issue17 楼下的都是大好人!

AaronChiangUID: 2759514

我例子都是从北美范文直接拿过来的，提纲基本上都是照搬issue5.5.。。。。这样做肯定会被判雷同吧。。。。。。。。。
楼下都是大好人！！！
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.