Objective: The current study aims to assess, for the first time, whether vaccination is predicted by different behavioral and cognitive aspects of moral decision‐making. Background: Studies linking moral factors to vaccination have largely examined whether vaccination decisions can be explained by individual differences in the endorsement of various principles and norms central to deontology‐based arguments in vaccination ethics. However, these studies have overlooked whether individuals prioritize norms over other considerations when making decisions, such as maximizing consequences (utilitarianism). Method: In a sample of 1492 participants, the current study assessed whether vaccination is explained by individual differences in three aspects of moral decision‐making (consequence sensitivity, norm sensitivity, and action tendency), while also considering ethics position (idealism, relativism) and moral identity. Results: Supportive vaccination (vaccine uptake accompanied by a positive attitude toward vaccines) was associated with utilitarianism (increased consequence sensitivity) and increased tolerance to risks and harm toward others. Meanwhile, although those in the non‐vaccinated group was associated with higher harm sensitivities, they neither supported nor received the COVID vaccines (when vaccines prevent harm from infection). Conclusion: Pro‐vaccination messages may be made more effective by addressing perceptions of harms associated with vaccines and infections, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]