What do you think about this approach to talking about morality?

I came across this site about a year ago. A recent posting about when to walk away from a disagreement (agree to disagree) reminded me of it. The approach is based on the ideas of the 20th century philosopher W.D. Ross, who I had previously not heard of.

We could argue over the specifics, but I think the overall approach makes a lot of sense. Most moral disagreements are due to conflicting moral obligations. We can agree on the rightness of two moral obligations. Things get tricky when we must trade off between them. For example, we have obligations to ourselves and to others. How do we balance between the two?

We also have a loose hierarchy of categories of moral acts, considering some to be of higher priority than others. There will always be exceptions, but we can agree on an overall framework, or at least are able to articulate differences of opinion regarding what the framework should be.

We will always have disagreements, but it is helpful to have conceptual tools to pinpoint as accurately as possible just where it is that we disagree.