  I consider decision-making constrained by considerations of morality,
rationality, or other virtues. The decision maker (DM) has a true preference
over outcomes, but feels compelled to choose among outcomes that are top-ranked
by some preference that he considers "justifiable." This model unites a broad
class of empirical work on distributional preferences, charitable donations,
prejudice/discrimination, and corruption/bribery. I provide a behavioral
characterization of the model. I also show that the set of justifications can
be identified from choice behavior when the true preference is known, and that
choice behavior substantially restricts both the true preference and
justifications when neither is known. I argue that the justifiability model
represents an advancement over existing models of rationalization because the
structure it places on possible "rationales" improves tractability,
interpretation and identification.
