【2010-9-30】第二次作业 I17

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

字数：612

Each time when a new empire established, the first issue on the agenda was and always would be a newly-written constitution respecting its dignity and laws. Quite interestingly, each time when this empire was overthrown, it was exactly due to its "unjust" or even "evil" laws that urged its people on. Since the existing of human history, this causal circle has never ceased, neither did the scholars' discussions upon it. Thus, judging a given law is just/unjust itself is quite controversial in my observation, let alone to recommend individuals to obey one and disobey the other.

Essentially, laws bound to be unsatisfying, the ultimate obligation of which aims at on behalf of the ruling class, well protecting civil rights of those in power, which alter in every historical period. Slavery, or seeing slaves as private property, for example, can soundly illustrate how could a plausible law turn into an “unjust” one. No one would deny the irreplaceable value of slave-trafficking activities in the early years shortly after the discovery of the new world. Also, even before the American Civil War, it remained very legitimate to sell, beat, or even kill a "disobedient" slave for any slave owner. This entitlement, however, was gradually abolished then and finally turned out to be outlawed on account of a change of governing class and a spiritual improvements. As a result, laws, due to its essence and limitations of the times, are controversial to discuss.

Just as laws exist partially and unjustifiably, there are times the obedience of "unjust" laws conforming with the social trends. Every ideological alteration, combined with a systematic reformation and a relevant social revolution, calls forth huge progress towards a higher level of civilization. Take the bourgeois revolution as an instance. What the world would be like if the capitalist class did not outlaw the divine right of kings? In this regard, any rational soul deserves a right - sometimes a responsibility - to struggle for a better-formed justice for the general good of a whole.

Nevertheless, the concrete recognition of justice is defined distinctly, not only in different times, among different individuals, but under different social circumstances. As for the death sentence, those involved in the justice system, prisoners and families of the victims, hold diametrical points of view. In a larger broad, the police, the socialists, as well as the human rights groups are contradicting each other’s theory of the “justice-or-not” of death sentence. A similar controversy happens whenever a new tax law was made. Concerned more about personal interests rather than the governmental regulation, tax evasion and fraud have been some sort of “just” to some social groups. That is to say, rarely can the masses evaluate a true justice of a certain law, soundly and rationally. And accordingly if all individuals judge the laws in their own way, a state of disorder comes. Governments might lose their authorities, tacitly or explicitly. Individuals would feel a loss of faith, truth, and justice. Furthermore, humankind might have to suffer violence, wars, blood, psychosis, death, and perhaps extinction in the end.

Therefore, it is not an individual's, certain social groups, but the whole society's responsibility to perfect the present laws, instead of obey/disobey them. First, governments should take steps as to improve their legislature procedure, paving more concerns on the disadvantaged and the underprivileged such as the poor, released prisoners and colored people. Secondly, mass media are needed vouching for impartiality, common justice, by revealing the dark side of society.

In conclusion, any well-informed person should first realize the truth of laws then sign a social compact respecting the acception of its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them.

ydycgwllUID: 2894737

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结
Orange-建议
Each time when a new empire established, the first issue on the agenda was and always would be a newly-written constitution respecting its dignity and laws. Quite interestingly, each time when this empire was overthrown, it was exactly due to its "unjust" or even "evil" laws that urged its people on. Since the existing of human history, this causal circle has never ceased, neither did the scholars' discussion？. Thus, judging a given law is just/unjust itself is quite unjustified in my observation, let alone to recommend individuals to obey one and disobey the other（个人认为纵观全文后这个观点有很大的漏洞存在，见后面总结）.
小结：历史事实：有国有法，因法灭国；提出自己的意见：没有根据判断法律是否公平

