issue17 GOGOGO小组

pioneercpuUID: 2139317

不同意
1.法律是构成社会的基础，如果随意蔑视法律会造成动荡；
2.just law和unjust law很难区别
3.如果认为有"unjust law"，不是“disobey and resist”，通过合法的程序推翻它；

Law helps to maintain a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society. Just as Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers in Ancient Greek said "Law is order, and good law is good order". However despite all these best intentions, laws are sometimes created that some people may recognize as bring unjust or unfair. No matter the law is just or not, people are not justified to disobey and resist the laws.

Firstly, it’s hard to distinguish the just law and the unjust law since justice is mostly decided by people. Therefore people who have different personal value systems may form different opinions on the judgment of just and unjust law. Consider, for example, an controversial issue about euthanasia, Supporters of the euthanasia maintain that, in certain cases, relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers, while others Opponents emphasize that health-care providers have professional obligations that prohibit killing. So it's very likely that every single law will have some opponents, will be regarded as unjust. In other words, no law is valid and justifiable. If people are justified to resist and disobey the law they regard as unjust, then it will lead to breach of laws and plunge our society into chaos.

Secondly, lacking universal criteria to measure whether specific law is just or not should not impede the development of justice system. Admittedly, there are some situations that the law seems unjust for the majority of the society. Sometime it because the law is out of time or the importance of two sides of the law has changed. The way we should take is to make some amendments. For instance, the constitution of the United States has not been rewritten or challenged since it was carried out in 1774. But there are several important amendments and attachments for it. The most famous one is to abolish the slavery. Furthermore, if you regard some specific law is unjust, then you can do whatever you can change it through the proper channel, not strongly resist and disobey it. A case in point is that Mohandas Gandhi finally brings an end to British rule in India through a combination of passive resistance to and no cooperation with the British.

To sum up, there are always unjust laws in the world, but we could not disobey them only because they do not follow our desires. The citizens should respect the laws and the power of the nation which supports them. In any event, disobedience could not be accepted and unjustifiable.

字数390
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-21 at 22:36 ]

azaleaUID: 196122

[我先有言在先 我的观点和你完全相反哦 所以可能有些问题提得比较尖锐呵呵 希望和你深入讨论下 这个题目好难啊]

Law helps to maintain a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society. Just as Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers in Ancient Greek[我觉得这个不用说吧 是人都知道哦 不过写着也无所谓] said "Law is order, and good law is good order".[what about bad law? bad order? should we obey bad order?] However despite all these best intentions, laws are sometimes created that[这个that做什么用啊 这句的语法我没看懂:(] some people may recognize as bring unjust or unfair. No matter[改成Whether吧 no matter一般和what/when/how etc连用 我没见过单独引导从句的] the law is just or not, people are not justified to disobey and resist the laws.
[这句是主题句！]

[首段写的不错的 简明 直入正题]

Firstly[我觉得issue里面用firstly secondly不是很好 不过也没什么大关系], it’s hard to distinguish the just law and the unjust law since justice is mostly decided by people[这句话是你的presupposition吧 any evidence? 如果你这么说 给人的感觉就是正义是摸棱两可的 不确定的 可是确实有 consensus比如你后面提到的slavery肯定是unjust还有Nazidom]. Therefore[晕 不是因此 这句话才是前面一句的原因吧] people who have different personal value systems may form different opinions on the judgment of just and unjust law. Consider, for example, an[a...] controversial issue about euthanasia, Supporters of the euthanasia maintain that, in certain cases, relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers, while others[other] Opponents[小写] emphasize that health-care providers have professional obligations that prohibit killing. [这里你需要和just联系一下 不然例子与主题联系不紧密 可以说Is it just to relieve a suffering person once and for all by killing, or is it just to keep their misery lives as long as possible? Hard to tell.] So it's very likely that every single law will have some opponents[我觉得这个词略微有点不恰当，不过也还好 因为我觉得对law来说 是resist多于oppose], will be regarded as unjust[这个分句少主语 而且和前面一句什么关系呢？没理解]. In other words, no law is valid and justifiable.[@@这句话怎么来的？主语是不是the breakage/defy of law] If people are justified to resist and disobey the law they regard as unjust, then it will lead to breach of laws and plunge our society into chaos.

