ISSUE17 最难写的一篇（写得不错，尤其语言令人赞叹，值得学习 by pippo1983）
TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."WORDS: 308 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2007-6-17 10:46:1
立场：完全赞同
1 人的义务不是服从法律，而是服从正义，因此，服从正义的法作为人的义务是没有问题的
2 人同样有义务反抗不正义的法，因为这是服从正义的法的必然要求
3 反抗不正义的法是人类进步的必由之路
The decease of Socrates, a constant qualm in the occidental world, fascinates the greatest wisdom and intelligence to deliberate the relationship between individuals and their laws. Though it is true that stability is one of major virtues of law, the justice of law is more desirable. Actually, the obedience of just laws necessarily require the disobedience and resistance of unjust laws, for just laws are embodiment of justice, which repulses every form of inequality.
Citizens obey justice, rather than laws. Admittedly, above the laws of human exists no laws of god, yet there exists the unshakable faith of good. Born to be free, an individual, as a morally free entity, accepts the chain of laws not for the sake of laws themselves, neither the power nor authorities behind them, but for the sake of his conception of good, and his moral views. Being able to tax his subjects arbitrarily via his force, a tyrant could never gain obedience, as obedience being ultimately a reaction of free will and thus excluding every form of compulsion. On the other hand, human beings, as is self-evident, have the moral responsibility and will to follow their own conception of justice. Hence, once a law is identified as just, it should be obeyed.
In the light of the attitude toward unjust laws, despite of the fact that situation here might be more complex, to confirm the civic responsibility of rebelling unjust law is rational. Some would argue that the right to rebel, which is justified by John Locke and practiced by the American Revolution, could not be comprehended as a responsibility. They might further argue that enjoying the liberty to choose their condition, people should be entitled, by the virtue of being reasonable and cognitive beings, to determine whether to carefully organize their lives and maximize their good under oppressive and unequal legislation, or to shed their blood in struggling for the actualization of equality. However, to be realistic, the obedience of unjust laws consists of the denial of justice, as is demonstrated by the history of the Nazi Germany. In that age of dark, everyone is requested by criminal law to inform against whoever refuses to acclaim absolutism and ethnic elimination. Should a citizen with good faith still obey it, prosecuting and afterwards witnessing his friends and colleagues to be executed? Since no one deserves to alienate another’s life, while the informer could evidently realize that the suspect would suffer capital punishment without appropriate judicial process, he does infringe the natural justice, the justice roots in conscience and common sense. To disobey, or even to resist it has the potential to cost one’s life, whereas to follow it would definitely cost others’ life and his conscience, which is regarded as the most fundamental virtue of being man.
Empirically, no real profound revolution and reformation could be established without the resistance of undesirable laws. Such is human nature that our sense of justice, firm and impulsive as it is, is by no means eternal. It changes with time. Accordingly, the conception of justice of precedents might not suit to contemporary. In the other words, whenever laws fail to serve the pursuit of the good of a particular generation, citizens have the right and duty to abolish them. The Civil Movement, for instance, which stemmed from the dissatisfaction of the condition of American born African, and which derived from the Deep South, soon became a significant march requiring gross political rights and equality. Youngsters from Yale, MIT, and UC Berkley accumulate, march alone street, asking for the discarding of all unjust law that prohibit the right of self-determination, that assist the unjust ration of interests and opportunities. The “Brown v. the Broad of Education” remaining to be an important case in every case book of American constitution, it is apparent that the racial and gender equality and the broadened civil rights our fellow countrymen enjoy should be contributed to the effort and sacrifice in that realistic movement.
As is mentioned above, rebel cost a lot. Nonetheless, the common good would never emerge when citizens, if they should still be regarded as citizens, fail to realize that they are not merely individuals with right and liberties but also social beings with duty and obligation.
[ 本帖最后由 ILOVEISSUE 于 2007-6-17 17:25 编辑 ] 大牛！观点新+语言美，我得好好学习~ The decease of Socrates, a constant qualm in the occidental world, fascinates the greatest wisdom and intelligence to deliberate the relationship between individuals and their laws. Though it is true that stability is one of major virtues of law, the justice of law is more desirable. Actually, the obedience of just laws necessarily require the disobedience and resistance of unjust laws, for just laws are embodiment of justice, which repulses every form of inequality.
