6分得主的习作----给大家贴两篇作文，作者是考场6分得主，我以前的收藏
Issue17There 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.
------正文------
Laws, body of official rules and regulations, found in constitutions, legislations, judicial opinions, and the like, are used to govern a society and control the behavior of its members. Concerning laws, the author asserts that since laws are categorized as just ones and unjust ones, every individual in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and to disobey unjust laws. This view, in my eyes, is fundamentally irrational in ignoring the significance of certain constancy in legal system. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate it in details.
To begin with, whether a law is just or not is more of a subjective issue that differs according to personal interests, social class, as well as one's personal value system. Consider, for example, the controversial issue abortion. For people of certain religious belief, laws indulge abortion are unjust since they believe mothers do not have the freedom to deprive infants of their rights of life, while for people of other religions, right of life comes into being after birth, which render abortion not an infringement of human right and should be at the pregnant woman's will. Besides diverges generated due to personal value system, different, or even opposite, personal interests may also result in divarication. For instance, certain laws may prohibit factories from emitting toxic effluents into rivers for the well-being of local residents. In the eye of common populace, doubtlessly, this law is just and considerate to ensure public interests, however, as for the manager of a factory, this law, which causes it to curtail employees, increase manufacturing costs, and adopt related costly processing procedures, may be regarded as unjust. Consequently, it is arbitrary to lineate an explicit line between these two kinds of laws, to which type a law belongs should be determined on a case-by-case basis varying with changing social conditions.
Nevertheless, in most occasions, whether a law is justified or not is definite with just ones more often than not fall into a line with interests of the majority, and hence every individual should faithfully abide by just laws. For example, highway codes in most countries require drivers to drive automobiles on the right side of the street, the goal of which is to ensure smooth transportation and to avoid unnecessary traffic accidents, and the disobey of them would inevitably result in chaos that threaten human lives. Similarly, various criminal laws, civil laws and administrative laws, on which every democratic society is based, are enacted for the security and order of the society. Without people's compliance, anarchy would reign supreme, not to mention insurance of basic human rights.
In terms of unjust laws, often resulted from ill-awareness of legislators or changing social conditions, some people, the author included, suggest that since they are not likely to be dismissed or disappear automatically, every individual should be incumbent to take up responsibility to overthrow them to build up a more harmonious, democratic and human-oriented society. Ostensibly, this assertion is appealing, however, an in-depth review would reveal its naivety and vulnerability. As a matter of fact, more often than not, by justifying a violation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, for the same reason that there may not be definite division between justness and unjustness. Consider the abortion example again. A person opposing freedom of abortion would overthrow the law by way of blocking roads to the abortion clinic, which, in his/her visual angle, is justifiable because he is just showing his opposition to unjust laws. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, then to the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinic and potential murder! Evidently, every sort of action threatening public security could find a well established excuse if every individual is allowed to disobey and resist unjust laws in their discretion.
In summary, from all the discussions above, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author's assertion is essentially unreasonable in that it naively divides just laws with unjust laws and neglects the importance of constancy of legal system to ensure a democratic and harmonious society. However, with social conditions changing at a breathtaking speed and considering the limitation of human insights of the future, laws should be flexible to keep pace with changing reality insofar as this proposition is not overextended.
[ 本帖最后由 nostrum 于 2007-2-9 15:36 编辑 ] Issue190
As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money.
------正文------
Although nowadays the concept of art usually refers to visual art, the definition of art has changed over centuries. Perhaps the most concise definition of art is its broadest--art refers to all creative endeavors, excluding actions directly related to survival and reproduction. From a wide perspective, art is simply a generic term for various creations, out of which sprang all human pursuits and inspiration. Concerning the necessity of the arts, the speaker asserts that it is too luxurious and wasteful to use public resources to support art when people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, which, in my eyes, is fundamentally unreasonable except its emphasis on social pressing problems. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate it in details.
To begin with, the arts, though unable to afford us material luxury like technological advancement and other human progresses, enriches culture, enlightens our spirit, and broadens our horizon, in other words, presents us with what is eternal and universal; the abundance and civilization of spiritual life, unlike a popular idea that denies the significance of spiritual enjoyment, is insurance and premise for material wealth. As the famous scientist and philosopher Descartes once ardently proposed (and I paraphrased):" There are dual sides of a human: one is material, the other spiritual." True, Shakespeare, who achieved maturity and reached unparalleled success in literature by masterpieces such as <Romeo and Julia><Mac Beth>, etc, created the eternal and universal figure Hamlet, the moral dilemma of whom, as something inflicting all humans regardless of era, tells us the fate of all humans; the music genius Beethoven, brilliant, vigorous, and talented as he is, has been shocking audiences for centuries, international or domestic, professionals or amateurs, by his romantic style of creation after his death, with Pathetique and Moonlight being the most famous two. The two examples aptly show that the arts, with various incarnations such as music, painting, sculpture, literature, poem, drama, and architecture, etc, is a mirror as well as carrier for classic inspiration and innovations that provide pleasure.
In addition, besides merits directly related to our common lives, the arts is an indispensable component of culture, absent of which is a deteriorated sense of identity and a barbaric primitive state similar to other animals. In terms of biological structure, humans differ from other animals by our "second language system", which refers to human language, a unique capacity that other animals lack. Since art forms such as literature, music, drama, and the like, are its most significant carriers, it is not exaggerating to assert that the arts differ human from other animal and that humans without the enrichment of arts but material wealth, however abundant it may be, are no more than animals in low and simply stage. In short, that we are humans, but not other barbaric creatures, is, at least partly, due to our ability to create and innovate the spiritually noble form--the arts.
Admittedly, emphasis on social pressing problems, say, hunger, unemployment, diseases, war, etc, can never be understated, as the speaker holds. In order to understand this point, one only need to see how many Africa refugees are starving to death with every second passes, how many criminal actions and suicides are being committed due to the lose of job, how many people are being deprived of lives by AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Symptom) and cancers, and how many innocent citizens are being killed or injured ruthlessly by nuclear bombs and suicide bombs throughout mid-east countries. Surely, government should allocate a sufficient amount of funds as well as human resource support to these pressing problems, without, however, the arts being neglected.
In summary, from the above discussion, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author is reasonable in pointing out the necessity to solve social pressing problems. However, he/she fails to take into account the benefits of the arts: one is the source of human pleasure, the other indispensable part of human civilization that differs from animals and barbaric state.
[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-2-9 16:11 编辑 ] 因为作者就是跟咱们一样的大学里的普通同学，不是什么印度阿三，美国佬之类的，大家可以有个标准 搬个板凳，我也学习学习。
开头写的好。
展开题目和切合题目的方式和常看到的不一样。
[ 本帖最后由 expire7 于 2007-2-9 16:17 编辑 ] 编辑后看着舒服多咯
3Q^_^
[ 本帖最后由 cyyc0311 于 2007-2-9 16:14 编辑 ] take seat
观摩了
语言很强 -0- 外语系的?
[ 本帖最后由 nostrum 于 2007-2-9 19:50 编辑 ] re zan re zan 原帖由 lastangel 于 2007-2-9 17:39 发表
take seat
观摩了
语言很强 -0- 外语系的?
这个……还真不知道具体哪个系，但是，印象中不是外语的 我觉得这样的开头太长... 哪位最好在来个评点分析~
鼓励板油参与;d: 关于法律的那篇，我怎么读了觉得没主题
可能我太水了
语言确实不错
能用平常的word写出不一样的句子
佩服阿 这个开头根本不敢用....而且考场也些不出来...
对大部分人不太适用...
不过牛人是让偶们来崇拜的作用大于学习 比较强......