The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU) suggested that the competency-based learning approach has been extended in the different educational systems since many decades ago [6] . García [7] identifies the competences in five categories: Knowing, Doing, Wanting, Living and Being. He involves personal competencies, highlighting responsibility, family, and society, recognizing that education is present in any field in which the human been develops.

University and professors expand the restrictive incidence of parents, family and previous education. They have the rol of a moral agent [8] . This moral agent incorporates new prescriptive regulatory functions; it complements and replaces their attributions. In this way, the moral reasoning of the university academics. Their moral judgment has been constituted as a key competence for the teaching task and is integrated even as a subject of institutions in teacher training [9] .

The moral judgment cross through six stages into three prescriptive levels of reciprocity and justice [3] [10] : preconventional, contains stage 1 and 2; conventional, stage 3 and 4; and postconventional, 5 and 6. The conventional term represents the appreciation of social norms, expresses conformity and respect for them. The pre and post prefixes, on the conventional expression, refer to: first is considered only the consequences of the action taken and second, the scope of the execution of the rules. Lind [11] sets the moral judgment as a cognitive competence, evaluated by the Moral Judgment Test MJT [12] and quantified by the C index, which correlates with the kohlbergian moral stages six [11] [13] . Al-Shurai [14] conducted a study in Kuwait with 100 high school teachers, with a mean age of 28.6 years. He found a predominantly conventional reasoning of the participants in the Kohlbergian taxonomy.

Heat affects professor cognitive abilities, his moral reasoning, and performance are decreased. Hajizadeh, Golbabaei, Reza, Farhang, and Ezadi [1] argue that the Climate change and global warming harm human health, temperatures above 25˚C affect the human working capacity, and above 40˚C the working is very complicated. In such a way, the climate perturbs the individuals’ behavior; the heat especially increases the affectation on the labor performance. Hancher and Abd-Elkhalek [15] think that to feel this kind of weather affects the mental health of people; this people performance is lower than people in moderate climates are.

Kenney [16] affirms that body temperature is integrated by the internal and the periphery temperatures, when the human body faces conditions that move his thermal neutrality, such as cold or heat stresses, the organism try to control internal body temperature through physiological adjustments and this temperature is the main retro-transmission source of the brain to coordinate this control.

In neutral and comfortable environments, small amounts of water by diffusion through the skin are lost. But Nielsen [5] says that under intensive work in a hot climate, significant amounts of sweat are emitted, up to more than two liters per hour for several hours. This author ensures that a lost sweat between 600 and 700 milliliters considerably affects the working efficiency because heart rate and the internal temperature are increased. He also notes that the heat exhaustion symptom is a generalized fatigue, usually with headache, drowsiness, and nausea.

The Nielsen [5] arguments, the fatigue and the mental affectation in the tasks of the people, and the Hajizadeh, Golbabaei, Reza, Farhang, and Ezadi [1] arguments, point out that hot weather negatively impacts the cognitive abilities of workers. If the moral judgment is a cognitive competence, then, the heat negatively affects the professor’s moral judgment.

Nunneley [4] shows that industrial workers after the 50 years old decrease their tolerance to heat climate, because of their peripheral vasodilation and sweating reduction, among other factors. He says that there are some slight differences between the sexes in their heat dissipation mechanisms: the highest sweat rate is higher in men than in women.

Nielsen [5] established two parameters on physiological limits, the temperature (40˚C) and the maximum absorption of oxygen. He argues that the men maximum aerobic capacity is greater than women in the same age stratum. Nielsen [5] established two parameters on physiological limits, the temperature (40˚C) and the maximum absorption of oxygen. He argues that the men maximum aerobic capacity is greater than women in the same age section. In addition, Nunneley [4] says that the women small dimensions cause have potential disadvantages for working in hot environments; the male sweating maximum rate is higher than the female. Thus, the hot weather is a variable, which along with sex (men or women), that determines the moral judgment cognition.

There is a debate about moral judgment between women and men, some theorists say the level men moral judgment is higher than women, others researchers say opposite. Al-Shurai [14] conducted a study in Kuwait with 100 high school teachers, with an average age of 28.6 years. He found a predominantly conventional reasoning of the participants in the Kohlbergian taxonomy and did not discover differences between men and women.

Similarly, Nwankwo [17] investigated the role of sex in the moral judgment of 200 middle school teachers and did not find any differences between both sexes.

Equally, Al-Shurai [14] did not observe significant differences between both sexes in the 100 teachers moral reasoning level. The null differences between sexes in the moral judgment competence has also been demonstrated by Robles [18] [19] , who studied various population groups, university students public and private workers.

