So all laws are equally just, as far as you're concerned? There is no distinction at all, and any law that a given society may wish to enact is fine with you? Is that right?
It's not about it being fine with me, it's about whether or not a society can enact whatever laws it chooses because of what it is.
Who cares what's fine with me, we're not talking about a world that lives by my standards. I'm simply pointing out that a society made up of free individuals is free to make whatever laws it chooses. If we disagree we disagree, but that doesn't make said society any less able or worthy of making their own laws.
I believe that the sovereignty of social order is far superior to my own moral outlook on how things should be done. If I disagree enough, then I will resist, but even if I agree to the point of resistance it does not stop me from recognizing that the other side is perfectly justified in the establishment of its own laws and values, however wrong or contrary to my own values they may be.
For instance, if you and a group of like-minded people begin a society and decided to ban the teaching of intelligent design and/or creationism, while I would disagree I recognize that it is your "right", so to speak, to establish such laws. It's not my place to tell your society what it can and cannot do, regardless of my mere disagreement.
OTOH, if you decide to make a law where all African Americans within your society are sought out and killed, then I still recognize that it is your "right" to establish your own laws and it is still not my place to tell your society what it can and cannot do. The difference is that in this scenario you are doing actions with which I cannot be complacent and live in accordance with my own personal values and thus I will provide any resistance necessary to stop you. That resistance does not at all reflect any disagreement with your "right" to establish such a law.
I suppose you could say my view stems from how I view "rights". A person has the right (and perhaps only this right) to do whatever he/she is
able to do. This does not mean he/she has a right to do so uninterrupted. Because I and others have a similar right to do whatever we are able to do, if it bothers me enough I have a right to stop your action if I can. BUT, if I decide to stop you, it does not change your fundamental right to do what you are able to do.
And you have no morality and don't believe in morality?
In answer to your question here, yes and no. I have standards by which I live that could easily be titled morality. However, I do not qualify them as such. I have goals and I act to fulfill those goals. For me a "moral" action is an action which fulfills those goals. It's not about right and wrong, it's about acting to fulfill goals, and which goals I feel a person should have.
For instance, one of the goals I have is to make the world a better place. Any action that works against that goal is an "immoral" action. Any action that promotes it is a "moral" action.
Another of those goals is to serve God. Any action that does so is a "moral" action and any action which goes against that goal is "immoral". Not because moral and immoral are an objective standard by which I measure actions, but because the actions do/do not contribute to the goals for which I performed them.
