Morality, or being moral, is the state of being in God's will. That's my definition - but I think it's pretty sound.
To say, for example, "He is a moral person," means that your subject's will is currently aligned with that of God. An immoral, in contrast, person could not have his will aligned with God's. In this sense, we can use the term righteousness and moral interchangeably.
If a moral decision is a decision requiring one (in order to make the "right" decision) to emulate God, then let us then consider if there are non-moral decisions. These would be decisions that would not require one (in order to make the "right" decision) to emulate God.
The exception to the preceding sentence would be, not "require" insofar as the choice does not transform the non-moral decision into a moral one, such as choosing to get up or hit snooze on a lazy Saturday versus choosing to get up or be late for a commitment.
But are there non-moral decisions?
Let's find an example: Probably the most commonly used in this category is the decision of which color of socks to put on in the morning.
Is this a non-moral decision? It's hard to imagine that this is moral. In fact, it is hard to even imagine how this decision could ever be made wrong.
Granted, from a fashion-perspective or a comfort-perspective this could easily be made in error, but from a moral-perspective, how could one color over another make a difference?
Even if we cannot come up with a scenario to make sock colors moral or immoral, we can see if the logic will hold up over other questions.
If it is true that non-moral decisions exist, then it is true that some decisions do not require one (in order to make the "right" decision) to emulate God.
We can ask another question to flesh this out a little more:
"Should we emulate God in all things?"
This answer might be a trick question. It might not be fair to ask the question in this context. However, if the question is just standing there alone, the answer is clear and must be, "of course we should emulate God in all things."
A more probing answer might have been to ask in repost: "in what aspect of your life would you not like to emulate God?"
A clever student might answer: "the responsibility to judge and condemn all of mankind."
That answer is only valid because we consider the responsibility of judgment from a human-perspective. Certainly God has the advantage of knowing all things and being able to do all things. Omniscience alone would suffice to relieve that burden.
"A Christian wants every aspect of his life to emulate God"
Even if I want to emulate God in all things, it seems somewhat absurd to consider what color of socks God would be wearing. Surely God does not wear socks, and even if He did it does not make sense for us to wear the same type of socks for the same reason it does not make sense for us to dress like Jesus dressed.
So, maybe we have something here. Maybe sock color is a completely non-moral question that, indeed, does not require us to emulate God - we can be in a completely sinful state and still make no more "wrong" or "right" a decision in regards to the color of our socks.
To me, this is fascinating.
It is fascinating because I have always been taught that God is not just interested in the mere salvation of the individual, but also in an intimate and personal relationship with a that person.
Such a relationship would not just include the big stuff, but also the details - like socks, maybe even color.
That is an interesting approach to the problem, but just because we have an intimate and personal relationship with God (or anyone, for that matter) it does not necessarily imply it would ever deal with the color of socks chosen in the morning - fashion aside.
So that is out. There's nothing necessary about socks in a relationship. Just because we have a relationship does not mean God is involved in our selection of socks.
Then I consider the omni-nature of God. After all, He is all things, all places, all knowing and all powerful. How can all of that not include the color of the socks I selected this morning?
Now, I think we are getting somewhere.
It can't. This new point might be boiled down to simply read: Because God is God, He necessarily plays a role in all things (including decisions),; this makes all decisions God-based, moral decisions.
So is it silly to pray to God and ask Him what color sock you should select in the morning?
The reason a question like that even exists is because we (that is, me) forget that God does not get bored, has plenty of time, and can multitask the orbits of a million planets, global politics, healing a sick woman, and advising you and me on sock colors all at the same time without breaking a sweat (if God _could_ sweat).
So, I suppose we have concluded: there is no such thing as a non-moral decision, because we define moral as related to God and God is related to all things. Also implied here is: all decisions, even the small ones, have a "right" (therefore "wrong") choice.