Moral judgement paradigms allow to investigate cross-cultural differences in moral judgements (e.g., whether to sacrifice one person to save several others). Often, cross-cultural research investigates differences regarding the instrumentality of harm, i.e., whether the death of one person is an instrument to save others (instrumental) or is an incidental side-effect (incidental). Less cross-cultural research exists on differences regarding one’s own involvement, i.e., whether one’s own life or only other people’s life is at risk. The present study investigated the influence of both factors on moral judgements in a Western (Austrian) and an Eastern (Mongolian) culture. Austrians and Mongolians read moral dilemmas. Afterwards, they chose whether (or not) they would carry out an action that sacrifices one but saves several others and rated the moral acceptability of that action. Both cultures chose utilitarian actions (sacrificing one to save others) less often in instrumental than in incidental dilemmas. Thus, instrumental harm is universally regarded as worse than incidental harm. In instrumental dilemmas, Mongolians chose more utilitarian actions than Austrians, indicating that Mongolians more likely act in favor of group welfare. In instrumental dilemmas, Austrians chose more utilitarian actions when their own life was at risk than when only the life of others was at risk. In incidental dilemmas, the opposite was observed for Mongolians. Thus, Austrians more likely act in favor of self-interest, whereas Mongolians perceive harming others to safe oneself as more unvirtuous. Results on moral acceptability ratings and decision times further support those differences. Thus, culture influences certain moral decisions.