感觉练的误入歧途了。issue17真诚求拍！！

jellyhuaUID: 2764050

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are twotypes of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has aresponsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey andresist unjust laws."
WORDS: 583
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/7/25 22:55:53

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

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

However, cast a look at thedevelopment history of current mature law system, we will find that the amendments sustainedsince the emergence of initial conception of law. Just one century ago,abortion and pregnantbefore marriage areconvincing as paramount crime which should be punished in fire stakes; andblack people were not permitted to sit in the front of buses just 30 years ago.The spirit of challengeunfair restriction and discrimination conduce to a more democratic society nowadays. Without thisspirit, how could Martin Luther King bring about the pervasive introspection ofjustice and fair in majority population? The desire of suspicion and question to authorities isthe origin impulse of improvement.

On other hand, the annotation of"just" and "unjust" transformed the status of law abidancefrom society obligation to individual selection. Obviously, in this separateddefinition, we should comply with the law benefit ourselves, and also requireother person conform it. The conception implies potential moral hazard ofselfishness and indifference situation in community, furthermore, thisconsequence is totally deviant comparing to the primary purpose of lawregulation. As mentioned before, the false and defect always exist inlegislation, if we use the word "just" as an shield to regulate everyaspects of other people's behavior, what would happen? The whole society willbe covered by discreet action and hypertensive atmosphere. The famous cases of70 years old lady prosecutedKFC could be the most programmaticinstance.

Before I came to the finalconclusion, another crucial threaten is connoted  in the speaker's assertion,disobey "unjust". If every individual have the authority to turn overthe 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 moralitysubstituted regulation, people living in distrust and frighten. Simpleinstance, if anyone could murder another people while his spouses get affairswith the very one, what would happen? I believe this kind of catastrophe is notthe wishing scenariofor any person.

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

hugeseaUID: 190158

确实看得让人很不明不白的，totally confused...

恩，这一篇大家都说是难题，其实我看也没有那么难

回答清楚两个问题就可以了，法律有没有just和unjust之分，有，为什么？没有，为什么？

如果法律确实是unjust的，我们有没有责任，义务去disobey unjust law？为什么？

恩，我在写这篇的时候就是这样的结构，当然在这两点中间我插了一点，为啥我们要遵守良法....

对于这一题的思路不清楚的同学，我推荐去看看《正义论》

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

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

At the threshold, reasonable acceptation of lawregulation is the primary assurance of the harmonious society. Nowadays, in thelegislation system law are universally regard as restriction more thanintroduction, the realistic demand of law abidance is not beyond the boundary ofprohibited area which will induce scathe in individuals or undermine the wholesociety. Euthanasia can help prevent doctor assistance suicide [ odd expression] , abortion lawhelp ensure the future of young mother and their children[like how? You make tons of statement, but without discuss anything to explain why you think this is the case] . The machine of lawsystem proceeds as an impalpableprotect umbrella, which could protect us while we stay in the supporting area.

However, cast a look at thedevelopment history of current mature law system, we will find that the amendments sustainedsince the emergence of initial conception of law. Just one century ago,abortion and pregnantbefore marriage areconvincing as paramount crime which should be punished in fire stakes ; andblack people were not permitted to sit in the front of buses just 30 years ago.The spirit of challengeunfair restriction and discrimination conduce to a more democratic society nowadays. Without thisspirit, how could Martin Luther King bring about the pervasive introspection ofjustice and fair in majority population? The desire of suspicion and question to authorities isthe origin impulse of improvement.

On other hand, the annotation of"just" and "unjust" transformed the status of law abidancefrom society obligation to individual selection. Obviously, in this separateddefinition, we should comply with the law benefit ourselves, and also requireother person conform it. The conception implies potential moral hazard ofselfishness and indifference situation in community, furthermore, thisconsequence is totally deviant comparing to the primary purpose of lawregulation. As mentioned before, the false and defect always exist inlegislation, if we use the word "just" as an shield to regulate everyaspects of other people's behavior, what would happen? The whole society willbe covered by discreet action and hypertensive atmosphere. The famous cases of70 years old lady prosecutedKFC could be the most programmaticinstance. [ Your logic in this paragraph is beyond my understanding…..don/t know what is your point here? Disobey the law means you’re selfish? Or you use justice as an excuse? Where all those comes from? How it’s related to the topic?]

Before I came to the finalconclusion, another crucial threaten is connoted  in the speaker's assertion,disobey "unjust". If every individual have the authority to turn overthe 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 moralitysubstituted regulation, people living in distrust and frighten. Simpleinstance, if anyone could murder another people while his spouses get affairswith the very one, what would happen? I believe this kind of catastrophe is notthe wishing scenariofor any person. [By example here, you’re talking about people now not only disobey the unjust law, but any law? Now you’re not discussing the topic anymore, because the topic think you need obey just law (I suppose not killing anyone unless your life is threaten by others is just law…This is not a situation logically follows the topic, at least, you didn’t  make the logic connection well. )

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

[I think your last paragraph is good, also answering some of my concerning I mentioned before, I do think your thinking and writing is pretty good, but you didn’t express your idea well enough for people to understand. Major problem is your discussion lacks transitions, tends to make statements without elaboration. ]

jellyhuaUID: 2764050

谢谢版大在如此混乱的排版之下还帮咱看了。。受益匪浅。

这两天正在尝试固定issue套路，免得像这篇一样把中文下笔千里的习惯给带进来了。

美丽太阳花UID: 2798404

法律类的ISSUE题目我已经放弃了