I don't often differ with Joe in explicating this sort of thing, but Joe... 'moral choices' have been defined subjectively forever, even as intellectuals such as Kant tried to define them formally and objectively. When this is done we get rationalizations to justify almost any behavior. Certainly, some 'know' what is morally wrong, but 'choose' to ignore it; but many do apply premises that make heinous behavior seem 'right' to them.
It is an awkward fact that many issues in human behavior are always a matter of personal, subjective choice....such as abortion and capital punishment and WAR in general. "Thou shalt no kill" has a myriad of exceptions for the majority of humans.

   Ask a Jain about what he is allowed to eat.....

(Or have I missed your point, Joe?)