关于justice 和unjustice law的想法和疑问

hwslqcUID: 2861597

刚才看了关于"Issue17"的北美范文,总觉的此范文所给出的法律的划分,和抵制的有效性并没有完全dig out出这道题的本质.于是就上网搜索了unjustice law,于是得到了:
   "An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe.

观看他人的素材发现网友总结的law的purpose:
1.
维护和平Laws against crimes, for example, help to maintain a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society.
2.
维护人权，维护社会秩序Law respects individual rights while, at the same time, ensuring that society operates in an orderly manner
3.
维护自由平等law should recognize and protect certain basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality.
4.
为人民办实事laws are not only designed to govern our conduct: they are also intended to give effect to（使实行起来） social policies. For example, some laws provide for benefits when workers are injured on the job, for health care, as well as for loans to students who otherwise might not be able to go to university.
1.
和平解决纠纷 Even in a well-ordered society, people have disagreements and conflicts arise. The law must provide a way to resolve these disputes peacefully. If two people claim to own the same piece of property, we do not want the matter settled by a duel: we turn to the law and to institutions like the courts to decide who is the real owner and to make sure that the real owner's rights are respected. 即使是一个秩序良好的社会，人们也依旧会有不满和冲突。法律必须提供一种方法来和平解决这种冲突。如果两个人宣称相同的一个物产是自己的，我们不知道这个东西是归属于谁，我们就只能求助于法律和机构像法庭来决定这个财产归谁来确定财产的所有权。
于是

于是就想是否可以从能否服务于purpose of the law 这个方面来审视justice,或者是从个人和society, the law is a matter of public record, justice is an intensely personal matter. 第二句话来自下文,但有些地方读得不是很懂,求指点.

When can we break an unjust law? February 11 2004 Additional research by Stuart Helmer The hunting bill, which comes into force this month, raises the age-old question about obedience to unjust laws. "An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws". The problem is that while the law is a matter of public record, justice is an intensely personal matter. What one person regards as just may strike another as an unwarranted imposition. This is why we need law; if we all behaved according to our personal standards of morality, anarchy would rule. While we may have our own views about the justice of particular laws, we generally accept that some rules must apply universally. If we are to follow Martin Luther King's exhortation to resist unjust laws, then, there must be an unusual type or degree of injustice to justify that. What kind of injustice might do so? The great American democrat Henry David Thoreau had an answer. In his classic essay Civil Disobedience, Thoreau observed that "a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice"(不明白.....). An infantile deference to the will of the majority, however ill-informed, is still common today. It informs the thoughtless "majority rules!" which is frequently blurted out as if, on its own, it magically justifies anything (I always want to ask whether, if the majority jumped off a cliff, the speaker would too). In fact, "majority rules" is a solution of last resort. Ideally, people should act according to their consciences. If that is inappropriate, unanimity should be sought. Only if these two fail should the will of the majority be imposed on the rest. Thoreau called for this kind of government, "in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience... in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable". (这段是说随大流不好?应该根据理性把人么分为两类?) Thoreau has identified the second, too often ignored element of democracy: that the majority should only dictate to the minority where a common rule is required. This is so in, for example, the tax system, which pools common resources; or in, say, road-building, where we cannot all practically build roads where we personally find them convenient. It also applies to the criminal law and the law of negligence, which protect us from harm inflicted by people whose consciences alone do not restrain them from harming others. But where our acts do not harm others, and no common purpose exists, Government should leave decisions to our consciences. The alternative is not democracy, but the tyranny of the majority. By this standard the Hunting Bill is profoundly unjust; expediency requires no common standard, and nor are others harmed. (不太明白.....) Inconsistency is another marker of injustice. The Hunting Bill is, supposedly, intended to stop cruelty to animals. But even if you accept this proposition, the Bill is not consistent. It outlaws the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, while permitting the hunting of wild mammals with birds of prey, and of rodents with cats, and fishing, and shooting. If animal cruelty were the real target, then rather than banning hunting we should perhaps be opposing the EU's current chemicals regulation plans, which will cause a massive and unnecessary increase in animal testing. But no reasons for the selective and capricious singling-out of fox-hunting, stag-hunting and hare coursing have been offered. Half-truths and smokescreens are the currency of this government, but when they are used to justify such a huge imposition on people's consciences, the result can only be unjust. What is the appropriate response to an unjust law, then? King argued that we should break it openly: "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law". Thoreau agreed: "Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is... a prison". All over the country in February, hunts will meet in defiance of an unjust law. Huntsmen imprisoned for following their consciences will not be criminals. They will be upholders of a noble tradition of resistance to injustice. (表明态度...)

