phoenix小组组员6号ISSUE17

hhfboyUID: 2749089

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."

The complex laws determine that human will hardly distinguish whether a law is just or not. However, no matter whether a law is just or not, we should obey until emerging a better one to replace it. So I agree the speaker's former claim but oppose the latter one.

To begin with, we should obey the just laws undoubtedly that can be judged at the first glance. Clearly, these laws have applied in real world and certified its correctness. Moreover, they become the living standards of majority people so that anyone offended these laws should be punished in the people's subconscious. A telling example is the revenue law of nation. In order to sure the development of society in a high speed, the sufficient money which most come from tax is necessary. Any acts of tax evasion and tax fraud are unacceptable.
As a member in society, to obey the just laws is irrefutable.

Furthermore, to some extent, how to define the "just" law by an individual determines by his personal characters, an out look on life and the ability to judge external things. Accordingly, the "just" law will be always just to everyone. The laws and regulations on environmental protection are questioned by many factories and enterprise because of these laws have added their cost out of budget and reduced profits. On the other hand, as a powerful tool, these laws will help the government to solve the environmental problems in a easy way and appeal the people's requirement that want to live in a comfortable place which without air-pollution,
without dirty water and noise. In view of factories' owner, the environmental laws are unjust, should we repeal them? Certainly not, because of the just laws always keep pace with the demand of the majority people.

However, not all the laws are just the same to not all men are sagacious. For the limited ability of leader and law-maker or in order to balance many factors, the unjust laws always exist in any society. But people should attempt to accept it rather than to resist it before there is a better one to replace For example, in the early age of American, slavery is a cruel law for the black people which have no freedom. Just for the unrighteous law, our predecessors have a strong desire to build a new free and equal law to instead the current bad one. So the American Civil War broke out and freed the black from the restriction in the end. However, this extreme action have gain succeed but not mean that we should disobey the unjust without carefully consideration. If there is no a better laws to replace it, to disobey the unjust law is unreasonable.

In sum, it is impossible that all the laws are just because of the limited ability of the law-makers and so many effects must be considered in it. Therefore, to obey the just laws is beyond doubt, whereas keeping the unjust laws is reasonable choice before there is a better one to replace it.

wu-intrepidUID: 2659758

1# hhfboy

The complex laws determine that human will hardly distinguish whether a law is just or not. However, no matter whether a law is just or not, we should obey until emerging a better one to replace it. So I agree the speaker's former claim but oppose the latter one. 开头没什么问题，就是稍微简单了点，太省事了

To begin with, we should obey the just laws undoubtedly that can be judged at the first glance. Clearly, these laws have applied in real world and certified its correctness. Moreover, they become the living standards of majority people so that anyone offended these laws should be punished in the people's subconscious为什么大部分人的标准就一定要所有人都遵守呢？. A telling example is the revenue law of nation. In order to sure动词 the development of society in a high speed, the sufficient money which most come from tax is necessary. Any acts of tax evasion and tax fraud are unacceptable.
As a member in society, to obey the just laws is irrefutable.

Furthermore, to some extent, how to define the "just" law by an individual determines by his personal characters, an outlook on life and the ability to judge external things. Accordingly, the "just" law will be always just to everyone我觉得这两句话逻辑关系混乱了，既然法律的正当性取决于个人不同的性格世界观，那么为什么正当的法律一定对所有人来说是正当的呢？个人对法律有不同的看法才是合乎常识的推理. The laws and regulations on environmental protection are questioned by many factories and enterprise because of these laws have added their cost out of budget and reduced profits. On the other hand, as a powerful tool, these laws will help the government to solve the environmental problems in a easy way and appeal the people's requirement that want to live in a comfortable place which without air-pollution,
without dirty water and noise. In view of factories' owner, the environmental laws are unjust, should we repeal them? Certainly not, because of the just laws always keep pace with the demand of the majority people.主题句是will be always just to everyone，这里是majority people，这是两个不同的概念。为保证行为一致，两个地方至少要修改一个。此外，更重要的是你把法律的正当性和大多数人的利益联系在一起了。这是为什么呢？你没有论证，何以大多数人可以成为衡量标准？要写清楚

However, not all the laws are just the same to not all men are sagacious. For the limited ability of leader and law-maker or in order to balance many factors, the unjust laws always exist in any society. But people should attempt to accept it rather than to resist it before there is a better one to replace在此段前后你没说为什么，但这句话需要解释 For example, in the early age of American, slavery is a cruel law for the black people which have no freedom. Just for the unrighteous law, our predecessors have a strong desire to build a new free and equal law to instead the current bad one. So the American Civil War broke out and freed the black from the restriction in the end. However, this extreme action have gain succeed but not mean that we should disobey the unjust without carefully consideration. If there is no a better laws to replace it, to disobey the unjust law is unreasonable. 本段两句蓝色标注的话是中心句，但是你的例子却与此无关，虽然有个小让步，但是大体上还是讲暴力反抗不正当的法律。没有正面的例子，更缺少正面的推理。

In sum, it is impossible that all the laws are just because of the limited ability of the law-makers and so many effects must be considered in it. Therefore, to obey the just laws is beyond doubt, whereas keeping the unjust laws is reasonable choice before there is a better one to replace it.

语言不错，建议把法律分类的标准讲清楚，段落内部推理要仔细。