Citizens obey justice, rather than laws. Admittedly, above the laws of human （倒装句用do exist吧？）exists no laws of god, yet there exists the unshakable faith of good. Born to be free, an individual, as a morally free entity, accepts the chain of laws not for the sake of laws themselves, neither the power nor authorities behind them, but for the sake of his conception of good, and his moral views. Being able to tax his subjects arbitrarily via his force, a tyrant could never gain obedience, as obedience being ultimately a reaction of free will and thus excluding every form of compulsion. On the other hand, human beings, as is self-evident, have the moral responsibility and will to follow their own conception of justice. Hence, once a law is identified as just, it should be obeyed.
In the light of the attitude toward unjust laws, despite of the fact that situation here might be more complex, to confirm the civic responsibility of rebelling unjust law is rational. Some would argue that the right to rebel, which is justified by John Locke and practiced by the American Revolution, could not be comprehended as a responsibility. They might further argue that enjoying the liberty to choose their condition, people should be entitled, by the virtue of being reasonable and cognitive beings, to determine whether to carefully organize their lives and maximize their good under oppressive and unequal legislation, or to shed their blood in struggling for the actualization of equality. However, to be realistic, the obedience of unjust laws consists of the denial of justice, as is demonstrated by the history of the Nazi Germany. In that age of dark, everyone is requested by criminal law to inform against whoever refuses to acclaim absolutism and ethnic elimination. Should a citizen with good faith still obey it, prosecuting and afterwards witnessing his friends and colleagues to be executed? Since no one deserves to alienate another’s life, while the informer could evidently realize that the suspect would suffer capital punishment without appropriate judicial process, he does infringe the natural justice, the justice roots in conscience and common sense（语法好像有错误，不是一个句子）. To disobey, or even to resist it has the potential to cost one’s life, whereas to follow it would definitely cost others’ life and his conscience, which is regarded as the most fundamental virtue of being man. （不错的一段，结尾总结概括下会更好）
Empirically, no real profound revolution and reformation could be established without the resistance of undesirable laws. Such is human nature that our sense of justice, firm and impulsive as it is, is by no means eternal（这句的语法好像也有问题）. It changes with time. Accordingly, the conception of justice of precedents might not suit to contemporary. In the other words, whenever laws fail to serve the pursuit of the good of a particular generation, citizens have the right and duty to abolish them. The Civil Movement, for instance, which stemmed from the dissatisfaction of the condition of American born African, and which derived from the Deep South, soon became a significant march requiring gross political rights and equality. Youngsters from Yale, MIT, and UC Berkley accumulate, march alone street, asking for the discarding of all unjust law that prohibit the right of self-determination, that assist the unjust ration of interests and opportunities. The “Brown v. the Broad of Education”（呵呵，GRE阅读里出现的例子） remaining to be an important case in every case book of American constitution, it is apparent that the racial and gender equality and the broadened civil rights our fellow countrymen enjoy should be contributed to the effort and sacrifice in that realistic movement. （这段比上段有差距，主要我觉得justice changes这个定义不妥，比如美国内战实际上也是经济矛盾，而不是真的觉得黑奴不人道，想要废除奴隶的讨论立宪会议上就争吵过，但没有效果，仅从道德层面似乎很难讲得通）（另外这段偏向于叙述而不是论述了，例子排比但没有分析，其实压缩下例子多些分析会更有说服力）
As is mentioned above, rebel cost a lot. Nonetheless, the common good would never emerge when citizens, if they should still be regarded as citizens, fail to realize that they are not merely individuals with right and liberties but also social beings with duty and obligation.
有点吹毛求疵了，写得很不错^_^ 学习完毕
这个题目记得看到过的多数提纲都是反对的观点..
完全赞成而且写得这么清楚条理 很佩服了..
LZ冲6.5分吧..