  其中很经典的句子(我觉得的..)已经标成红色了.而我不太明白的则是蓝色.
介于水平原因,我就更多分析这篇文章了. 但我想知道大家对于这个题目以及这篇文章的看法和想法.希望可以和大家一起讨论.
  

hwslqcUID: 2861597

已经又改了一遍了.....回我吧...

absjkdUID: 2810339

1# hwslqc 我前几天写了这篇issue，楼主在哪儿找的资料，很厉害，不过我觉得马丁路德金的那个言论还是挺有力的。对于那句蓝色的话，我觉得前文作者说了，Law是对整体社会而言，Justice是对个人而言，所以那句话说大多数人主宰的社会是无法建立在公正上的，因为公正是对个人而言，很多情况下所谓的公正是违背personal conscience，群体性的社会往往是不理智的。我是这么理解的，嘿嘿，我水平很差，见识浅薄，仅供参考。

hwslqcUID: 2861597

3# absjkd

首先,文章是在Google上搜索unjustice law发现的.至于素材来自太傻的<网友的素材>(........)
其次,群体性的law仅仅是因为代表大多数而不是everyone的justice所以是不justice的.
如果这是作者的观点的话, 那么必须的前提是a thing is justice if and only if it is justice to everyone.
之后按照逻辑推理,一个law对于大多数人justice 对于少部分人unjustice,那么少部分人就应该disobey it???
但是从practical的角度来说绝对公平is not exist.那么就总有一部分人(对于特定的law)是不应该遵守呢?感觉相当之唯心啊....

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

我觉得3楼的理解跟我的理解不同。
对于蓝字表明的哪一段，重点没说什么大多数人的观点是不理智的。而是说不应该用大多数人的观点去定义对还是不对。就跟雅典一样，不能说杀个人就全民投票，根本不了解情况的，文盲也去投，投了就把人投死，这不是民主。大多数时候，法律应该允许人凭着良知去做事情。只有当个人良知和理智不能解决问题的时候，才需要用大多数的人的意见去强迫解决问题。



但是我觉得Inconsistency is another marker of injustice.是在诡辩。我完全可以把那段话作为argument去反对他。

他认为禁止hunting的law是unjust的 basis是 政府没有禁止所有会造成animal testing的法律。
这跟本是两回事。首先hunting是纯为了少数人的pleasure做的，就是你hunting了就对你有一个人有用
其次 hunting是hunting的狐狸，animal testing所用的动物是什么。来源是哪里。美国的动物实验都有严格的管制，必须要well－justified才行，做动物实验不是为了自己杀动物爽，而是实验需要，为了科学发展，造福大众而做的。另外文章中chemical regulation虽然我不知道是什么，但是这应该不是政府觉得regulate chemical很爽才做的吧。也是为了保护人民的利益。

这完全是false analogy。就算法律要cosistencency也不是他说的那种consistency法。

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

Thoreau has identified the second, too often ignored element of democracy: that the majority should only dictate to the minority where a common rule is required. This is so in, for example, the tax system, which pools common resources; or in, say, road-building, where we cannot all practically build roads where we personally find them convenient. It also applies to the criminal law and the law of negligence, which protect us from harm inflicted by people whose consciences alone do not restrain them from harming others. But where our acts do not harm others, and no common purpose exists, Government should leave decisions to our consciences. The alternative is not democracy, but the tyranny of the majority. By this standard the Hunting Bill is profoundly unjust; expediency requires no common standard, and nor are others harmed.

这段话我看来意思很明白，我不知道你不明白的是哪一点。
他的意思是多数人对于少数人的统治，只有在一个统一规定是必须的情况下。比如tax，这是统一的财政来源，比如修路。比如刑法，主要是个别人没办法凭着自己的理智去阻止自己不要侵犯别人。
但是他们的行为既没有伤害到别人，也没有别的目的，这时候用多数人去统治少数人，就是“多数人的暴政”。
所以hunting bill不正义，因为这时候并不需要一个统一的规定，也没有任何人受伤害。

hwslqcUID: 2861597

6# lingli_xiaoai
首先--------恭迎小哀大师驾到,真是蓬荜生辉啊~
正文:那么通过小哀的讲解,以及我和同学的讨论我列了一个提纲,请过目一下:

1.法律是否是justice取决于它是否能够满足它的目的,在能够满足这个目的的情况下他拥有一定的justice.但是法律是对于整体而言,而justice是对于个人而言.所以一个law是否是justice要取决于它对于多少人,哪些人,在什么时候是justice的.(太长了的感觉.)
2.一个法律只有当它在据大多数时候符合绝大多数人的justice,它才应该被obey.集权,专制所设立的unjustice的法律是不该obey的.
3.但是人们很难认识到一个法律是否是对大多数人是justice的,民众很可能被误导(为了少数人的野心).比如voting和越战美国招纳新兵.同时当权者很有可能为了自己所代表的利益集体而构造一个看似justice的law.

