Issue17 公平的法律和不公平的法律？法律问题我的思考很少，接触也少，大家来找

CHERRYlbyUID: 170649

Issue17: 472 words  45 minutes
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.

I agree with the speaker's assertion that everyone has the responsibility of obeying just laws and resist unjust ones. His dividing of laws: just and unjust is somewhat reasonable within my cognition.

On the one hand, in my opinion, just laws are those which restrain people's behavior of moral and ethical standards. These laws are the guarding force of a society's healthy working and development. Without them, people who lack the sense of right and wrong would be most likely to commit a crime which harm the other's property, health and even lives. For example, it is universal accepted that people who murdered a person is going to be punished or sentenced to death as well. Since killing may not be a crime in their moral thoughts and they feel nothing guilty about themselves. Then it's necessary that certain type of laws must be established to prevent their behavior and punish them. Also, some laws that restrain people to smoke or spit in the public area protect the environment as well as people's health condition. As a result, people should have a responsibility to obey them for the well being and healthy environment of the society.

On the other hand, autocrats who make use of them to satisafy their own needs and may impair the whole system of society established unjust laws. Obeying to these laws would badly influence the society and lead it beyond the right track. For example, in order to invade into other countries, expand the domain of German and so-called keep the purity of nation, German autocrats Adolf. Hitler implemented laws to begin aggression all through Europe and start massacre to all the Jewish people. Germans at that time were deceived by him and followed his laws. History proves us that it was totally damaging not only to Germany, but also to the whole world. The famous Second World War had caused worldwide economy decline and death of millions of thousands of people. So when facing these laws, people should disobey and resist them.

Also, disobeying of the unjust and unreasonable laws caused many innovations. There were many periods when people fight against the royalties and searching for freedom. The movie Brave Heart, which was a reflection of the ancient Scotland revolutionary leader William Wallace, demonstrates my assertion. Ruled by the cruel and greedy Scottish royalties, William would no longer stand the law of First Night Right, which demanded all the brides should spend their wedding night with one of the royalty members. He not only disobeyed and resisted them but also broke a revolution to the rulers. Finally, he succeeded in arousing the people's power and beat the royalties and gained better lives.［呵呵，实在想不出来例子了］

To sum up, people should be independent thinkers in this issue. After all, laws are made for people's overall benefits. So to obey the just law and resist the unjust would benefit the society instead of harming.

CHERRYlbyUID: 170649

uouo!
是不是太烂了？？

cssUID: 173612

I agree with the speaker's assertion that everyone has the responsibility of obeying just laws and resist unjust ones. His dividing of laws: just and unjust is somewhat( 好像有所限制，那么下面就应有让步的地方) reasonable within my cognition.

On the one hand, in my opinion, just laws are those which restrain people's behavior of moral and ethical standards. These laws are the guarding force of a society's healthy working and development. Without them, people who lack the sense of right and wrong would be most likely to commit a crime which harm （harms!）the other's property, health and even lives. For example, it is universal（有着个用法？又也应该是universally吧） accepted that people who murdered a person is going to be punished or sentenced to death as well. Since killing may not be a crime in their moral thoughts and they feel nothing guilty about themselves. Then it's necessary that certain type of laws must be established to prevent their behavior and punish them. Also, some laws that restrain people to smoke or spit in the public area protect the environment as well as people's health condition.( TS主要写道德伦理 有关的法律，这个例子讲健康，有点 勉强) As a result, people should have a responsibility to obey them for the well being and healthy environment of the society.（可以在深入讲一下killing的例子，可以从overall的观点出发）

On the other hand, autocrats who make use of them to satisafy（satisfy） their own needs and may impair the whole system of society established unjust laws. Obeying to these laws would badly influence the society and lead it beyond the right track. For example, in order to invade into other countries, expand the domain of German and so-called keep the purity of nation, German autocrats（一个人） Adolf. Hitler implemented laws to begin aggression all through Europe and start massacre to all the Jewish people. Germans at that time were deceived by him and followed his laws. History proves us that it was totally damaging not only to Germany, but also to the whole world. The famous Second World War （只讲犹太人！）had caused worldwide economy decline and death of millions of thousands of people. So when facing these laws, people should disobey and resist them.( 例子不错)

