issue17 我的处女作的修改版（写的不好只是做个参考）

lakeqianUID: 157560

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."

重申：写的不好。例子不够有力，而且写的似乎太多。定义似乎应该再整合一下成为一句话好。大家凑合看看吧。

这道题题眼较多。我全回应了（可能不必吧。。。）
题眼：法律的分类。Every individual 。responsibility to obey just laws 。more importantly。disobey and resist unjust laws。共5个要点。

这篇不是当issue作文用的，是因为这几天大家都在写17题，而且窃以为对unjust law理解都不到位，才冒昧贴这篇文章来集中谈一下恶法的定义，以及事实上存在的反抗方式与我的看法（例如法律的定义）。谢谢imong的：你自己对关键字的分析很到位（但愿不是反语）。我就是这个目的。

因此这篇文章算是为了“交流”而不是做为response啦。标题说了“写得不好”就是次意，而且考试是当然没法想&写这么多。

I agree that we have responsibility to obey just law and equally important to disobey the unjust law, but the way of resistance and disobedience should be carefully selected.

There are two types of law, namely, just law and unjust law. The just law is the incarnation of conscience and justice presenting a balanced interest of the masses and bringing harmony to society. On the contrary, the unjust law, though superficially legislated, is defined to be only the whimsies and prejudice of the political leader and actually deviating from the essence of law. It is no law at all as the jurist--St. Augustine claimed.

这段没用，影响整体。删掉。Stemmed from the comprehension mentioned above, it is deduced that we have responsibility to obey just laws and equally importantly, we have responsibility to disobey and resist unjust laws.

The responsibility to observe just laws lies in that just laws are in conformity with morality--justice and conscience. It is basically due to that law originally came from ethnics so law is, to some extent, in accordance with morality. (As a survey stated in the article <Justice, Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law>, the morality in the law is an important factor for people to abide by the law.) If we want to be moral and be accepted by the society, we should jibe with the law. For example, the murder is considered an immoral action so people are unwilling to do that. If we commit murdering, we will be forsaken by the society and end up in prison. Second, the law should be obeyed in that it brings order to the society. What is more, when all of us obey the law, justice will really take place and the society is in an ordered form. If we disobey the just law, people will become rampant and willful with no confinement and the society will be bogged down in a chaotic status. To sum up, we should observe just laws for the sake of morality and benefit of the society.

In addition, we also have the responsibility of disobeying and resisting unjust law. As has been stated, the unjust law is only whimsies of the leader and is detrimental to the public. First, the law should be banished for the sake of the society. The unjust law should be forsaken lest no real justice be established. Besides, as the law is reduced to the tool of the leader himself and detrimental to the masses, it will surely lead to the disharmony of the society, in the view that public being oppressed and harmed. For example during the colonization of America, the English government imposed the abnormally heavy Tea Tax on the America colony settlers which greatly hamper the American to gain a blithe and wealthy life. And after it being resisted and finally its abolition, the settlers lived better than they used to. From the improvement of American life, we can identify the harm of the unjust law and thus the responsibility for us to disobey and resist the unjust law.

As the unjust laws are proved by the constitution but fail its quest. The responsibility to resist and disobey it lies in the people--every single individual of the society. The common people should utter their demand, claim their rights and shoulder the obligation to ameliorate the society. History provides a handful of examples. Martin Luther King, JR. led the non-violent movement to free the Afro-Americans from the suffocating oppression of racial discrimination laws. These laws are not passed in the aim of harmonizing the nation but fulfilling the prejudice of the domineer race. And King organized the Afro-Americans to resist these laws and free themselves when the laws failed to free themselves. And at last justice won over the unjust laws. So was Gandhi, the Indian non-violent movement leader. Yet, another way of disobeying unjust law is advocated by Thoreau. He contended that one can resist unjust law merely by act in an unlawful way without the presence of an organization. If one thinks the taxation is unfair, he can resist it simply by evading the tax. When many people doing so, the legislature will realize the laws are unpopular and ineffective and the abolition ensues. No matter which way is adopted, we all have the responsibility to resist and disobey the unjust law.