之后就不知道怎么写了......貌似这种写法的复杂性已经超过了我所能够想到的极限.还请小哀再指点一下吧.

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

我觉得你的提纲过于复杂。因为你也没想清楚过这个问题。这很正常，除非你是学法律的。
主要是你对justice的定义。
第一点，你说法律是不是justice 是取决于他的目的？ 法律的目的是什么？你能不能讲清楚。
第二点，这个观点看上去应该还好。不过集权和专制现今社会还有很明显的例子吗？题目中说的是我们。也就是生活在现代社会的人，你在写的时候，最好不要把自己穿越到中国古代，然后说哪个law不能obey，这样写有偏题的危险，或者说已经偏题了。
第三点，你说这点是是为了什么？跟题目的联系是什么。人民很难分辨一个法律是不是just，then what?

总的感觉是，你的思路很丰富，但是很乱。没有一个清晰的逻辑主线引导你的思路。

你应该做得是形成你自己对这个问题的看法，讨论你自己能够掌握的话题，而不是把参考资料中别人的看法当成你的看法去讨论。因为你如果不理解别人的看法的basis，你是没有办法很好的论述这个问题的。

shadow1987UID: 2605840

我觉得你的提纲过于复杂。因为你也没想清楚过这个问题。这很正常，除非你是学法律的。
主要是你对justice的定义。
第一点，你说法律是不是justice 是取决于他的目的？ 法律的目的是什么？你能不能讲清楚。
第二点 ...
lingli_xiaoai 发表于 2010-7-25 22:19

Up Up Up, 顶小哀姐~

jellyhuaUID: 2764050

正好练完一脸困惑。。哪位帮看看
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: 583          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010/7/25 22:55:53

The speaker obscures the definition of laws with two contrast depiction, "just" or "unjust". In the assumption of existence of unjust law, the speaker assumes that individuals should obey the just one and disobey the unjust one. I admit that conforming law is the fundamental obligation of every independent and self-responsible people, however, there is a controversy in the issue of resisting unjust laws.

At the threshold, reasonable acceptation of law regulation is the primary assurance of the harmonious society. Nowadays, in the legislation system law are universally regard as restriction more than introduction, the realistic demand of law abidance is not beyond the boundary of prohibited area which will induce scathe in individuals or undermine the whole society. Euthanasia can help prevent doctor assistance suicide, abortion law help ensure the future of young mother and their children. The machine of law system proceeds as an impalpable protect umbrella, which could protect us while we stay in the supporting area.

However, cast a look at the development history of current mature law system, we will find that the amendments sustained since the emergence of initial conception of law. Just one century ago, abortion and pregnant before marriage are convincing as paramount crime which should be punished in fire stakes; and black people were not permitted to sit in the front of buses just 30 years ago. The spirit of challenge unfair restriction and discrimination conduce to a more democratic society nowadays. Without this spirit, how could Martin Luther King bring about the pervasive introspection of justice and fair in majority population? The desire of suspicion and question to authorities is the origin impulse of improvement.

On other hand, the annotation of "just" and "unjust" transformed the status of law abidance from society obligation to individual selection. Obviously, in this separated definition, we should comply with the law benefit ourselves, and also require other person conform it. The conception implies potential moral hazard of selfishness and indifference situation in community, furthermore, this consequence is totally deviant comparing to the primary purpose of law regulation. As mentioned before, the false and defect always exist in legislation, if we use the word "just" as an shield to regulate every aspects of other people's behavior, what would happen? The whole society will be covered by discreet action and hypertensive atmosphere. The famous cases of 70 years old lady prosecuted KFC could be the most programmatic instance.

Before I came to the final conclusion, another crucial threaten is connoted in the speaker's assertion, disobey "unjust". If every individual have the authority to turn over the law limit their action, the society will be filled with chaos and panics. An epoch that everyone own the right of disobey could be equated as the dark medieval times when morality substituted regulation, people living in distrust and frighten. Simple instance, if anyone could murder another people while his spouses get affairs with the very one, what would happen? I believe this kind of catastrophe is not the wishing scenario for any person.

In sum, we absolutely should obey laws with reasonable critical spirits; however, the behavior that hide in the advantageous side and regulate other people in malevolence would result in abuse, let alone that define the “just” and “unjust” only by individual judgments would break the stable law system which have been mature enough to deal with most cases. Law should be just, the only thing we need to do is conform it and keep the priority of negotiation.

尽挹春水UID: 2793666

顶下~