Also, disobeying of the unjust and unreasonable laws caused many innovations（从brave heart来看，不如讲revolution或者social transformation）. There were many periods when people fight against the royalties and searching for freedom. The movie Brave Heart, which was a reflection of the ancient Scotland revolutionary leader William Wallace, demonstrates my assertion. Ruled by the cruel and greedy Scottish royalties, William would no longer stand the law of First Night Right, which demanded all the brides should spend their wedding night with one of the royalty members. He not only disobeyed and resisted them but also broke a revolution（好像是对英国的？） to the rulers. Finally, he succeeded in arousing the people's power and beat the royalties and gained better lives.［呵呵，实在想不出来例子了］（例子很好呀，就是写的时候没有围绕中心）

To sum up, people should be independent thinkers in this issue. After all, laws are made for people's overall benefits. So to obey the just law and resist the unjust would benefit the society instead of harming.（结尾很好）

cssUID: 173612

------题目------
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.
------正文------

Is it people's responsibility to obey just laws and disobey and resist unjust laws? Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth; but the former, which seems reasonable and meaningful, from my viewpoint, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society.

The word just is a word without definite criterion, as for law, which is just and unjust is more difficult to judge. Therefore, it's hard to say whether the disobedience of unjust laws is correct. If law is just to everyone, then it can not be entitled as law. The democratic law is only a gauge among most of the people, but not all the people. Even if it can be named as just law, there are still injustices to some certain persons. For instance, a law prohibiting the cloning of humans is just to the ones who support the order and moral of the society, but it seems unreasonable and unjust to some scientists who believe human cloning is never a vicious research if controlled. The disobedience to this law, if these scientists consider as a responsibility of the destiny and development of humans, the result can be unimaginable, maybe the whole society will be full of chaos such as ethic disorder and demoralization. So in this aspect, the disobedience of unjust laws is not advisable and should be prohibited.

Even the laws of autocratic countries, has its own effect. Perhaps a question will be put forward that the laws is no doubt unjust in autocratic countries in that it serves for the gubernatorial minority, and unjust to the overwhelming majority of people. But it is no denying most of the laws are constitute of main laws on ground of humanity and morality.  On the contrary, if a small part of unjust laws is disobeyed by people, what is the result we would see? Disobedience, rebellion, repression, war, violence, death, the whole society with chaos and turbulence is very depressed. At last, another government takes the power and proclaims its new laws, still just to some ones and unjust to some others. It might be a never-ending vicious circulation if disobeying the unjust laws. It is conspicuous to judge which is more reasonable, a stable society with a few unjust laws or a rebellion which the goal may be not able to achieved. To some extent, we have to acknowledge the autarchy is adapt to the certain time it belongs to.

To sum up, the disobedience of unjust laws is unreasonable and to some extent is antihuman. We need the obedience of laws since we enact the law, that's the reason why the law is called LAW.

CHERRYlbyUID: 170649

呵呵，改完了我还满坛子的找你的这篇文章呢，心想怎么就没了呢？原来是在我自己的帖子里．
：）

Is it people's responsibility to obey just laws and disobey and resist unjust laws? 连用2个and读上去不顺哦 Undoubtedly, the former is a well accepted truth; but the formerlatter?, which seems reasonable and meaningful, from my viewpoint, is actually a fallacy and can brings turbulence to the society.

The word just is a word without definite criterionwhich word?, as for law, which is just and unjust is more difficult to judge. Therefore, it's hard to say whether the disobedience of unjust laws is correct. If law is just to everyone, then it can not be entitled as law. The democratic law is only a gauge among most of the people, but not all the people. Even if it can be named as just law, there are still injustices to some certain persons. For instance, a law prohibiting the cloning of humans is just to the ones who support the order and moral of the society, but it seems unreasonable and unjust to some scientists who believe human cloning is never a vicious research if controlledscientists 和愿意支持社会秩序的道德的人做对比，难道他们很邪恶？. The disobedience to this law, if these scientists consider as a responsibility of the destiny命运的责任？这么用不对吧 and development of humans, the result can be unimaginable, maybe the whole society will be full of chaos such as ethic disorder and demoralization. So in this aspect, the disobedience of unjust laws is not advisable and should be prohibited.这段的TS说的好象是法律的难判断性，到底公平还是不公平，似乎最后一句话又提了不遵守法律这类怎么对待的问题。是不是不好？

