For situational action theory (SAT), morality is key to the definition of crime and the explanation for why and how acts of crime happen: acts of crime are acts of moral rule-breaking and personal morality guides individuals’ perception of moral rule-breaking as an option before controls become relevant. However, the nature and role of morality in SAT can be misread. Within this article I respond to misinterpretations of the theory by elaborating and adding further context to the concept of morality in SAT. I contend that the root of misunderstanding is grounded in alternative assumptions regarding human nature: SAT assumes a fundamentally rule-guided human nature, whereas the prevailing view within criminology is that people are primarily self-interested. In this article I delineate SAT’s assumption of a rule-guided human nature and set out how this assumption informs the definition of crime and personal morality in the theory. I further specify the nature and role of morality in the perception of action alternatives, and in so doing distinguish SAT from theories that view constraint as the measure of morality. Finally, I develop and clarify SAT’s position on the relationship between morality and the law.

对于情境行为理论（SAT），道德是犯罪定义以及犯罪行为发生原因和方式的解释的关键：犯罪行为是违反道德规则的行为，个人道德引导个人对违反道德规则的理解作为之前的选择控制变得有意义。但是，道德在SAT中的性质和作用可能会被误读。在本文中，我通过详细阐述并为SAT道德概念添加更多上下文来回应对该理论的误解。我认为，误解的根源在于关于人性的其他假设：国家税务总局假设从根本上讲是规则指导的人性，而犯罪学中的普遍观点是，人主要是出于自身利益。在本文中，我描述了SAT对规则指导的人性的假设，并阐述了该假设如何为理论中犯罪和个人道德的定义提供依据。我进一步说明了道德在行动选择的感知中的性质和作用，并以此将SAT与将约束视为道德的量度的理论区分开来。最后，