Phoenix小组组员12号习作issue17

nandingjinUID: 2594537

17"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."

Every government, in modern civilization, strives to improve its constitution and multiple laws, which could enable all its residents to be under protection of human basic right. However, a number of people argue that every individual in a society should have a responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws besides to obey just laws. Although eliminating all the unjustness in society could bring about a better society, the formidable fight, in fact, should not be borne by every ordinary individual.

First of all, the point that everyone in society should unconditional respect, and more importantly, be ruled by just laws is undeniable. We all know that human beings, even those well-educated, are impressionable by some temptations, inappropriate behaviors and other people`s instigation, which probably results in the consequence that a part of individuals abandoned principal but vulnerable moralities. So, in order to prevent such tragedy, manifold just laws were enacted on behalf of all human beings` interest. Let us imagine a world where all residents abide by just laws would be like: no prosecute between two parties, no discrimination among races, no oppression from so-called high classes and no damage to our fragile environment. Everywhere would be harmonious.

However, the opinion that everyone has a responsibility to disobey and even resist unjust laws is not acceptable. Although we can be sure that every political system has some inherent flaws whether it is fetal or insignificant, not all ordinary people have the ability or we can say influence and power to join in the process of enacting a new law or to change those established laws which is subtly detrimental to the whole society. Moreover, to resist those entrenched unjust laws is sometimes unnecessary because some of the laws go with macroscopic policy or maintain interests of the whole nation. For instance, if we only follow the literally meaning of unjustness, the reform and opening-up policy of china would be an unjust law in that its one of objective is to allow a small proportion of people to possess great fortune. Can we assert that the reform and opening-up policy is unjust and resist it? The answer is perhaps negative because after some districts obtain prosperity, they would drag up the economy of the entire nation. The policy, instead of being considered as unjust, is actually a best approach which helps china to come up with other developed countries.

In addition, resisting unjust laws is not so much every individual`s responsibility as the government`s obligation. Many activities attempting to change or to eradicate unjust laws, most of time, are useless or even be of hidden danger, if most people and government have not recognize the flaw in some laws. And then, those participations to resist laws would be likely to be treated as crazy or even be arrested by the reason that they obstructed laws to implement successfully. In fact, what we ordinary people could do is to ask government to change those unjust laws. That is, if some people perceive that one law consists some potential unjustness, what they should do is not to disobey and resist the law, but to advise the government to reconsider the feasibility of the law. Any government would make some action if most people make the identical recommendation.

In conclusion, considering some uncertainties of unjust laws and minor influence and power ordinary people have, individuals only have to obey just laws, leaving the formidable/ forbidding/ dreadful task to change and abolish unjust laws to the government.