issue 17 Just Law v.s Unjust Law

crazyjooUID: 2805124

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: 632
TIME: 01:00:01

DATE: 2010-7-29 11:31:20

Should we disobey and resist unjust laws while obeying just law as the speaker claims? I concede that unjust laws do hurt the interests of certain groups of people and thus lower the awareness of legal among populace because laws are regard as an absolute authority which guarantee general interest by most people. However, whether people should disobey unjust laws should be analyzed in specific conditions.

Admittedly, just legal is the requisite precondition of a harmonious society. It serves to be a mediator of relationship between people. It is undoubted that everyone should obey just laws. However, how do unjust laws come? In fact, it is understandably that courts are not willing to accept the idea of unjust law. That is to say, it is a relatively objective notion. Firstly, the fairness of law is judged by people with different valuable system. Take the law of euthanasia as a example. It is very likely that people with Christian religion belief will oppose this law since it disobeys gospels in Holy Bible, that is, to suicide is unjust. Conversely, it may support by people who hold belief in humanism, and who might consider this law will mitigate the patients' suffering. Secondly, individual interest will also affect one's judgment on the just of laws. One example aptly illustrates this point involved Individual Income Tax Law. To those rich people, this law seems to be unfair one because it demands them to pay much more tax than those people with low income. However, this law is aimed at striking a balance between rich people and poor people and thus decreases the gap between them.

From these two provisos, we could see that an individual judgment of fairness of law cannot necessarily reveal the flaw of the law itself. Thus, people should place more emphasis on the obey of just law rather than the disobey and resistance of unjust laws. In the perspective of common people, one's just law may be others' unjust law, such gap in legal consciousness will inevitably lead to conflicts between people. If everyone is encouraged to disobey and even resist unjust laws, it would be easy to imagine that how chaotic and disorder the society would be. In the respect of law, the effectiveness and majesty of law would be greatly undermined when people disobey and resist laws they regard unjust. Moreover, it is impossible for the legislators to enact laws which satisfy everyone. In fact, the very nature of law is not to satisfy individually, but to maximized the public interest. Therefore, individual sacrifices are usually inevitable and individual resistance of unjust laws will be surely ignored.

However, laws are enacted to protect public interest. To disobey and resist unjust laws becomes necessarily and even desirable when it comes to the laws most people regard as unjust. In this respect, unjust low deviate its original goal, to serve public well. Had Martin Luther King not incited the bus boycott, African American today might be still relegated to the back of the bus and American's development of democracy had to undergo a hardship. Besides, Martin Luther King and his adherents actually did not disobey or resist those unjust laws because such resist behavior would be counterproductive and incur hatred and hostility from whites. Instead, through reasonable d speeches, such as the most famous one---"I have a dream", government gradually realized that those laws were unjust.

To sum up, the speaker is fundamentally correct. We have the obligation to obey just law and require the government to amend the unjust ones. However, we should place more emphasis on those laws most people regard as unjust. Disobey and resistances are not the proper way to make legislator revise the laws. Rather, rational and patient communications should be considerate as a legitimate way,

hugeseaUID: 190158

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."
WO ...
crazyjoo 发表于 2010-7-29 11:59

你的论点不全面，只回应了题目的后一句，对于前一句的回应呢？

crazyjooUID: 2805124

2# hugesea

我想侧重unjustlaw上面，可能是我自己主观认为前面那个很理所当然吧，所以只在第二段前面提了2句，请问这样可以么？

费话先生UID: 2788924

嗯，我想2楼的意思是说关于第一句there are just and unjust laws没有提及。然后全文主要是针对第二句展开论述。我倒是觉得任何角度都可以。但是这道题有点特殊，第二句论点尊不遵守Just law是建立在just or unjust的讨论上。所以我建议哈~还是加一段，如果有just 那么怎样的法律是just，譬如说符合自然法啊，符合宪法啊，之类的。如果没有，那么为什么没有呢？ 之类的。。。
   Should we disobey and resist unjust laws while obeying just law as the speaker claims? I concede that unjust laws do hurt the interests of certain groups of people and thus lower the awareness of legal among populace because laws are regard as an absolute authority which guarantee general interest by most people. However, whether people should disobey unjust laws should be analyzed in specific conditions.（我觉得后面的叙述排列跟这个主题句关系不大）

