Issue 17... 希望大家能看一看. 谢谢

anthony19891019UID: 2855245

Issue17 “There are two types of law: 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.”

What is the just laws and unjust laws? This problem has set tongue wagging in the public for these years, and no consensus has been arrived because everyone might have his/her answer. From my own perspective, the notion of law justice held differently by everyone, and the law we are using is relatively just to protect our rights in many aspects except for the totalitarian countries like North Korea. Moreover, we should obey just laws consistently meanwhile disobey the unjust laws by adequate means.

The definitions of just and unjust are vague in common. Each individual has his own interest, position and value system, therefore the concept of just and unjust might be varied among the public. The issue of euthanasia is always under the limelight these decades due to a conflict between the infringement of the Bible rules and the needs of detaching pains by the vegetative patients. Another case suits the problem is the polygamy policy in most of the Islamic countries. The above two examples also serve that the two different groups might have varied opinions on a specific issues while their values and interests are collided. Supposing that euthanasia is banned by the local parliament, the clergies might be in rapture for keeping the integrity of the Bible while the vegetative patients weep by lying on the bed spiritlessly. The Islamic men can switch the sleeping partner every night while most of the Islamic women have only a half or even one fourth husbands if the polygamy acts are still legal. Since there are infinite examples rather than these two, it means the concept of justice of law rarely has a common belief in the society.

Nevertheless, the current laws in most of the countries are relatively just for taking into consideration of the every party with dissimilar interests. Demonstrably, there is unlikely for all the clauses in a law to be advantageous for a specific party except for the totalitarian society like the current North Korea and the white man dominated United States 200 years ago. Disregarding the two extreme examples mentioned above, I would suggest that everyone should regulate to the law. The pure purpose of law is to protect everyone’s rights from being infringed by others. If someone just disobeys the laws unfavorable to him, the social order will be collapsed and a chaotic society can be imagined. The laws must have authoritativeness to let people know it can’t be challenged easily but only adhere to, or a severe punishment will be served.

Let us return to the two above extreme examples. What can we do if we live in a society with absolute prejudices and injustices? In my eyes, I do not suggest a radical way against the government, but by adopting a mild mean might change the one-sided world. Just recalled by the cases of Sir Martin Luther King, what he did was extricating the Black men’s world gradually by advocating no direct violation to the government. By the same token the feat of Mr. Mohammed Gandhi can serve as another exemplification because his guidance of non-cooperation movement helped Indian to get back their deserved regime. These two examples best indicate the success for mild actions overthrowing the powerful potentate, otherwise the radical and headlong actions to controvert the government might incur some big troubles or even revenges to the remonstrators. For instance one can imagine the consequence of a citizen opposing Kim-Jung-Il’s deeds in a Pyongyang plaza. Being jailed solely in the concentration camp is the best case in my eyes, no mention to implicate his families probably. As an old Chinese saying goes, “It is futile for an egg to hit a boulder”; but grind a roe into a needle can be achieved by unremitting determination. Sometimes the injustices cannot be eliminated by only direct movement act radically, but the patience and determination are needed to carry on a long-term battle.

For the conclusion, there is no definition of the justice of law in public sense. The former U.S. president Jefferson left a well-known saying, “No society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law”. As people have to abide by the existing law, I would suggest the government should establish an organization to review the current law within a certain period of time, just like Law Commission in United Kingdom. Even living in a totalitarian society, the environment of rule can be also promoted step by step.

forkidUID: 2845790

Issue17 “There are two types of law: 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.”

What is the just laws and unjust laws? 【关于首句有个建议，因为把句子倒回来The just and unjust laws are …很奇怪，感觉作者的是 What is the difference between …或者How can we define …是吧？】This problem has set tongue wagging in the public for these years, and no consensus has been arrived because everyone might have his/her answer. From my own perspective, the notion of law justice held differently by everyone, and the law we are using is relatively just to protect our rights in many aspects except for the totalitarian countries like North Korea. Moreover, we should obey just laws consistently meanwhile disobey the unjust laws by adequate means.【第一点，每个人对law justice的判断不同，第二点，法律保护我们的全力，第三点，守法且合理抗法。。- -b，先说句子上的问题，其实你这三句可以用一个逻辑关系联系来，尽管我们每个人对法律的。。。不同，但是由于法律还是保护我们的。。。，所以，我们要守法，但有时也需要合理的抗法。其次，你表述的disobey the unjust laws by adequate means，个人感觉有违原题了，因为原题中提到的unjust law, 而这句中感觉just laws 只要你是adequate means也可以disobey了，对吧？】

The definitions of just and unjust are vague in common. Each individual has his own interest, position and value system, therefore the concept of just and unjust might be varied among the public.【很好，说了开头的第一点！】The issue of euthanasia is always under the limelight these decades due to a conflict between the infringement of the Bible rules and the needs of detaching pains by the vegetative patients. Another case suits the problem is the polygamy policy in most of the Islamic countries. The above two examples also serve that the two different groups might have varied opinions on a specific issues while their values and interests are collided. 【很好的句式和分析！】Supposing that euthanasia is banned by the local parliament, the clergies might be in rapture for keeping the integrity of the Bible while the vegetative patients weep by lying on the bed spiritlessly. The Islamic men can switch the sleeping partner every night while most of the Islamic women have only a half or even one fourth husbands if the polygamy acts are still legal. Since there are infinite examples rather than these two, it means the concept of justice of law rarely has a common belief in the society.【很好的段落和例子，没细看句子，但学习了，可以再加上一句总结哦】

