Most of us are familiar with the sort of morally trying situations and questions that occasion talk of vagueness, indeterminacy and borderline cases. Yet moral philosophers have paid scant attention to the complexities involved in understanding these phenomena. I hope to remedy this by offering an analysis of borderline cases in ethics. This account will allow us to understand why some morally difficult questions admit of no right answer. As we'll see, my analysis requires that we abandon bivalence for some moral propositions. This sort of move is taken by most metaphysicians to imply some form of antirealism. A major aim of this paper is to show this assumption mistaken. Moral realists can allow for the existence of an indeterminate moral order that is properly captured by semantically indeterminate propositions.