The problem with moralizers is it's a loophole to deny hate when hate arises, and deny personal agency in ethical conflicts.
I'm sure my junior high classmates had all reasonable reasons. Probably like how they spent so much effort to pretend to like me, and I didn't have half the effort to pretend to like them back, therefore morally failed at keeping social harmony, hence deserved to be attacked. What's up with just hating each other because of different lifestyles and going separate ways so no one can bother the other? That would be much less work for everyone!
Moralizers can boast all day about how they are champions of justice and how their rigid morality makes them suffer so much. But when it comes to making actual decisions that might put them at disadvantaged positions, I'm sure they find another set of moral rules that makes them stay with the “abuse” but conveniently aligns with what benefits them the most.
Not saying that being ethical all the time is realistic. But every choice is a trade-off of something. So watching out for the hidden cost might be a smart thing for them to do.