WORD COUNT [ABSTRACT]: 121

Three studies demonstrate that people shift their moral principles to rationalize desired judgments. In Study 1, college students confronted with a footbridge dilemma were more willing to endorse sacrificing an innocent life to save the lives of many when the innocent person was White than when he was Black. In Study 2, political conservatives were more permissive regarding the killing of innocent civilians when the victims were Iraqis, while liberals were more willing to condone the killing of innocents when the victims were American. In Study 3, nonconsciously priming patriotism vs. multiculturalism led participants to shift their moral standards in favor of American forces and Iraqi insurgents, respectively. Implications for the roles of reason and intuition in moral judgment are discussed. Moral Rationalization 3 The Motivated Use of Moral Principles Most people believe that harming innocent children is wrong, as is cheating on an exam or breaking a promise. More controversially, some people believe that abortion is wrong, that the death penalty is unjust, or that animals should not be killed and eaten. These moral judgments ar