As economic inequality constantly grows, understanding what drives individuals’ support for redistribution is as critical as ever. In the current dissertation, we find evidence suggesting that attitudes towards reducing economic inequality can be experienced with moral conviction (i.e., perceived as rooted in one’s core beliefs about right and wrong). This, in turn, can motivate support for redistribution. In Study 1, reducing economic inequality moral conviction scores were comparable to other highly moralized topics (e.g., euthanasia), and higher than lowly moralized topics (e.g., tattoos). In Studies 2 and 3, a greater moral conviction for reducing economic inequality (family wealth and family income, respectively) positively predicted support for redistributive government policies (such as minimum wages and tax breaks increases) – also when controlling for income, subjective socio-economic inequality and economic system justification (i.e., other critical predictors of support for redistribution). Furthermore, this relationship was mediated by empathic concern (with mixed results) and structural causal attributions. Finally, Study 4 showed how moral conviction predicted a positive evaluation of poverty reduction program – even in the face of negative evidence (i.e., description of a fictitious family misusing their welfare bonuses). Moreover, moral conviction worked as a predictor of family evaluation when positive cases were shown. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of one’s moral conviction as a motivator of support for redistributive policies - suggesting that future research should take into account addressing not only implications concerning cost and benefits, but individuals’ personal moral considerations as well.