秋季提纲互改小组-Issue65

ee_stoneUID: 3573213

Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

TS:
Laws are sets of rules which are made to maintain the justice and stability of a society . Although there may be different opinions on a specific law, obeying laws is a baseline of behaviors in a democratic society, in which the laws are made and modified by all of its people (through an elected legislature). Disobeying unjust laws don't help to fix the root cause of the generation of unjust laws, and will jeopardize the stability of the society.

5完全同意-4同意-3-中立-2-不同意-1-完全不同意
主旨句提出有层次的观点。 4
主旨句充分回应题目。 3 （没有回应个人和责任这两个概念）
主旨句提到可能的挑战。1


ts1:
In modern democratic societies, the laws are made and approved by the people. Being a member in such a society, one has the basic responsibility to obey the laws which have been enacted.
从公民责任的角度来论述在一个民主社会当中，法律的制定相当于公民之间的契约，本着契约精神，公民应当有遵守法律的基本义务。



5完全同意-4同意-3-中立-2-不同意-1-完全不同意
主题句明确支持主旨句的分论点。5
中间段提出合适的例子支持分论点。1
中间段清晰论述提出的例子如何支持分论点。1



ts2:
Some people may argue that they don't have enough impact to change the unjust laws, so they can only disobey the law instead. The root cause lies in the society system rather than the law itself.
很多人认为他们没有能力改变法律，因此只能靠违反法律表达不满。但是根本原因是社会制度本身。抵制一条不公正的法律不能防止其他不公正的法律的继续产生。

5完全同意-4同意-3-中立-2-不同意-1-完全不同意
主题句明确支持主旨句的分论点。2
中间段提出合适的例子支持分论点。1
中间段清晰论述提出的例子如何支持分论点。1


ts3:
It is common that people have different opinions on whether a law is just or not, however, to express the discontent by simply disobeying the law may weaken the stability of a society.
从不遵守法律所可能带来的社会混乱论述。例如每个人对税法的理解都不相同，很多人觉得税收过高，但是如果这些人都不纳税的话，整个政府和社会的正常运转都将受到影响。又或者有些人觉得杀人不偿命不合理，受害人的家属都去复仇，也会引起社会混乱。

5完全同意-4同意-3-中立-2-不同意-1-完全不同意
主题句明确支持主旨句的分论点。4
中间段提出合适的例子支持分论点。4
中间段清晰论述提出的例子如何支持分论点。4

整体思路
各分论点不矛盾。4
各分论点组成一个整合的观点。2
各分论点的顺序安排合理。2  （挑战应放在最后讨论）


初步尝试用标准化的形式提出反馈 请提出意见

zsczslUID: 2888426

王老师好，今天我新写了以下大纲，还请老师评点，多谢啦！

TS (pt1, pt2, pt3): In modern society, we are facing a variety of laws, among which some are deemed just yet the others are deemed unjust by different groups of people. Some of us maintain that every member of the society is responsible for obeying the just laws and resisting the unjust ones. Although I agree that we should surely follow the fair laws, we need to change unfair ones rather than simply violate them. My opponents may argue that individual disobedience of the unjust laws is one of the ways to change them, whilst I reckon that such behavior, which draws the attention of the legislature via causing the social turmoil, is costly in democratic countries and cannot effectively solve the problem in an autocratic nation.

ts (pt1): To begin with, I cannot refute that every person in a society must follow the laws which are generally considered to be reasonable, otherwise the social order will crumble soon. 例如全世界各国都立法禁止杀人，这体现了对生命权的尊重，而几乎人人都认为这法律是公平的。如果人们对这种法律都肆意践踏的话，那么社会秩序必将崩溃。具体的例子，2011 Norway attacks， Anders Behring Breivik, 单枪匹马killed 77 people in two attacks，要是所有挪威人都像他那样，那么挪威早就血流成河了。

ts (pt2): However, faced with a unfair law, a person needs to do his/her best to change it instead of merely violating it. 认为法律不公而个人违法，是逞匹夫之勇的表现，只能给自己带来麻烦，不能推动社会的进步。反之，认为某项法律不公，广邀同道中人，同心协力一起改变法律，才是真英雄所为。比如当年，英国政府为北美殖民地制定了不公平的法律，像随意征税、解散代表会、干涉其对外贸易等。有些人对这些法律不满，自己抗税或是违法与外国人做交易，结果仅仅被英国政府罚款或是投入监牢。而有的人则团结起来，向英国政府多方请愿，均遭失败后，他们就聚在一起，讨论如何改变英国政府强加给北美人民的不公正法律。最后他们写出了The Declaration of Independence，痛斥英国政府恶法，而后组织军队将英国殖民政府的军队赶出北美，自己根据北美的实际情况制定了新的税法和贸易法等，彻底改变了不公正的法律，而他们则成了美国国父。

ts (p3): At the same time, some do not agree with me and point out that to resist a unfair law will automatically force the legislature to alter it. Conversely, I do not think we should confuse the attempt to modify a law and the behavior of only disobeying it.  那些反对我的人的逻辑是这样的，只要各自为战的个人们违反某项法律的次数够多了，引起了社会混乱，立法机构的人看见了，为了平息风波，就会自己改变法律。这也许在民主社会里有效，然而既然是在民主社会里，又何必通过制造混乱来引起政府高层注意，直接选举表示会修改某项法律的官员上台，或是到立法机构游说、请愿、示威，都能达到目的。对于专制政府，个人违法肯定是不能自动改变法律的。比如在苏联，斯大林想要在三十年代初将乌克兰的私人农场集体化，就先将可作为民众领袖的乌克兰知识分子全部逮捕，然后杀掉或是送到西伯利亚，然后颁布了集体化法律。当时乌克兰私人农场很兴旺，很多人反对集体化，但由于缺乏领导，结果只有以个人为单位违法，被苏联当局各个击破，在人造的Ukraine Famine中被整死、饿死了千万有余。