In some cases, moral behavior seem to be fully commendable (only) when the subject performs it wholeheartedly, without conflict between or among counter- or pro-moral beliefs and counter- or pro-moral aliefs. But in others, (perhaps those where moral demands at different levels pull in different directions) moral behavior seems to be fully commendable (only) when the subject experiences a conflict between pro-moral beliefs and pro-moral aliefs where the latter -- generally pro-social -- response is morally overridden in this (exceptional) circumstance. In still others, moral behavior seems to be fully commendable when it occurs as a result of the agent's overcoming certain counter-moral aliefs or beliefs. What sorts of systematic patterns do these cases exhibit, and how do they connect to Tetlock's work on tragic and taboo tradeoffs, Williams' work on "one thought too many" and "residues", Kant and Arpaly on enkratia and (reverse) akrasia, and recent work in neuroscience?