Issue17 FLY AW作文组第五次作业（578字）

夜一UID: 2130338

好难写。。大大的超时了。。。
请大家多多指教

Issue17  第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：94分9秒     231 words
从2006年4月26日21时33分到2006年4月26日23时94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------
The statement asserts that every individual ought to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. It seems persuasive and reasonable to resist unjust laws, yet unfortunately such action is rather harmful than brave.

Laws, codes that have been conducted by customs, agreements, and authorities, act as standards for social activities. They are not only simple rules, but also contracts made between one and another, residents and government, as well as people and society. The justice of laws depends on inhabitants' moral views. Laws coinciding with people's opinions are regarded as just ones, while others conflicting with people's opinions are considered unjust ones. As a result, such properties of laws vary from time to time, from region to region, and from culture to culture.

Allowing people to disobey laws, whether just ones or unjust ones, will cause unimaginable problems to human civilization. Permitting the action of disobeying laws will damage the authority of the entire law system. When parts of laws are permitted to be resisted, the rest ones cannot be expected to be respected. Furthermore, resisting laws means break the original promises, which have been given by oneself to one's community, nation, and society, and thus gradually destroy the basic fundament of credibility and reliability. If laws cannot be respected, people will lose their activity standards. If vows cannot be maintained, people will eventually have to live in a society undependable. Taking resisting activities for granted will induce such severe results that them can possibly threaten the basis of human society.

However, while unjust laws cannot be disobeyed or resisted, it is also unnecessary to obey such laws exactly. Being against people's contemporary views and opinions, obeying such laws accurately will certainly create arguments and complaints, or even more intense problems. Therefore, such laws can be neither disobeyed nor obeyed. This conclusion seems absurd and bizarre, but actually, besides obeying and disobeying, people do have others methods to deal with unjust laws, by virtue of human beings' wisdom and knowledge. Laws are authorized codes, but they are no more than written words. People must respect laws, but it does not mean that they cannot invent additional descriptions. Just as a well-known story presented in one of Shakespeare's works, when a merchant insisted that one pound of meet should be cut down from a man's body according to their contract, the judger neither ignored the contract nor allowed it to be conducted. Instead, the judger pointed out that the merchant should only cut down one pound of meet without any blood or skin, and finally made the unjust contract meaningless. In this way, without damaging the authority of laws, people still have managed to avoid conflictions between codes and their morality. Unjust laws are modified peacefully and efficiently, and eventually become ineffective. In fact, this is the most useful method to deal with unjust laws, and has been widely used to contribute to the development of law system ever since the beginning of human codes.

In conclusion, though it is unwise to obey unjust laws, the statement is too arbitrary to conclude that disobeying such laws is an individual responsibility. While obeying just laws, people should also respect unjust laws, otherwise they will lose social activity standards and even destroy basic credibility as well as reliability. Other than obeying or disobeying, people have extra methods to modify unjust laws peacefully and efficiently. Thanks to human beings' wisdom, the law system is able to be improved without losing its authority.

夜一UID: 2130338

补充题纲，顺便也麻烦大家帮我看看题纲里的这些东西是否在文章里说明白了，因为这篇实在太难了：

第一段：提出反对观点such action is rather harmful than brave

第二段：解读关键词：law, just和unjust，法律是人与人，人与政府，人与社会之间的约定，当法律与人们的道德观一致时，就是just，不一致，就是unjust，随着道德观念的不同，just与unjust也不是绝对的

第三段：法律不能被disobey，不管是just还是unjust，否则将会损害法律的权威，社会不再具有行为准则，也会破坏社会诚信的基础

第四段：unjust的法律虽然不能被disobey，但也没有必要被obey，否则也会导致严重的社会问题。实际上，除了这两种方法之外，人类的智慧给了他们其他的解决办法。法律虽然权威，但到底也只是白底黑字。人们不能违抗法律，但不是说人们不可以适当的诠释法律。举出莎士比亚的《威尼斯商人》的例子，法官既没有无视契约的权威，也没有让unjust的契约被实现，因为他成功地诠释了契约，同时保全了法庭的威信和道德的权益。这是最和平最有效的方法，也实际上在千百年来保证了法律体系的发展与完善。

第五段：结论，遵守just laws，但不能disobey unjust laws，法律应当受到尊重，而调和unjust laws与人们的道德观念之间的冲突依靠的是人类的智慧。法律应当在其权威性不受损害的情况下被发展以及完善。

honeyviolaUID: 2199703

第二段：解读关键词：law, just和unjust，法律是人与人，人与政府，人与社会之间的约定，当法律与人们的道德观一致时，就是just，不一致，就是unjust，随着道德观念的不同，just与unjust也不是绝对的  
有点不清楚，将法律是。。。和后面好像没有多大联系。如果这段的目的是突出后面的 JUST和unjust的不同，可以再多些些，要不就从这段开始就提出这个观点，这样够清楚些。不知道我讲的对不对

夜一UID: 2130338

嗯，谢谢妮妮的意见
不过我不是很明白你的意思，诶。。请原谅。。。

我的思路是这样的，首先明确法律是一种约定，那么如果公然违反约定，势必导致一系列严重的结果，也就是第三段的论述内容，也是为了给第四段里引出威尼斯商人的例子作铺垫，因为那并不是一个法律的条款，而是一个契约，为了让这个例子具有对这个观点的说服力

之所以补充解释just和unjust，主要是为了说明unjust是与人们的道德观念相冲突的，于是如果真的执行的话也会引起一系列严重的后果，然后用这个得到第四段的悖论，然后再证明这个矛盾时可以解决的

这么看起来，应该是第二段的最后一句话有点画蛇添足了，我本来想在后面解释法律系统如何随着人们的道德观念演化发展的，写到后来便忘掉了，现在觉得大可不必写了。。