issue17 改过了，请各位指教

nightsky2004UID: 155946

Syllabus
Position: totally disagree
Almost all laws have their own interests and benefit for
Individual viewpoint has its own disadvantage to criticize law.

The statements suggest us to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. I concede that almost all people prefer just laws for unjust laws. For that just laws can ensure the equality of each person. However, there is not a law that can be justified easily. In a words, each laws in this world have its' own advantage and disadvantage.  Nobody can make hasty conclusion that whether a law is just or not.
     To begin with, the fairness of law depends on the interests of legislations or others who found it. Law, body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions, and the like, that is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. The nature and functions of law have varied throughout history. In modern societies, some authorized body such as a legislature or a court makes the law. It is backed by the coercive power of the state, which enforces the law by means of appropriate penalties or remedies. If they, even though having some flaws, are easy to resist, a disaster will come sooner or later. In modern society, almost all the movements are based on laws, the lack of which will damage the society seriously. Moreover, law cannot provide absolute equality to all of human beings. As we all know, law is created and executed by human beings. It is not feasible that all of human beings take part in the legislations to make law. So law will delegate and protect the lawmakers’ benefit and interest. Other groups’ and individuals’ interests may not be better protected by the law. Of course, a lawmaker may respond to public opinion or other pressures, and a formal law may prohibit what is morally unacceptable. In short, the major function of the law is a rule to protect the stability of the whole society.
Additionally, each individual’s opinion or thoughts cannot be a criterion to judge laws. Each person may stand in his or her interests to judge a law. Different people has different views about the extend of justice of a law. It is likely that the law which someone thinks it is unjust is, from a high level, just and suitable to the society. If it receives resist, the nation will receive harm ness. The well-being of the individuals, on most occasions, has a lot in common with the interest of the whole society. But, sometimes, they are in the opposite directions. Whenever this happens, the law, which represents the interest of the nation and the majority of the people, will inevitably deprive that of some persons or groups. In a giant country, it is common. Just put yourself in the position of those whose interest is deprived by the law and it is quite possible that you will say that the law is unjust, because it brings you negative influence. Then, recharge yourself into another, and probably, you will change your mind. And that is the crux. If we resist it, just because we only fix our eyes on ourselves, the society will be damaged as a result of the resist. Thus, when we resist a law, we should think twice before leap.
     In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.

我改过了后没有查字数，感觉有600吧，但是考试肯定是无法写那么多的。

davidjackyUID: 135962

请互相给一下先

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250162

cathyantUID: 193285

你好 我是蚂蚁 互改一下 谢谢@@@@
人 我仔细看看

cathyantUID: 193285

The statements suggest us to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. I concede that almost all people prefer just laws for unjust laws. For that just laws can ensure the equality of each person. However, there is not a law that can be justified easily. In a words(word), each laws in this world have its' own advantage and disadvantage. Nobody can make hasty conclusion that whether a law is just or not.
To begin with, the fairness of law depends on the interests of legislations(legislators) or others who found it. Law, body of official rules and regulations,（IS） generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions, and the like, that is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. The nature and functions of law have varied throughout history. In modern societies, some authorized body such as a legislature or a court makes the law）.（AND） It is backed by the coercive power of the state, which enforces the law by means of appropriate penalties or remedies. If they, even though having some flaws,（插的有点突兀，可以放前面吗？） are easy to resist）, a disaster will come sooner or later.（例证？） In modern society, almost all the movements（BEHAVIORS） are based on laws, the lack of which will damage the society seriously. Moreover, law cannot provide absolute equality to all of human beings. As we all know, law is created and executed by human beings. It is not feasible that all of human beings take part in the legislations to make law. So law will delegate and protect the lawmakers’ benefit and interest. Other groups’ and individuals’ interests may not be better（BETTER去掉？或用达官的INTERESTS ARE REALIZED AT THE COST OF THEIR INTERESTS） protected by the law. Of course, a lawmaker may respond to public opinion or other pressures, and a formal law may prohibit what is morally unacceptable. In short, the major function of the law is a rule to protect the stability of the whole society.
Additionally, each individual’s opinion or thoughts cannot be a criterion to judge laws. （To begin with, the fairness of law depends on the interests of legislations(legislators) or others who found it Each person may stand in his or her interests to judge a law）论证不严密啊. Different people has different views about the extend of justice of a law. It is likely that the law which someone thinks it is unjust is, from a high level, just and suitable to the society. If it receives resist, the nation will receive harm ness. The well-being of the individuals, on most occasions, has a lot in common with the interest of the whole society. But, sometimes, they are in the opposite directions. Whenever this happens, the law, which represents the interest of the nation and the majority of the people, will inevitably deprive that of some persons or groups. In a giant country, it is common. Just put yourself in the position of those whose interest（INTERESTS） is deprived by the law and it is quite possible that you will say that the law is unjust, because it brings you negative influence（IMPACT）. Then, recharge yourself into another, and probably, you will change your mind. And that is the crux（？）. If we resist it, just because we only fix our eyes on ourselves, the society will be damaged as a result of the resist（RESISTANCE）. Thus, when we resist a law, we should think twice before leap.
In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.

nightsky2004UID: 155946

谢谢楼上的修改，我再看看了

cathyantUID: 193285

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread....threadid=250162

能看看的话就谢谢拉

nightsky2004UID: 155946

楼主的意见提得不错，尤其是第二段的，不知道怎么想的，想到哪里写道哪里，但是可否用那个修改工具呢。这样我看起来也方便些。

nightsky2004UID: 155946

The statements suggest us to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. I concede that almost all people prefer just laws for unjust laws. For that just laws can ensure the equality of each person. However, there is not a law that can be justified easily. In a word, each laws in this world have its' own advantage and disadvantage. Nobody can make hasty conclusion that whether a law is just or not.
To begin with, the essential function of laws is to assure the stability and security of each fields they are valid, include the whole society. Law, body of official rules and regulations, is generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions. In modern societies, law is made by some authorized body such as a legislature or a court and backed by the coercive power of the state, which enforces the law by means of appropriate penalties or remedies. Law is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. So the stability and security of each area is the main goal to each law makers. Any one whose actions or behaviors affect others normal life and harm the stability of the whole society should be punished by relevant laws. If they, even though having some flaws, are easy to resist, a disaster will come sooner or later, which will lead to breach of laws and further destruct the fabrication of society, with chaos ensuing. Moreover, Law, other than any other innate creatures, is made by human beings. So the existence of some unfair clause is inevitable, which may cause some inequality in some conditions. This kind of disadvantage occurs in almost all of laws in the world and need long time to discover and correct them. In short, the major function of the law is a rule to protect the stability of the areas they valid.
    Additionally, the fairness of law depends on the one’s personal value system. Each person may stand in his or her interests to judge a law. Different people have different views about the meaning of justice of a law. It is likely that the law which someone thinks it is unjust is, from a high level, just and suitable to the society. If it receives resist, the nation will receive harm ness. The well-being of the individuals, on most occasions, has a lot in common with the interest of the whole society. But, sometimes, they are in the opposite directions. Whenever this happens, the law, which represents the interest of the nation and the majority of the people, will inevitably deprive that of some persons or groups. In a giant country, it is common. Just put yourself in the position of those whose interests is deprived by the law and it is quite possible that you will say that the law is unjust, because it brings you negative impact. Then, recharge yourself into another, and probably, you will change your mind. And that is the crux. If we resist it, just because we only fix our eyes on ourselves, the society will be damaged as a result of the resistance. Thus, when we resist a law, we should think twice before leap.
In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interests. And in any event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.