So I wouldn’t say that, either. Thanks for helping me articulate this one clearly.

It’s more along the lines of this example:

1. It’s typically wrong to punch someone in the face.

2. It’s right to physical defend someone you love if they’re in danger.

3. Sometimes, I’m certain scenarios, it’s right to punch someone in the face, but otherwise it’s probably wrong.

Or this:

1. It’s wrong to arbitrarily murder a living thing

2. If your continued existence requires food, and you need to eat something that is alive, it is natural to take that creature’s life to preserve your own

3. Killing animals for fun is wrong, but for sustenance is okay.

(Note, I am not actually making an argument for veganism-unless-starving. Just using an example argument to try and explain my stance on morality in general).

Essentially, I believe a person’s choices *do* carry moral significance. It’s just that the significance is dependent on the situation itself, and upon the person’s condition when making the choice. Not always. But enough that legal “blankets” based on a moral code would fail to accurately represent the nuances of life.