Essentially, laws bound to be unsatisfying, the ultimate obligation of which aims at well-protected civil rights of the ruling class, which alters in every historical period, rather than on behalf of the justice. Slavery, or seeing slaves as private property, for example, can soundly illustrate how could a plausible law turn into an unjust one.
No one would deny the irreplaceable value of slave-trafficking activities in the early years shortly after the discovery of the new world. Also, even before the American Civil War, it remained very legitimate to sell, beat, or even kill a "disobedient" slave for any slave owner. This entitlement, however, was gradually abolished then and
finally turned out to be outlawed on account of a change of governing class and a spiritual improvements.（句子结构组织得不错，地道）
从用词、语气上可以体会到你认为处于人性以及人生来平等的角度这种法律是不公平的，所以是否可以考虑将以上你的观点“没法判断法律公正性”做相应的改变
Just as laws exist partial and unjustifiable（此处exist后面要用副词或名词）, there are times the obedience of "unjust" laws conforming with the social trends. Every ideological alteration, combined with a systematic reformation and a relevant social revolution, calls forth a（progress不可数） huge progress in civilization. Take the bourgeois revolution as an instance. What the world would be like if the capitalist class did not outlaw the divine right of kings? In this regard, any rational soul deserves a right - sometimes a responsibility - to struggle for a higher level justice for the general interests as a whole.
小结：提出法律保护统治阶级的利益，论证法律被更替是顺应历史发展必然；需要变革，促进人类文明发展（这几段之间的关系我看得不是很明确，因为有些主题句让我不理解，还希望你能帮我讲解）
Nevertheless, the concrete conception of justice is defined distinctly（容易让人产生歧义，前面说是否公正没有判断的依据（你自己的观点），而这里又说很清楚地被定义（被社会默认？...），这个矛盾你没有解决，有漏洞）, not only in different times, among different individuals, but under different social circumstances. And accordingly if people are all judge the laws in their own way, a state of disorder comes. Governments might lose their authorities, tacitly or explicitly. Individuals would feel a loss in faith, truth, and justice. Furthermore, the mankind might have to suffer violence, wars, blood, psychosis, death, and perhaps extinction in the end.
小结：暗含意思：人类应该遵守社会默认的公正定义，否则有很多恶果如disorder，wars...？

Therefore, it is not an individual's, but the whole society's responsibility to perfect the present laws, instead of obey/disobey them. First, governments should take steps as to improve their legislature procedure, paving more concerns on the disadvantaged and the underprivileged such as the poor, released prisoners and colored people. Secondly, impartial mass media are needed vouching for common justice, by revealing the dark side of society.
我觉得first不合理，变革从来都不是government自己发动的，而是一个两个的个体渐渐集中到一起反抗才能导致一个社会的变革；因为你的文章前面整体都提到的是不公正制度的更替，而不仅仅是对法律的一点修修补补

In conclusion, any well-informed person should first realize the truth of laws then sign a social beneficial compact, concerning the acception of its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them.
总结：社会人应该首先认识到法律的真相（维护ruling class），还要sign（是指遵守规则中有用的部分吗？上句不大理解）


文中词汇以及句式的变换很丰富；从内容上来讲主要讲了两大部分：一是提出法律可致国忘，并有充分的论证，论据丰富且有充分的说服力；二是指出公正与否没有判断的依据，可是你的文章中第一局就用到了unjust，即已经假设它是存在的是可以与just区分开来的，况且下文中有提到 concrete conception of justice is defined distinctly，这就导致逻辑上不通顺。欢迎讨论~~

tingsnowyUID: 2739192

谢谢你的建议！ 我重新想了下，写了个中文论证思路：红色部分是我想到的在原文里面可能没说明白/没说到的地方。

1.
法律的本质代表统治阶级的justice, 是保障统治阶级的利益，在每个阶段的服务对象都是不同的。举例：奴隶和奴隶制，美国最初的发展奴隶贩卖起到至关重要的作用，直到内战前…也是合法的，而现在，由于统治阶级利益的变化奴隶制被废除，成为违法的。(所以，随着人类文明的演化，法律的本质和时代性使其注定是不完善的。)

2.
正因为法律的不完善，有时应该为顺应时代潮流而反抗“unjust”的法律。每一次意识形态的更替，伴随着社会制度和社会革命，都推进了人类文明。{举例：资产阶级革命}，所以，人们有权利，甚至有义务，去为了全人类共同利益来追求一个更高层次的正义。


3.
但是，正义的具体认知因人，因时，因势而异。同一部法律，不同的社会阶级对其正义与否的认知往往有很大差别 {death sentence和tax law}（而普通人通常是无法准确掌握时代发展的趋势，所以根本无法判断法律的justice） 如果每个人都按照自己的标准去判断法律，去反抗自己认为unjust的法律，社会秩序就会混乱。政府… 人… 整个人类….

