ISSUE17球拍

hudu464UID: 2512268

: 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."

The statement above is an attractive one, which gives us a clear description of individual responsibility in dealing with two types of laws: just and unjust. As reasonable as the statement seems to be, the reality is not clean and neat: people in different time and background are abound to have different definitions of "just" and "unjust" law according to their own stances, and thus the boundary between just and unjust law is not so transparent.

Our history has seen many unjust laws being overturned and justice brought back by resistance and disobedience from its people. These unjust laws, however, at that particular time were not universally perceived as "unjust". Segregation in the United States, for example, was legalized and practiced as a law for hundreds of years until one day the brave black woman refused to give her seat to that white man in the bus. Because of her resistance of that unjust law for black people, civil rights movement thrived and later among these massive movements this unjust law finally was abolished. Significant and heroic, this individual fight for justice at the risk of putting herself in jail kept inspired her descendents till today. On the other hand, what about the white man who was supposed to take that particular seat? Did he feel that the law prohibiting the woman from seating there is unjust? Had he ever thought about the justification of that law or he just perceived it as a normality that requires no extra attention? Does he have a responsibility to disobey and resist this "unjust" law as an individual in the same society? Answers towards these questions are ostensible. For white people who have a great belief in equality among race, they participated in the massive civil rights movement and contributed to overturning that unjust law. Meanwhile, I think the majority of white people at that time perceive the law as a just one. Though they did not express their pride or strong defense of it, they were willingly protected under that law, which in fact admit the justice of that law. It is harder for people whose rights are not violated but extended to realize the existence of an unjust law.

What further complicates this statement is the fact that a current widely-accepted just law has a permeable boundary with future unjust law because it overextends universal human’s rights at the cost of other species who cannot fight for themselves. This permeable boundary often leads to controversies and debates instead of disobedience or resistance for the fact that this ostensible just law grants people regardless of race gender and class with same right to take charge of other species. This kind of future unjust law, often subtle and hard to notice, is detected by few people who recognize the equality other species share. Their fights for this unjust law, however, are unlikely to be disobedience or resistance since the injustice is caused by an absence of law protecting other species instead of one circumscribing people’s rights. Tree huggers, for example, could not resist the law that trees are at disposal of human’s hands. What they could fight is to require or petition a bill that could protect trees from being cut down. Otherwise, they retreat to hug trees in extreme cases. This goes same to the animal rights movement, where people cannot overturn the unjust law by resisting testing animals. They have to speak up for them and require a legalized equality among species.

plukaUID: 2721764

The statement above is an attractive one, which gives us a clear description of individual responsibility in dealing with two types of laws: just and unjust. As reasonable as the statement seems to be, the reality is not clean and neat: people in different time and background are abound to have different definitions of "just" and "unjust" law according to their own stances, and thus the boundary between just and unjust law is not so transparent.

Our history has seen many unjust laws being overturned and justice brought back by resistance and disobedience from its people. These unjust laws, however, at that particular time（指代。哪个特定时间，该不会是指被推翻时吧？） were not universally perceived as "unjust". Segregation in the United States, for example, was legalized and practiced as a law for hundreds of years until one day the brave black woman refused to give her seat to that white man in the bus（until句好像在暗示一旦那个黑人妇女拒绝让座，种族隔离‘立刻’就‘不再是法律’了一样。）. Because of her resistance of that unjust law for black people, civil rights movement thrived and later among these massive movements this unjust law finally was abolished. Significant and heroic, this individual fight for justice at the risk of putting herself in jail kept inspired her descendents till today. On the other hand, what about the white man who was supposed to take that particular seat? Did he feel that the law prohibiting the woman from seating there is unjust? Had he ever thought about the justification of that law or he just perceived it as （a） normality that requires no extra attention? Does he have a responsibility to disobey and resist this "unjust" law as an individual in the same society? Answers towards these questions are ostensible（词义似乎更偏向于表面的、虚假的，用obvious之类可能比较清楚）. For（此处的for是解释说明的意思么） white people who have a great belief in equality among race, they participated in the massive civil rights movement and contributed to overturning that unjust law.（前句设问白人是否有责任反对隔离，下一句暗示应该，这一句似是解释，并以白人反隔离斗士为例。私以为这个不能作为解释：很多人做某事并不能说明某事正当。作为陈述就OK） Meanwhile, I think the majority of white people at that time perceived the law as a just one. Though they did not express their pride or strong defense of it, they were willingly protected under that law, which in fact admit the justice of that law. It is harder for people whose rights are not violated but extended to realize the existence of an unjust law.
本段论述在特定时间背景下，有些unjust law并不被所有人都认为是unjust的，例子是不同的人对种族隔离法案的态度。在谈论了黑人们的斗争后，以问句形式引出白人的态度，觉得可以更强调一下大多数人是默认隔离的，以突出意见的差异。

What further complicates this statement is the fact that a current widely-accepted just law（是特指某项法律么，说明） has a permeable boundary with future unjust law because it overextends universal human’s rights at the cost of other species who cannot fight for themselves（难道是动物保护方面的？）. This permeable boundary often leads to controversies and debates instead of disobedience or resistance for the fact that this ostensible just law grants people regardless of race gender and class with same right to take charge of other species（确认是动物权益相关，但一直没有正面点出来，只好让读者不太自信地猜测...最好在第一次出现时就点出来）. This kind of future unjust law, often subtle and hard to notice, is detected by few people who recognize the equality other species share. Their fights for this unjust law, however, are unlikely to be disobedience or resistance since the injustice is caused by an absence of law protecting other species instead of one circumscribing people’s rights. Tree huggers, for example, could not resist the law that trees are at disposal of human’s hands. What they could fight is to require or petition a bill that could protect trees from being cut down. Otherwise, they retreat to hug trees in extreme cases. This goes same to the animal rights movement, where people cannot overturn the unjust law by resisting testing animals. They have to speak up for them and require a legalized equality among species.
本段讨论的是当前正当的法律可能暗示着将来不正当的局面（?）。这个论点很难把握，不确定我这样理解是否准确。建议至少在表述观点的时候要尽量清晰，让意思能够轻松地被读者把握（参见本段首句，...permeable boundary with future unjust law...，何为‘permeable boundary'何为’future'的不公正法律？）。根据作者所说，本段讨论的是一种potential of being unjust，很难写的一个观点啊。

全文：T（不同时代境遇的人对公正与否的看法不一，因此法律的公正性难以定义）——>B1（在特定背景下，有些unjust law并不被所有人都认为是unjust的）——>B2（目前公正的法律可能引发未来不公正的局面（？））
大致可以猜到作者试图用B1阐述境遇的影响，B2阐述时代的因素，但B2没有B1有说服力。

以上~