Wolfs Conception of Morality

I recently read Susan Wolfs paper ”Morality and Partiality” (1992), since it was mentioned on Duncan Richter’s blog . Wolf is one of the more interesting philosophers in the analytical field, but I disagree with her even on the most fundamental points. For one thing, I do not agree with her view of what morality is. She claims that ”morality” is a method for conflict resolution. It is needed because we often gets into conflicts of interests between at least three parts: our selves, our loved ones and strangers. We need a method which sets ”a minimum standard of tolerable behavior” (Wolf 1992, 258). I would say that the moral can start earlier, to judge what the interests are in a situation can be a moral question. And I would say that even more basic questions, like ”who am I?” and ”whom are we to each other?” can also be moral questions. And on the surface level, I am not even sure if it can be in my interest that unjustice rules, while Wolfs main problem seems to be what to do when morality and love conflict. But my problems with Wolf are alleviated if we change the name, so instead of using Wolfs term ”morality” we could talk about ”Wolfs (political) moderate impartial method of conflict resolution”. I think this often could be a good way to dissolve philosophical problems. What could anyone have against wmimocr? Well, quite a lot, but that would not be a question for moral philosophy.