When we reflect on the structure of moral decisions, we come across cases in which we seem to be subject to mutually exclusive moral demands. But the conflict is just that, a seeming one. We must be careful to distinguish two levels of moral thinking: The prima facie and the critical. A prima facie moral principle is analogous to a workaday tool, say a(n)(6). It is versatile, that is, useful in many situations, and at your fingertips, while, no special skill is needed to use it. Unfortunately, the value of a prima facie principle derives from its non-specific language, which means that in some situations it will turn out to be an oversimplification. For example, two fairly straightforward moral rules such as keep all promises and assist others in dire need, which work well enough in most cases, seem to clash in the following scenario: I have promised a-friend I will run a very important errand on his behalf (and he is relying on me); but while en route I happen across a person in need of emergency medical assistance, which I can provide, but only at the cost of leaving my original purpose unaccomplished. The appearance of conflict arises from the choice of tools used in analyzing the situation the two prima facie rules do not cut finely enough. What is wanted, therefore, is a more refined analysis which will be applicable to the specific situation. At this, the second level of moral thinking, critical moral thinking employs a finer system of categories so that the end result is_(7)_.