Com­ments are expressly solicited.

In the course of going about liv­ing his life, a man notices that he has a dis­pro­por­tion­ate pref­er­ence for red­heads as roman­tic inter­ests. Not being a lazy man, he engages in some lengthy intro­spec­tion and arrives at the fol­low­ing accu­rate conclusions:

1. His pref­er­ence for red­heads makes him more likely to inves­ti­gate the pos­si­bil­ity of romance with red­heads than with non-​​redheads.
2. Red hair is not a fac­tor bear­ing any weight on his deci­sion to engage in, con­tinue, or end a romance.
3. His romances with red­heads are no more or less healthy and ratio­nal than his romances with non-​​redheads.
4. He hon­estly does not know why he prefers redheads.
5. He can find no rea­son why he ought to pre­fer red­heads, nor any rea­son why he out not to pre­fer them.

In other words, for some rea­son, he likes red­heads, and act­ing in accord with the pref­er­ence does him no harm. Nor does it help him much, except that he derives mar­gin­ally more plea­sure (again, for an unknown rea­son) from his rela­tion­ships with redheads.

Does he have any moral oblig­a­tion to con­tinue to inves­ti­gate the psycho-​​epistemological roots of his pref­er­ence for red­heads? To refrain from act­ing on the pref­er­ence until such time as its roots are discovered?

What are your thoughts? I have my own answer, which I will post later.