[i习作temp] Issue17我的第六篇 [复制链接]

colin.jolin
UID：2612541

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 138
注册时间: 2009-3-7
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-3-16 12:12:14 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 611

The speaker claims that laws of human consist of just and unjust. Moreover, individuals should be responsible for obeying the just ones, and disobeying the unjust laws. In my point of view, I am inclined to support the assertion that individuals actually should obey laws. However, this conclusion is based on the premise that there are general criteria about how to distinguish just and unjust laws. And the way to distinguish just and unjust laws is often sophisticated and inconsistent..

First of all, it is true that legislators and just jurists establish laws for a harmony society and economic prosperity. From this angle, rights of citizens, and even the majorities, can be protected. As an illustration, people obey the constitution which is basic laws for helping citizens guarantee basic human rights and protecting them from potential harm. In Little Rock Crisis, most white citizens objected to the registration of black students, although the Supreme Court had annulled the segregation in schools. The governor of Arkansas even sent Nation Guard to stop these students. President Eisenhower finally had to send paratroopers to escort black students to register in the school. Without the just laws people's daily lives would be dragged into a chaotic situation. In Qing Dynasty, the last dynasty of China, regulations and rules, legislated by foreign invaders and civil corrupt officials, were to oppress and exploit numb nationals in face of starvation and exposure. When it comes to safeguard world peace, just international laws, under which Japan was blamed for his brutal and cruel invasion of China ultimately, are legislated for society harmony. Therefore, just laws not only serve individuals for security mentally and physically, and play an essential and necessary role on improving the progress of mankind.

Second, people often resist and disobey unjust laws which violate human basic rights including freedom and living. The following examples that can illustrate this point of view involve some important spirit leaders and national elites in history. It was Nelson Mandela who encouraged civilians to resist segregation because they thought it was a unjust law and jeopardized their civil rights. Although Mandela was imprisoned and those who were organize to resist segregation were glorified afterwards and encouraged the federal government to annul this unjust law, which an antiapartheid society without racism was established. As a result, these unjust laws should be annulled and resisted owing to the greedy and brutal purpose of benefiting particular minorities rather than all mankind.

Admittedly, criteria of distinguishing just and unjust laws are controversial and inconsistent. Basically every individual has his or her own value to judge a law as just or unjust which may be affected by race, sec, social status, religious belief. Consider polygamy, abortion, execution for examples, polygamy is accepted by most Islamic people but is considered as immoral and forbidden in most countries. Abortion is legal in many countries but rejected by most Catholics and Christians. Execution also has its advocates and opponents. From this angle, as the old saying goes that every one thinks in his way, therefore, defining just and unjust laws is complicated and difficult.

All in all, owing to reasons, analysis, and as well as examples mentioned above, we can safely draw that just laws is to serve as safeguard individual security and the whole world peace, while unjust laws arise from the intrinsic greed and possessive emotions of ‘dictators’. In the last analysis, the criteria of distinguishing just and unjust laws are too vague to quantify for legislation.