Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. No one is claiming morality does not serve as the basis for any legal system. No one is denying a law is nothing if not a moral claim, a moral imperative, a moral prescription.
Has there ever existed a legal system, which hadn't professed to further justice, based upon morality? If so, from whence would the legitimacy of the government derive? Why would the vast majority of the society feel any sense of moral obligation to conform to the laws? What is a legal norm if not a moral command, constraining the behavior of the citizens, of whichever society upon whom the law is imposed. Who has claimed otherwise?
Now, let us go back to what started it all. Context is everything.
Kal'Stang wrote:
Do you understand what he is implying? In a nutshell, "Screw procedure, give it to him. It's the right thing to do."
Do you see how "doing the right thing" in law is actually a bad thing? Need I expand upon it further?
I replied:
Now here is the crux of the problem. What did I mean here? Did I claim morality has no bearing on the very foundation of laws or a legal system? Of course not. I was clearly referring to using morality for the purpose of bypassing a legal process.