Morality is something that depends highly on the current reality. If everyone could have access to any resource they would wish, freely and openly, then stealing someone else's bread out of the blue is a slightly bad thing to do, morally: the other guy can always get more bread, but you've disturbed him for no reason.

On the other hand, if resources are scarce, but a few individuals own many resources, and you will starve, and you have no resources, and those few individuals refuse to give you a normal way of getting food, then it is morally fine, as far as I am concerened, for you to steal from them.

What you will now try to do is remove actions from their context, which makes them morally meaningless. I will not be part to such a pointless discussion.

It's a leading question. Point is, since moral acts are context-specific, asking whether one should act morally under condition A and not under condition B is devoid of value. Actually, it's devoid of value especially since it is a meta-moral question, and we haven't agreed on a meta-moral system.

You're asking whether or not someone should do the moral thing. The question "whether one should do X" is a moral question. So you're asking me whether doing something moral is moral, which is a tautology. I assume you're not checking my Tauto-meter (tm).

As for not having an opinion in any subject which is in any way disputed, well, I think going over my various responses to various topics will answer that. For instance, I find the "personal rights" based moral system inadequate, though people such as Dubi live by it as Writ. Indeed, I think the solution to humanity's ills lies in a collectivist model. Alas, now is too premature a time to develop it, and it is _highly_ off-topic.

Let's return to the subject: there isn't an effective international police force. If I, or Khalil Nauri the Pakistani terrorist do something that is against international law, whether or not we will be prosecuted depends exclusively on whether the Israeli appropriately the Pakistani government chooses to do so. It is more likely that I will be turned in, while Khalil will live on freely without being bothered. It is a _basic_ inequality which comes from the fact that the international court has no _effective_ juristiction unless given permission. That is equivalent not to a lazy police force, a busy judicial system, et cetera, but to a system in which Bob the Killer, who I have seen kill Jane the Victim, has a choice, whether to be tried or not.
Imagine an American police officer coming to arrest you: "You have the right to object to our juristiction, in which case you will not be arrested. You..."

It doesn't matter what he says next, since a criminal will gladly go off, never to be seen again. A system which favours the criminals is not a system one has any moral obligation of complying with.