[i习作temp] Issue17【0706G－MYTH-II小组】第9次作业 by karatex [复制链接]

karatex
UID??2220963

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 1
寄托币: 51
注册时间: 2006-6-11
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-3-26 07:55:47 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

With diversity of historical and cultural background, every society legislates in differing ways towards the same issues. The law regarded as just in one country might be considered as an unjust one in other country. Also, as the time passed, the justice of laws even within a country would be changing with the increasing life complexity and psychological displacement. Hence, we do not have to divide the laws as aforementioned two types.

Some issues, as controversy within, are not simply judged to right or wrong. Take the homosexuals as an archetype. Homosexuals, in general perspective, are regarded as a social problem in most countries. Human, divided into man and woman by natural law, would maintain the species from one generation to another by reproduction. However, the homosexuals, violating the natural law, would damage the consistent human species. Therefore, the laws, set to prevent the ultimate extinction of human beings, were regarded as a just law for a long time. For years, nobody, even those homosexuals, would doubt the law's justness. However, with the social change and widespread democracy, people become open-minded and objective to consider such issues. Some humanists assert that each individual would have the right to choose his or her love regardless of the gender. Since nobody could have the audacity to assert that man could only love woman and vice versa. Hence, homosexuals certainly have right to get married as other people do. In Netherland and the United States, the laws have been legislated to protect the validity of homosexual marriage. In this case, nobody could tell which country has the just law and which has the unjust one, let alone to obey or disobey.

Euthanasia is another controversial issue, which catch the mass attention for a long time. Some would claim that euthanasia amounts to licensed murder. Even though it assures that no treatment would help the patients out of the extreme disease and pains and sometimes it is patients' request to do so, doctors still have no right to deprive patients’ life. However, other people would insist that everybody has the right to choose to live or die. As long as the patient permits, the doctor can, with specific drugs, help patients out of the pains by killing them. Facing at this kind of issues, the legislators feel a dilemma to enact a law. If the law permits the euthanasia, critics would protest that euthanasia will be used as a newly accepted way of murder; if the law denies the euthanasia, still some people would defiance the law of deprivation of the human's right to choose life or death.

Furthermore, the justness of law is changing from time to time as the human civilization proceeds. Once, the monopoly economy is valid in most countries, since it naturally happened when some companies were strong enough to merge the others. However, as time passed, we are gradually aware of the danger and inefficiency of this kind of economy. Only one company in the market would impede the benign competition and progressive efficiency and lead the retardation of social improvement. Microsoft, monopolized the market by embedding the Internet Explorer into the Windows Operating System, was punished. Thus, from this point of view, we could understand that what used to be just would be regarded as unjust some time later.

To sum up, it is not wise to simply divide the laws into just and unjust. The justness of law is sometimes controversial. Furthermore, with the farsighted perspective, the justness of law would be certainly changed to a great extent due to the enlargement of knowledge and experience and alteration of human's value.

回应
0

使用道具举报

Liangdan
UID??2249256

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 525
注册时间: 2006-9-5
精华: 0
帖子: 4

沙发

发表于 2007-3-27 18:56:24 |只看该作者

With diversity of historical and cultural background, every society legislates in differing ways towards the same issues. The law regarded as just in one country might be considered as an unjust one in other country. Also, as the time passed, the justice of laws even within a country would be changing with the increasing life complexity and psychological displacement. Hence, we do not have to divide the laws as aforementioned two types.

Some issues, as controversy within, are not simply judged to right or wrong. Take the homosexuals as an archetype. Homosexuals, in general perspective, are regarded as a social problem in most countries. Human, divided into man and woman by natural law, would maintain the species from one generation to another by reproduction. However, the homosexuals, violating the natural law, would damage the consistent human species. Therefore, the laws, set to prevent the ultimate extinction of human beings, were regarded as a just law for a long time. For years, nobody, even those homosexuals, would doubt the law's justness. However, with the social change and widespread democracy, people become open-minded and objective to consider such issues. Some humanists assert that each individual would have the right to choose his or her love regardless of the gender. Since nobody could have the audacity to assert that man could only love woman and vice versa. Hence, homosexuals certainly have right to get married as other people do. In Netherland and the United States, the laws have been legislated to protect the validity of homosexual marriage. In this case, nobody could tell which country has the just law and which has the unjust one, let alone to obey or disobey这一观点还学要文字说明.

Euthanasia is another controversial issue, which catch the mass attention for a long time. Some would claim that euthanasia amounts to licensed murder. Even though it assures that no treatment would help the patients out of the extreme disease and pains and sometimes it is patients' request to do so, doctors still have no right to deprive patients’ life. However, other people would insist that everybody has the right to choose to live or die. As long as the patient permits, the doctor can, with specific drugs, help patients out of the pains by killing them. Facing at this kind of issues, the legislators feel a dilemma to enact a law. If the law permits the euthanasia, critics would protest that euthanasia will be used as a newly accepted way of murder; if the law denies the euthanasia, still some people would defiance the law of deprivation of the human's right to choose life or death. 这段最好有个主题句

Furthermore, the justness of law is changing from time to time as the human civilization proceeds. Once, the monopoly economy is valid in most countries, since it naturally happened when some companies were strong enough to merge the others. However, as time passed, we are gradually aware of the danger and inefficiency of this kind of economy. Only one company in the market would impede the benign competition and progressive efficiency and lead the retardation of social improvement. Microsoft, monopolized the market by embedding the Internet Explorer into the Windows Operating System, was punished. Thus, from this point of view, we could understand that what used to be just would be regarded as unjust some time later.

To sum up, it is not wise to simply divide the laws into just and unjust. The justness of law is sometimes controversial. Furthermore, with the farsighted perspective, the justness of law would be certainly changed to a great extent due to the enlargement of knowledge and experience and alteration of human's value.
关于obey just laws and disobey and resist unjust laws似乎还可以多写点东西

使用道具举报