This study suggests that each of the three real-valued functions would be physiologically related to activity in a brain region, while his hypothesis is falsifiable without checking against neuroimaging data. Furthermore, we extend the dual-process representation model of moral judgment to address a general moral problem other than the trolley problem.</p>