ISSUE17 公平和不公平的法律【求拍，有拍必回】

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

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: 645
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-3-13 19:49:27

Is there any clear watershed between so-called "just" laws and "unjust" law? What attitude should we hold towards the two types of laws? There is no uniform answer to each of the two questions. For the first one, distinguishing "just" and "unjust" laws relies on the individual's position and the perspective one uses. While for the second question, we need to follow a case-to-case study.

Laws, unlike truth that naturally exists, are made by human beings to attain certain purposes. Therefore, to decide on whether a law is just or not calls for the perspective we use. For law makers, or the interest group that the laws are in favor of, unjust law simply does not exist, because the establishment of the law is to satisfy their need. But for the ones who have to obey laws, there may be unjust laws, since their interests could be hurt by certain laws. Consider the income transfer system, which by virtue of taxation uses part of the rich men's income to subsidize the poor men. From the perspective of the rich, it is unjust for they deserve more incomes because they create more wealth for the society. While from the perspective of the poor, the law is absolutely just because "everyone born equal". In short, there is no clear standard upon which to tell just laws from unjust laws.

Admittedly, when the laws are against the interests of the majority, say, common groups, there is need to disobey and resist these unjust laws. Take the abolition of slavery in America for instance. The laws which claimed that black people should not have the same rights as the white clearly hurt the native black people. They were even not allowed to sit in a bus. Then the activity of resisting such unjust laws began when one black woman declined to give her seat to a white in the bus. The activity succeeded in the end and black people gain the equal rights as the white, at least from the aspect of law. This example illustrates that when facing laws that definitely hurt basic human rights, it is necessary not to obey them and try to change them.

Such apparently unjust laws do need resistance like boycott and rebellion. However, if such riots happen too often, we can not expect a stable society. No more to say a happy life. Luckily, such apparently unjust laws are rare, especially when compared with most just laws. Most laws in our democratic world are made to guarantee everyone's basic rights rather than a small group's interests. Turn back to the example of income transfer system. If the rich stand in the poor's position, they will understand this law is not such unjust but aims to serve another essential principle, equality. Their obeisance to the law will improve the whole living standard of the society and maintain a stable situation. Otherwise, if the rich refuse such law for they think it is "unjust", it is more likely that the poorest people will rebel since they can not survive in the society, where some live in villa while others starve to death.

In conclusion, the foremost question of this issue is how to define what “just” laws are and what "unjust" laws are. This has much to deal with the position we stand and the perspective we use. Generally, if the law does not hurt the basic human rights, it can not be called "unjust" and there is no need to disobey or resist, at the cost of social stability. In order to avoid too many riots and unrest so as to focusing on booming the economy, benefiting everyone in the society, we have the responsibility to obey laws, not only those seem just for us, but also those seem unjust for us but could certainly help those who live a worse life than us.