Issue17 just and unjust laws求指点，批改

AdobereaderUID: 2864798

Issue 17 There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in the society has a responsibility to obey the just laws and disobey the unjust laws.

Position: completely disagree
P2让步一下，阐明法律不是个人意愿的体现 对应题目的individual
P3Just ,unjust 不是衡量法律的好坏的准确标准，对应just and unjust
P4看待法律的态度，obey 和disobey 两方面 对应题目 obey disobey
Conclusion

According to this assertion, speaker categorizes laws as just laws and unjust laws and recommends us to obey just laws and disobey the unjust laws. However, it is obviously arbitrary and presumptuous to judge whether laws are just or unjust according to individual’s conscience and logic, even the way speaker categorize laws is worthy to untenable. Furthermore, this is no more far-fetched than on the speaker’s proposal that individuals respond to the laws with obedience and disobedience. Thus, it is tempting to oppose this assertion, and following is the process of explanation and demonstration for this issue.

I concede that the majority of populace share the belief that just laws is those regulations appeal to personal financial profit and democratic principles. Owing to the diversity of survival conditions and mental level, the willing and expectation differ distinctly. For instance, there no denying that increasing taxation as a significant and applicable approach is widely utilized across the countries to subsidize the programs which are worthy to support. Nevertheless, for the populace, the invisible pressure arouses the general suspicion and discontent which challenge the authority of laws. The saying is used to point that law is the embodiment of general willing instead of individuals’.



A compelling argument against the speaker’s position is that the standard shouldn’t be judged by whether the laws are just or unjust, but efficiency in maintaining the balance of social interest. In this angle, it is inevitable to probe into the purpose of Laws. Law serves to ensure the society operates in order and protect individual profit and public rights we deserve. Consider, for example, with problems of environmental pollution, many ordinances about environmental protection are constituted. Obviously, the ordinances are more scenarios dealing with pragmatic questions than laws, thus, a large numbers of laws is inappropriate to be criticize as just or unjust.

When it comes to attitudes towards various laws, neither to obey nor to disobey is a proper position we should propose. Rather normally, populaces prefer to obey the so-called “just laws” which reassure them. Yet, if populaces disobey the “unjust laws” which cause averse, the risk of violation in laws comes meanwhile. Under the imaginary condition without controlling and compulsion, a presumption we can make is that human civilization would bog down, even go backward centuries.

In sum, laws, an abstract and profound philosophic notion, reproduction of human civilization and embodiment of human wisdom, shouldn’t be summarized into two types in a simple way. In addition, the virtual responsibility we can’t evade is to respect and adorn the authority of laws instead of to abbey or disobey. And whether the wonders will generate again centuries later?

AdobereaderUID: 2864798

跪求各位，不用太具体，看看结构就可以。