Wow, that was pretty complicated mate. But so interesting. I rode it 3 times and still didn't get it all. But I do not understand
''There is no objectively free choice about what needs to be done'' whereas after you say
''The moral taste only plays with the objects of pleasure without being bound by anybody''
And then you conclude by ''taste is the ability to judge an object or a way of presentation by pleasure or discontent without any interest''
So that means that you have no taste if positive feelings impact your decision. You can be so chocked or touched by something that you'll make everything in your power to make it as you think. Does it mean you have no taste ? Because I believe it can have only positive impact if controlled. But I do not know tis subject at all that's why I am asking !
Yes it is really complicate :) To make it more clear to you I suggest to read Kant and his philosophy about the taste. Here is some example of a more deep thinking in that theme https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/
Cheers! :)