=七月流火=小组第4次小组作业Issue17 by Fredrichodie

fredrichodieUID: 2612910

=七月流火=小组第1次小组作业Issue17 by Fredrichodie

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two typesof laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility toobey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjustlaws."
WORDS: 620
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 8/26/2009 7:17:33 PM

Are just laws to be obeyed while unjustones disobeyed or even resisted? It is well known that the well-being andharmony of the society requires the civilians to obey just laws, to keep orderand punish quilts. I definitely agree with the speaker on that point. However,whether unjust laws should be disobeyed or even resisted is no less a complexissue.

To start with, the threshold problem ofthis issue should be the identification of just laws. How do people judge thejustice of just laws? In the modern society there is always the basic law, theConstitution, the basic principles and laws of a nation. Generally laws mustaccord with the Constitution, thus could be identified as just laws. However,how can we judge the justice of the Constitution? That problem would dig theissue further to the purposes and values of the existence of laws. First it isthe tool of the rulers, to maintain the stability of the nation. Thus a stablesociety should protect well behaved civilians and punish guilt to keep thebalance. In this sense, a significant standard of the justice of laws should bewhether it protects the good and honest civilians and punish the criminals, orit represents the profits of the public.

Furthermore, laws might be unjust in manyways. To make it specified, failing to consider exceptions, misjudging (whichis probably not the fault of the laws but the court), over fining forapparently slight faults, sacrificing the profit of small groups of people tobenefit the other majority and so forth. For the first two points, I tend tosupport that people should not obey the laws or the judgment. However, radicalresistance it no help both for the suspects and the society, since thejudiciary might apply the judgment forcibly, and a social wide distrust towardsthe judiciary would occur. My suggestion is to appeal for an amendment for thejudgment by legal ways. For the other two points, I would rather advocate thatevery individual or organization should obey the laws, however unjust theywould seem. The fining is not only a way to get even for the loss of the societythose criminals or law breakers caused, but also a deterrence or warning forpeople not to break the laws. If those kind of laws are disobeyed, the order ofthe society would be hard to keep. Suitable examples might be the driving afterdrinking cases and environmental pollution cases.

However, resistance would prompt thelegislation to progress, especially in ancient times when the legislation andjustice is not so elaborated as today. For a basic assumption, unjust lawsmight be flaws of the legal system. Neglecting potential negative socialproblems it might cause, disobedience might force the rulers to revalue theunjust laws and turn it just. However, detractors claim that better ways likesubmitting suggestions to the judiciary might apply the change in a moderateway. However, towards those stubborn rulers, like the ones of the old Rome, itwould not function. The most striking instance might be the War of Spartacus,in which the laws of slavery were challenged by an army of gladiators and otherslaves. Although unfortunately, the victory was of the Roman military, thatevent was a propulsion for later slaver to fight for their freedom towards theunjust laws of slavery.


In summary, people should obey the unjustin the relatively fair and elaborate legal systems, as a obligation tocontribute to the harmony and well-being of the society. However, if the lawsare extremely unjust, methods should be taken to amend them, in order tomaintain the initial purpose of laws, even extreme or radical approach.