Secondly[这里是issue不是argu的列举错误哦 连词那么多啦 尽量不要用firstly secondly吧 因为看不出这2段间逻辑关系，是单纯的并列还是。。？], lacking universal criteria to measure whether specific law is just or not should not impede the development of justice system. Admittedly, there are some situations that the law seems unjust for the majority of the society. Sometime[-s] it because the law is out of time[out of date过时可以用time么？not sure] or the importance of two sides of the law[这个不是很懂 什么叫2方的重要性？？] has changed. The way[measure恰当点] we should take is to make some[some去掉吧 没必要] amendments. For instance, the constitution[C-] of the United States has not been rewritten or challenged[这个不是吧 amendment就是因为先有challenge才做出的] since it was carried out[carry out是一个持续的过程 可以说颁布enact] in 1774. But there are several important amendments and attachments for it[不要用there are换个说法吧 比如several important amendments and attachments have been made晕 我这句也不大通 汗，，你自己想想]. The most famous one is to abolish the slavery[好例子哦 适当展开下吧]. Furthermore, if you regard some specific law is unjust, then you can do whatever you can [to] change it through the proper channel[晕倒 我觉得这句话是在帮相反观点说话哦 你前面既然说了just/unjust is hard to distinguish 这里又说可以regard some law as unjust and change it有点不妥 而且你前面说了 if sb. regard law as unjust, 'it will lead to breach of laws and plunge our society into chaos' 不是有点自相矛盾么 这里你让步有点过了 不过我也不知道怎么改唉], not strongly resist and disobey it. A case in point is that Mohandas Gandhi finally brings[brought] an end to British rule in India through a combination of passive resistance to and no cooperation with the British [govenment][这句话虽然语法正确 不过读起来不大通诶 也没什么太大关系哈].

To sum up, there are always unjust laws in the world[晕 你前面自己说的 just/unjust law没有确定标准的 那这里你怎么能说确实有unjust law呢？按你的说法这只是某些人的个人想法而已], but we could[can] not disobey them only because they do not follow our desires. The citizens should respect the laws and the power of the nation which supports them. In any event, disobedience could not be accepted and unjustifiable.
[结尾没有很好总结全文啊 好像与前面观点还小有冲突。。]

[觉得这个题目很难，其实你的文章粗看相当不错了 除了有些短 不过内部逻辑还有些混乱的 多想想吧 有什么想法和我讨论下 多谢:)]

azaleaUID: 196122

还有一句话忘记说
很多地方没有展开自己的观点 只是一两句话 连举例都是一句话 惜字如金没什么错 不过要说服读者哦 反正我是没有被说服啦

azaleaUID: 196122

都不回拍:(

pioneercpuUID: 2139317

先感谢一下azalea  这么辛苦帮我改文章啊


写了那么多字 据说比我的文章都长!!

我晚上回来后再细看  呵呵

[ Last edited by pioneercpu on 2005-12-22 at 18:00 ]

superficialUID: 2151788

看得出下了不少功夫，恭喜恭喜~

azaleaUID: 196122

进来一看发现我写的字比你原文都多哦 好有成就感xixi

pioneercpuUID: 2139317

看了一下,汗.... 自己觉得比第一次进步不小呢 被拍的"体无完肤"啊  呵呵

拍的好! 其实在写这个的时候, 我有疑问的,就是关于unjust法我们该怎么办的问题, 我举的那个例子就是甘地的那个很牵强的,写的时候就发现了,可想不出更好的例子了  呵呵

看了你的分析是感到自己文中有些逻辑比较乱,一会没有标准,一会又有标准  唉..........

于是我做了点工作,用google找了一下,没想到资料还真多:(节选一点帖在下面,全文我传导群共享里面去了)

希望也能给你开开思路,自己打算这篇文章重新来过!!

再次感谢你的深刻的分析  呵呵  不过没有及时给你回拍  我一般是深夜工作的(习惯了)

-------------------------------------------------

每个人都拥有一种基于正义的不可侵犯性，这种不可侵犯性即使崐以社会整体利益之名也不能逾越。因为，正义否认了一些人分享更大利益而剥夺另崐一些人的自由是正当的，不承认许多人享受的较大利益能绰绰有余地补偿强加于少崐数人的牺牲。

[美]约翰·罗尔斯《正义论》第1页。

--------------------------------------

http://www.blogms.com/blog/CommL ... gLogCode=1000311492

实践公民不服从的代表人物苏格拉底、梭罗、甘地、马丁.路德.金在这个问题上的经典言论，又有当代西方最重要的研究成果，如，汉娜.阿伦特、罗尔斯、德沃尔金的理论.

