[经典批改讨论] 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） [复制链接]

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.

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（不知这样表达是不是有点冷眼旁观的味道） world, fascinates the greatest wisdom and intelligence to deliberate the relationship between individuals and their laws. Though it is true that stability（majesty会不会好点） 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 (should) 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, (or?) neither the power nor authorities behind them(这个them有点指代不明吧), but for the sake of his conception of good, and his moral views. (Even if不知道行不行，只是觉得应该加个表示“即使”的短语) being able to tax his subjects arbitrarily via his force, a tyrant could never gain obedience, for obedience is ultimately a reaction of free will and thus excludes 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.

(我个人理解，LZ这一段的两个出发点是citizens should obey justice rather than laws themselves, and every individual is free and is responsible for pursuing his own moral good. 第一个出发点完全没有问题，第二个就值得商榷。我觉得从自由选择和自身道德标准，通过一个Tyranny不能压迫人服从的例子，来论证人应当服从正义之法，这个逻辑体系的各个部分不是非常相关。

依我个人的感觉，我觉得LZ要论证每个人应当服从正义的法律，如果第一个前提should obey justice无需论证的话，那么说明正义的法律是正义的就行了。这简直就是一个循环论证，没有任何意义。所以我觉得，这个前提也值得商榷，反而可以把every individual has the moral responsibility and will to follow the social conception of justice当作前提。而Free will和Own conception我觉得不提反而好一点。说Free will就一定要说个人自由建立在社会公正上，说Own conception就一定要排除这种反对意见：Every individual has his own conception of moral, hence, has his own set of justice law. Therefore, the obedience of the law threatens the freedom of individuals, as social animals should concession their views of moral for the establishment of laws. 我觉得LZ应该避开这个，尽量强调这个Conception是社会共有的。）

In the light of the attitude toward unjust laws, despite of the fact that situation here might be more complex, confirming 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(这个词组是刑法的意思吧？) 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（我的改法prosecuting his friends and colleagues, and afterwards witnessing them to be executed）? Since no one deserves to alienate another’s life (to be alienated), 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 (which) 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.

（我觉得LZ举纳粹的例子非常好，只是这段有点虎头蛇尾。依我个人看法，纳粹的unjust laws应该靠前一点，把一些分析的文字接到下面来。朋友的生命加上自身的道德，和自己的性命比，究竟哪个重要一些？我觉得这个问题，短短一两百字无法讲清，还不如干脆避开。Under the oppressive and unjust legislation in the Nazi Germany, should a man with good faith prosecute his fellow citizens, witness the process of execution, and suffer continuous moral condemnation by his own self, or should he follow the guidance of the conception of justice, and raze against the unjust legal system together with thousands, even the rebellion might cost his own life? 我觉得这样写的话，看起来比较是非分明，一看就知道你站在哪一边，而且之后接到这段前面提到的responsibility或observation，说明这种责任或义务来自良心，这样就比较完整了。）

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（删掉）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.

（觉得这一段论证逻辑比较简单清晰，但开头过于冗长，应当把中心句提到段首。而且例子长了一点，可稍微缩短。）

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.