Legality's Insignificance

One of the most dangerous ideas that could take hold of a culture is the notion that the legality of a matter entails a moral obligation to act in a certain way.  If someone disputes this, he or she must by necessity argue against both reason and morality, as there is no such thing as a legitimate state that bases its laws in anything other than morality itself (and reason by extension).  Legality pertains strictly to the political laws of a given state, while morality pertains to actual obligations that exist independent of human governments.  Many people argue for specific laws by appealing to popularity, alleged consequences, and conscience, but each of these is irrelevant to whether a law is just or unjust.

A legal system is only valid if its laws completely overlap with moral laws, without deviating in one way or another.  It is an inherent injustice for laws to restrict that which there is no obligation to avoid or, alternatively, for them to require that which there is no obligation to carry out.  Where there is no obligation, every individual is free to live as they please.  Personal liberty is all that should govern all such aspects of life.  If one does not mistake subjective preferences for indicators of moral truth, no offense against reason has been committed, and if one does not fail to uphold an actual moral obligation, no evil has been committed.

While many prefer laws based upon some sort of utilitarian approach--both conservative and liberal ideas about legality hinge upon consequences, after all--lawmakers forfeit any right to submission that they have as soon as they legislate something that deviates from the limited obligations of governments.  Legal rules possess validity solely if they correspond to ethical truths.  Apart from morality itself, there is no basis for laws, and, consequently, the only laws with legitimate authority are those in alignment with actual moral obligations.

Humans have the capacity to make autonomous decisions, and they are morally permitted to use this freedom in whatever ways they wish as long as no moral laws are violated in the process.  However, there is no error whatsoever in violating any of the judicial/political laws which are not rooted in the aforementioned moral laws.  Reason reveals that in such cases, and in such cases alone, there is no higher authority than one's own subjective preferences.

Legality, in itself, is utterly meaningless.  Either there is no such thing as morality, in which case laws have no authority, or there is such a thing as morality, in which case only laws that perfectly align with this morality should be obeyed.  Regardless of whether moral nihilism or moral objectivism is true, legality has no inherent significance, and thus only a fool would hold that laws are authoritative by default after seriously contemplating the matter.