Person I talked to once: "Moral rules are dumb because they aren't going to work in every scenario you're going to encounter. You should just everything case by case."
The thing that feels most wrong about this to me is the proposition that there is an action you can do which is, "Judge everything case by case". I don't think there is. You wouldn't say, "No abstraction covers every scenario, so you should model everything in quarks."
For someone reason or another, it sometimes feels like you can "model things at their most reduced" when pondering a moral decision. But you aren't even close. "Judge everything case by case" arguments seem to come form a place of not knowing how your mind works. Mayhaps it's more of a justification things, where if you say ,"It felt right to me" you're generally off the hook, whereas if you supply principled reasons for your decision making, you open yourself up to criticism (Copenhagen ethics-ish).
In light of reading through Raemon's shortform feed, I'm making my own. Here will be smaller ideas that are on my mind.