- 最后登录
- 2021-6-18
- 在线时间
- 4685 小时
- 寄托币
- 6214
- 声望
- 912
- 注册时间
- 2006-2-26
- 阅读权限
- 50
- 帖子
- 2367
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 8271
- UID
- 2191404
- 声望
- 912
- 寄托币
- 6214
- 注册时间
- 2006-2-26
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 2367
|
lisa_C 发表于 2014-10-27 14:54
(试写了一下全文,不过感觉考场上这么多字应该写不出来,一限时就退回原形>_
全文
I partly agree 不建议用partly agree这种模糊的表达 with the speaker’s claim about reaction 选词 (how to deal with) just laws and unjust laws. Obviously, individuals should obey just laws. But when laws are unjust, individuals should try to change it instead of disobeying it. And to justify a law (to judge whether a law is just) , one should not consider his own interest but majority's interests.
To begin with, if laws get wide recognition from specialists and the public, every person has a responsibility to obey those laws, because they bring order, the key to make whole society stable and advanced, which may benefit both individuals and the society. Without constraint of human right laws, the emperor皇帝从哪里来的 can make arbitrary decision about who will live and who will die; while with protection of laws, people don't need to worry that they will be killed by no reason. People's safety is guaranteed by laws and police department, anyone who damage others will be punished. Thus people can concentrate better on working and studying. As a result, people's living level will be improved and the whole society is advanced in economy.
你能不能具体说一种毫无争议的正义的法律
建议不要写人权法这种抽象而又艰深的法律 写一下不要冲红灯不要醉酒驾驶 不要偷盗这类最简单的正义法律不好么
However, when laws are unjust, especially when laws violate basic human rights, individuals should try to change what is unjust instead of simply disobeying it. Admittedly, unjust laws will bring misfortune and disorder, and people should resist it. While disobeying laws is just one way to show dissatisfaction about unjust laws, generally an unwise way,表达 举例之前要尽量精简 Susan B. Anthony's story tells us that essentially the most important thing is to change it指代什么 . Until 1920, American woman have 时态 no right to vote according to laws. In 1872, Anthony went against the law and voted in her hometown. With no doubt, she was arrested directly. If she just simply disobeyed the law, it would be the end of the story and other than punishment 这也不是改变on her, nothing would be changed. 你这里想说违法并不能改变什么,要想改变必须通过影响立法者 Nonetheless, Anthony took further action -- She lectured and canvassed across the nation for woman's right to vote, and finally in her effort这里对立法的影响要多写一点 , America passed laws to give woman voting right in 1920. Disobeying is just individual behavior and it has few impact on whole legal system, the authority will not compromise to change. To launch a campaign is one way to get more support from the public and to end unjust laws.
我试下重写你这一段 尽量简单
1 However, when a law is considered unjust, for example, violating basic human rights, individuals should try to change it through legislation rather than disobeying it. 2 For example, until 1920, unlike their male counterparts, women in the US did not have to right to vote, which was obviously unfair. 3 Susan B. Anthony, an activist for women’s suffrage, first chose to disobey the law and cast her vote in her hometown. 4 She was arrested but made little difference in changing the laws. 5 Later on she launched a campaign to educate Americans about the women’s right to vote and successfully pushed for legislation that granted women the rights. 6 This story suggested that to change unjust laws individuals should first obey the law and then try to change it through influencing the lawmakers.
1 提出分论点
2 简单介绍例子的背景
3 具体讲这个人违法
4 违法的后果及无用
5 改变策略 影响立法
6 总结 由例子提炼分论点
Finally, no matter whether the law is just or unjust, individuals should dare to question it and improve it, but the criteria used to justify a law 你这个地方概念有点问题 不是要justify law 也不是像你说的无论正义与否都要质疑和改善 这一段的重点应该是如何判断法律是否正义
could not be based on individuals' interests. People have their own interests. And if individuals just consider their own interests when they justify a law, there's no hope to establish a just society. Interest groups, especially those who have most influence on settings of laws, can do their best to gain social resources and privileges. Lower class people would be treated unjustly, facing miserable and hopeless life. What's more, if anyone can disobey the law when he consider the law as unjust law based on his own judgment, laws may lose power to direct people's behavior and keep the whole society in order. Different people have different demands, so it is difficult to reach consensus unless people eliminate all of personal biases and prejudices in this process. So people should judge a law through veil of ignorance, a way of thinking claimed in John Rawls’s book, a theory of justice. The criteria to justify laws should not biased according to sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are born equal, people are rational, free, and morally equal beings.
还是太长了 一段话 6句已经到顶了
注意这一段要回应题目的要求 anticipate challenge
1 Some people may argue that individuals can always claim a law is just or unjust based on their own interests and resisting laws can become rather arbitrary.2 I think this is a valid concern. 3 One solution to this problem is to use the concept “veil of ignorance” proposed by John Rawls.4 In other words, to judge whether a law is just or not, individuals should not take their own particular positions in the society. 5 For example, an individual citizen should not resist the law of increasing income tax simply because he or she is making a lot of money subject to the taxation.6 Instead, individuals should look at a law from the original position where nobody knows which positions s/he will take in society. 7 For example, one should decide whether income tax law is just or not as if s/he does not know about his/her monthly income.
|
|