A lot of 'gray areas' come into play when you introduce 'conflict avoidance' as a virtue. It becomes a moral imperative to refuse judgment (which isn't necessarily wrong). More often than not, people use 'gray area' to either (a) mask their own ignorance, or (b) feign maturity -- sort of like.... okay, let's say a man robs a bank. Morally wrong -- you can't do that. Done deal. 

Now, let's say I stop someone in the street and say "Hey, so I want to ask you a complicated question. Tell me if this is [i]definitely[/i] right, [i]definitely[/i] wrong, or if you can't be sure without more information. The situation is.... 'robbing a bank.'"

In that scenario, no part of the hypothetical has changed. But because they're presented with the situation in a potentially challenging way, you'll see a *lot* more people saying 'Uh.... I don't know, I need more information.' Anticipating a trick question, or whatever. 

What I've found is that this tendency carries over to a lot of conversations. You could describe it as a fear of being wrong, or as overzealous conflict avoidance, or whatever you like; I bring it up to say, 'Moral gray areas' are drastically over-represented in conversations about morality, whether you think they exist or not.