Even the laws of autocratic countries, 这个逗号是？ has haveits own effect. Perhaps a question will be put forward that the laws is no doubt unjust in autocratic countries in that it serves for the gubernatorial minority, and unjust to the overwhelming majority of people. 2个that 有点混乱 But it is no denying most of the laws are constituteconstitution of main laws on ground of humanity and morality. On the contrary, if a small part of unjust laws is disobeyed by people, what is the result we would see? Disobedience, rebellion, repression, war, violence, death, the whole society with chaos and turbulence is very depresseddepressed? 我不知道这个词能不能和社会连着用，不过我觉得不好。The whole society would be with chaos and turbulence?. At last, another government takes the power and proclaims its new laws, still just to some ones and unjust to some others. It might be a never-ending vicious circulation if disobeying the unjust laws. It is conspicuous to judge which is more reasonable, a stable society with a few unjust laws or a rebellion which the goal may be not able to achieved. To some extent, we have to acknowledge the autarchy is adapt to the certain time it belongs to. 这段的逻辑还是有些混乱。TS和后面的例子论述都有些脱节，或者把TS再补充？

To sum up, the disobedience of unjust laws is unreasonable and to some extent is antihuman. We need the obedience of laws since we enact the law, that's the reason why the law is called LAW. 觉得没有很好的论证为什么认为不遵守不公平的法律不合理，呵呵，还要好好整理一下思路哦。
加油！！

CHERRYlbyUID: 170649

顶一下．ＣＳＳ进来看看啊．

cssUID: 173612

The word just is a word without definite criterion which word?,
呵呵，just阿，是有歧义改：The word JUST is a word without definite criterion.

For instance, a law prohibiting the cloning of humans is just to the ones who support the order and moral of the society, but it seems unreasonable and unjust to some scientists who believe human cloning is never a vicious research if controlled  scientists 和愿意支持社会秩序的道德的人做对比，难道他们很邪恶？
不是拉，我意思是说，科学家才不觉得克隆人很邪恶，never a vicious research,而是支持社会道德的人觉得.这样解释还有歧义吗？

The disobedience to this law, if these scientists consider as a responsibility of the destiny命运的责任？这么用不对吧 and development of humans,
还是我and 用的不好了，是人类的命运和发展的责任
改：if these scientists consider as a responsibility of humans' destiny and development, 好像也不太顺，不过应该没歧义了

这段的TS说的好象是法律的难判断性，到底公平还是不公平，似乎最后一句话又提了不遵守法律这类怎么对待的问题。是不是不好？
嗯，我想写因为法律的公正是对不同人而言的，无所谓公正，故都应遵守。
这个题目思辨太强了，我没写好：（

Disobedience, rebellion, repression, war, violence, death, the whole society with chaos and turbulence is very depressed depressed? 我不知道这个词能不能和社会连着用，不过我觉得不好。The whole society would be with chaos and turbulence?.
我猜depression是有经济萧条的意思，这个也行吧。不过查了字典，可以用来修饰地区。为保险起见，换作the whole society with chaos and turbulence would be suffer from depression.

谢谢CHERRYlby的批改！我会努力的！

lakeqianUID: 157560

just laws are those which restrain people's behavior of moral and ethical standards.
善法（或说）法律定义似乎不是这样。关于法律的定义有很多学说可以参考但似乎没这种说法吧？法律着眼于道德吗？？建议正义说。

His dividing of laws: just and unjust is somewhat reasonable within my cognition.
楼主文章主体是论述法的分类？？这道题是基于这个分类，讨论抵抗恶法的问题。

cssUID: 173612

just laws are those which restrain people's behavior of moral and ethical standards.
善法（或说）法律定义似乎不是这样。关于法律的定义有很多学说可以参考但似乎没这种说法吧？法律着眼于道德吗？？建议正义说。

