I am not busy. I am an American. And as such, I celebrate Thanksgiving in November as Mohammed, peace be upon him, intended.
Anyway, Math, primo,
I think that's not the greatest analogy. To begin with, you're wrong and Dave is right. A taste for spicy foods is the correct position.
But a taste for spicy foods, unless it has some health implications and there's someone dependent on you maintaining your good health or something like that, probably isn't ever going to enter into what we might call a moral calculus. It's just something you do or don't do for yourself. In much the same way, people wouldn't call your musical tastes moral or immoral, unless of course you tricked out your car so that you can play said music at obnoxious volumes.
I think that, as sort of amorphous and vague as a given person's definition of morality might be, a common thread seems to be that if the thing that someone does has no effect on anyone else, it's not really even a question if that thing is right or wrong morally.
To use myself as an unfortunate example, I'm currently underemployed due to the economic clusterfuck and what not. While it might be prudent for me to find a new line of work, I'm not sure that anyone say that it's morally right or wrong for me to just be happy just to be employed and have enough to keep the lights on here at casa de Timo. If I had kids or other people to support you would probably (correctly) think that maybe, just maybe my
lack of ambition
acceptance of the status quo is immoral in some way.
So no, I think that moral questions, even if we think morality is ultimately subjective take on a different sort of flavor than questions about other preferences we might have. There's a qualitative difference since involving other people in your preferences is basically imposing them on other people. Or something like that.