Laws are made after lengthy deliberations, hearings, through several acts of parliament. Throughout this whole process it is only a selected few in the population of a country who actually get to review a law and put their opinions and ideas surrounding the issue. The point being is that although there are checks and balances regarding new laws, they are primarily conceived and delivered through only a select number of people, whose opinions and view are there own and may not necessarily be that of the majority of the population. I plan to argue therefore that an act of civil disobedience is justifiable if the act is in a non-violent manner and it acts against an unjust law. If a law is unjust there is no reason that people should conform to it because the majority of the population says so.
             An unjust law is one that: "is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." (RTD 284) Whereas a just law is a law which follows the moral law derived by God that is in harmony with the moral law. Such a minority part of the government that the laws do not always agree with the standards and concerns of society create unjust laws. From childhood everybody is conditioned to obey the law, and to obey and respect authority. Then when unjust laws are created most people are conditioned to simply follow and learn to adapt to the new law because it was given to them by authority and they can not go against that. This is how moral injustices on society on a whole occur. An unjust act or idea is placed into society by a figure of authority and people are so used to following they simply accept it even if they know deep in their hearts it may be wrong. The problem arises not only because peoples moral standards diminish but because society can be seen as a conditioned machine that simply follows directions or instructions. I feel that wh...