issue17 正义之法 算是我专业以内吧

starshaneUID: 2616355

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: 508
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/3/25 21:07:34


其实我的论点是这样的，
首先，简单定义法律的正义性是办不到的，
1，
因为法律保护人民利益，但不同集体的利益是不同的，因此他们对法律正义性的判断也不同
2，
价值观、宗教等也会影响人们对法律正义性的判断

其次，因为不能简单定义法律，如果让大家都反抗他们各自认为不正义的法律，后果很严重，导致司法系统崩溃。

再者，现代社会讲究法治，不是要破坏不正义的法律，而是要从源头上使得法律尽可能地正义，哪怕要废除法律也要通过合法的手段，这才是法治不是人治。

退一万步，现在很多“正义”的法律也没有得到很好的遵守，还谈什么反抗不正义的法律。

请老师看完后告诉我写清楚了没，
希望没有写得太晦涩……

As an ardent adherent of the belief of "the rule of law", I disagree with the speaker's assertion that laws can be classified into "just "and "unjust", and that people should obey the former one while disobey the latter. I am convinced that laws are of supreme authority in the political field and as long as they are enacted, they should be obeyed with deference, otherwise the judiciary system will inevitably collapse.

Laws were made by the legislators of a nation to secure the benefits and rights of its people. But there exist no "just" or "unjust" laws in nature because benefits and interests of different groups of people are various, even contradictory, especially on issues related to their substantial interests. Working class may hate laws that in favor of the bosses, while moneybags disregard high rate of death duties. Other elements, like values and religions also contribute to people's understanding of the justice of laws. Some women welcome laws permitting abortion considering them protecting women from unwanted burdens while others may not agree with that perception. Therefore it would be a precarious simplification to define laws as “just” or “unjust” for different people.

Because of that disparities in the definition of "just" and "unjust", it is dangerous to encourage people to disobey unjust laws for they might end up disobeying any kind of laws as they assert that none of the laws are justified. The consequence of resisting most laws can be destructive. Drug dealers might argue that it is illegal to inhibit the free trade of drugs, while pirate might insist that piracy should be protected by laws. If everybody disobeys the laws which are "unjust" according to their understandings, there will be chaos and total collapse of the legislation and jurisdiction power.

Then what should we do? In the modern constitutional society ran by laws, any laws formally enacted was given the "Procedural justice" and should be obeyed without questioning. In order to justify laws as much as possible, it is necessary to reform and perfect the legislative procedures in a legitimate way so that they can better serve the society. Even if certain law made by the leading power is wildly criticized as “unjust”, it must be annulled through legitimated channels rather than disobedience. That is the positive prospect of “rule of law”.

Furthermore, even laws that are of universally accepted rightness haven't been completely obeyed yet, worse still, those who disobey justified laws are exactly the law makers. In the first chapter of the Constitution of People's Republic of China, it read that the "citizen rights such as demonstrations, protests rights and freedom of speech are protected." Those civil rights are essential in the individual's political life, but we all know that statement is not the reality in China where the leaders lack the slightest deference to civil rights. As far as I am concerned, in order to build a "rule of law" system in China, it is more important for people to truly abide by the clearly justified laws.

In sum, laws could not be generally divided into “just” or “unjust”, and people should not rebel laws at their whims. Only when laws are carefully designed, respected and carried out could we realize the “the rule of law”.

wqqingtianUID: 2594382

看完了我感觉lz写得很好！
思路清晰，行文流畅
例子用的也比较自然！

lz！ 不介意我把你的文章copy下来参考一下吧？

starshaneUID: 2616355

2# wqqingtian

如果你真的理解“法治”含义的话，be my guest

showkidUID: 2427308

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1076862-1-1.html

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

As an ardentadherent of the belief of "the rule of law", I disagree with thespeaker's assertion that laws can be classified into "just "and"unjust", and that people should obey the former one while disobey thelatter. I am convinced that laws are of supreme authority in thepolitical field and as long as they are enacted, they should be obeyedwith deference, otherwise the judiciary system will inevitably collapse.(虽然题目是由两部分组成-“有两种法”和“要守just法”，但是LZ在论述上应该将这两部分结合在一块，而不是想开头这样支离开来，有点突兀，也像在回答题目一样，显得有点机械)

Laws were made bythe legislators of a nation to secure the benefits and rights of itspeople.（TS到哪去了？其实TS的位置很重要） But there exist no "just" or "unjust" laws in nature becausebenefits and interests of different groups of people are various, evencontradictory, especially on issues related to their substantialinterests. Working class may hate laws that in favor of the bosses,while moneybags disregard high rate of death duties. Other elements,like values and religions also contribute to people's understanding ofthe justice of laws. Some women welcome laws permitting abortionconsidering them protecting women from unwanted burdens while othersmay not agree with that perception. （这里举了三个例子，也许LZ想表达的是三个领域的JUST OR UNJUST，可是粗一看显得有点重复，且只是流于表面，如第一个例子：Working class may hate laws that in favor of the bosses，为什么working class会讨厌迎合与boss的law呢？也许LZ觉得这是个常识性的问题，可是没有再进一步的论证，那就是没有做到ETS要求的“developed”）Therefore it would be a precarioussimplification to define laws as “just” or “unjust” for differentpeople.

