issue17 ice 第8次作业

ice_ykUID: 2909502

Issue17
ice
第8次作业
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."

对法律定义，无法客观评判un/just
评判的标准：基本人权是否得到保障
支持obey just, disobey unjust

Abstract somehow, law should be paied enough attention by all people. From my point of view, dividing laws into just and unjust is limited, and there is no one could completely determine if laws are just or unjust. Whatever, a just law must ensure the basic human rights. And it is fine for people to disobey unjust laws when it is necessary.

To begin with, law is an essential tool to keep the whole society working, no matter how progressive or degraded the way in which a society is organized is. Generally speaking, people wish to live in such a perfect society where they can pursue their hurtless individual goals fairly and safely. Then it requires suitable laws to guarantee the basic human rights and punish crimes when necessary. However, to simply divide laws as just and unjust is limited in some degree, because even if the same clause can have different meanings in the eyes of separate groups. That it, no one stand at the very objective point to judge correctly whether a law is just or unjust. Take laws on tax collection in China as an example. China’s current monthly individual income tax cutoff point is 2,000 yuan, which remains unchanging under the surroundings of the price increases. This situation comes severer to medium and low income earners than the rich. Therefore, the rich may think it is unnecessary to regulate the personal income tax threshold while the average income earners could not bear the present clause any more. It is really hard to distinguish just from unjust.

If there must be a feasible solution for people to decide which parts of laws should be preserved and which parts be amended, even abolished, then some criteria could be referred. Regardless of different classes’ particular views on a certain law for the moment, a just law accepted by all people must be in accord with human nature. As mentioned in the above paragraph, a perfect society, which allows people to realize their dreams fairly and safely, needs laws to guarantee the
human rights. As long as the individuality, liberty, and property are protected lawfully, and the ones who hurt others’ rights are punished in a proper way, the laws in a society could be called just laws. If a law overrodes the basic human rights, it is unjust no matter what great benefits can be brought to some people or even the whole country. What should be remembered is that this
simple criterion is the fundamental one, many other factors involves when people judge laws, such as the executing cost, the indirect influences of laws.

Certainly, people should and will obey just laws, which guarantee their individuality, liberty, and property, which promotes a society developing relatively smoothly. Then how can people do when they face unjust laws? It is reasonsble for them to object unjust laws. Maybe someone say objecting laws would cause social unrest, or it is government’s duty to modify laws. But if ordinary people do not depend upon themselves to change unjust laws, there will remain more serious social problems in the future. For example, some evil government may make the law their own weapon. When people’s rights are impinged, it may do nothing to wait one day the government amends laws but resisting laws directly. Certainly, the resistors must understand clearly the results of their actions and be responsible to those actions.

To sum up, the law is an essential tool for society to work forward. And people cannot simply divide laws into just and unjust for different people get different ideas about the same law. It is not bad for people disobey and ressit to unjust laws if it is necessary.

Boris21UID: 2915545

Abstract somehow, law should be paied enough attention by all people(建议用主动句，虽然law成了客体，但是pay attention一般用主动更有力量，而且建议换个说法，比如法律对社会生活至关重要). From my point of view, dividing laws into just and unjust is limited, and there is no one（建议None of us） could completely determine if laws are just or unjust. Whatever, a just law must ensure the basic human rights. And it is fine（fine，在这里会让句子产生：违点法也是蛮不错的嘛的感觉，建议用态度更明显的词，比如necessary，higly recommended什么的，然后后文写when it is needed） for people to disobey unjust laws when it is necessary.

To begin with, law is an essential tool to keep the whole society working（这个加个补语，因为社会总归是work，就是顺不顺利，和不和谐，所以可加个in harmony）, no matter how progressive or degraded the way in which a society is organized is. Generally speaking, people wish to live in such a perfect society where they can pursue their hurtless individual goals fairly and safely. Then it requires suitable（certain） laws to guarantee（保障权利用protect，gurantee没有这个用法） the basic human rights and punish crimes when necessary（可以去掉，呵呵，因为打击犯罪那是必须的，不是在须要的时候）. However, to simply divide laws as just and unjust is limited in some degree, because even if the same clause can have different meanings in the eyes of separate groups. That it, no one stand at the very objective point to judge correctly（properly，要注意语言的nuance） whether a law is just or unjust. Take laws on tax collection in China as an example. China’s current monthly individual income tax cutoff point is 2,000 yuan, which remains unchanging under the surroundings of the price increases. This situation comes severer to medium and low income earners（是不是families 更顺些） than the rich（er ones）. Therefore, the rich（es） may think it is unnecessary to regulate the personal income tax threshold while the average income earners could not bear the present clause any more. It is really hard to distinguish just from unjust. （这个例子，有点事公平合理的问题，最好将其与just联系起来再用。）

If there must be a feasible solution for people to decide which parts of laws should be preserved and which parts be amended, even abolished, then some criteria could be referred. Regardless of different classes’ particular views on a certain law for the moment, a just law accepted by all people must be in accord with human nature. As mentioned in the above paragraph, a perfect society, which allows people to realize their dreams fairly and safely, needs laws to guarantee the
human rights. As long as the individuality, liberty, and property are protected lawfully, and the ones who hurt others’ rights are punished in a proper way,（这里涉及到一个问题，即人的权利有时相互矛盾，不能同时实现。） the laws in a society could be called just laws. If a law overrodes the basic human rights, it is unjust no matter what great benefits can be brought to some people or even the whole country. What should be remembered is that this
simple criterion is the fundamental one, many other factors involves when people judge laws, such as the executing cost, the indirect influences of laws.

Certainly, people should and will obey just laws, which guarantee their individuality, liberty, and property, which promotes a society developing relatively smoothly. Then how can people do when they face unjust laws? It is reasonsble for them to object unjust laws. Maybe someone say objecting laws would cause social unrest, or it is government’s duty to modify laws. But if ordinary people do not depend upon themselves to change unjust laws, there will remain more serious social problems in the future. For example, some evil government（这个···是不是换个说法··Authoritarian，什么的，我也说不好，不过evil总归有点奇怪） may make the law their own weapon（这个提法有些问题，在今天政府是行政机构，政府只能执法，不能立法，议会才能立法，所以不是法律部just，而是conduct的问题。如果是专制国家，尽量不要用government，可以用regime，呵呵一般美国说朝鲜、俄罗斯采用这个词。为了避免weaken TS，也使行文更简洁流畅，可说成，当法律被利用去攫取利益，那么……，就可避免使用政府什么等概念）. When people’s rights are impinged, it may do nothing to wait one day the government amends laws but resisting laws directly. Certainly, the resistors must understand clearly the results of their actions and be responsible to those actions.
建议补充些：当然，实践中，这样做，也会带来问题，而且要付出代价来
To sum up, the law is an essential tool for society to work forward. And people cannot simply divide laws into just and unjust for different people get different ideas about the same law. It is not bad for people disobey and ressit to unjust laws if it is necessary.

证明应该做一件事，个人觉得是不是可从道理上的正确性，现实的需要，和现实的可行性入手。

Revised by Boris