Issue17 公平与不公平法律

cynthiasmileUID: 2735173

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two typesof laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility toobey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjustlaws."


Laws, the sublime regulation servers as the principles for people to obey in their social lives, place an indispensible role in maintaining the stability of the society and providing relatively security for everyone. The author asserts that everyone in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws. As far as I am concerned, it is our obligation to obey all the laws, no matter just or unjust. What's more, if a law is unjust to most people, we can amend it better through a legal way than resisting it.

To begin with, there is no single clearly defined meaning of  “just“ or ”unjust” owns to different standpoints. Justice is in the eyes' of its beholders whose personal experience, religious belief and social background varies a lot. You may have heard such story that a Japanese student studied in America was shot dead since he strayed into private house which he took for the party place he was going to. The American couples in the house falsely regarded him as a robber and they were so nervous that they freaked out and shot that student to death. But the result of the trial was the couple’s acquittal under the some kind of  "Kill the burglar" statute.Obviously, from the standpoint of the Japanese student's parents and friends,or even many other overseas students, this verdict was far beyond just because how can the American couples  be acquitted when they actually shot to a young life without offense. But from the standpoint of the court, it is just because in order to prevent acts of harming the personal and property safety of local citizens, they can use deathly weapons when they feel threatened.
All in all, there is no absolutely just but relatively just laws which should be determined in a case-by-case study into different aspects of the problem and finally decide which can represents the interest of the majority ofpeople.

Apparently, as social members, we are incumbent to obey all the laws no matter it represents our interests or not. Laws, through history, place a fundamental role of keeping order of the society and insure its security and healthy development. We are obliged to obey them. Imagine one company who dominates a certain industry by its star products. Monopoly itselfis at first of no harm, but when it sets up a vicious circle and the company is using it to exploit consumers or to restrain innovation, monopoly is illegal and must be eliminated. This is from the whole society's point of view.But when it comes to the company, the elimination would result in the loss of advantages which may result in curtailing employees and adopting related costly processing procedures which seems unjust to itself. But still, most people would agree with some kind of economic sanctions to the company which may affect the current interest of the company but will definitely contributes alot to the long-term healthy development of this industry and the country’s economy. So in this way, although it may be unjust to the company, it still have to obey the law.

However, there do exist some unjust laws stemming from ill-awareness of legislators which we can usually see in the autocracy or racial discrimination period. Although itis our obligation to resist it, that does never mean we could violate it if we like, we should amend it with the legal right. Martin Luther King, for example, was the famous leader of African-American civil right movement and he always claims that nonviolence is the key to success,not the physical confrontations. In 1956, King led the boycott of the bus and successfully force the government revise the law to prohibit the policy ofracial segregation in the bus in Montgomery.  Nowadays, in the more democratic society, we have more mature legal system with more options of appeal, thus we can disobey unjust laws in more legal way.

To sum up, it is arbitrary to lineate an explicit line between just and unjust laws and it is our obligation to obey all the laws, while we can also amend some unjust laws in more legal way.

gtjohnUID: 2813321

占座，晚上来改。

gtjohnUID: 2813321

Laws, the sublime[我不确定这个词用的对不对] regulation servers as the principles[这句单复数感觉有问题啊] for people to obey in their social lives, place an indispens[a]ble role in maintaining the stability of the society and providing relatively security for everyone. The author asserts that everyone in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.[简单重复原话了] As far as I am concerned[那篇如何写thesis的文里，说强烈建议不要用第一人称出现在thesis里], it is our obligation to obey all the laws, no matter just or unjust. What's more, if a law is unjust to most people, we can amend it better through a legal way than resisting it.
[thesis不空，立场提议方法都提到了]