公民不服从是宪政体制下处于少数地位的公民表达异议的一种方式。它是违法行为，但却基于对法律的忠诚，是出于良知、出于对正义的关注而选择的违法。它诉诸于多数的正义感；所违反的对象则如前所说，是不正义的法律或政府政策。可以说，公民不服从是一种体现公民道德理想的行动。基于所要体现的理想，它以公开性和非暴力性为特征。关于公开性，马丁.路德.金作过很好的表述：“违反不公正法律的人，必得公开地违反，心怀爱意地违反，甘愿接受惩罚。”



其二，通过公开违反某项法律，把问题推到公众面前，迫使公众正视问题并吁请公众注意到正义正在遭到破坏，宪政原则正在被侵凌。至于一般采取非暴力方式乃基于对暴力含有的不道德性和破坏性的认识，所以从道德角度看，仍然出于对目的必须与手段相一致的道德理念的执守。对于公开性和非暴力性所依据和展现的道德理念，马丁.路德.金在抨击极权主义的伦理相对主义时提出了很深刻的见解。

二十世纪五六十年代的美国民权运动中，黑人民众以大规模的公民不服从运动去冲击种族隔离制度，用制造危机的尖锐方式把这一制度的罪恶摆在了全社会面前，使人们不能再回避。各阶层、各种族，尤其是许多白人受到强烈震撼，在良知和正义感驱使下加入了声援队伍。这场黑人为争取平等公民权而进行的斗争最终胜利了，种族隔离制度废除了。然而，在决策层面必须遵守多数原则的美国，如果没有在人口中占据绝大多数的白人的支持，这场斗争是不会以胜利告终的。但假如人们良知沉睡，共同正义感这笔集体财富已经荡然无存，即使多数裁决这一民主政治的基本规则仍然生效，正义感的匮乏却使人自私、冷漠，更难以有超越个人或集团私利的胸襟，多数原则只会导向多数暴政。



以公民不服从表达异议的人对法律的忠诚不光体现在违反恶法时所抱的目的上，也体现在甘受惩罚，决不规避惩罚。在这方面，苏格拉底是一个典范。他坚决捍卫了探求真理的自由和言论自由，又泰然接受了由此而招致的死刑，留下了尊重法律的精神。

譬如美国黑人民权运动所反对的种族隔离法这一罪恶的奴隶制的遗留物，作为差别性立法，它直接违背法律必须具普遍性这一基本法治精神，是对美国宪法的公民平等原则的尖锐讽刺。该法赋予一些人优越感，给另一些人以低劣感。正如马丁.路德.金所说，它表现了人的悲剧性分离。被判为低劣的那部分公民不得不夜以继日地纠缠于自己是黑人的事实，不是在忍受歧视中耗尽自尊，就是陷入反社会的极端情绪之中。这样的法律，它的存在本身就是一种罪恶。在黑人民众通过正常诉求渠道要求废止该法而无效的情况下，以公民不服从运动来反抗它便势所必然。运动的最终成功事实上割掉了美国社会的一个毒瘤，使宪法原则真正名致实归。--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/unjustlaw.asp

"An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".

The problem is that while the law is a matter of public record, justice is an intensely personal matter. What one person regards as just may strike another as an unwarranted imposition. This is why we need law; if we all behaved according to our personal standards of morality, anarchy would rule. While we may have our own views about the justice of particular laws, we generally accept that some rules must apply universally. If we are to follow Martin Luther King's exhortation to resist unjust laws, then, there must be an unusual type or degree of injustice to justify that. What kind of injustice might do so?


            To begin, however, I believe it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (King, 3) According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4)

            The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law.

            Singer gives two typical arguments in favor of obeying these unjust laws. I will address these arguments one at a time. The first argument says that, “By disobeying [a law] I set an example for others that may lead them to disobey too. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war.” (Singer, 297)





King also says, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” It seems I have arrived at the same conclusion King has. It is not only moral, but a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. In fact, it seems King uses something similar in meaning to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. King’s quote, as I stated earlier, is, “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4) Kant’s Categorical Imperative says, “Act only on the maxim through which you could at the same time will that it should be universal law.” This is also known as the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” To be a just law, it has to be universal in its application.



King makes a very good distinction between Civil Disobedience and breaking the law. He says, “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with willingness to accept the penalty.” This brings about some of the stipulations that go along with Civil Disobedience.

King himself says there are four steps to Civil Disobedience: Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. (King, 1) King also argues that the direct action must be non-violent, which I believe is an integral part of Civil Disobedience.

The criteria of a valid Civil Disobedience movement, then, are as follows. It must: Have a provable injustice, fail at negotiation before action is taken, be a pure act of true belief, and then take non-violent direct action.

This point begs the question, “What about violent disobedience?” This is a difficult question when confronted with the Revolutionary War, a large act of what could be called violent Civil Disobedience. I would argue that violent Civil Disobedience is never permissible. In an event like the Revolution, where there is no redress and there is no hope of non-violent Civil Disobedience achieving the desired goal, then the acts become a Revolution.



