[i习作temp] issue178 法律是否控制人的内心，还有五天考试，希望指点，必回！ [复制链接]

greenfruit
UID：2112472

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 65
注册时间: 2005-6-30
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-14 12:13:20 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

给链接必回！
Issue178: 551 words 41 minutes
It is possible to pass laws that control or place limits on people's behavior, but legislation cannot reform human nature. Laws cannot change what is in people's hearts and minds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1　人们的行为会造成明显的外在结果，为了维持外在的秩序需要控制，而法律是这种工具
2　法律的概念探讨，只可控制行为，不可控制心灵
3　但通过对行为的控制可以产生对心灵的影响力；另外，道德也可以；
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the assertion, the speaker puts forward two claims: the first is that laws can be used to control people's behavior, and the second is that laws have no power to change human nature. I admit that the function of law is to stipulate a norm for societal behaviors, not all behaviors is in its charge and by controlling the outside action, people's inside mentality may also be influenced.

First, it is the societal need to keep an ordered environment that calls the laws to emerge. An ordered environment requires people to conform to certain rules when behaving. Those that may influence others' interests should be banned, such as stealth, robbery, and so on. In fact, laws are such an instrument of the society in order to circumscribe people's behavior, thereby rendering the whole environment in a harmonious situation. Consequently only those actions that would exert influence on others or the society need a norm, and they may be called societal behaviors, while those that wield no effect on anyone else in not in laws' charge. For example, it is not laws' responsibility to tell people how they should put on their clothes, how they should wash their faces or how to brush their teeth.

When it comes to the thoughts of people in a society, however, laws seem much less powerful. First, we may as well have a discussion on whether people’s minds should be controlled in a society. Since the control is aimed to keep an ordered environment, if a thought is simply an idea, not yet transformed to an action, exerting no influence on the society, it should not be controlled. When it is reflected by a societal behavior, as I just defined, such behavior could be limited instead. Therefore we see that the law does not need to change people's minds. Second, we may further discuss whether it is feasible to control people's minds. Imagine a world where even free thought is unavailable; we will find that it truly goes against the essence of democracy. Besides, how can a society supervises people's minds when even the personal behavior is out of their puissance?

Finally, it must be supplemented that people's minds are controlled by certain forces, including the laws, even not the original goal, and the morality. According to the study of psychology, knowledge of possible result of an action will influence people's motivation of it. For instance, when the punishment for a crime is overt to the public, they are less likely to think of such a idea than when they know nothing about the rule and indeed have such a need. What's more, the culture in a society has a power of controlling the minds of members inside it, shortening the differences between them. When one has a strange or unconventional thought, he will feel a pressure to some extent, from other members of the society. Gradually, he may give up his own ideas and imitate others' way of thinking about a question.

To sum up, laws are aimed to keep an ordered society by controlling the societal behaviors of people. Thus personal behaviors that have no influence on others in not included, and controlling the thoughts of people is both unneeded and unfeasible, although it can be achieved as some by-product.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-14 at 18:15 ]