Nowadays, it is extremely difficult to find the “perfect“ human being . By “perfect”, one refers to someone ”flawless” , who never committed any single mistake in his/her life. There seems to be this general consensus that it is acceptable for an individual to break social norms, as long as he/she does not break the law. Is that, however, truly accurate ?
Does the law fully reflect ethical values by which everyone must stand by ? For instance, it is legal for a police officer in the United States to shoot someone dead if the latter believes the suspect did not obey his commands. However, is it moral ? That is where the line must be drawn.
This is typically illustrated by WWII. When nazis invaded France, they imposed racist laws. Hence, being in the resistance and refusing to cooperate with Hitler's regime was illegal, but moral - and vice versa.
If you consider the law as a society's judicial mirror, then this question become tricky because it makes you think about morality's versatility. Is what was moral yesterday still moral today ? If yes, why would you change the law (by law, I'm refering to the general ideology, not civil legislation that deals with matters such as traffic regulation etc.). Is there a universal moral ? As Pascal said: "what'strue in the Pyrenees is false in the beyond" Is morality to be thought on the induvidual, national, or global level ?
If there is no such a thing as a higher morality, principles and ideals evolve with men, time and places. In that case, laws are "living" and should constantly readapt themselves so that they match the society - typically gay marriage. It would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago. Were people back then vile and wicked? I dont' think so, they just had different set of principles.
But one may contradict me by saying that, since morality is a matter of individuality, one could go against the law if it was to follow his/her own ideals. That's the point of democracy - institutionalising collectively, as a nation, the principles everyone is agreeing on.
In the above example (WWII), a crucial element is to be taken into consideration: invasions (forced imposition of a foreigner's code of conduct) and war. While it doesn't justify to act immoraly, it highlights other fundamental questions that complexify the topic and that need to be adressed.