I think morals are based on values/preferences. I think they are distinguishable, but for me what is moral is what I value. So though I can distinguish the concepts of morality and value, they are also present in each event unless there is conflict. But that’s also true for morality and law. They are present at the same time, unless there is conflict.
A libertarian perspective takes note of what is moral when it comes to distinguishing a crime and non-crime. This is why smoking marijuana is a crime in the U.S., but a libertarian perspective says smoking marijuana is a moral question not a lawful question cause it’s a personal decision not coercing others. So there is conflict between the current law and the moral issue. This conflict makes the law, morality, and value distinguishable depending on who’s perspective this event is taken into consideration. The libertarian moral issue on smoking this, is it ought to be left to a personal choice to decide whether this is something the person values as being good or not, thus, it would be lawful in a libertarian society. Again no conflict between law, moral, and value, unless even the libertarian prefers not to smoke or even finds it immoral. Yet a libertarian wouldn’t take it to the level of unlawful. So the only conflicts in a libertarian society might be distinguishable not in law but in moral and value issues.
Of course certain preferences such as eating an onion versus not eating this vegetable would not be considered a right or wrong on most people’s part I would figure, unless somebody that doesn’t like onions would find it wrong or not good to taste them. I know in some cultures eating certain animals (immoral and unlawful to eat otters, young ravens, etc…) are taboo, and thus wrong to eat. It is immoral and would be unlawful according to the culture for anybody to eat the animals [more examples: Hebrew, Islamic, and Seventh Day Adventists (Christian) find it immoral/not-kosher to eat pig and possibly even unlawful]. Yet, the animals are edible. Just like onions are edible.
So why are they taboo, immoral, and even unlawful at times? I think the basics to this are preferences and thus values. If these values are not in conflict with individuals/society morals, then these values are also moral issues. Ultimately values and morals are undefined, but what we can intellectualize is not ultimate reality. We can intellectualize it, but our intellectual patterns are not the dynamism of ultimate reality. This leaves plenty of space for individuality and an expression of individuality is culture. And cultures indeed are diverse, wonderful, and beautiful around the world.
So if somebody would eat what we might think to be a perfectly edible and thus good animal, if you did in their culture you would be committing a taboo translated into our culture as a sin to God, so to speak. In other cultures it is taboo and morally wrong and sometimes criminal for a woman to show their face in public. Used to be taboo for woman to show ankles in the U.S. and Europe, seen also as an immoral act. Today most people in these cultures would probably leave this to preference.
The impact of preferences sometimes are not high on the moral scale, such as this onion example, reaching the level of social or intellectual events of discord or harmony. Yet other preferences, such as the U.S. central bank (intellectual Keynesian) prefering to spend their way out of debt, is not only considered immoral by a libertarian but also a criminal act that is intellectually and socially discordant.
The impact of values and morals can be lower or higher on a value-moral scale. But this is my opinion and I know there are different perspectives on this.