Well, we often talk about morality in terms of our emotional and physical response - e.g. revulsion ('disgusting behaviour'), fear ('recoiling in horror') and pain ('pangs of conscience'), etc. It's also pretty difficult to determine whether Wiener's detestation of suffering was the cause of his moral stance or vice versa.

I would argue that whatever the associated reaction/cause, the outcome is a moral stance as it influenced his decisions based on the consequences his actions might have on other people. OTOH, if Wiener felt bad about other people's suffering but it didn't affect his choices, it wouldn't be a moral stance.

There is an exploration of this train of thought in Frank Herbert's novel "Whipping Star", where a criminal condemned to a Clockwork-Orange-style conditioning to abhor pain and suffering nevertheless finds a way to commit murder by exploiting a truly alien being with no human-understandable concept of suffering.

Still, I think in non sci-fi scenarios, an abhorrence for suffering and moral behavior are very much linked, if not perfectly equal.

He thought and wrote about such matters with some depth, though he wasn't that worldly wise. I still liked his books like "The Human Use Of Human Beings" very much. He also wrote a novel about a patent troll, called "The Tempter", in 1959!

I think you need to define what you consider a “moral stance” to be, before one can answer whether or not it was one.