Consideration of what is good or bad for common welfare and public interest is, arguably, a major objective of moral judgment. According to theories from moral philosophy and psychology, moral principles are supposed to help people balance the different societal parties’ interests and sort out what is best for all of them regarding existing social issues. What people value in the process of forming moral judgments, can strongly depend on cognitive determinants (e.g., conscious reasoning and automatic intuitions) that shape people’s preferences for certain decisions and actions. The present symposium brings together research exploring how social and contextual factors influence these cognitive determinants shaping moral judgments. Moral judgments here range from evaluations and decisions in moral dilemmas to judgments on pressing social issues like the refugee crisis. The first talk investigates how features that make actions morally relevant in the first place (e.g., instrumentality of harm) differentially influence cognitive determinants of moral judgments. The following two talks examine how social power shapes moral judgment: The second talk shows that possessing power can facilitate moral violations that benefit the greater good by reducing experiences of distress when committing such a violation. The third talk disentangles existing findings on the processes how power shapes moral judgments by looking at effects on moral orientations (e.g., inclinations towards rules etc.) which in turn influence cognitive determinants of moral judgment. Taking a look at a more specific moral issue, the forth presentation shows the role of people’s moral reasoning styles (e.g., endorsing rules or consequences) in predicting attitudes in the refugee crisis. Finally, a discussant will integrate these findings in the context of current theorizing from political and moral psychology, and discuss ways of how such findings may explain ongoing developments of political radicalization and re-nationalization.