This chapter explores how insights from moral psychology can inform second-chance decisions following unethical behavior. It introduces two key theoretical frameworks: a three-step model describing the progression from moral dissonance (initial discomfort when faced with unethical options), through moral neutralization (finding excuses for the behavior), to normalization of questionable behavior (unethical practices becoming routine). The model highlights how moral reasoning can erode in environments where unethical conduct becomes widespread and socially accepted. The chapter also examines moral licensing, the phenomenon where individuals feel licensed to commit unethical acts after prior moral actions, due to a sense of moral credits or credentials. In contrast, the moral consistency theory suggests that good deeds reinforce ethical behavior. Both frameworks explain how people navigate moral self-concept, balancing past actions with current choices. These concepts help decision-makers understand how and why individuals may violate ethical standards and whether these transgressions stem from broader contextual pressures or personal failings. Understanding these processes supports more nuanced assessments of whether someone deserves a second chance.