这是小菜我写的ISSUE17，希望各位大侠狠狠的批！！

willy67UID: 2694330

这是小菜我写的Issue 17， 本人上过新东方但是这一片是按照自己的模板和思路写的，希望大家能帮忙看看，无论多小的错误和不足，只要指出来，我都感谢你们。 希望你们的意见可以为我以后自己批改提供好的参考。 还有我快考了，希望大家及时帮忙，拜谢！！Issue 17  "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"

Can we only obey to just laws and disobey to the unjust laws? The author claims so. However, in my opinion, I cannot agree with the author, for reasons that whether it is just or unjust depends on subjective definition of justice so that there is no absolute right and wrong or just and unjust.  Even if sometimes, the laws cannot be fair enough to ensure personal interests, we cannot disobey with negative emotions, instead, we should this disapproval in a constructive and more positive way.

To begin with, it is difficult to divide the laws into two groups depends on the level of fairness which is a kind of subjective judgments. After all, different people will have distinctive standards in order to measure and maintain or protect their own benefits and stakes. The following example will clearly illustrate it: there is always heated debate on the proposal about the elimination of speed limit on highways. Some people support the elimination, especially those businessmen and Transport Company, for reasons that greater speed means more efficient travel and faster commercial deliveries, and thus increase the profits. However, other people think that speed limit is necessary and essential on highways. Greater speeds will more frequently lead to accidents-especially for those large trucks. So, it will be more dangerous to drive on the highways without speed limits. In conclusion, some people think speed limits are essential and just because it ensure their safety, while others think it is unjust because it despoils their interests. Undoubtedly, people’s caring about their own interests and benefits decides that our laws should take the overall situation into account to balance two side's stakes and then make the relatively fair decision.

Further, it is the difference and conflict between personal and general profits that leads to the thought-we should obey the just laws and disobey the unjust laws. And in many cases, they cannot be compatable. When our laws try to gratify everyone, it will lose the integrity and practicality and will result in the chaos and disturbance. If so, all of the illegal things will turn into legal ones: everyone who commits a crime will free from the punishment because they do this just to meet their needs and the laws will be so just to satisfy their needs. It is horrible to anticipate how turbulent and evil the society will be when the laws can satisfy everyone’s need and benefit.

Finally, the laws are formed and voted by majority of people so that it can be representative of most people's benefits and everybody will be equal in front of it. So, one's obedience means the objection to the laws and objection to the public benefits. For example, drivers are banned on the road to turn right or turn left in some conjunctions. If one disregard and violate the regulation just because this limit does harm to his convenience, he may result in serious accidents and finally be punished. However, if he can reflect the problem to the Department in a more constructive way, the limit may be eliminated as more and more citizens require the elimination. This former obedience is negative and selfish because he only put emphasis on his own benefits, while despoiling others'. Accordingly, such radical behaviors as resist or obey to the laws due to personal interests cannot be accepted .

In conclusion, because of the function of our laws is to balance the profits and benefits between individual and individual, or individual and society, and to maintain the safety and harmony of the society, different people with different positions will have different opinions about its justice. However, we should obey the laws to the most extent and help perfect it in a positive way because it is the standard of the whole society.

willy67UID: 2694330

求拍啊！！！求拍啊！！

为什么没人理我:mad:

myselfitUID: 2864254

     法律是大众意志的体现。法律的公正性指的是社会公正，即社会的政治利益、经济利益和其他利益在全体社会成员之间大致合理而平等的分配。具体到个人，不一定会使每个人利益分配到他所认为理想的。因而导致了个人关于法律的属于个人主观道德范畴的看法。这种纯以个人为基础的看法导致的对法律的各种行为，会扰乱法制。这意味着从广义的角度上来讲，我们必须遵守法律，在不考虑其是否社会公正时。
    如果人们注重的是社会公正，那么公正的法律对这个社会的好处是多方面的。
    相反，缺乏社会公正的法律是会影响社会的发展的，我们应该反对它，抵制它。
    但抵制必须是合法合理，否则将违背法的精神，在某种程度上反而扩大了法的不公平性。

willy67UID: 2694330

那你觉得我写的哪里有什么不妥？

能具体指教一下吗？