Issue17 寄托4人组 8.22作业

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

本文是“寄托4人组”今日的作业，已有组员会来修改。我们欢迎大家就文中的结构和内容进行讨论，但请其他G友优先照顾没有组队的同学。谢谢！

Revised
Issue17  第5篇
------摘要------
作者：寄托4人组     共用时间：45分2秒     584 words
从2005年7月22日10时13分到2005年7月22日10时45分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Long have been people dreaming of a consistency between laws and morality. Yet in practice conflict and contradiction are often found. Should every individual have a responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws according to one's own conscience? I strongly agree with the speaker that the answer is "Yes," as long as the way of resisting is non-violent civil disobedience.

To begin with, people have noticed the difference between laws and morality way back. The systematical illustration can be dated back as early as the natural law theory in ancient Greek. According to these theorists, everybody was born with an internal set of moral code, which is called natural law, another name of our conscience which can be independent of any external law people are forced to obey. The political rulers can make their laws to regulate people's behavior; however, the best way for them to do so is to let their laws be consistent with natural law. When they fail to realize this, a conflict between people's internal moral belief and the ruler's external coercion occurs. Natural law theorists, standing strongly on the side of morality, hold that the unjust external law is no law at all. It is out of one’s conscience that one has the responsibility to resist injustice.

This theory is still echoed in modern societies. It can account for the reason why when facing laws, we can always give our own judgment whether they are just or unjust, since natural law theory has pointed out that one’s conscience is another judge besides laws. However, as many worry, if disobeying and resisting can be easily justified, then laws--no matter they are just or not--will lose their authority and therefore, the society will run into chaos, a terrible state that everyone's interest will be damaged. Some philosophers who are in favor of social order and stabilization, e.g., Hobbes, thus argue that one should never resist laws, even if they are unjust. Only in this way can people's larger interest be guaranteed.

Both sides seem reasonable. It is our nature that we distain unjust laws; while it is also our nature to maintain greatest interest. Is there a middle way to achieve both goals? I believe those "Non-violence non-cooperation" proponents, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., give us a sound answer to this dilemma. In their view we should absolutely be against unjust laws, such as segregation and racism. Everyone should follow their own conscience and utter their protests towards injustice, a way only in which can the society possibly abolish these unjust laws and make progress. On the other hand, however, they both notice the danger in violent resistance mentioned above. To avoid this, they require followers to carry out the non-violence policy, i.e., no one should use their fists to show their justice. On the contrary, what they appeal to is the conscience of the most people in their society, for they believe if their activity is just, then most social members will support them, and thus propel the parliamentarism to eradicate unjust laws. In this way, as we can see from the case in India in the 1940s and the United States in the 1960s, they finally achieve their goal: the unjust laws were abolished, while there was no serious chaos that threatens the greatest social interest.

In the final analysis, injustice should be protested and chaos should be avoided. The non-violent movement has offered people a way to protest the unjust law in modern democratic society and avoid violence at the same time, which dismisses the excuses against civil disobedience. Thus, I believe by adopting non-violent strategy, every individual should follow their conscience to disobey and resist unjust laws.

610 words

哥哥家有二师兄UID: 2124390

zhan

哥哥家有二师兄UID: 2124390

Issue17  第5篇
------摘要------
作者：寄托4人组     共用时间：45分2秒     584 words
从2005年7月22日10时13分到2005年7月22日10时45分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
Long have been people dreaming of a consistency between laws and morality. Yet/ and yet in practice conflict and contradiction are often found. Should every individual have a/ uncountable noun responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws according to one's own conscience? I strongly agree with the speaker that the answer is "Yes," as long as the way of resisting is non-violent civil disobedience. 从结构上看，第一段的句子给的第一印象是比较散，可以出现一个长句。从内容上看，猛一下让人不太明白为什么提到道德呢？因为道德是一个非常复杂的东西，你 如果一开始没有给它一个你自己在这个文章里要体现的定义，很难让人一下子明白你的意思，每个人对 道德的理解都 不同。这里你可以给它做个简单的解释：inborn laws

To begin with, people have noticed the difference between laws and morality way back/ long time ago不知道你 那说法有没有。。另外这里还是缺乏对morality 这个词的你个人的定义，把它和natural law 联系起来后面才可以展开. The systematical illustration can be dated back as early as the natural law theory in ancient Greek. According to these theorists, everybody was born with an internal set of moral code, which is called natural law, another name of our conscience which can be independent of any external law people are forced to obey. The political rulers can make their laws to regulate people's behavior; however, the best way for them/过多them最好这里用原词 to do so is to let their laws be consistent with natural law. When they fail to realize this, a conflict between people's internal moral belief and the ruler's external coercion occurs. Natural law theorists, standing strongly on the side of morality, hold that the unjust external law is no law at all. It is out of one’s conscience that one has the responsibility to resist injustice.

This theory is still echoed in modern societies. It/ this can account for the reason why when facing laws, we can always give our own judgment whether they are just or unjust, since thenatural law theory has pointed out/这里可以不必再强调那些理论家这么说，可以直接说 更 有 说服力，因为也接近于常识了 that one’s conscience is another judge besides laws. However, as many worry/are worried, if disobeying and resisting can be easily justified意思不明确，搭配不合适, then laws--no matter they are just or not--will lose their authority and therefore, the society will run into chaos, a terrible state that everyone's interest will be damaged. Some philosophers who are in favor of social order and stabilization, e.g., Hobbes, thus argue that one should never resist laws, even if they are unjust. Only in this way can people's larger interest/ Chinglish/ the overall interests of the general public can be guaranteed.

Both sides seem reasonable. It is our nature that we distain unjust laws; while it is also our nature to maintain greatest interest/ the social order. Is there a middle way to achieve both goals? I believe those "Non-violence non-cooperation" proponents, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., give us a sound answer to this dilemma. In their view we should absolutely be against unjust laws, such as segregation and racism. Everyone should follow their own conscience and utter their protests towards injustice, a way only in which can the society possibly abolish these unjust laws and make progress. On the other hand, however, they both notice the danger in violent resistance mentioned above/delete. To avoid this/ the social riots, they require followers to carry out the non-violence policy, i.e., no one should use their fists to show their justice. On the contrary, what they appeal to is the conscience of the most people in their society, for they believe if their activity is just, then most social members will support them, and thus propel the parliamentarism to eradicate unjust laws. In this way, as we can see from the case in India in the 1940s and the United States in the 1960s得略微提下这里发生过啥吧, they finally achieve their goal: the unjust laws were abolished, while there was no serious chaos that threatens the greatest social interest.

In the final analysis, injustice should be protested and chaos should be avoided. 这里句子中间少个过渡，中间可以加个however来强调下你的观点The non-violent movement has offered people a way to protest the unjust law in modern democratic society and avoid violence at the same time, which dismisses the excuses against civil disobedience.貌似与主题关系不大 Thus, I believe by adopting non-violent strategy, every individual should follow their conscience to disobey and resist unjust laws.
整体评论：文章层次清晰，自己界定了 什么是just 和unjust laws，这个是最可贵的。之后又提出了自己的解决方案。就是那个morality让人模不着头脑。另外开头如果能够略微讨论下人们遵从just laws的重要性就更完整了。语言略有欠缺处，虽然有不少精彩的词汇

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

1.a responsibility 是题目里就出现的啊。。。
2。一上来我用morality是因为我觉得题目里的unjust和just就是在说道德的评判。。
3。 the overall interests of the general public can 赞！
4。其他的都收下，多谢！

weizi1015UID: 2489088

有思想，有文采。好文。