Because of thatdisparities in the definition of "just" and "unjust", it is dangerousto encourage people to disobey unjust laws for they might end updisobeying any kind of laws as they assert that none of the laws arejustified. The consequence of resisting most laws can be destructive.Drug dealers might argue that it is illegal to inhibit the free tradeof drugs, while pirate might insist that piracy should be protected bylaws.（这里的例子也同样没有讲清楚，为什么drug dealer有理由反对相对于他们的unjust law？为什么这样的反对会有危害性，与其并列例子，不如细述一处） If everybody disobeys the laws which are "unjust" according totheir understandings, there will be chaos and total collapse of thelegislation and jurisdiction power.（其实你之前的例子并没有很好的讲清楚这点）

Then what should wedo? In the modern constitutional society ran by laws, any laws formallyenacted was given the "Procedural justice" and should be obeyed withoutquestioning. In order to justify laws as much as possible, it isnecessary to reform and perfect the legislative procedures in alegitimate way so that they can better serve the society. Even ifcertain law made by the leading power is wildly criticized as “unjust”,it must be annulled through legitimated channels rather thandisobedience. That is the positive prospect of “rule of law”. 很喜欢这一段～

Furthermore, evenlaws that are of universally accepted rightness haven't been completelyobeyed yet, worse still, those who disobey justified laws are exactlythe law makers. In the first chapter of the Constitution of People'sRepublic of China, it read that the "citizen rights such asdemonstrations, protests rights and freedom of speech are protected."Those civil rights are essential in the individual's political life,but we all know that statement is not the reality in China where theleaders lack the slightest deference to civil rights. As far as I amconcerned, in order to build a "rule of law" system in China, it ismore important for people to truly abide by the clearly justified laws.

In sum, laws couldnot be generally divided into “just” or “unjust”, and people should notrebel laws at their whims. Only when laws are carefully designed,respected and carried out could we realize the “the rule of law”.

呵呵，其实在LZ的文章里看到了很多自己以前的影子，不假思索的论证，以为自己的例子足够深刻，却发现自己的论述却停留在了要让读者去揣摩的阶段，以为都是常识性的东西不用讲清大家也会明白，却忘了这与ISSUE的要义背到而驰。所以也难怪LZ之前要担心有没有写的太艰涩了
LZ很多想法还是挺有见得的（果然是在专业以内～），也感觉得出作者想写很多的样子，可是这样子也容易导致行文有些散，因为要写的点太多，所以容易导致哪个点都写的不够深刻，甚至会出现跑题的迹象，就像B4其实就与观点无关，与其花大段文字在这一段，倒不如将之前的点讲讲清楚～～
最后就是，LZ的文字很棒～加油！

starshaneUID: 2616355

5# 番茄斗斗

As an ardentadherent of the belief of "the rule of law", I disagree with thespeaker's assertion that laws can be classified into "just "and"unjust", and that people should obey the former one while disobey thelatter. I am convinced that laws are of supreme authority in thepolitical field and as long as they are enacted, they should be obeyedwith deference, otherwise the judiciary system will inevitably collapse.(虽然题目是由两部分组成-“有两种法”和“要守just法”，但是LZ在论述上应该将这两部分结合在一块，而不是想开头这样支离开来，有点突兀，也像在回答题目一样，显得有点机械)

这是参照了以前有几篇issue题目都是两句话，大家普遍赞成第一句然后驳第二句。这个题目明显有两句话而我两句都要驳，因此这样写，北美范文也是这样写的。
这样写也是为了明确攻击对象……


Laws were made bythe legislators of a nation to secure the benefits and rights of itspeople.（TS到哪去了？其实TS的位置很重要）定义关键词也很重要……，TS紧跟在后面 But there exist no "just" or "unjust" laws in nature becausebenefits and interests of different groups of people are various, evencontradictory, especially on issues related to their substantialinterests. Working class may hate laws that in favor of the bosses,while moneybags disregard high rate of death duties. Other elements,like values and religions also contribute to people's understanding ofthe justice of laws. Some women welcome laws permitting abortionconsidering them protecting women from unwanted burdens while othersmay not agree with that perception. （这里举了三个例子，也许LZ想表达的是三个领域的JUST OR UNJUST，可是粗一看显得有点重复，且只是流于表面，如第一个例子：Working class may hate laws that in favor of the bosses，为什么working class会讨厌迎合与boss的law呢？也许LZ觉得这是个常识性的问题，可是没有再进一步的论证，那就是没有做到ETS要求的“developed”）Therefore it would be a precarioussimplification to define laws as “just” or “unjust” for differentpeople.