补记
所以我没有用内战的例子啊……写到最后有些疲了，懒得推敲，加上老是有论文悬在心里……
第四段不是真想写改变，而是想写变革，表达上还要再推敲
我下决心考GRE，很大程度上是被这个题目吸引，一直想写，却一直不敢写。在这个问题上，西方理论家已经倾注了洪流般的墨水，该说的都说过了，不该说的也说了很多。昨天和pippo谈起这个题目，他鼓励我不妨尝试一下，于是彻夜难眠，不仅仅是因为这个题目本身固有的理论上的魅力，也因为它在语言上要求的惊人的克制力和控制力，超过了其他I的题目。
这个尝试不能说很成功，但有以下一些想法希望启发大家：
1 绝对不能写反抗权的问题，因为题目里没有right。而且高手应该写反抗义务怎样高于服从正义法的义务。反抗义务在ISSUE主题里是比较突兀的，因为在我的阅读范围里甚少有美国学界的讨论，相反，主要是在二战后德国这个问题比较热。我手边就有一篇德国法哲学家拉德布鲁赫的《不正义的法律与超越法律的法》。这样的后果之一是很难有英文资料为我们提供观点。所以我至今不知道“不正义的法律不是法”在英语怎么表达（在德法意语里“法”和“法律”是不同的词，所以好表达）。
2 最好不要花太多笔墨在“遵守正义的法的义务”上，因为这基本是不言自明的。我本来是不想写，但发现策略上我需要用那个作为证明“遵守不正义的法就是违背正义的法”的前提，所以还是写了。
3 这个题目可以直接使用的例子不多，而且一定要注意表述上如何让例子体现出精神。因为说到底，拿《宣言》来压人不是很地道。
4 最后，这个题目最难的地方在于“义务”，要证明一个人有义务是相当困难的。我的一个困惑是：谁向有义务的人主张权利呢？这种权利如何救济呢？没有救济就没有权利，没有权利人就没有义务人。当然，我回避了这个问题。
最后的最后，我想通过这篇文章传达一个信念：个人不是自足的原子式实体。男男女女需要组织他们的共同生活。对善的生活的追求永远不会停止。 TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."WORDS: 308 TIME: 00:45:00 DATE: 2007-6-17 10:46:1立场：完全赞同1 人的义务不是服从法律，而是服从正义，因此，服从正义的法作为人的义务是没有问题的2 人同样有义务反抗不正义的法，因为这是服从正义的法的必然要求3 反抗不正义的法是人类进步的必由之路The decease of Socrates, a constant qualm in the occidental（不知这样表达是不是有点冷眼旁观的味道） world, fascinates the greatest wisdom and intelligence to deliberate the relationship between individuals and their laws. Though it is true that stability（majesty会不会好点） is one of major virtues of law, the justice of law is more desirable. Actually, the obedience of just laws necessarily require the disobedience and resistance of unjust laws, for just laws are embodiment of justice, which repulses every form of inequality. Citizens (should) obey justice, rather than laws. Admittedly, above the laws of human exists no laws of god, yet there exists the unshakable faith of good. Born to be free, an individual, as a morally free entity, accepts the chain of laws not for the sake of laws themselves, (or?) neither the power nor authorities behind them(这个them有点指代不明吧), but for the sake of his conception of good, and his moral views. (Even if不知道行不行，只是觉得应该加个表示“即使”的短语) being able to tax his subjects arbitrarily via his force, a tyrant could never gain obedience, for obedience is ultimately a reaction of free will and thus excludes every form of compulsion. On the other hand, human beings, as is self-evident, have the moral responsibility and will to follow their own conception of justice. Hence, once a law is identified as just, it should be obeyed. (我个人理解，LZ这一段的两个出发点是citizens should obey justice rather than laws themselves, and every individual is free and is responsible for pursuing his own moral good. 第一个出发点完全没有问题，第二个就值得商榷。我觉得从自由选择和自身道德标准，通过一个Tyranny不能压迫人服从的例子，来论证人应当服从正义之法，这个逻辑体系的各个部分不是非常相关。依我个人的感觉，我觉得LZ要论证每个人应当服从正义的法律，如果第一个前提should obey justice无需论证的话，那么说明正义的法律是正义的就行了。这简直就是一个循环论证，没有任何意义。所以我觉得，这个前提也值得商榷，反而可以把every individual has the moral responsibility and will to follow the social conception of justice当作前提。而Free will和Own conception我觉得不提反而好一点。说Free will就一定要说个人自由建立在社会公正上，说Own conception就一定要排除这种反对意见：Every individual has his own conception of moral, hence, has his own set of justice law. Therefore, the obedience of the law threatens the freedom of individuals, as social animals should concession their views of moral for the establishment of laws. 我觉得LZ应该避开这个，尽量强调这个Conception是社会共有的。） In the light of the attitude toward unjust laws, despite of the fact that situation here might be more complex, confirming the civic responsibility of rebelling unjust law is rational. Some would argue that the right to rebel, which is justified by John Locke and practiced by the American Revolution, could not be comprehended as a responsibility. They might further argue that enjoying the liberty to choose their condition, people should be entitled, by the virtue of being reasonable and cognitive beings, to determine whether to carefully organize their lives and maximize their good under oppressive