issue17 graduate06--Hamming组 自己的第7篇issue

graduate06UID: 2223299

WORDS: 607      TIME: 55:00       DATE: 2007-1-12
TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "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."

提纲：
1 我们应该遵守公正的法律
2 我们不应该遵守不公正的法律，例子：欺压，奴役人们的伪宪法，用暴力；有时要用和平手段。
3 但是，不遵守不公正的法律，不应走向极端，例子，抽烟
WORDS: 607      TIME: 55:00       DATE: 2007-1-12

In general, I agree the statement about the attitude towards to the just law and unjust law. Our responsibilityis not only to obey just laws but to disobey unjust laws. However, how to distinguish the just or unjust laws is a difficult and complex issue by nature. I will show my reasoning about the issue in the following three parts.

To abide by the just law, it is the foundation of a stable and prosperous society, otherwise the society will run riot and fall into a nightmare. One can imagine that everyone does not obey the traffic law, in this case, the road or street will be market, and everyone will afraid to go across the avenue. Moreover, if all of people do not obey the criminal law, I am afraid the world will turn to a hell, we will even feel unterrified in the home. Actually, our ordinary lives are on the basis of everyone obeying the law, especially, the just law.

To disobey the unjust or unfair laws, more often than not, is more important than to obey the just laws, because it is a significant power prompt the development of a society. According to the different situation, people should take different ways to disobey the unjust law. To the extremely unjust laws, people should fight against and overturn them. A telling example is happened in the world war two. In 1931, Japan used a minor clash with Chinese troops as a pretext for taking over the all of Manchuria. Then they established a puppet state of Manchukuo and enacted a series of unjust laws such as correcting thought law and punishing rioter law and so forth. They used these laws to exploit, press and enslave the Chinese citizens and farmers. For this kind of laws, the people must disobey and resist them until the unjust laws be canceled. To other cases, using the proper way is better than the violent method such as activity of breaking down racial discrimination that leaded by Martin Luther King.

Although we should disobey the unjust laws, it is perilous to put this view into extremes. What is the criterion of just laws and unjust laws? Justice or injustice are subjective concepts, more often than not, the viewpoints of different citizens to a same law are different. Common sense tells me that just law represents the will of most citizens. The minor people who do not recognize a law must submit themselves to the majority. A good example is banning smoking. With the harmful effects of smoking realized by more and more people, more countries enact laws to ban smoking in the public places. For the smokers, they think this kind of laws is unjust, because they consider that their smoking rights are deprived. On the other hand, for the nonsmokers, they strongly bolster such laws, because in the protection of such laws they will not be tortured by ETS--the environmental tobacco smoke. According to the survey of WHO, the rate of smokers and nonsmokers is 1 to 6, and all we know that smoking is responsible for many kinds of disease such as asthma and lung cancer, so no doubt the laws are just, the smokers must yield to these laws.

To the great extent, I agree with the statement that it is our commitment to obey the just laws and the unjust laws. But the statement is a little vague in way of protesting the unjust laws. If we cannot examine the problem clearly and thoughtfully, we are likely to go to the extremes. And it is even more horrible than obeying the unjust laws.

越是困难，我们越是要挺过去！

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2007-1-12 18:39 编辑 ]

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

恩，写的简单有力,不错不错

liquidshileUID: 2254332

In general, I agree the statement about the attitude towards to the just law and unjust law. Our responsibility is not only to obey just laws but to disobey unjust laws. However, how to distinguish the just or unjust laws is a difficult and complex issue by nature[什么意思？]. I will show my reasoning about the issue in the following three parts. [这里说distinguish很困难，下面是不是应该给一个简单的标准，不然如何直接说just和unjust，建议把第三段提上来]To abide by[to 可以不要吧？]

the just law, it is the foundation of a stable and prosperous society, otherwise the society will run riot and fall into a nightmare. One can imagine that everyone does not obey the traffic law, in this case, the road or street will be market, and everyone will afraid to go across the avenue. Moreover, if all of people do not obey the criminal law, I am afraid the world will turn to a去掉 hell, we will even feel unterrified in the home. Actually, our ordinary lives are on the basis of everyone obeying the law, especially, the just law. To disobey the unjust or unfair laws, more often than not, is more important than to obey the just laws, because it is a significant power prompt the development of a society. According to the different situation, people should take different ways to disobey the unjust law. To the extremely unjust laws, people should fight against and overturn them. A telling example is happened in the world war two. In 1931, Japan used a minor clash with Chinese troops as a pretext for taking over the all of Manchuria. Then they established a puppet state of Manchukuo and enacted a series of unjust laws such as correcting thought law and punishing rioter law and so forth. They used these laws to exploit, press and enslave the Chinese citizens and farmers. For this kind of laws, the people must disobey and resist them until the unjust laws be canceled. To other cases, using the proper way is better than the violent method such as activity of breaking down racial discrimination that leaded by Martin Luther King. Although we should disobey the unjust laws, it is perilous to put this view into extremes. What is the criterion of just laws and unjust laws? Justice or injusticeare subjective concepts, more often than not, the viewpoints of different citizens to a same law are different. Common sense tells me that just law represents the will of most citizens. The minor people who do not recognize a law must submit themselves to the majority. A good example is banning smoking. With the harmful effects of smoking realized by more and more people, more countries enact laws to ban smoking in the public places. For the smokers, they think this kind of laws is unjust, because they consider that their smoking rights are deprived. On the other hand, for the nonsmokers, they strongly bolster such laws, because in the protection of such laws they will not be tortured by ETS--the environmental tobacco smoke. According to the survey of WHO, the rate of smokers and nonsmokers is 1 to 6, and all we know that smoking is responsible for many kinds of disease such as asthma and lung cancer, so no doubt the laws are just, the smokers must yield to these laws.[这一段定义just与unjust就是以多数服从少数来展开的，但是TS是不能采用极端的看法，可以去掉这一句，直接使用下面的定义。还有说正义与非正义是来自不同人的不同看法，下面给出的例子说的是多数人同意的就是正义，少数人的就是非正义，多数少数不应该是正义非正义的subject view，按你的意思应该是写不同人的不同立场的例子才对，on the other hand后面的内容符合]

To the great extent, I agree with the statement that it is our commitment to obey the just laws and the unjust laws. But the statement is a little vague in way of protesting the unjust laws. If we cannot examine the problem clearly and thoughtfully, we are likely to go to the extremes. And it is even more horrible than obeying the unjust laws.


改得晚了点，多包涵，语言用词上已经没有太多可说的了，意思也比较正确，有些小地方和我想的不太一样，给你说一下！

[ 本帖最后由 liquidshile 于 2007-1-14 23:15 编辑 ]

graduate06UID: 2223299

多谢修改，认真考虑你的好建议中...