[mockery]

I think GP is reacting to the word "obligation" (I certainly did.)

I'd claim there are actions that may be "morally justifiable" yet not raise to a level that creates a "moral obligation." The word "obligation" implies (to me at least) some sort of guilt or culpability if you don't undertake the action.

In fact my instinct is that most morally justifiable actions aren't weighty enough to be obligations. Consider any "morally neutral" action (for example, eating an apple instead of an orange for a snack) - I would label such an action "morally justifiable" (since applying the rules of morality does not argue against it) but it's certainly not a "moral obligation" (even ignoring the fact that the alternative is also morally justifiable!)

You could perhaps argue there is no such thing as a "truly neutral" action to an omniscient observer, who can measure and predict the impact on total human happiness of any action with certainty. Such an individual would indeed have a much more restrictive set of "morally justifiable" actions available to them - fortunately we mortals aren't burdened with that level of insight or certainty!

[s1artibartfast]

Interesting, I can see something being morally neutral or unknowable, but still don't understand the distinction between moral and moral obligation. If you know an action is moral but you are not doing it, you're acting is implicitly not moral. The only remaining conclusion is admission that do not act in a moral way.

If I understand correctly, your distinction between moral and morally justifiable is just a matter of uncertainty of facts, and if more facts were known, it would become moral or not? Is that correct?