【Issue17】恳请大家踊跃修改~欢迎互改

figuechenUID: 2850619

欢迎互改啊~Issue17还算是大家讨论得比较多的题吧，想听听大家对于这个题目的看法和对于我的文章思路、语句、例证等内容的意见~非常感谢~

Issue 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."
（未限时，747 words）
    It is obviously the duty that every individual in a society should obey just laws. At the same time, is it a responsibility for people to disobey and resist unjust laws? I believe that although the disobedience should be permitted and tolerated, it nevertheless should not be encouraged in a modern democratic society. In an autocratic society, however, the disobedience and resistance should on the contrary be encouraged.
    How to distinguish unjust laws from just ones is a question that cannot be shifted off. The question is that it is not easy to define what is a “just” law and what is an “unjust” one. According to common sense, the law represents the will of the lawmakers, and the interest of lawmakers might be in contradictory with the interest of other hierarchic classes in a specific period of time, and thus the just law for some people might be unjust for some others, and the just law in some situations might be unjust in other situations. An example for the former is that the rich people are required to pay high taxes while the poor people hardly have this duty. This law protects the benefits of the poor and deprives the rich people of their assets, and therefore the rich people might consider it an unjust law while the poor people, on the contrary, might regard it as a just one. An example for the latter is that, Martin Luther King was arrested and put into prison in the result of charging a parade without permission in 1963. The law was just to require permission for a parade in order to guarantee the public safety in most situations; however it is unjust when the white officials reject any form of parade request from the African Americans in an excuse of obeying this law.
    Now that it is hard to distinguish one from another, the right for the non-lawmakers to express their will through this radical way should be reserved. As Martin Luther King said, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”. It is the unlimited taxes “legally” levied by the British government that why Boston Tea Party took place; it is the tyranny of Louis XVI that led to the outburst of the French Revolution; it is the “legitimate” racial segregation that resulted in the Civil Rights Movement; it is the oppression from the British Colonist that aroused the Non-violence Movement led by Gandhi in India. These advances in human rights and ethnic emancipation are all started with the disobedience and resistance to the law of that time. Van Loon has pointed out in his book Tolerance and I paraphrase that the ruler of the society ought to tolerate the disobedience from disfranchised citizens against the extant laws. In most situations, disobedience is the last way to call for public concerns for those who do not have a right to vote or speak.
    Tolerated as it is, whether the disobedience and resistance against the laws should be encouraged varies according to the type of society. In a democratic society in which the chance of a certain group of people without franchise is rare, the disobedience and resistance which might bring huge economic loss and disorder to society should be replaced by other legal ways such as calling for the attention of media and going for a civil parade to show their will. Otherwise, the actions against the law at will may lead to anarchism, or even civil wars. Have we forgotten that the outbreak of the Civil War can be explained as the furious disobedience and resistance to the newly-enacted law that forces the southern planters to free their slaves? In an autocratic society, however, people should stand out and fight with the unjust laws, in any way, at any cost. Since most people cannot express their will through a legal way, it is their nature and duty to strive for their rights. There is no doubt that such kind of struggling should be encouraged and supported.
    To sum up, the blurry definition for “just” and “unjust” law makes it difficult to assert that people should disobey and resist the laws they think are unjust. It is nevertheless clear that people have the right to do so, and whether they should be encouraged to do so differs from the type of society. They should be encouraged in an autocratic society, while they should not be in a democratic society.

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

It is obviously the duty that every individual in a society should obey just laws. At the same time, is it a responsibility for people to disobey and resist unjust laws? I believe that although the disobedience should be permitted and tolerated, it nevertheless should not be encouraged in a modern democratic society. In an autocratic society, however, the disobedience and resistance should on the contrary be encouraged.
   
How to distinguish unjust laws from just ones is a question that cannot be shifted off. The question is that it is not easy to define what is a “just” law and what is an “unjust” one. According to common sense, the law represents the will of the lawmakers, and the interest of lawmakers might be in contradictory with the interest of other hierarchic classes in a specific period of time, and thus the just law for some people might be unjust for some others, and the just law in some situations might be unjust in other situations. An example for the former is that the rich people are required to pay high taxes while the poor people hardly have this duty. This law protects the benefits of the poor and deprives the rich people of their assets, and therefore the rich people might consider it an unjust law while the poor people, on the contrary, might regard it as a just one. An example for the latter is that, Martin Luther King was arrested and put into prison in the result of charging a parade without permission in 1963. The law was just to require permission for a parade in order to guarantee the public safety in most situations; however it is unjust when the white officials reject any form of parade request from the African Americans in an excuse of obeying this law.
例子用的合适，说的也合理
   
Now that it is hard to distinguish one from another, the right for the non-lawmakers to express their will through this radical way should be reserved. As Martin Luther King said, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”. It is the unlimited taxes “legally” levied by the British government that why Boston Tea Party took place; it is the tyranny of Louis XVI that led to the outburst of the French Revolution; it is the “legitimate” racial segregation that resulted in the Civil Rights Movement; it is the oppression from the British Colonist that aroused the Non-violence Movement led by Gandhi in India. These advances in human rights and ethnic emancipation are all started with the disobedience and resistance to the law of that time. Van Loon has pointed out in his book Tolerance and I paraphrase that the ruler of the society ought to tolerate the disobedience from disfranchised citizens against the extant laws. In most situations, disobedience is the last way to call for public concerns for those who do not have a right to vote or speak.
   
Tolerated as it is, whether the disobedience and resistance against the laws should be encouraged varies according to the type of society. In a democratic society in which the chance of a certain group of people without franchise is rare, the disobedience and resistance which might bring huge economic loss and disorder to society should be replaced by other legal ways such as calling for the attention of media and going for a civil parade to show their will. Otherwise, the actions against the law at will may lead to anarchism, or even civil wars. Have we forgotten that the outbreak of the Civil War can be explained as the furious disobedience and resistance to the newly-enacted law that forces the southern planters to free their slaves? In an autocratic society, however, people should stand out and fight with the unjust laws, in any way, at any cost. Since most people cannot express their will through a legal way, it is their nature and duty to strive for their rights. There is no doubt that such kind of struggling should be encouraged and supported.
封建社会可以对抗？可是我觉得封建社会基本是人治，皇帝想赦免谁就赦免谁，法律也可以随便改~当然了，我也不太了解外国
   总觉得说封建社会可以反抗很牵强。因为反抗也是会遭到镇压啊。就算暴动起义成功了，建立的也可能是新的皇权~

To sum up, the blurry definition for “just” and “unjust” law makes it difficult to assert that people should disobey and resist the laws they think are unjust. It is nevertheless clear that people have the right to do so, and whether they should be encouraged to do so differs from the type of society. They should be encouraged in an autocratic society, while they should not be in a democratic society.
总体不错！
语言流畅，表达清楚，结构也清晰
就是对那个封建社会不理解

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

对了，我觉得你的结尾基本和开头一样，可以再丰富一点，提点建议啥的，只总结没有太大意义

figuechenUID: 2850619

对了，我觉得你的结尾基本和开头一样，可以再丰富一点，提点建议啥的，只总结没有太大意义
追梦小木耳 发表于 2010-7-14 22:55

谢谢建议~I'll take your advice~Really appreciate it~

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

不好意思啊，昨天把独裁社会说成封建社会啦~\(≧▽≦)/~
后来才想起来~
嗯，以后对你的文狠拍，仔细找错误！