Admittedly, just legal is the requisite precondition of a harmonious society. It serves to be a mediator of relationship between people. It is undoubted that everyone should obey just laws. However, how do unjust laws come? (这个转折突兀了些)In fact, it is understandably that courts are not willing to accept the idea of unjust law. That is to say, it is a relatively objective notion（客观的概念。。这个it指代的应该是前面的主语。。。而且这两句其实可以缩一缩成一句还比较简洁）. Firstly, the fairness of law is judged by people with different valuable system. Take the law of euthanasia as a example. It is very likely that people with Christian religion belief will oppose this law since it disobeys gospels in Holy Bible, that is, to suicide is unjust. Conversely, it may support by people who hold belief in humanism, and who might consider this law will mitigate the patients' suffering. Secondly, individual interest will also affect one's judgment on the just of laws. One example aptly illustrates this point involved Individual Income Tax Law. To those rich people, this law seems to be unfair one because it demands them to pay much more tax than those people with low income. However, this law is aimed at striking a balance between rich people and poor people and thus decreases the gap between them.（安乐死那个例子，如果抵抗法律的话，就是不安乐死？安乐死是说让安乐死合法化吧，如果不遵守的话。。。好像也无过。。除非你说不遵守法律就是阻碍那些想安乐死的人。。嗯，跟我那个死刑例子有点儿像。。死刑犯好像不存在不遵守的情况。。）
    这一段糅杂了两个层面的讨论，我们要遵守正义的法律和正义的判定问题。建议分开，因为糅杂会让这一段的中心思想混合不清。而且也影响下文：from these two provisos...的承接

From these two provisos, we could see that an individual judgment of fairness of law cannot necessarily reveal the flaw of the law itself. Thus, people should place more emphasis on the obey of just law rather than the disobey and resistance of unjust laws. In the perspective of common people, one's just law may be others' unjust law, such gap in legal consciousness will inevitably lead to conflicts between people. If everyone is encouraged to disobey and even resist unjust laws, it would be easy to imagine that how chaotic and disorder the society would be. In the respect of law, the effectiveness and majesty of law would be greatly undermined when people disobey and resist laws they regard unjust. Moreover, it is impossible for the legislators to enact laws which satisfy everyone. In fact, the very nature of law is not to satisfy individually, but to maximized the public interest. Therefore, individual sacrifices are usually inevitable and individual resistance of unjust laws will be surely ignored.

However, laws are enacted to protect public interest. To disobey and resist unjust laws becomes necessarily and even desirable when it comes to the laws most people regard as unjust. In this respect, unjust low deviate its original goal, to serve public well. Had Martin Luther King not incited the bus boycott, African American today might be still relegated to the back of the bus and American's development of democracy had to undergo a hardship. Besides, Martin Luther King and his adherents actually did not disobey or resist those unjust laws because such resist behavior would be counterproductive and incur hatred and hostility from whites. Instead, through reasonable d speeches, such as the most famous one---"I have a dream", government gradually realized that those laws were unjust.

To sum up, the speaker is fundamentally correct. （我觉得前面的论述基本上推翻了作者的correct，因为你首先说明正义的判定问题，然后又说遵守正义的法律更重要，然后又部分让步说即使有些法律伤害了人民，也需要理性的沟通。。。这怎么能是基本正确了，应该是基本推翻了吧）We have the obligation to obey just law and require the government to amend the unjust ones. However, we should place more emphasis on those laws most people regard as unjust. Disobey and resistances are not the proper way to make legislator revise the laws. Rather, rational and patient communications should be considerate as a legitimate way,
   我觉得这篇文章讨论的点比较多，然后逻辑排列上就有点犯难了。我当时也是纠结这个问题。譬如说，第二段开头说遵守正义法律很重要，暗含已经有正义和不正义之分，然后又说有些人觉得正义的别人不一定正义，开始讨论正义和不正义的概念问题。这算是一个bug~还有一个问题就是，每一段的主题句都没有明确指出来。譬如第四段，however后面可以先说要理性。。，然后解释原因：因为法律本来要保护人们结果没保护，所以我们不能就这样坐视不管啊。。但是坐视不管要讲方法啊。。。之类的。。。

hugeseaUID: 190158

4# 费话先生

我觉得这个题里面最好不要加上啥natural law之类的词，加上了你又得解释这natural law是啥，我想不是法律专业出生的，对natural law是啥基本解释不清楚吧？