确实我没有论证看起来常识性的问题，北美范文就是把一个简单的堕胎例子用了好几句话来描述……
而且一般这个topic大家最多写三点，我是考虑到要写四个点，所以前面简单了，注重例证的多样性而不是深度。
解决的办法就是把第四点删了然后在这一段加例子。比如深入讨论安乐死

Because of thatdisparities in the definition of "just" and "unjust", it is dangerousto encourage people to disobey unjust laws for they might end updisobeying any kind of laws as they assert that none of the laws arejustified. The consequence of resisting most laws can be destructive.Drug dealers might argue that it is illegal to inhibit the free tradeof drugs, while pirate might insist that piracy should be protected bylaws.（这里的例子也同样没有讲清楚，为什么drug dealer有理由反对相对于他们的unjust law？因为题目给的assumption就是给了人们责任叫反对他们认为unjust的law，为什么这样的反对会有危害性，与其并列例子，不如细述一处
也对，加上几句" and the judges are deprived of the rights to adjudicate. It is disaster when drugs and piracy are pretected by laws and prevail in the society. (如果你要问我”为什么毒品和盗版泛滥社会就灾难了”，那我实在讲不清楚）Worse still, people will be confounded about good or evil moral standards and social disciplines）Therefore, if everybody disobeys the laws which are "unjust" according totheir understandings, there will be chaos and total collapse of the legislation and jurisdiction power and the decadence of traditional ethos accumulated through human history. 嗯越写越觉得后果很严重（其实你之前的例子并没有很好的讲清楚这点）

Then what should wedo? In the modern constitutional society ran by laws, any laws formallyenacted was given the "Procedural justice" and should be obeyed withoutquestioning. In order to justify laws as much as possible, it isnecessary to reform and perfect the legislative procedures in alegitimate way so that they can better serve the society. Even ifcertain law made by the leading power is wildly criticized as “unjust”,it must be annulled through legitimated channels rather thandisobedience. That is the positive prospect of “rule of law”. 很喜欢这一段～

Furthermore, evenlaws that are of universally accepted rightness haven't been completelyobeyed yet, worse still, those who disobey justified laws are exactlythe law makers. In the first chapter of the Constitution of People'sRepublic of China, it read that the "citizen rights such asdemonstrations, protests rights and freedom of speech are protected."Those civil rights are essential in the individual's political life,but we all know that statement is not the reality in China where theleaders lack the slightest deference to civil rights. As far as I amconcerned, in order to build a "rule of law" system in China, it ismore important for people to truly abide by the clearly justified laws.

In sum, laws couldnot be generally divided into “just” or “unjust”, and people should notrebel laws at their whims. Only when laws are carefully designed,respected and carried out could we realize the “the rule of law”.

呵呵，其实在LZ的文章里看到了很多自己以前的影子，不假思索的论证，以为自己的例子足够深刻，却发现自己的论述却停留在了要让读者去揣摩的阶段，以为都是常识性的东西不用讲清大家也会明白，却忘了这与ISSUE的要义背到而驰。所以也难怪LZ之前要担心有没有写的太艰涩了
LZ很多想法还是挺有见得的（果然是在专业以内～），也感觉得出作者想写很多的样子，可是这样子也容易导致行文有些散，因为要写的点太多，所以容易导致哪个点都写的不够深刻，甚至会出现跑题的迹象，就像B4其实就与观点无关，与其花大段文字在这一段，倒不如将之前的点讲讲清楚～～
最后就是，LZ的文字很棒～加油！

这篇是在写了很多零散的点后，参照北美范文和别人文章进行修改的，范文只有前两点，别人也就谈谈“what should we do”，
我觉得“what should we do"其实也跟题目很relevant的，所以加进来了。第四段其实论证“遵守just的law比反对unjust的law更重要”，个人觉得也是relevant的
问题的确就在于我想写的太多了，既想保留一些传统辩证点，又要加入自己点，so……
只有这个TOPIC出现这个问题，我写其他issue都坚持写三点的

THX FOR YOUR PATIENCE！