I agree. My point is that there is a separation between the morality value of the isolated action and the morality value of the action in the context of a law.

I agree. My point is that there is a separation between the morality value of the isolated action and the morality value of the action in the context of a law. If we disconnect those two, we have a potential problem caused by "metamorality": We give sound reasoning for anyone to disconnect them too. Who's to say that our moral laws are better or worse than others? Consensus? Then how do we establish the consensus? I think by creating laws. And if we see a great deviation from what we see as "right" or "wrong" and the law, we should then try to change the law. Law is the metalanguage of that consensus you are talking about. Without law, there still is a consensus, but you dont have any means of presenting it, thus rendering it invisible to those who don't see it. In other words, when someone with opposite moral values acts in direct conflict with yours, law is the only thing that gives you a way to prevent those actions. What else could you say to them? After all, they have their own consensus in their minds. And of course, they could choose to ignore the law. You see?