To begin with, there is no single clearly defined meaning of “just“ or ”unjust” owns to[是owing to么？] different standpoints. Justice is in the eyes' of its beholders[旁观者伊港，感觉话没说完] whose personal experience, religious belief and social background varies a lot. You may have heard such story that a Japanese student studied in America was shot dead since he strayed into private house which he took for the party place he was going to. The American couples in the house falsely regarded him as a robber and they were so nervous that they freaked out and shot that student to death. But the result of the trial was the couple’s acquittal under the some kind of "Kill the burglar" statute. Obviously, from the standpoint of the Japanese student's parents and friends, or even many other overseas students, this verdict was far beyond just because how can the American couples be[are] acquitted when they actually shot to a young life without offense. But from the standpoint of the court, it is just because in order to prevent acts of harming the personal and property safety of local citizens, they can use deathly weapons when they feel threatened.
All in all, there is[are] no absolutely just but relatively just laws which should be determined in a case-by-case study into different aspects of the problem and finally decide which can represents the interest of the majority of people.
[这段例子也太长了吧，而且不太能说明问题，这种法律判断基于老两口错误判断了形势，如果有证据指出那个是路过他们也会愧疚的啊]

Apparently[哪里明显啦…这篇issue不就在讨论这个么], as social members, we are incumbent to obey all the laws no matter it represents our interests or not. Laws, through history, place a fundamental role of keeping order of the society and insure its security and healthy development. We are obliged to obey them. Imagine one company who dominates a certain industry by its star products. Monopoly itself is at first of no harm, but when it sets up a vicious circle and the company is using it to exploit consumers or to restrain innovation, monopoly is illegal and must be eliminated. This is from the whole society's point of view. But when it comes to the company, the elimination would result in the loss of advantages which may result in curtailing employees and adopting related costly processing procedures which seems unjust to itself[it]. But still, most people would agree with some kind of economic sanctions to the company which may affect the current interest of the company but will definitely contributes a lot to the long-term healthy development of this industry and the country’s economy. So in this way, although it may be unjust to the company, it still have[has] to obey the law.
[不管法律是否代表他们的利益，还是例子太长啦。这段跟一段讲的不是一个目的吧，就是不同人定义unjust不一样]

However, there do exist some unjust laws stemming from ill-awareness of legislators which we can usually see in the autocracy or racial discrimination period. Although it is our obligation to resist it, that[which] does never[does not mean 或者 never means] mean we could violate it if we like, we should amend it with the legal right. Martin Luther King, for example, was the famous leader of African-American civil right movement and he always claims that nonviolence is the key to success, not the physical confrontations. In 1956, King led the boycott of the bus and successfully force the government revise the law to prohibit the policy of racial segregation in the bus in Montgomery.  Nowadays, in the more democratic society, we have more mature legal system with more options of appeal, thus we can disobey unjust laws in more legal way.
[讲到关键段倒写这么短了。这段可以讲讲为什么就要学路德金啦，为啥暴力就不行啦，guomin,da n g那会法律肯定也Unjust吧，为啥就暴力才行啊。应为你最后才提到nowadays, in democratic society，那么前面讨论对之前的democratic或者非democratic也是适用的么？]

To sum up, it is arbitrary to lineate an explicit line between just and unjust laws and it is our obligation to obey all the laws, while we can also amend some unjust laws in more legal way.

[这篇看到基本套路1.just unjust定义不同 2. 不能unjust就不obey, 会怎么样怎么样 3. 不要暴力，有别的方法。感觉都不深入啊。。。]

[翻翻论坛里例子使用的帖子，你列子写太长了，选的也不是太合适，论证太少了。]

hyacinthUID: 2184492

what is "relatively security"  in your introduction?

"As far as I am concerned, it is our obligation to obey all the laws, no matter just or unjust. What's more, if a law is unjust to most people, we can amend it better through a legal way than resisting it."

These two seem contradict each other.   isnt what you called "amending" a way to disobey the law?
And most importantly, who are "we" in your last sentence... Can lay public amend the law, can we?

hyacinthUID: 2184492

what seems interesting to me is that, most Americans do not think that they should disobey unjust laws...

so if you are picking the side that we have to obey all the laws, even unjust ones, you should try really hard to convince the GRE raters... if you cannot, you probably will end up in a less satisfactory score....

again, try to do some research on the phrase "universal value".  

if it helps, think about this equation "legal = just" ...

figuechenUID: 2850619

Laws, the sublime regulation servers as the principles for people to obey in their social lives, place an indispensible role in maintaining the stability of the society and providing relatively security for everyone. The author asserts that everyone in a society is incumbent to obey just laws and even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws. As far as I am concerned, it is our obligation to obey all the laws, no matter just or unjust. What's more, if a law is unjust to most people, we can amend it better through a legal way than resisting it.

