issue 17 这是一篇天人交战的文章。。不知道能被看懂不。。。

费话先生UID: 2788924

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."


   "An unjust is no law at all", said ST Augustine. I agree that laws are not perfect. But here come the problems that what kind of criteria we use to judge the fairness of a law and how can we prevent the behaviors that people disobey unjust laws without sacrificing other innocent individuals’ interests. In my view, it is very difficult for an individual to judge the fairness of laws and the behavior that he resists unjust laws resting on his own explanation may undermine the foundation of laws. Thus, we should not simply resist laws but adjust them through legal system or formal procedure.
     
    Firstly, the judgment of the fairness of laws is quite controversial. Laws are usually in accordance with then moral standards during a certain period of time. But paradox is that the moral system may be various for different individuals and hence the judgment of the fairness of a certain law changes. Like the penalty of death. Some people hold the position that even the criminals should not derived of the right to live- the most precious human right and hence regard the penalty of death as unjust. However, some people think that penalty of death play an important role in publishing those who commit serious crime like kill people deliberately and so just.
      In addition, the judgments usually are based on individuals’ incompatible interests. Those whose benefits are damaged by some laws may regard these laws as unjust while others who benefit from the laws regard them as just. The example is the law of Inheritance Tax. The rich usually think that the high rate of income taxation is unfair to them since they think their private poverty should be protected instead of being deprived. On the contrary, the poor think the law of income taxation is just since the government has more financial funds to help them. So what one regards as just may strike another as unjust.

      Secondly, resting on individuals’ own judgment of the fairness of laws, the behaviors that people resist against the so called unjust laws may make laws facing with dilemma. It is impossible for every law to satisfy everyone in a society. Just think about the laws mentioned above, the law of Inheritance Tax is unjust to rich people and the penalty of death is unjust to criminals. Also, the family planning in China is unjust to those who want to have more babies. Every law will find its opponents. If everyone disobeys unjust laws according to their own consciousness, there will be no laws obeyed by people at last since every law may turn out to be unjust. Another dilemma is that the majesty of laws is partly because everyone-no matter rich or poor, beggar or aristocracy-should obey laws. One significant difference between moral and laws is that the latter is coercive. If it is allowed that everyone has the right to disobey the laws which they think are unjust, the laws will lose the foundation of existence.
     
    Although laws cannot be simply classified by just or not in most times, there indeed exist some laws that are not in accordance with the current society. For example, Apartheid law is against the trend of democracy and do harm to the stabilization of America.
   
    The more proper way to adjust such laws is not through resistance but through legal system or formal procedure. Like Martin Luther King, even though he claims that people have a right to disobey unjust laws. He complied with the current laws and complied with the sentence to jail afterwards. And he rallied his supporters not to use buses as vehicle to place pressure on the legislature, but he did not encourage his followers to break laws by seating in the front of a bus which is against the law. The legal system is designed to provide a more mild way to solve the complications between different groups rather than by force. For instance, we can use judicial review to amend those laws which are incompatible with Constitution. So why do not we make good use of it? If everyone tries to amend unreasonable laws by resisting or disobeying, the existence of judicial review and the legislature will make no sense.


     Overall, whether a certain law is just or unjust will never reach to a conclusion. So the allowance of resistance against unjust laws is quite dangerous and will betray the goals of laws at last. We should adjust those improper laws which cannot accord with the current society through the formal process to prevent jeopardizing innocent people.

jellyhuaUID: 2764050

我现在觉得应该按这么个逻辑貌似比较顺。

1.无论由个人还是社会判断 遵守just都很重要
     1.1.just是个人行为对他人负责的保证
     1.2.just是社会稳定的保证

2.由个人判断的unjust不能随意推翻,也即相对个人遵守just不重要

3.由社会共同判断的unjust可以采用合理方式调整，比遵守just更重要

总结：大部分情况下必须遵守just，个人不应该随意推翻unjust，但社会力量可以进行修正。

费话先生UID: 2788924

2# jellyhua
恩恩，多谢多谢~

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

zhanwei~

crazyjooUID: 2805124

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1130596-1-1.html
写得很好啊 这是我的issue 17。不过不知道有没有犯我帖子里2楼说的问题呢 ？求指教

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

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."