However, Piaget’s [2] research history shows that women moral judgment level is lower than men in childhood, where girls systematic play a role in the game later that male children. Perspective supported by Kohlberg [3] , he says that the women moral judgment is lower than men, women have a heteronomous and selfish moral point of view. Recent researchers have refuted the Piaget and Kohlberg declarations, Wang and Calvano [20] indicate that women take decisions more ethical than men. Similarly, Bouhnik and Mor [21] declare that the female moral judgment is more developed than the male. Thus, these last authors say that women are more ethical and have a higher moral judgment than men.

Kohlberg’s [3] asserts that the social role opportunities influence the moral judgment level. Bouhnik and Mor [21] support the argument that moral judgment is more developed in adolescent women. Their results in 1,048 adolescents on the internet environment, showed evidence about sex differences, where the men behavior were more immoral than women, researchers identified a significant correlation between sex and moral judgment, this judgment is more developed in women than in men.

Milanowicz and Bokus [22] continue the debate on the sexual role; they found that 7 to 12 years old girls were more oriented to care and boys more to do justice, both towards opposite sex. Authors suggest that care and justice are terms naturalized and identified as “feminine” and “masculine” respectively. Their results suggest that sex becomes an important stimulant of moral behavior in the course of social relationships. Thus, the sex influences moral judgment, the daily moral valuations of academics are affected by the role of man or woman.

Hypothesis: The hypothesis was formed inquired into combining the two shoed framework: 1) Sex affects the moral judgment level competence of teachers. 2) The hot climate determines the moral judgment level competence of the professors.

Hypothesis. The Moral Trial Competition evaluated by the C index Teachers of higher education is explained by the Climate and sex.

The participants were chosen because they were in two very contrasting climates with the following weather elements: a) Dry, semiarid. b) Tropical, wet. The Institutional Review Board criteria on the protection of human research subjects were fulfilled in this investigation.

Participants were 212 professors, 121 of a private university at the Mexico central region, with dry and semiarid climate; 91 of a superior technological institute of the Mexican southeast, in a tropical and wet climate. Participants had 40 years old and less than 20 scholar years (Table 1).

Public Technological Institute climate. Participant professors were in the following climate: 87.61% floodable, with dunes and flooded beach 12.13% 0.26%. A temperature range of 26˚C - 28˚C, a precipitation range of 1,500 - 2,000 mm, wet warm climate with abundant summer rainfall 100%. The geographical distance between the superior technological Institute and the Private University was 854.9 km (National Institute of Statistics and Geography [23] (Table 2).

Private University climate. The temperature range was 10˚C - 16˚C, 400 - 900 mm precipitation, semi-dry, semi-cold, moderate 53.0%, and summer rain higher than 4.0% [24] (Table 2).

Note: The 121 participant teachers were in a dry, semi-cold, and semi-wet climate, they had a mean age of 39.58 years with a standard deviation of 10.10, and a mean of 16.89 with 3.36 standard deviation of scholar years. The 91 participants of the tropical climate, wet and warm, had a mean age of 36.50 years old with a standard deviation of 7.44, and a mean of 18.88 years old with a deviation of 2.05.

Note: The Superior Technologic weather is tropical wet, warm (26˚C - 28˚C), while the private university was UP seco, semihumid, semifreddo (10˚C - 16˚C), giving a difference in degrees centigrade from 10 to 12, higher ITS than UP. Particularly on the day that both participants were evaluated, a temperature difference of 12˚C, 28˚C, and 16˚C respectively was recorded. In the geographical area of the ITS, Ih to precipitation had a 1.500 to 2000 mm, while the UP only 400 - 900 mm, providing greater contrast pluvial IT S of 600 - 1100 mm.

The Lind’s [12] Moral Judgment Test (MJT) was applied. The MJT evaluates the argumentation in the Kohlbergian stages and the consistency of participant’s responses. MJT measures the Moral Judgment Competence through the C Index [11] . CJM items are made in a factorial design 2 × 2 × 6. The three factors are included: Dilemma, pro-against, and stage. The stories are written as dilemmas, options “pro” and “against”, and six arguments relating each Kohlbergian stages. Each dilemma tells the character’s story, and where the respondent subject perceives behavioral rules contradictory. Initially, the respondent’s point of view is asked about the right or wrong decision of the protagonist in each dilemma [12] . Next, the participant is asked to judge the arguments located in the six stages of moral reasoning: six pro and six against, of the protagonist’s decision in each story, on a scale of −4 to +4, 12 items per dilemma and 24 in total (Table 3).