[素材库] 例子,资料参考(法律类) [复制链接]

CHERRYlby
UID: 170649

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 1609
注册时间: 2004-7-20
精华: 1
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2004-8-31 22:46:01 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

自己试着找了一下法律方面的文章,很拙劣,呵呵,一些句子不错,希望能够对大家有帮助.由于比较笨了,不知道怎样压缩(计算机盲),大家如果感兴趣,自己把它贴到WORD上吧.:)

Unjust laws and just laws 关于法律的一些参考

Should you obey an unjust law? According to the theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 18th century French political philosopher,卢梭对于法律的定义： a democratic society the state represents the general will of the citizens, and that in obeying its laws each citizen is pursuing his own real interests.可以用作例证

Thus, in an ideal state, laws express the general will.这句话也不错 An individual who disagrees with a law must be failing to look at things from the moral standpoint.
Rousseau is talking about an ideal state where laws express people in general will, a will that aims at the common good. But the question is: are we living in an ideal state and do all the laws of our land express the common will of the people and should we obey all the laws even if they are unjust?作者的驳论值得借鉴 The answer to this question can be different for different people, I think the state in which we are living in is not an ideal state described by Rousseau. There are times when the laws are unjust and it is reasonable to disobey them and protest against them to get them change if there is a higher moral or purpose behind it.

I would agree with St. Augustine, unjust law is no law at all. As we know during the sixties large number of people recognized that obeying the law was sometimes harmful because sometimes the law itself was wrong. Therefore, we had a civil rights movement, an anti-war movement and several other smaller movements in which people purposely disobeyed the law. But the question is how and when to disobey the law; how does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? If we look back in history we find perfect examples to get an answer to our question; the example of Henry Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King. They all were governed by the sense of justice. For them there are times when it is necessary to break the law for a higher purpose. To give a brief description of what is an unjust law, I would quote from Martin Luther King’s letters from Birmingham jail. He writes, just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.
There is no doubt that laws are made for a reason and the laws of a society reflect the values of that society because of tradition, necessity, and expectation. But occasionally there will be a law, which is unjust and wrong though not for everyone but say, for a group of people. If the law contradicts with their high morals or religion, in my opinion it is right for them to protest against it in a reasonable way.

Unjust Laws

         Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect
         To begin, however, I believe it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.”
         The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law.
   I would remind you that mass genocide of non-Aryan races under Hitler was legal. Would we chastise someone for disobeying that law? Also, realistically, the cost is not very high per taxpayer. It is especially small when compared to the cost of morally compromising the entire society.
         Socrates argued for disobeying unjust laws. His argument has special meaning, for he was set to die two or three days after this conversation with the student Crito. Socrates was put to death on a trumped up charge of impiety (meaning sin). Plato wrote of the conversation between Socrates and Crito in the dialogue The Crito.
Crito had come to Socrates to try to convince him to escape. Socrates first said, “One must never do injustice. Nor return injustice for injustice, as the multitude think, since one must never do injustice.” (Crito, 49 b&c) Socrates also says, after Crito agrees with the previous statement, “Then one ought not return injustice for injustice or do ill to any man, no matter what one may suffer at their hands.” Socrates, in his own style, was arguing that he had done no wrong and had committed no crime.

Socrates was agreeing with Dr. King’s stance on Civil Disobedience. Socrates did not do an injustice by disobeying a law. In fact, Socrates did the law the utmost justice. King says, “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

King also says, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Another source of determination for the right to disobey an unjust law is the Declaration of Independence (an act of disobedience in itself). To quote the introduction, “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.” (Declaration of Independence, Intro) This is quite clear. If you’ll notice, the words “Nation” or “Country” did not appear in the entire paragraph. “People”, however, was mentioned. The Declaration gives a specific right to overthrow an unfair or unjust government, if it is necessary. Why not the right to overthrow an unjust law?

This complaint, in a general way, applies to what is now probably the least controversial act of Civil Disobedience, the Civil Rights Movement. The states refused to pass laws that would help the black community, which was a large class of people. Under the guise of negotiation, the Mayors and Governors would negotiate for concessions to the black people, and never come through. On issues brought to a referendum, the black population was either not allowed or not registered to vote. In many areas of extremely high black concentration, not a single black voter was registered. These people had been denied their right to be represented. Small wonder they decided disobedience was the last resort.
King makes a very good distinction between Civil Disobedience and breaking the law. He says, “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with willingness to accept the penalty.” This brings about some of the stipulations that go along with Civil Disobedience.

