Issue17【米国有米】小组 第七次作业（社会类高频）

laner023UID: 2223653

题目
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."(top11)

提纲
Topic：在以前的非民主社会，要遵守公正法律，反对不公正法律。但是在如今的民主社会，这一命题是不合理的。
View1在非民主社会，just law和unjust law比较容易被区分开。
View2那个时代，人们靠遵守just law保持社会安定，靠反抗unjust law获得民主。
View3但是现代社会中just law和unjust law很难区别，因为问题越来越复杂。
View4在现代社会可以有别的方法来改变所谓的unjust law

正文
The statement consists of two parts: (1) laws can be classified into two kinds: just and unjust; (2) people should obey just laws, and disobey and resist unjust laws. I concede that this statement is correct in non-democratic society, especially before industry revolution. However, in modern democratic society, since the issue of laws becomes a more complex one, it is hard for people to separate just laws from unjust ones.

Admittedly, people can easily separate just laws from unjust ones before Industry revolution in non-democratic society. From the very beginning of human civilization to feudality, dominators made laws to maintain their power. On the one hand, those laws served to keep the stability of society, which is necessary for the potentates to maintain their potence. On the other hand, the final purpose of those laws is always to ensure the profits of dominators. Accordingly, during that time, people tend to define just laws as the laws that are able to ensure the stability of society. Unjust laws are defined as the laws that might hurt the benefits of the majority while protect the minority's.

Moreover, during that time, people obeyed just laws in order to gain society's stability, and through disobeying unjust laws to reach today’s democratic society. As for just law, people have to obey it in order to gain society's stability. Law is order, and good law is good order, as Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, once said. And, only with good order in all aspects, a society could be a peaceful and stable society. Take our familiar aspects of just laws for example, criminal law can deal with murder, theft, adultery, or the like; economic law provides a rule of economic activities and settles the disputes of both sides of the trade; tax law makes sure that tax is handed in according to the tax standard. Consider unjust law, only through resisting it, people can keep their own benefit, even survival. While these kinds of cases are rare, they did occur occasionally, especially in the autocratic society. Paragon such as the laws made by Hitler comes immediately into mind. Under the control of Hitler and his laws, mass of the Jews were killed optionally as he liked. These laws are obviously unreasonable and lack of humanity. So, it is no strange that more and more people who with justice tend to disobey the laws to protect Jews in spite of the miserable results would be followed. And if it were not for the resisting of people to the unjust laws made by Hitler, no success of the Second World War would be reached.

However, along the development of modern technology, the issue of how to define just laws and unjust laws become more and more complicate, and it is even impossible for people to agree on a certain standard. Nowadays people have to face with many controversial problems which our ancestors never have opportunities to think about. No better example than the controversy of euthanasia. People with different personal value systems tend to have different opinions about the issue. Some assert that euthanasia is no better than murder; while others claim that it is more brutal to leave patient suffering from irremediable anguish than euthanasia. It is hard and even impossible to judge which one is more reasonable.

Another problem of the statement is that instead of simply disobeying and resisting unjust laws, people in modern democratic society can alter those laws to benefit the mass by some other means. Laws of modern democratic society are made to ensure the benefits of mass, and the system of laws is more consummate than in the past. If some indeed think some laws are unjust, they should not resist the laws by force; instead, change the laws by legal procedure. Martin Luther King's success of gain the just right for blacks is a good example to illustrate that people can gain their deserved right and even change laws through legal way.

According to the reasons mentioned above, at the time when it is easier to define just laws and unjust laws, people should behave as the speaker claims. However, the statement tends to outdated in modern democratic society due to both more and more complex problems and consummate laws system.

[ 本帖最后由 laner023 于 2006-12-28 20:44 编辑 ]

laner023UID: 2223653

这篇写得挺吃力的，主要是没什么思路:-(

lonixUID: 2202232

今天没时间帮你看了，暂时帮你看两段，明天继续：



Thestatement consists of two parts: (1) laws can be classified into twokinds: the just and theunjust(是不是这里还得加两个定冠词the呢？);(2) people should obey just laws, and disobey and resist unjust laws.I concede(这里表明你自己的态度，但是没有连接词是不是显得太仓促了?如果我写的话，我可能写成：Bycarefully analyzing the process of civilization evolution, I concedethat this is almost correct as we should obey just laws and disobeyunjust ones in non-democratic society) that this statement iscorrect in non-democratic society, especially before industryrevolution. However, in modern democratic society, since the issue oflaws becomes a more complex one, it is hard for people to separatejust laws from unjust ones.

Admittedly,people can easily separate(用词重复：换discriminate)just laws from unjust ones beforeIndustry revolution in non-democratic society. From the verybeginning of human civilization to feudality, dominators made laws tomaintain theirpower(人类文明的开始好像还没有所谓的law吧？Law的出现就是你所说的封建阶级为了维护自己利益和统治的工具，但是同时也保证了社会的安定，我们能说它是不好的law么？在这个意义上你还是没有将justlaws和unjustlaws区分开来).On the one hand, those laws served to keep the stability of society,which is necessary for the potentates to maintain their potence. Onthe other hand, the final purpose of those laws is always to ensurethe profits of dominators. Accordingly, during that time, people tendto define just laws as the laws that are able to ensure the stabilityof society. Unjust laws are defined as the laws that might hurt thebenefits of the majority while protect the minority's.(这样定义just和unjustlaw好像有点太表面了，也就是说从人类文明出发，界定law的性质，我觉得你还挖掘的不够)

bluecathyUID: 2231215

The statement consists of two parts: (1) laws can be classified into two kinds: [the] just and [the] unjust; (2) people should obey just laws, and disobey and[or] resist unjust laws. I concede that this statement is correct in non-democratic society, especially before industry revolution. However, in modern democratic society, since the issue of laws becomes a more complex one, it is hard for people to separate just laws from unjust ones.

