Our lab has recently taken an increased emphasis on the psychology of morality, a topic we approached in a variety of ways. One series of studies investigated people’s perceptions of the relationship between moral obligations and the brain versus the body, by asking people to imagine two people trading brains, then asking them whether moral obligations would follow the brain or the body (Protzko et al., 2023). To our surprise, a substantial proportion of people said obligations would follow the body and this pattern was actually more common with professionals dealing with obligations such as accountants and lawyers.   A second series of studies examined what we termed “moral contamination”, essentially documenting that actions are not assessed on their own, but in the context of the person who does them (Protzko & Schooler, 2023). So, when a person who has previously engaged in normatively bad acts does a good action, it is considered less good. Interestingly, the same is not observed for bad deeds, which are considered bad no matter who commits them. An additional series of publications looked at dehumanization, the tendency to see outgroups as less than human, as a basis for immoral behavior and actions.  One series of studies demonstrated that essentialism, the belief that members of a group all share an underlying essence, facilitates dehumanization (Landry et al., 2021). A second series of studies, provided evidence that the behavioral immune system (BIS), an evolved psychological mechanism that motivates prophylactic avoidance of disease, may contribute to dehumanization (Landry, Ihm, & Schooler, 2021). A third series of studies demonstrated that when people learn that outgroup members do not dehumanize them as much as they thought, that they in turn reduce the degree to which they dehumanize the outgroup members (Landry et al., 2022). This final study thus provides a vision for how dehumanization, and its dark consequences, can begin to be mitigated.