Title: MoCa: Cognitive Scaffolding for Language Models in Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks. Abstract: Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happened, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. These works have revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the presence of norms, and whether or not the protagonist in a scenario was aware of their action's potential consequences. Here, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with those of human participants. We find that without any annotations, LLMs and human participants are not well aligned (17\%-39\% agreement). However, LLMs can accurately annotate what relevant factors are present in a scenario with simple expert-written instructions. We demonstrate how these annotations can be used to bring LLMs in closer alignment with people (36.3\%-47.2\% agreement). These results show how insights from cognitive science can help scaffold language models to more closely match human intuitions in challenging commonsense evaluation tasks.