Nevertheless, the current laws in most of the countries are relatively just for taking into consideration of the every party with dissimilar interests. 【开始说第二点了！】Demonstrably, there is unlikely for all the clauses in a law to be advantageous for a specific party except for the totalitarian society like the current North Korea and the white man dominated United States 200 years ago. Disregarding the two extreme examples mentioned above, I would suggest that everyone should regulate to the law. The pure purpose of law is to protect everyone’s rights from being infringed by others. If someone just disobeys the laws unfavorable to him, the social order will be collapsed and a chaotic society can be imagined. The laws must have authoritativeness to let people know it can’t be challenged easily but only adhere to, or a severe punishment will be served.

Let us return to the two above extreme examples. What can we do if we live in a society with absolute prejudices and injustices? In my eyes, I do not suggest a radical way against the government, but by adopting a mild mean might change the one-sided world. Just recalled by the cases of Sir Martin Luther King, what he did was extricating the Black men’s world gradually by advocating no direct violation to the government. By the same token the feat of Mr. Mohammed Gandhi can serve as another exemplification because his guidance of non-cooperation movement helped Indian to get back their deserved regime. These two examples best indicate the success for mild actions overthrowing the powerful potentate, otherwise the radical and headlong actions to controvert the government might incur some big troubles or even revenges to the remonstrators. For instance one can imagine the consequence of a citizen opposing Kim-Jung-Il’s deeds in a Pyongyang plaza. Being jailed solely in the concentration camp is the best case in my eyes, no mention to implicate his families probably. As an old Chinese saying goes, “It is futile for an egg to hit a boulder”; but grind a roe into a needle can be achieved by unremitting determination. Sometimes the injustices cannot be eliminated by only direct movement act radically, but the patience and determination are needed to carry on a long-term battle. 【恩，原来你说的disobey law是有前提的，建议在开头也这样提下】

For the conclusion, there is no definition of the justice of law in public sense. The former U.S. president Jefferson left a well-known saying, “No society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law”. As people have to abide by the existing law, I would suggest the government should establish an organization to review the current law within a certain period of time, just like Law Commission in United Kingdom. Even living in a totalitarian society, the environment of rule can be also promoted step by step. 【引申式的结尾，比我的好多了】

【好文，学习了，例子很充分，意见已经标注，加油！】

anthony19891019UID: 2855245

谢谢你!! 我改改去~!

AaronChiangUID: 2759514

我粘一篇我的issue17.。  The statement"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."is somehow rational in theory just if you view its basic purpose and find it even comparatively identical to the fundamental goals of the law.So what is the goals of law?There are two goals,in brief, of laws in our democracy society: one goal is intended to give effects to the policies ,for example,providing benefits when workers injured on the jobs ,for health care and for the loan to students who otherwise might not able to go to university;the other goal is the fairness, which means the law recognizes and protects individual rights and freedoms, meanwhile restricts the power of the great groups and individuals.These two goals try to create and maintain a just ,relatively stable society in which people can live equally and individuals' interests is safeguarded.Fortunately, the justice and sanctity of laws promises the realization of this democracy society,and such society can build a atmosphere in which people acquire the awareness to seek the justice.Justice in action starts from justice in perception,meaning such awareness can urge individuals to obey the just laws and ,if any, recorrect the unjust laws.These results ,in return ,reinforce the justice and sanctity of the law.
  Such virtuous circle seems perfect in theory, however, once putting it in pratice,you will find two key problems hindierng the realization of justice and the elimination of injustice.First,whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue .The justice of certain law depends on ones'value judgment .It is especially true when it comes to one's freedom and interests.Considering ,for instance,the controversial issue of abortion,individuals in some particular religious beliefs may regard the law allowing women an abortion choice unjust,while individuals in other value systems views such just.Even though the society have achieve a consensus on justice,there would lie the second problem: which is a proper procedure we can take ,through which justice is realized and injustice is eliminated.Obviously, what the statement recommends is too extreme.The disobeience and resist to the injustice is an ineffective and potientially harmful means of legal reform.For example, Most individuals would argue that our federal systems of income taxation is unfair in one respect or another.Yet the final results of disobeience or evasion,is the emptiness of the state treasury ,from which a series of serious social problems arise.In a conclution, it, when people have no proper judgement to categorizes certain law fair or not and have no idea which process or action should be taken to eliminate the unfairness,can result in such scene as the real injustice is overlooked ,justice is destroyed and the sanctity of the law is trampled.These would fianlly lead to the chaos of a society.
In sum,the realization of the justice and the elimination of the injustice depends on two respects:the society consensus to the meaning of the justice ,in such case as individuals consider certain law not in the point of one's view but the major's or the innocent's and poor's;the proper procedures justice is guaranteed and injustice is got rid of,which is not the unreasoning resist but perhaps just speaking out publicly and to seek changes the unjust law by lawful means.Otherwise,no fairness would exist.。。例子都是从北美范文那里扣的。。。