It is true that the resistance made by the mass is desirable, but the way to protest should be carefully selected. Due to the considerable difficulty in determining whether a law falls into the category of just or unjust laws, radical measure to resist the suspicious unjust law should be avoided. In practice, it is recommended that the discontented unite and form an organization to communicate with the legislature, and thus the two sides may peacefully reach an agreement on whether the revision of the law is necessary without the harmony of the society being violated. Sometimes a law may contain both just and unjust elements. To prevent the abuse of this negation of the law, the protestors should discern the unjust elements from the just ones which should not be open to attack.

Without the obeying of the just laws, the society is under the reign of chaos and disorder. Without the resistance and disobedience of the unjust laws, the society is at the mercy of prejudice, malevolence and inequality. Both of these results are undesirable. Therefore, we equally have responsibility to obey the just law and disobey the unjust one.

踏雪寻梅UID: 157603

lakeqian，你的这篇文章写的很好啊！表现的思想深度绝对够用了！但不能做模板用吧，每个题目都考虑这么深邃会不够时间的！我还是那个观点，ISSUE的观点没有对错之分，也没有善恶之分，如果有能力把黑的说成白的，也是6分！你文章的开头把JUST和UNJUST定义了一下，这就决定了你一定要从两个方面比较深邃的观点去分析这个题目！

lakeqianUID: 157560

惭愧。深度是不够的。。。
关于善恶法的问题可以追溯到古希腊时期的讨论。这个词对于美国人来说意思是固定的是种常识吧。因此我们不能随便定义。
参考：法律本身必须是德性的彰显，而不能是统治者的任性（马克思语）。出处：
http://www.jcrb.com/zyw/n65/ca160901.htm

每个题目都考虑这么深邃会不够时间的
是。。。我是慢慢写的。

踏雪寻梅UID: 157603

不管是谁的观点，我们都要辨证的看这些问题吧，我觉得重要的还是要有自己独到的见解，这样比较容易出彩，对吧，呵呵：）就象我们同样可以怀疑物种的起源和相对论是一样的：）

lakeqianUID: 157560

good!

againUID: 175079

As the unjust laws are proved by the constitution but fail its quest.这句话好像有点问题吧，我觉得主题句写的不够鲜明。例子是太多了，而且角度都差不多。后面的分析不够。是不是可以再论证给国家带来好处后，呼应一下主题阿。你觉得呢？

imongUID: 140258

这篇文章看你的介绍好像很有气势
不过我看到b1就开始犯晕
不知道是不是因为刚洗完澡

你自己对关键字的分析很到位，thesis也竭力做到“清晰”，但是这种面面俱到的做法就很可取吗？姑且不说到时候临考有没有能力5个关键字统统深入展开——也许有，更况且不说后面的展开是否真的adequate（还不是insightful）

另言之，如果你的文章集中讨论The way to disobey中的不同情况，而其他部分只是简单同意的带过去，这样子详略重心分明的文章，也许更好看。现在看似面面俱到，你有能力挨个剖析入木吗？

我全回应了（可能不必吧。。。）
也许不必的是你现在这篇文章"全部回应"的方式。

lakeqianUID: 157560

这篇不是当issue作文用的，是因为这几天大家都在写17题，而且窃以为对unjust law理解都不到位，才冒昧贴这篇文章来集中谈一下恶法的定义，以及事实上存在的反抗方式与我的看法（例如法律的定义）。谢谢imong的：你自己对关键字的分析很到位（但愿不是反语）。我就是这个目的。

因此这篇文章算是为了“交流”而不是做为response啦。标题说了“写得不好”就是次意，而且考试是当然没法想&写这么多。

踏雪寻梅UID: 157603

呵呵，表酱紫吧……我们现在是形成模板期哦，窃以为不可以这么练习哦！：）

lakeqianUID: 157560

我们现在是形成模板期哦？？
。。。不懂。。。这是我7月底左右写的。