All people are equipped with a moral conscience. Thus, we tend to think that if something is good or bad, it is so for every person everywhere. However, the interactions between members of different cultures, the dilemmas of intercultural societies, and the daily challenges of cohabitation with other people confront us all too often with a simple reality: moral disagreement. We all seem to know why good is good and bad is bad until we try to justify it. Does this mean that we are condemned to live in a kind of Tower of Babel with respect to moral questions? Can we distinguish and recognize good universal, moral reason? And, if so, can we find a valid criterion for everyone? If the limits of reason are accepted at the time of justifying our moral beliefs, would there remain viable alternatives, or would we only be able to construct ethics to the standards of each society? This work offers a critical and detailed analysis of the responses to these questions from each of the different philosophical traditions, with a special emphasis on those lesser known positions of current philosophy that advocate for giving a place to the emotional dimension of being human in moral questions.