In three replicated studies, a total of 855 adults (ages 17‐51) described their reasons pro and con a recent moral temptation, and they rated on Likert scales the perceived importance of certain variables pertinent to their decision, “do it” or “don't do it”. Three patterns of pro: con strengths were found in both decisions: (a) pro>con ("Typical”, “do it"); (2) con>pro (Typical “don't do it"); and (3) pro = con ("Equal”, less common in both “do” and “don't do” decisions). And (...) in apparent contradiction of common sense, the decision in a substantial minority was the reverse of Typicals in both “do” and “don't do” decisions ("Reversals"). The latter acted in apparent opposition to their dominant reasons. In both the “do” and “don't” decisions, the three pro: con patterns were also accompanied by three similar patterns of negative affect (regret and guilt). Moreover, how pleased subjects were with their decision after the act, and how they were likely to decide in the future also reflected the same pro: con patterns. Most remarkable, the investigation disclosed that the decisions, particularly in Equals and Reversals, were influenced by extraneous intrusions from the individual's “life‐world”. To offset the power of these extraneous intrusions that divert moral decisions from taking a rational direction, a training procedure is recommended to fortify conscience itself by drawing on the very power that often overrides it. (shrink)