issue17（法律公正） 提纲+正文 觉得法律类太纠结 所以向大家求助 希望大家帮忙

ichbinlztUID: 2863718

第一篇写法律


17号上海考。。。argument差不多复习完了。。。却发现issue问题很大。。。


提纲——


一，先讨论命题第一句：公正与否的判断很困难
二，讨论第二句：都要遵守的观点
三，民主社会下 法律的演变
四，不民主社会下，非暴力不合作


673是45分钟，后来修改了下所以总字数比较多


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: 673
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/8/9 12:25:07

The dual assertion seems reasonable to large extent and even perfect by urging people to see laws from both sides and watch out when obeying any laws thus one can be unbiased. I can hardly agree with the specious and radical assertion for many respects despite the fact that laws are not flawless and the speaker's alleged disobedience of unjust laws sometimes occurred and brought upon satisfactory effects and impacts towards society.

The threshold problem with the assertion is whether it is justifiable to distinguish just laws and unjust laws. Based on my experience and expertise and observation of human history, there can never be absolute justice which can only existed in Plato's imagination and supposition. Laws are made by humans, citizens whose minds are not flawless, not Gods or Jesus who transcends society and Earth and human nature. Thus, the establishment of laws might not be absolute just. Next, the attitudes towards the similar or identical laws might differ on different subjects and objects because people are in different social classes and represent different groups whose interests always conflict with each other. Therefore, what people can often observe is that different social classes or different persons are on totally different standpoints towards laws and hold opposite views on whether certain laws are just or unjust. Moreover, the laws are not only about justice, or keeping everyone equal in the rights endowed by heaven. In many occasions, laws have to strike a balance on the interests of different classes and even sustainable development of a nation. Consider the "one child policy" implemented in China which seems rather ridiculous and restricts the freedom of giving birth. One has to concede that without such policy, the population of China might explode even severely than the situation of today and the nation might suffer from the consequences such as acute lack of resources and unstable society due to the horribly expanding population. And in such cases, the argument on the justice of "one child policy" might be meaningless. In other words, an educated person's view on the issues on laws should not be restricted in its justice.

Consider the other part of the speaker's assertion that one should choose laws to obey but not obey without classification and choices. Due to the aforesaid justice problems, the author's thoughts might be too naive and cannot be feasible because the work on classification of laws is Penelope's web. And in any society which rests upon sustainable development and emphasizes stability, such disobediences can never be practical and excused. Suppose certain laws are challenged by disobedience and the authorities take not enough measures. Once such phenomenon happens in a community, the inaction might be regarded as slippery slope towards exculpating other kinds of laws which might be also controversial. Such subsequent impacts are probably disastrous and ruin the whole legislative and executive systems of the community and the collapse of the community and other humanitarian catastrophes will surely follow without the basic protection of laws.

According to the French political philosopher, Jane-Jacques Rousseau's theory about laws, in a democratic society, the state reflects the general will of people and in obeying its laws one is pursuing his or her reasonable interests. And when one finds laws conflict with his own interests, it is because he fails to observe on the moral standard. Nonetheless, society and human might change and laws sometimes are out of date thus laws are not just at all or laws are against the mainstream of society. In such cases, disobedience should neither be encouraged. The correct attitude towards the fallacies  of established laws is to reflect them to the legislators through proper way. Only in this mild way would social regulations be improved appropriately and we maintain our rights to the most without imprudence. Of course, such modification is dependent on democratic society and reasonable legislation procedures. Hence though Rousseau’s theories might support my aforementioned views, one has to notice that the democratic society and the ideal state, which is indispensable for this conclusion, might not really exist.

This paradox reminds me several famous cases. Consider the feminist Susan B Anthony's case in 1872, she was arrested and convicted of voting in national presidential election; but she refused to pay the $100 fine at last. This event, like Nelson Mandela’s case, does encourage people to fight for freedom under dictatorship. And consider the trial of Socrates, as is known to all that at last Socrates is murdered by the so-called democratic society. Admittedly, but for the decline of democratic political affairs in Athens Socrates would not be sued. Thus, under undemocratic or pseudo-democratic situation, through disobeying unjust laws or even complying with unjust judgment, great fighters waken up other citizens, and my principle is that only nonviolent disobedience can be respected, in our civilized times. Or in other words, citizens need peace and evolution but not radical revolution.

In sum, people should not define laws just or unjust and in a relatively democratic society equipped with healthy legislative department, people should always obey its laws. But in undemocratic society, humans need those brave minds which can waken up others and sacrifice themselves to some extent.

ichbinlztUID: 2863718

囧~~~求助啊~~~~看看这样行不行啊。。。。

hugeseaUID: 190158

不敢改，呵呵，好多好多说不清楚的例子啊