Etiolate, eggplant isn't a moral man. You'd have to observe him relatively closely to determine whether or not he is... what he *is* is a smarmy semi fact filled prick. He may be playing devil's advocate or he may actually believe the things he's saying.
A moral person is a person that concerns themselves with goodness, not on the basis of laws, but more based on internally and popular accepted notions of goodness. A moral person can't be moral without examining, often the ideas of good and evil that exist in the world.
As for eggplant, laws are one thing yes. Certainly in the case of the woman who filed a complaint, she was legally justified to do so, but morally, took something, not even directed at her, something that was just normal interaction between friends and use it to bring the law in to punish a guy that didn't deserve the punishment, under the intent of the law. You could argue that it's a law that is supposed to protect people, but in that example pointed out, it was completely abused, instead of adhering to the principles of harmony that laws should on a high level, create, it was used to disrupt the peace, creating alot of trouble for the guy (and I imagine no small amount of hassle for the woman that filed the complaint).
Laws are generally pretty rigid by nature, so that they're not easily circumvented (but often are regardless), but their primary effect isn't to actually administer justice, but to set boundaries for which society can operate (it's much easier and resource efficient to create the boundaries and make people aware of them then it is to enforce them afterall); that the law can be applied, does not mean that it should always be applied (such as when the situation is understandable or reasonably resolvable between the aggrived parties). A moral person would understand this and use the law in such a fashion as to aid this idea (of creating a harmony within the boundaries, without straying too far out of them).
