Moral opportunities and moral tests confront actors with the behavioral means of substantiating or undermining, respectively, an identity claim that they are a moral person. Kant's distinction between perfect and imperfect duties bears instructive similarities to the difference between moral tests and moral opportunities. The desire to avoid future moral tests can even lead people to shun moral opportunities if embracing them will sow the seeds for future moral tests. If moral tests are to be avoided, moral opportunities are to be embraced, especially when one's moral image has been threatened. Seizing a moral opportunity, unlike passing a moral test, has the potential to restore a tarnished moral self-image. If the moral opportunity provided by a behavior is insufficient to prompt enough people to engage in the behavior, it might seem reasonable to augment the existing psychological incentive with an economic one. The distinction between moral opportunities and moral tests deepens people understanding of moral self-regulation and social behavior broadly.