- 最后登录
- 2020-7-11
- 在线时间
- 800 小时
- 寄托币
- 2360
- 声望
- 111
- 注册时间
- 2009-3-16
- 阅读权限
- 35
- 帖子
- 9
- 精华
- 4
- 积分
- 1996
- UID
- 2616910
- 声望
- 111
- 寄托币
- 2360
- 注册时间
- 2009-3-16
- 精华
- 4
- 帖子
- 9
|
摘录一篇很好的文章。
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. |
|