As long as the principle of non-violence is followed, along with the other guidelines, and breaking the law is the last resort, Civil Disobedience should be expected in a Country that was founded on strict moral principles about how a government should run. Any law that is contrary to those principles should be overthrown. The Declaration of Independence makes that abundantly clear. We must maintain Liberty. Thomas Jefferson said it best in a letter to William Smith, 1787; “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Patriots) To maintain liberty, we are obliged to stand up when there is injustice.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In America in 1849, as the Civil War over slavery loomed, Henry David Thoreau wrote his great essay On Civil Disobedience. At its core was the thesis that in the face of unjust law it is not only the right but the duty of good men to resist such law.

The standard moral position is summarised by Professor Ronald Dworkin in Taking Rights Seriously (1977): "In a democracy... each citizen has a general moral duty to obey all the laws... He owes that duty to his fellow citizens, who obey laws that they do not like, to his benefit. But this general duty cannot be an absolute duty, because even a society that is in principle just may produce unjust laws and policies, and a man has duties other than his

An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.
Mohandas Gandhi

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

pioneercpuUID: 2139317

1.提出自己的观点:Even it's unjust, people are not justified to disabey and resist.

2.还是那句话,个人评价标准不一样,造成对just or unjust的评价混乱.

3.法律应该不以个人意志为转移,无论你认为是不是just,都必需去遵守

(例子犯罪分子虽然犯罪了,但是还知道自己在违背法律,而如果你公然认为法律可以违背的话,后果会更严重)

4.让步一下,个别特殊的情况下,公民的不服从是合理的,但也要穷尽其它手段后才能不服从.(觉得这个度很难把握,写的多了就自己砸自己的脚了)

5.总结一下观点了
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law helps to maintain a peaceful, orderly, relatively stable society. Everyone should show their reverence to the country's laws and obey it unconditionally.Even though some specific laws sometimes may be recognized as unjust or unfair,people are not justified to disobey and resist the laws.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is a complex issue depending on individual's insight and personal value system. People who has different pursuit of interests, different moral criteria, different background and so forth may form different opinions on the judgment of just and unjust law. Consider, for example, a controversial issue about euthanasia, Supporters of the euthanasia maintains that, in certain cases, relief from suffering (rather than preserving life) should be the primary objective of health-care providers, while other opponents emphasize that health-care providers have professional obligations that prohibit killing. Is it just to relieve a suffering person once and for all by killing, or is it just to keep their misery lives as long as possible? It is hard to tell.

Furthermore, the law, which is established to provide criteria to restrict people's activity and behavior, is a social obligation that everyone in a society has the responsibility to obey, anyone who disobeys it will be punished. In this sense, laws have a power to force individuals to obey unconditionally, whether it’s just or not. In fact, the acquiescent of the rights to disobey, compared to committing a crime, do more harm to the society. Because criminals at least think that laws have the authority but they may be lucky enough to escape, while if every individual in a society accedes laws can be disobeyed or even violated out of their own morality and conscience, there will be no authoritative orders to control people’s activity. Even not all the people are criminals, who violate the laws, let alone everyone is against the laws they consider as unjust----the society will suffer from chaos and turbulence, with rebellion and repression.

However, unjust laws that some people regard as can be changed by a democratic legislature. The existence of lawful channels of change makes the disobedience unnecessary. For example one can appeal to Judicial review, who has the power to review a law and the power to strike down that law , if it believes the law or act to be unconstitutional or to be contrary to law in a free and democratic society. Even if disobeyance to the unjust law has to be made  (under certain cirumcumstances), One must first exhaust all the legal channels of change and turn to disobedience only as a last resort. As we all known that Mohandas Gandhi brought an end to British rule in India through a combination of passive resistance to and no cooperation with the British government, but something you don't know is that Mohandas Gandhi, as a lawyer, firstly tried so many times to negotiate with the government and utilize the all the possible lawful means before he threw himself into the famous Nonviolence-No cooperation Movement.

To sum up, the justice of laws cannot be judge by every individual, and it is everyone's duty to obey the laws, otherwise the society may plunge into chaos. We need to obey of laws since we enact the law, and also that's the reason why the law is called LAW(知道这句话有点绕口啊  呵呵 结尾我老写不好).  

你一会看我
一会看云
我觉得你看我时远
看云时近

Cappuccino☆UID: 2155660

1. 结构上组织的不错,我们都是越写越少,你是越写越多,强啊！
2. 你的语言基本功很好,但论证上还需要提高,有时候感觉去照顾语言表达而忽略了论证的层次与逻辑

仅个人愚见~~

happy_shirleyUID: 2155516

很认真哦！加油！pioneercpu!