   "An unjust is no law at all", said ST Augustine. I agree that laws are not perfect. But here come the problems that what kind of criteria we use to judge the fairness of a law and how can we prevent the behaviors that people disobey unjust laws without sacrificing other innocent individuals’ interests. In my view, it is very difficult for an individual to judge the fairness of laws and the behavior that he resists unjust laws resting on his own explanation may undermine the foundation of laws. Thus, we should not simply resist laws but adjust them through legal system or formal procedure.
     
    Firstly, the judgment of the fairness of laws is quite controversial. Laws are usually in accordance with then moral standards during a certain period of time. But paradox is that the moral system may be various for different individuals and hence the judgment of the fairness of a certain law changes. Like the penalty of death. Some people hold the position that even the criminals should not derived of the right to live- the most precious human right and hence regard the penalty of death as unjust. However, some people think that penalty of death play an important role in publishing those who commit serious crime like kill people deliberately and so just. [This paragraph only stands if just=morally correct. You maybe you need to define justness first. Another thing is that, even death penalty is unjust; there basically no way that one can resist it. I guess your discussion cannot end here, maybe you need to restate what is the purpose of this paragraph and make sure you know what are your talking about and those are related to the topic]
      In addition, the judgments usually are based on individuals’ incompatible interests. Those whose benefits are damaged by some laws may regard these laws as unjust while others who benefit from the laws regard them as just. The example is the law of Inheritance Tax. The rich usually think that the high rate of income taxation is unfair to them since they think their private poverty should be protected instead of being deprived. On the contrary, the poor think the law of income taxation is just since the government has more financial funds to help them. So what one regards as just may strike another as unjust. [This example is better]

      Secondly, resting on individuals’ own judgment of the fairness of laws, the behaviors that people resist against the so called unjust laws may make laws facing with dilemma. It is impossible for every law to satisfy everyone in a society. Just think about the laws mentioned above, the law of Inheritance Tax is unjust to rich people and the penalty of death is unjust to criminals. Also, the family planning in China is unjust to those who want to have more babies. Every law will find its opponents. If everyone disobeys unjust laws according to their own consciousness, there will be no laws obeyed by people at last since every law may turn out to be unjust. Another dilemma is that the majesty of laws is partly because everyone-no matter rich or poor, beggar or aristocracy-should obey laws. One significant difference between moral and laws is that the latter is coercive. If it is allowed that everyone has the right to disobey the laws which they think are unjust, the laws will lose the foundation of existence.
     
    Although laws cannot be simply classified by just or not in most times, there indeed exist some laws that are not in accordance with the current society. For example, Apartheid law is against the trend of democracy and do harm to the stabilization of America.The more proper way to adjust such laws is not through resistance but through legal system or formal procedure. Like Martin Luther King, even though he claims that people have a right to disobey unjust laws. He complied with the current laws and complied with the sentence to jail afterwards. And he rallied his supporters not to use buses as vehicle to place pressure on the legislature, but he did not encourage his followers to break laws by seating in the front of a bus which is against the law. The legal system is designed to provide a more mild way to solve the complications between different groups rather than by force. For instance, we can use judicial review to amend those laws which are incompatible with Constitution. So why do not we make good use of it? If everyone tries to amend unreasonable laws by resisting or disobeying, the existence of judicial review and the legislature will make no sense. [This paragraph is good]


     Overall, whether a certain law is just or unjust will never reach to a conclusion. So the allowance of resistance against unjust laws is quite dangerous and will betray the goals of laws at last. We should adjust those improper laws which cannot accord with the current society through the formal process to prevent jeopardizing innocent people.

[I think this assay is good, but only problematic parts to me, are the death penalty example and the relationship between law and moral status. Moreover, your transition between your points is getting better this time.]

doraliuUID: 2842061

废话你再写了我来改，这个小哀姐改过我就不改了。。。。看过了觉得写的不错。。。。。。。。加油加油！！！