The Moral Dilemma of Unjust Law

Over the course of the class, we have debated time and time again whether or not it is acceptable to make an exception to the rules. The rules, of course, being the law. Let's go back to the classic, yet annoyingly complicated example of Nazi Germany and the treatment of Jewish citizens. During the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, anti-Jewish legislation was put in place as the law of the land. Jewish people were stripped of their formal rights as citizens of Germany. They could not vote, hold public office, there was a wide dismissal of Jewish workers and managers from Jewish owned companies, and the list goes on. Technically, this was all legal. Not only were the laws themselves unjust, but the reinforcement of the laws were also unjust, often times involving violent, cruel actions on the part of the reinforcing agents. According to Kant, we must necessitate our duties in accordance with the law. Nazi officers did just this;so would this make the mistreatment and later mass murder of the Jewish people a morally acceptable event? Could the Holocaust, the one event in history that humans internationally and unanimously agree to be one of the cruelest and inhumane historical moments, have been a morally acceptable happening? This sounds absolutely crazy if you ask me. There are instances where it is absolutely okay, in fact necessary, to break the law to remain in moral accordance. Yes, it is important to have laws to maintain civil society and avoid anarchy. In fact, I am a firm believer that the laws are here to protect us. However, there are times in which we must use our better judgement. I am not condoning that people only take regard to the laws that they are in agreement with and ignore laws that they just simply don't like, but in extreme cases this is necessary. Can we really depend on the law, created from man by the way, to be perfect? If not, then should we trust in our own judgements?