Admittedly, people can easily separate just laws from unjust ones before Industry revolution in non-democratic society. From the very beginning of human civilization to feudality, dominators made laws to maintain their power. On the one hand, those laws served to keep the stability of society, which is necessary for the potentates to maintain their potence[这样的which代指并不明确，最开始我也愿意这么干，但是后来组里的人批了一下，终于明白这样的句子自己写得怎么就一直觉得不舒服了]. On the other hand, the final purpose of those laws is always to ensure the profits of dominators. Accordingly, during that time, people tend to define just laws as the laws that are able to ensure the stability of society. Unjust laws are defined as the laws that might hurt the benefits of the majority while protect the minority's. [怎么说呢，我觉得这段从字面上没有什么问题，但我不是很清楚地了解了你的意思。虽然现在是民主社会了，但其实人们还是倾向于认为法律的公平或不公平是视其是否对社会有危害，所以才会有我们今天这个issue17。]

Moreover, during that time, people obeyed just laws in order to gain society's stability, and through[此处我个人倾向于用by] disobeying unjust laws to reach today’s democratic society. [As for just law, people have to obey it in order to gain society's stability这句简单重复不必要]. Law is order, and good law is good order, as Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, once said. And, only with good order in all aspects, a society could be a peaceful and stable society. Take our familiar aspects of just laws for example, criminal law can deal with murder, theft, adultery, or the like; economic law provides a rule of economic activities and settles the disputes of both sides of the trade; tax law makes sure that tax is handed in according to the tax standard. Consider unjust law, only through resisting it, people can keep their own benefit, even survival[这句话有点横空出世的感觉，最开始我竟有点迷糊怎么就说到这里来了]. While these kinds of cases are rare, they did occur occasionally, especially in the autocratic society. Paragon such as the laws made by Hitler comes immediately into mind. Under the control of Hitler and his laws, mass of the Jews were killed [as]optionally as he liked. These laws are obviously unreasonable and lack of humanity. So, it is no strange that more and more people who with justice tend to disobey the laws to protect Jews in spite of the miserable results would be followed. And if it were not for the resisting of people to the unjust laws made by Hitler[改为And if there were not people’s resistance to the unjust laws made y Hitler], no success of the Second World War would be reached.[这段Hitler的例子举得很好]

However, along[with] the development of modern technology, the issue of how to define just laws and unjust laws become[becomes] more and more complicate[complicated], and it is even impossible for people to agree on a certain standard. Nowadays people have to face with[face 或face up to] many controversial problems which our ancestors never have opportunities to think about. No better example than the controversy of[controversy of若不是为了字数，去掉更好] euthanasia. People with different personal value systems tend to have different opinions about the issue. Some assert that euthanasia is no better than murder; while others claim that it is more brutal to leave patient suffering from irremediable anguish than euthanasia. It is hard and even impossible to judge which one is more reasonable.[最好有个总结句]

Another problem of the statement is that instead of simply disobeying and resisting unjust laws, people in modern democratic society can alter those laws to benefit the mass by some other means. Laws of modern democratic society are made to ensure the benefits of mass, and the system of laws is more consummate than in the past. If some indeed think some laws are unjust, they should not resist the laws by force; instead, change the laws by legal procedure. Martin Luther King's success of gain the just right for blacks is a good example to illustrate that people can gain their deserved right and even change laws through legal way.[语句流畅，例子举得很好，如果有个结尾句这段就更漂亮了]

According to the reasons mentioned above, at the time when it is easier to define just laws and unjust laws, people should behave as the speaker claims. However, the statement tends to outdated [be outdated，outdated是形容词] in modern democratic society due to both more and more complex problems and consummate laws system.

个人认为，这是一个非常难写的题目。

看作者的提纲，我便在想，作者要如何地承接才能把这四段的意思给完美地结合在一起。事实上，作者的提纲，连汉语的表达都不是一件容易的事情，更不用说我们都还不甚熟练的英语了。现在从成文看来，文章的主要问题也是出现在这里，语句很好，例子很好，想法也很好，但是组织地一般，没有什么递进，比较割裂，尤其是第二段没看出和后面有太多的照应。还有就是四个方面，你后两方面的行文比较少，有点仓促。

还有作者在第二段把不民主的社会的时间段划分为从人类有文明到封建社会（工业革命之前）。但是第三段所居的例子希特勒却是在工业革命之后的近代历史中的，所以我倾向于作者那段时间界定干脆就不要了，只要说不民主的society system就好了。我想大概也是我们都对这个题目不甚了解，所以写起来才会比较没话说，比较乱，其实我也一样，自己写完觉得简直是不堪入目。

还有就是作者要注意一下动词和介词的搭配，错误不少。文章的承转接合也是以后训练中应该注意的，因为你的字数已达标，语句使用也很不错。

话如果说得重了，也请作者谅解。

5555555 为什么你们的文章这么多人改吗 我的都……


[ 本帖最后由 bluecathy 于 2006-12-30 22:25 编辑 ]

laner023UID: 2223653

呵呵，作文互改时没有“话是否说重了”这一说啦。只要直言自己的意见就可以啦。
这篇issue我也一直很困惑，一直试图寻找和《北美范文》上的不同的写法。可是，看了大家的批评意见后，我觉得好像只有那篇范文上的观点才是无懈可击的。
难道这篇的写法只有模仿范文的思路？？那样岂不大家都一样了？太困惑了