4.
因此，对于现存的法律，我们应该针对它的不完善性去完善它，而非去服从/不服从/反抗。首先，政府应该通过改善立法来保障…的利益，其次，大众传媒应发挥积极作用去揭露社会黑暗，保证普遍正义。

结尾：人们应该首先认识到法律的本质，然后去遵守社会契约，也就是说，接受社会契约规定的法律，并承担违背这些法律的惩罚

刘文奇UID: 2850560

Each time when a new empire （was）established, the first issue on the agenda was and always would be a newly-written constitution respecting its dignity and laws. Quite interestingly, each time when this empire was overthrown, it was exactly due to its "unjust" or even "evil" laws that urged its people on. Since the existing of human history, this causal circle has never ceased, neither did the scholars' discussions upon it. Thus, judging a given law is just/unjust itself is quite controversial in my observation, let alone to recommend individuals to obey one and disobey the other（本人认为进入主题有些慢，建议直入主题。很多范文都是直入主题的。）.

Essentially, laws bound to be unsatisfying, the ultimate obligation of which aims at on behalf of the ruling class, well protecting civil rights of those in power, which alter in every historical period. Slavery, or seeing slaves as private property, for example, can soundly illustrate how could a plausible law turn into an “unjust” one（宾语从句，could提后）. No one would deny the irreplaceable value of slave-trafficking activities in the early years shortly after the discovery of the new world. Also, even before the American Civil War, it remained very legitimate to sell, beat, or even kill a "disobedient" slave for any slave owner（s）. This entitlement, however, was gradually abolished then and finally turned out to be outlawed on account of a change of governing class and a spiritual improvements. As a result, laws, due to its essence and limitations of the times, are (too)controversial to discuss.

Just as laws exist partially and unjustifiably, there are times the obedience of "unjust" laws conforming with the social trends. Every ideological alteration, combined with a systematic reformation and a relevant social revolution, calls forth huge progress towards a higher level of civilization. Take the bourgeois revolution as an instance. What the world would be(would提前) like if the capitalist class did not outlaw the divine right of kings? In this regard, any rational soul deserves a right - sometimes a responsibility - to struggle for a better-formed justice for the general good of（as） a whole.

Nevertheless, the concrete recognition of justice is defined distinctly, not only in different times, among different individuals, but under different social circumstances. As for the death sentence, those involved in the justice system, prisoners and families of the victims, hold diametrical points of view. In a larger broad, the police, the socialists, as well as the human rights groups are contradicting each other’s theory of the “justice-or-not” of death sentence. A similar controversy happens whenever a new tax law was made. Concerned more about personal interests rather than the governmental regulation, tax evasion and fraud have been some sort of “just” (merely) to some social groups. That is to say, rarely can the masses evaluate a true justice of a certain law, soundly and rationally. And accordingly if all individuals judge the laws in their own way, a state of disorder comes. Governments might lose their authorities, tacitly or explicitly. Individuals would feel a loss of faith, truth, and justice. Furthermore, humankind might have to suffer violence, wars, blood, psychosis, death, and perhaps extinction in the end.

Therefore, it is not an individual's, certain social groups, but the whole society's responsibility to perfect the present laws, instead of obey/disobey them. First, governments should take steps as to improve their legislature procedure, paving more concerns on the disadvantaged and the underprivileged such as the poor, released prisoners and colored people. Secondly, mass media are needed vouching for impartiality, common justice, by revealing the dark side of society.

In conclusion, any well-informed person should first realize the truth of laws then sign a social compact respecting the acception of its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them.
(评：除了很微小的错误，基本上没有其他错误了。整体来看，语言很流畅，句型也多变，用词也不错。反正整体感觉很生动，论证很充分。但是，我在思考：这种生动性会不会不合适呢？因为这属于比较学术性的文章。当然，这仅仅是为了引起你的思考，本人不发表任何评论。呵呵~)