To begin with, there is no single clearly defined meaning of  “just“ or ”unjust” owns to different standpoints. Justice is in the eyes' of its beholders whose personal experience, religious belief and social background varies a lot. You may have heard such story that a Japanese student studied [studying]in America was shot dead since he strayed into private house which he took for the party place he was going to. The American couples in the house falsely regarded him as a robber and they were so nervous that they freaked out and shot that student to death. But the result of the trial was the couple’s acquittal under the some kind of  "Kill the burglar" statute. Obviously, from the standpoint of the Japanese student's parents and friends, or even many other overseas students, this verdict was far beyond just because how can the American couples be acquitted when [after更好吧]they actually shot to [不用to]a young life without offense. But from the standpoint of the court, it is just because in order to prevent acts of harming the personal and property safety of local citizens, they can use deathly weapons when they feel threatened.
All in all, there is no absolutely just but relatively just laws which should be determined in a case-by-case study into different aspects of the problem and finally decide which can represents the interest of the majority of people.

Apparently, as social members, we are incumbent to obey all the laws no matter it represents our interests or not. Laws, through history, place a fundamental role of keeping order of the society and insure its security and healthy development. We are obliged to obey them. Imagine one company who dominates a certain industry by its star products. Monopoly itself is at first of no harm, but when it sets up a vicious circle and the company is using it to exploit consumers or to restrain innovation, monopoly is illegal and must be eliminated. This is from the whole society's point of view. But [有个美国朋友告诉我句子开头少用but，美国老师都不喜欢，改成however吧]when it comes to the company, the elimination would result in the loss of advantages which may result in curtailing employees and adopting related costly processing procedures which seems unjust to itself. But still, most people would agree with some kind of economic sanctions to the company which may affect the current interest of the company but will definitely contributes a lot to the long-term healthy development of this industry and the country’s economy. So in this way, although it may be unjust to the company, it still have [has]to obey the law.

However, there do exist some unjust laws stemming from ill-awareness of legislators which we can usually see in the autocracy or racial discrimination period. Although it is our obligation to resist it, that does never mean we could violate it if we like, we should amend it with the legal right. Martin Luther King, for example, was the famous leader of African-American civil right movement and he always claims that nonviolence is the key to success, not the physical confrontations. In 1956, King led the boycott of the bus and successfully force the government revise the law to prohibit the policy of racial segregation in the bus in Montgomery.  Nowadays, in the more democratic society, we have more mature legal system with more options of appeal, thus we can disobey unjust laws in more legal way.

To sum up, it is arbitrary to lineate an explicit line between just and unjust laws and it is our obligation to obey all the laws, while we can also amend some unjust laws in more legal way.

总结一下作者思路
观点：totally disagree
分论点：
1.
很难区分just与unjust 例证法：日本学生
2.
无论法律公正与否我们都应遵守 例证法：垄断公司
3.
让步一下，就算是不公正的我们也应该遵守 例证法：M.L.K

优点就不说了吧，语言流畅什么的，主要来狠拍缺点，这样才能进步嘛~望LZ谅解。
第一，

1.分论点设置不合理。作者的观点应该要证明的是无论法律公正与否我们都应该遵守，而设置的分论点应该为这个中心论点服务。但作者的分论点显然没有做到这一点。
2.例子的问题。第二个论点那里，我不认为垄断公司说明了什么问题。既然作者刚才在第一个论点里提到了难以区分just和unjust。惩罚公司可以解释为对公司unjust的法律也要遵守，也可以解释成对其它公司just的法律要执行。这个例子很难支撑起如此巨大的观点。因此这个例子不好。
3.还是例子的问题。最后一个论点里，M.J.K的例子绝对是很严重的失误。如果你知道这篇Issue的题目就是出自M.J.K的一篇文章的话，你不可能还会这么用他的例子。（详见Letter from Birmingham Jail）难道civil disobedience就不是disobedience了？M.J.K可是号召所有黑人故意违反种族隔离法，去坐到公交车上的白人专属的座位上的，这难道不是知法犯法么？




希望LZ有空能互改同题作文~谢谢了~
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1122396-1-1.html