Laws reflect the morality of a nation. That is, laws embody social morality formally. Fundamental immorality would be to break the laws of a nation.
One may be immoral through belief yet not in acts. One may obey laws yet hate them. One may work against laws that protect individual, human and constitutional rights, and train or indoctrinate people to do so through broadcast media, social media and other means. In fact one may actually use social indoctrination to train the masses to immoral norms, or dual boot contradictory moral practices within parameters of lawful moral norms. Immorality may co-exist with morality subverting laws. Paradoxically if immorality replaces morality with new laws, the state may have a new normal, or a new morality, yet itself be immoral and render its laws to an immoral state in relation to natural law or the laws of God.
That brings me to the final points I wanted to raise in this brief post; the laws of a nation may be made to be immoral and to embody immorality in relation to natural law (cf. Cicero’s ‘On Natural Law’) and God’s laws. Even so, the laws of a nation are social morality and though heinous, are moral. Morality is a phenomenal term, yet one with real application, and is not at all entirely subjective.
Therefore if one wants to act immorally and subvert laws, in civil disobedience as it were, one ought at least to have an idea, a model, of what formalized structure one would have become the new moral law to replace the old. To broadcast subversion for the indoctrination of the masses is implicitly immoral and worse; nihilist. Anarchy is a method for destroying laws and morality without having a model for new laws to replace it with. Nihilism goes so far as to have no intention of letting a moral system and its formalization in law exist at all. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative was the idea that one should act as if personal moral behavior was to be formalized into universal law. I believe it is easier to understand that now.