Background: The present study investigates the possible differences between neurotypical children (NT), autistic children, and adults with intellectual disability (ID) related to (i) morality of the agent, (ii) morality of the action, and (iii) culpability in inappropriate situations. Method: Eighty-four Spanish participants (32 NT, 30 autistic children, and 22 adults with ID) responded to a task of moral transgression with an unambiguous structure (bad intention -- bad outcome), where the stories were classified as first-order Theory of Mind (ToM) (based on simple desires) and second-order ToM (based on revenge). Results: Autistic group judged similarly to NT group. However, adults with ID had greater difficulty judging the (ii) morality of the action (compared with the autistic and NT group) and (iii) culpability (compared with the NT group). Also, ID adults encountered problems responding the moral questions in the balloon story (second-order ToM) and ice-cream story (first-order ToM). Conclusions: Autistic and NT children were able to make similar moral judgements, however adults with ID did not respond in the same way -- as they were more benevolent in their judgements.