If the law isn’t objective on issues dealing with personal morality, one thing for sure is that not everyone is going to like it, especially not free-thinkers. That’s why it’s important to be able to tell the difference between legality and morality. Not everything that’s legal is something that everyone can carry out in good conscience and vice-versa.

If the law simply respects reasonable differences of opinion without infringing on anyone’s rights and liberties or encouraging citizens to do that, everyone will stand a greater chance of being happier and not worrying about walking on eggshells, at least insofar as they might get a visit from government agents or police on any given day.

But knowing how easy it can be for even a well-meaning person to break a particular law will give rise to the question of why it was ever put in place. That’s no secret, and there’s ongoing research to expose any such law that comes along. It will continue to be a problem somewhere as long as the ones who make the law get the wrong ideas about what a just or unjust law is, or just don’t care, whereby they put solid evidence right in front of their constituents that they’re not to be trusted and then possibly have to use sly tactics later to stay in power.

So they themselves clearly show how legality and morality aren’t the same thing; they can hardly be expected to at least set a good moral example by holding themselves to the standard of abiding by the same laws they pass, and even if they do, some people will continue to have a problem with said laws because of how they seem to restrict the people at large.

So legality has to do with abiding by a standard common to everyone in a political unit; morality is a lot more subjective and can leave the law completely out of it by setting a standard that’s as unique as the individual. No two people are likely to have all the exact same ideas about what’s moral or not, and while the law is also subject to change, that, unlike morality, usually takes more than an individual choice even in a republic where individual freedom is more valued.

But not everyone thinks government intervention is even necessary one way or another on issues of morality. For example, the Natural Law Party, a minor third party which is dissolved but still appears on the ballot in some states, is of the position that the problem of abortion is more likely to be solved by a prevention-oriented approach than by government either funding or banning abortion.

Legality and morality aren’t mutually exclusive, because there are some things that many if not most people can agree are morally wrong and should be outlawed such as stealing or sexual abuse. For purposes like that, the law itself is a necessary evil. It’s the more debatable aspects of morality that are in question because people have their own preferences for how they conduct themselves, and as long as no evidence emerges that they’re causing unacceptable harm to any living thing (even an animal or plant), there will be fewer problems both legally and on a personal level.