Rape, murder, or enslavement are examples that immutably break moral principles. That is where we disagree -- either is ... or it isn't. In the continuum of interaction there is an area of uncertainty where different people will judge differently. Even the rigorous laws of physics has an uncertainty principle. That definition is fine, but there is nothing in that definition that says that judgement of a moral Principle has to be black and white. You are adding that as a requirement. Temporary is the wrong word for what I consider as moral ambiguity. Back to the suicide example. You previously stated that preventing a suicide was using force immorally. Suppose you prevent a suicide using force; say just as he is about to squeeze the trigger I whack a gun out of his hand using a baseball bat. Suppose his reason is that he found mysterious emails and then saw his wife hugging and kissing a stranger. I happen to know that she just discovered her long lost brother and not a lover. Don't you think this was a proper use of force for an unnecessary suicide even though I may have broken his finger? First you say that I "consider the act of murdering an innocent person to be a potentially gray area while I do not". When you call my stance a conflation, you are saying that I was treating a different distinct concept. If I were doing that then in my mind you have not expressed you initial premise carefully when you claim that use of force on another is always immoral. If you want to avoid confusion you will have to carefully define your Universe of Discourse as far as the span of situations that entail usage of force. Not so. I was only defining self defense as it is commonly known, where you had a broader definition, referring to it as "Right of Self Defense". If you want to define that as meaning coming to someone else's defense, fine. I thought I was clear about that. Your prior post ended with the statement "No individual has the "right" to initiate the use of force against others - not for any reason and not under any circumstances." That statement was unqualified and allowed all sorts of gray area counterexamples. If you want to exclude the suicide example and the trolley problem, etc as being a conflation and limit the scenarios in some manner such that there are no extenuating circumstances for use of force, then I would agree with your statement. So what's next?