In moral psychology, several approaches to moral judgments coexist, with sometimes contradictory results for different types of judgments. In the current research, we combine two views of moral judgment into a novel three-input processing model. As a first empirical test of this model, the present research investigates the influence of these three classic inputs (i.e., intent, outcome, and causality) on wrongness and blame judgments as well as their underlying dynamics. This preregistered experiment (N = 145) re-uses an adapted mouse-tracking paradigm to analyze these influences over time. Results on final judgments replicate the effects of intent, outcome, and causality, as well as partial evidence for their interaction effects. Mouse trajectory analysis further refines these interaction effects, including evidence for differential dynamics for blame versus wrongness judgments. However, this study does not reveal clear differential weight for intent and outcome inputs in blame versus wrongness judgments. Discussion focuses on the evidence supporting but also contradicting the proposed three-input processing model and insists on the importance of distinguishing between final judgments and underlying dynamics.