1) Do these questions need to be separated? (ie close as Too Broad)

2) Should this be closed as Unclear until he defines "Halacha" and "Morality" as he wants them used in that discussion?

(FTR in a deleted comment the OP says "Yes, I'm noticing question is hard since so much depends on how ethics and morality are defined. Hopefully this question is answerable." and the current answers already demonstrate how semantic games lead to boring conclusions.)

@DoubleAA 1) I don't think so. The two questions are thematically very close, and I could imagine one line of argument addressing both.

@IsaacMoses What is the common theme? The first could be any exception (eg. Pikuach Nefesh (for some sense of "halahca" and "go against")) which is thoroughly unrelated to morality (for some sense of "morality").

@DoubleAA Ah. OK. I was assuming in a "[due to its being immoral/unethical]" as part of the first question. Maybe that should be edited in.

@IsaacMoses I'm not sure that's what the OP meant to ask, though. He seems to me to be starting off more broadly on purpose.

Once someone has a sense of if 'halacha' can ever be 'broken' then they can approach the issue of morality vs halacha knowing if there are absolute rules a play or not.

@DoubleAA I agree that your reading is a valid one. I think that mine is also a valid one: The first question is about setting aside halacha in an individual instance, while the second question is about nullifying a halachic ruling altogether, both due to conflict with one's personal sense of morals.

@IsaacMoses Sigh. Unclear then?

... I went ahead and edited in accordance with my reading, since I believe it clears up both of your issues.

Moral philosophy without an agreed upon technical jargon is absolutely unbearable...

@IsaacMoses You may have invalidated (part(s)) of answer(s) there.

BTW judaism.stackexchange.com/a/65900/759 is a comment about the rabbi in the story, not an answer, right?

@IsaacMoses I'm not sure how it clears up my point 2).

@DoubleAA At most, the first paragraph of Loewian's answer, but I think it still applies.

@DoubleAA "Morality" = "one's sense of morality." I don't see how it matters what precise definition of "Halacha" is meant.

@DoubleAA It sounds like an argument that the answer to (2) is "no," which makes it valid as an answer post, IMO.

@IsaacMoses That "definition" of morality is circular and unhelpful at resolving anything AFAICT.

@DoubleAA It's a subjective sense. Its definition varies from individual to individual.

@IsaacMoses We have a close reason for that...

@DoubleAA You can make objective statements about the applicability of individual's subjective feelings.

@IsaacMoses Right but then you can't ever by definition complain if someone calls Torah immoral, if it seems immoral to them. No one can ever be wrong about a moral claim, in fact, unless they are lying.

@DoubleAA Sounds like a good reason to answer both questions with "no."

@IsaacMoses Or a reason to use a less boring definition of 'morality'.

@IsaacMoses Plus why would that imply no? Maybe one's personal moral views do allow them to violate otherwise-standing-halacha?

@DoubleAA "one's sense of morality" was already there in OP's version of the second question, so I think that's OP's intent. If you want to ask a question you'd find more interesting, you can.

@IsaacMoses Whether it's the OP's intent to use that phrase or not, my point still applies ("2) Should this be closed as Unclear until he defines "Halacha" and "Morality" as he wants them used in that discussion?")

@DoubleAA Do I look like a legal philosopher to you? :) I said "sounds like." There are some steps in there about Halacha actually meaning something and disagreement with Mordechai Kaplan, but I'll leave it to someone who knows what they're talking about and can quote sources to write them up.

<dropping into asynch mode. Mincha time.>

For those showing up, the open issue is: