=七月流火=小组第4次小组作业 Issue17 by knx1029

knx1029UID: 2609556

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: 569          TIME: 01:01:55          DATE: 2009/8/25 12:04:07

The speaker claims that it is individual responsibility for everyone to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. However, in my point of view, the law stands for commonly acknowledged rules and it should not allow disobedience. And the fact that different nations or states could enact disparate law , has already given some space to people holding different opinions. What's more, in democratic society, if majority people consider some current laws to be unjust, they should seek political approaches to amend them rather than just go against them.
To begin with, the division of laws by different people is distinct due to the disparity in cultural background and living environment. Therefore if the society gives people the right to choose obeying a law or not, the society will fall in to a mess just as no law has ever been carried out. This scenario has been shown in the famous film Bruce Almighty. When Bruce feels tired about answering people's will to the God, he replies yes to everyone that appeals to him. Suddenly, the world goes crazy. Everyone's internal desire is satisfied. Thefts, Robberys and even murders take place everywhere. How can we imagine a world without any rules and limitation? I can surely tell you that if we allow everyone to choose whether obey a rule or not, the world will be such like. For this matter, in order to maintain the stability of the society, the law, regarded as the basic restriction to people's behaviour, should not allow disobedience.
Nonetheless, since there exist some similarities shared by people in the same area or nation, it is possible for different countries or states to enact disparate laws to satisfy most of their citizens, in consideration of their culture and tradition. An appropriate example is abortion. In countries, such as China where most residents think that it is the women's right to decide whether give birth or not, abortion is legal. In contrast, in African countries, abortion is illegal, since
the common notion there regards it as killing the unborn baby's life. From this example, even though law prohibits noncompliance, the variance of legislation throughout different part of the world has taken people's will into account.
Moreover, laws have never been constant. That is to say, there is sufficient space to amend law into a better one. Since the law makers could not predict future case or understand the collective will precisely, it is certain that some mistakes and negligences exist in the law. This fact might provide chances for the lawless people to exploit it for advantages. Given all this, in England and Welsh, the Parliament set up the Law Commission, which is supposed to keep the law under review and to recommend reforms. And many similar governmental organization in other countries were also established to create a better law-based society. In this regard, people could express their attitudes and recommendation in a more rational way. After all, the simple disobedience is a defiance against law rather than a revise.
To sum up, I embrace the idea that every individual is incumbent to obey law. As the French philosopher Rousseau said, "in a democratic society, law should present the general will of the citizen." In order to create a better society and world, everyone should comply with the commonly acknowledged rules and make them more reasonable.

fredrichodieUID: 2612910

用词真好…已经超出我的驾驭范围了…我就说说逻辑上的吧…

我个人的观点…论题应该是重在对不公平的法律是否应该遵守，或者甚至抵制，而这篇好像着重强调不应该违法，却没有对法律的公正与否加以区分…
比如第二段最后，thefts robbery murder，惩罚这些罪恶的法律应该是公正的，但论题似乎是强调对不公正的法律应该报怎样的态度
正文前两段主要说不应该违法，第三段说法律本身是不断地被完善的
但是还是没有对不公正的法律的直接攻击，虽然第三段那里能理解到
另外，对于disobediance这个词的理解…我个人觉得就算是appeal for an amendment也应该算是disobediance的一种吧？可能这个词是中性的，没有感情色彩的只是客观地不遵守，而论题的resist才是主观地不服从那种

全是个人想法……