谢谢提醒！
不过正义不是建立在道德的基础上的吗？
中国古代讲仁义：仁表道德，义表爱憎分明的正义，我是这么想的
不知西方是否如此？

lakeqianUID: 157560

不过正义不是建立在道德的基础上的吗？
中国古代讲仁义：仁表道德，义表爱憎分明的正义，我是这么想的
不知西方是否如此？

imong有个帖子讨论：法律是公正与善良的艺术（化身）。法律代表正义。或：法律代表各集团平衡的利益。
用google搜：恶法。印象中能找到很多材料

CHERRYlbyUID: 170649

To lakeqian:多谢!
just laws are those which restrain people's behavior of moral and ethical standards.
善法（或说）法律定义似乎不是这样。关于法律的定义有很多学说可以参考但似乎没这种说法吧？法律着眼于道德吗？？建议正义说

呵呵,我这人系统的法律知识很菜,所以才会自己编出来很多东西.看来得了解啊.
楼主文章主体是论述法的分类？？这道题是基于这个分类，讨论抵抗恶法的问题。
不好意思,这句话我没理解??
PS:
谢谢那个搜索的提示.
:)

To css:
：）
共同进步！

lakeqianUID: 157560

这道题的重点是在于抵抗恶法问题more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws
楼主正文是：On the one hand, in my opinion, just laws are those which restrain people's behavior of moral and ethical standards.
On the other hand, autocrats who make use of them to satisafy their own needs and may impair the whole system of society established unjust laws.
这两段是两类法律的成因吧？？没讨论抵抗问题吧？？

CHERRYlbyUID: 170649

恩，我觉得这个题目是分２句的．也就是说有两个意群．more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws，只是第二个句子的一个分句．不是那么重要的吧．

呵呵，个人意见．欢迎讨论！：）

wangyueyue1UID: 199300

Look back into the history, various kinds of laws have been made to protect the profits for a range of people, either the dominator class in ancient times or a majority of people in today's democratic society. As a consequence, during the long historical river, many just and unjust laws have been generated for different purposes. The way how individuals deal with such two kinds of laws determines the legislation system and legality degree of a country. In my point of view, both the obedience to just laws and resistance to unjust laws are of the same importance for every individual in a society.

On the one hand, just laws contribute to establish a stable society and protect the legal rights for the majority. For instance, a national constitution demonstrates its main attitudes towards society problems and most comprehensive sum of the rules that need to be obeyed in this country. Traffic laws avoid people from carelessly making more accidents and regulate proper disposals after the accidents happen. Marriage laws restrict the responsibility of both sides of a couple and also preserve their legal rights. Economic laws assure a stable society with proper competition in the economic fields while simultaneously punish the illegal economic actions severely. Imagine a society without just laws, what terrible chaos and panic would break out! Therefore, every individual in a society should do his or her best to obey those just laws not only to ensure the whole stability and prosperity of the society he or she belongs to but also to protect the rights ought to be acquired by civilians in that a society is composed of individuals and everyone's destiny is closely related with it.

On the other hand, civilian should stand out against unjust laws through the public effort. As to unjust jaws, it means those that directly or implicitly destroy the right of majority in the society or violate the moral justice. Because such laws are often made by so-called authorities or permitted by powerful political leaders, individuals should unite together to resist it. Nevertheless, at such moments, there often requires some people with high justice to lead the public and to challenge those unjust laws. An example often cited here is the wise solution to the Watergate scandal, the Harvard professor and his successor both had courage to accuse President Nixon, and through their persistent effort, President Nixon resigned and other twenty-five members were convicted under the public and mass media pressure. What's more, through this event, the committee amends the legislation restricting the power of President and denied the so-called "executive privilege".
  
In a democratic nation, it is individual's duty to obey just laws and right to disobey unjust laws. Theoretically speaking, every civilian’s opinion towards laws should be taken into account when making a new law. Furthermore, the tax paid by them should be worthwhile. While the individuals are asked to obey just laws to protect social safety, corresponding rights should be given to them in order to adjust and perfect the laws of their own as a return.

In sum, the conception that each individual is the host of the country and must make great effort to both obey just laws and resist unjust laws should be set up in a modern democratic country.

cherry-310UID: 187555

我觉得这个开头不是很吸引人，如果可以用提问的形式是不是会好一点啊