 In addition, Ross seems not to have considered fully the possibility that two acts open to us might be tied in terms of the amount of prima facie rightness over prime facie wrongness they possess. If two or more acts are tied in this respect, there is no act of those open to us having the greatest balance of prima facie rightness over prima facie wrongness. In such a case there will appear to be a conflict of actual obligations. To avoid saying this, Ross will have to modify his view to say our actual obligation in our situation is the act, of those open to us, with at least as much prima facie rightness over prima facie wrongness as any other act open to us.