When effectiveness gets unmoored from morality, it is better to be weird than good
there's a part of me thats (relatively) well-read on ethical philosophy brain is getting annoyed at how you're using the word "moral" here to describe our inherited moral instincts as opposed to a coherent philosophy or goal
i don't think that going meta on a moral question and acknowledging ambiguity cuz complexity means giving up on morality. infact i'd suggest that it indicates moral growth/maturity. take for example effective altruists (who definitely have a moral compass). their entire approach is "the usual way to do good in the world sucks, lets try to move to a more effective way even if it conflicts with our instincts"
i do think that being uncategorizable by various camps is a sign you're doing something right (because so many of them tend to have high modernist assumptions about how the world works and we need to move beyond that ASAP), but as with every metric you don't want to turn it into a goal. illegibility for the sake of illegibility leads you straight into postmodernist obscurantism
very related, Hegel's concept of "beautiful soul". here seems to be a good collection of the relevant quotes: https://www.waggish.org/2020/were-all-bozos-on-this-bus-hegels-beautiful-soul/
I recommend taking a look at https://stream.syscoi.com/2020/08/09/learning-for-timely-action-an-introduction-to-the-cybernetics-of-collaborative-developmental-action-inquiry-cdai-torbert-and-erfan-2019-cybernetics-human-knowing/
which talks about meta-flexibility of ethical frameworks (in a slightly rushed and also perhaps overstructured way, but ...)
While clearly a distinct concept, the cat quadrant strikes me as antifragility-adjacent. It occupies the same conceptual quadrant, along with wu wei.