and unequal legislation, or to shed their blood in struggling for the actualization of equality. However, to be realistic, the obedience of unjust laws consists of the denial of justice, as is demonstrated by the history of the Nazi Germany. In that age of dark, everyone is requested by criminal(这个词组是刑法的意思吧？) law to inform against whoever refuses to acclaim absolutism and ethnic elimination. Should a citizen with good faith still obey it, prosecuting and afterwards witnessing his friends and colleagues to be executed（我的改法prosecuting his friends and colleagues, and afterwards witnessing them to be executed）? Since no one deserves to alienate another’s life (to be alienated), while the informer could evidently realize that the suspect would suffer capital punishment without appropriate judicial process, he does infringe the natural justice, the justice (which) roots in conscience and common sense. To disobey, or even to resist it has the potential to cost one’s life, whereas to follow it would definitely cost others’ life and his conscience, which is regarded as the most fundamental virtue of being man. （我觉得LZ举纳粹的例子非常好，只是这段有点虎头蛇尾。依我个人看法，纳粹的unjust laws应该靠前一点，把一些分析的文字接到下面来。朋友的生命加上自身的道德，和自己的性命比，究竟哪个重要一些？我觉得这个问题，短短一两百字无法讲清，还不如干脆避开。Under the oppressive and unjust legislation in the Nazi Germany, should a man with good faith prosecute his fellow citizens, witness the process of execution, and suffer continuous moral condemnation by his own self, or should he follow the guidance of the conception of justice, and raze against the unjust legal system together with thousands, even the rebellion might cost his own life? 我觉得这样写的话，看起来比较是非分明，一看就知道你站在哪一边，而且之后接到这段前面提到的responsibility或observation，说明这种责任或义务来自良心，这样就比较完整了。） Empirically, no real profound revolution and reformation could be established without the resistance of undesirable laws. Such is human nature that our sense of justice, firm and impulsive as it is, is by no means eternal. It changes with time. Accordingly, the conception of justice of precedents might not suit to contemporary. In the（删掉）other words, whenever laws fail to serve the pursuit of the good of a particular generation, citizens have the right and duty to abolish them. The Civil Movement, for instance, which stemmed from the dissatisfaction of the condition of American born African, and which derived from the Deep South, soon became a significant march requiring gross political rights and equality. Youngsters from Yale, MIT, and UC Berkley accumulate, march alone street, asking for the discarding of all unjust law that prohibit the right of self-determination, that assist the unjust ration of interests and opportunities. The “Brown v. the Broad of Education” remaining to be an important case in every case book of American constitution, it is apparent that the racial and gender equality and the broadened civil rights our fellow countrymen enjoy should be contributed to the effort and sacrifice in that realistic movement. （觉得这一段论证逻辑比较简单清晰，但开头过于冗长，应当把中心句提到段首。而且例子长了一点，可稍微缩短。） As is mentioned above, rebel cost a lot. Nonetheless, the common good would never emerge when citizens, if they should still be regarded as citizens, fail to realize that they are not merely individuals with right and liberties but also social beings with duty and obligation.
十分钦佩LZ的语言水准，限时作文能有这样的水准，值得我认真学习！另外，逻辑方面的问题纯属我的想法，LZ如果认为我的修改幼稚可笑，希望指正。我有一篇同主题同观点的作文，作为菜鸟，我当然不敢跟牛人相比，但还是希望LZ有空的话可以看一眼。留个链接 https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
[ 本帖最后由 AlexInAW 于 2007-6-17 16:31 编辑 ]
回复 #5 firedodo 的帖子
lz真的很用心写这篇文章，也很专业，再次感谢！！:) :handshake orz 牛人 顺便感谢lz为优秀习作又加一篇文回复 #6 AlexInAW 的帖子
我看到阁下的帖子了,但是今晚改完恐怕也没有时间发了,所以,等明天再发上来好吗?顺便提一下,阁下的立意非常有技巧,看得出也是场面上的人,没有被功利主义的复杂算计蒙蔽.我昨天也想到过,但是同时又感觉可能在"义务"上的说服力稍微有一些弱.改完详细探讨 对了,非常感谢各位的鼓励和帮助 LZ学法理专业的 = =? LZ是法学院本科生……
页:
[1]