King himself says there are four steps to Civil Disobedience: Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. (King, 1) King also argues that the direct action must be non-violent, which I believe is an integral part of Civil Disobedience.

The criteria of a valid Civil Disobedience movement, then, are as follows. It must: Have a provable injustice, fail at negotiation before action is taken, be a pure act of true belief, and then take non-violent direct action.
This point begs the question, “What about violent disobedience?” This is a difficult question when confronted with the Revolutionary War, a large act of what could be called violent Civil Disobedience. I would argue that violent Civil Disobedience is never permissible. In an event like the Revolution, where there is no redress and there is no hope of non-violent Civil Disobedience achieving the desired goal, then the acts become a Revolution.

Violent Civil Disobedience, to try and make myself clear, is the assassination of a doctor that happens to perform abortions. This is the firebombing of buildings. This is the murder or harm of innocent people who have nothing to do with the law the people acting on the Civil Disobedience doctrine happen not to believe in. Revolution may occur in only extreme circumstances, and must be duly justifiable.

As long as the principle of non-violence is followed, along with the other guidelines, and breaking the law is the last resort, Civil Disobedience should be expected in a Country that was founded on strict moral principles about how a government should run. Any law that is contrary to those principles should be overthrown. The Declaration of Independence makes that abundantly clear. We must maintain Liberty. Thomas Jefferson said it best in a letter to William Smith, 1787; “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Patriots) To maintain liberty, we are obliged to stand up when there is injustice.

It is a uphill slope,but I won't lose hope.
You will when you belive.:)

　

回应
0

使用道具举报

zwjackky
UID: 174621

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 0
注册时间: 2004-8-15
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2004-8-31 23:22:46 |只看该作者

谢谢啦：P

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

lakeqian
UID: 157560

超级会员

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 0
寄托币: 11412
注册时间: 2004-3-7
精华: 4
帖子: 19

板凳

发表于 2004-8-31 23:42:14 |只看该作者

呵呵不错。up
老帖子上的内容：
从LSAT中找出来的一篇关于Martin Luther King的阅读，其中提到了just law 与unjust law, 贴出来大家参考
这篇讲king thoreau两人反抗恶法方式的差别
Nearly every writer on the philosophy of civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., makes a connection between King and Henry David Thoreau, usually via Thoreau’s famous essay, “Civil Disobedience” (1849). In his book Stride Toward Freedom (1958), King himself stated that Thoreau’s essay was his first intellectual contact with the theory of passive resistance to governmental laws that are perceived as morally unjust. However, this emphasis on Thoreau’s influence on King is unfortunate: first, King would not have agreed with many other aspects of Thoreau’s philosophy, including Thoreau’s ultimate acceptance of violence as a form of protest; second, an overemphasis on the influence of one essay has kept historians from noting other correspondences between King’s philosophy and transcendentalism. “Civil Disobedience” was the only example of transcendentalist writing with which King was familiar, and in many other transcendentalist writings, including works by Ralph Waldo Emerson and Margaret Fuller, King would have found ideas more nearly akin to his own.
The kind of civil disobedience King had in mind was, in fact, quite different from Thoreau’s view of civil disobedience. Thoreau, like most other transcendentalists, was primarily interested in reform of the individual, whereas King was primarily interested in reform of society. As a protest against the Mexican War, Thoreau refused to pay taxes, but he did not hope by his action to force a change in national policy. While he encouraged others to adopt similar protests, he did not attempt to mount any mass protest action against unjust laws. In contrast to Thoreau, King began to advocate the use of mass civil disobedience to effect revolutionary changes within the social system.
However, King’s writings suggest that, without realizing it, he was an incipient transcendentalist. Most transcendentalists subscribed to the concept of “higher law” and included civil disobedience to unjust laws as part of their strategy. They often invoked the concept of higher law to justify their opposition to slavery and to advocate disobedience to the strengthened Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. In his second major book, King’s discussion of just and unjust laws and the responsibility of the individual is very similar to the transcendentalists’ discussion of higher law. In reference to how one can advocate breaking some laws and obeying others, King notes that there are two types of laws, just and unjust; he describes a just law as a “code that squares with the moral law” and an unjust law as a “code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Thus, King’s opposition to the injustice of legalized segregation in the twentieth century is philosophically akin to the transcendentalists’ opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law in the nineteenth century."

使用道具举报