Issue17 【Persistence 小组】第五次作业

iamstoicUID: 2294314

The speaker asserts that it is more important for each person to defy the unjust laws than to abide by just laws. I partly agree with this claim, for, from my perspective, obeying just laws is just as crucial as disobeying and resisting unjust ones.

On the one hand, in a democracy, only when each citizen obeys just laws will the society likely be a stable and orderly one. The laws with legitimacy are regarded as expressing the common will of the majority based on the general or universal principles. They will prevent individuals infringe upon others’ rights, require the police to protect against domestic violations, oblige the army to defend against foreign aggression, and compel the court to punish criminals and arbitrate disputes in an equitable manner. Moreover, there is no doubt that just law can reflect the values of that society it belongs to because of tradition, necessity, and expectation. Therefore, it is our liability to obey just laws in the public interests, otherwise, anyone who disobey it must submit to the judgment and punishment that the state imposes.

On the other hand, it is impossible that all the laws are just. This may raise the question: how does one determine whether a law is just or unjust. In reference to this aspect, if we look back in history we may find the appropriate example to get an answer. In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King was arrested for organizing a series of non-violent protests against the segregated lunch counters and discriminatory hiring practices in Birmingham, Alabama. King explained why he disobeyed the law in his famous Letter from a Birmingham jail (and I paraphrase) :“ There are two kinds of laws: just laws and unjust laws. A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” This illustrates the point that it is the sense of justice rather than personal convenience that encouraged him to violate the law – there were no alternatives to address the scourge of racial discrimination at that time.

What is more, another question may arise: what is the reasonable way to protest against an unjust law. In my view, King’s protests as presented above can also apply to this answer. He staged the protest in accordance with “civil disobedience” which was proposed by Henry David Thoreau in his great essay On Civil Disobedience in America in 1849, as the Civil War over slavery loomed. King himself also argues that the direct action must be non-violent. Protestants may engage themselves in a strike by not showing up for work. Or perhaps they could perform marches in front of the parliament house. Furthermore, another effective way to rebel the law can be resorting to the media, which is virtually balanced on the issue. Any objections to the law, for instance, should be splashed on the front page of newspapers.  

In this new era of individualism and self-responsibility, the words of Martin Luther King still provide guidance for the government who enacts the law. While we ought to obey the just laws, it is the responsibility for us to break the laws which require you to be the agent of injustice to another. After all, an unjust law could bring just as much destructions– if not more so – as no law at all.

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

The speaker asserts that it is more important for each person to defy the unjust laws than to abide by just laws. I partly agree with this claim, for, from my perspective, obeying just laws is just as crucial as disobeying and resisting unjust ones.（开门见山点明“平衡”观点，好！）On the one hand, in a democracy, only when each citizen obeys just laws will the society likely be a stable and orderly one. The laws with legitimacy are regarded as expressing the common will of the majority based on the general or universal principles. They will prevent individuals infringe upon others’ （这个标点，即是others后边的撇号，是我给你提到过的word检查错误，奇怪，我办公室的word就要报错，昨天在家的时候没报错） rights, require the police to protect against domestic violations, oblige the army to defend against foreign aggression, （aggression本身带有“侵略”之意，用foreign修饰会不会显得多余？）and compel the court to punish criminals and arbitrate disputes in an equitable manner. （排比用的好，且词汇丰富） Moreover, there is no doubt that just law can reflect the values of that society it belongs to because of tradition, necessity, and expectation. （这句不太好理解，主要是because of后面的原因的说明）Therefore, it is our liability to obey just laws in the public interests, otherwise, anyone who disobeys it must submit to the judgment and punishment that the state imposes.On the other hand, it is impossible that all the laws are just. This may raise the question: how does one determine whether a law is just or unjust. In reference to this aspect, if we look back in history we may find the appropriate example to get an answer. In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King was arrested for organizing a series of non-violent protests against the segregated lunch counters and discriminatory hiring practices in Birmingham, Alabama.（说实话，这个例子我不太熟悉，中文知道个大概，英文就别说了。不过，老美应该很清楚。不错！） King explained why he disobeyed the law in his famous Letter from a Birmingham jail (and I paraphrase):“There are two kinds of laws: just laws and unjust laws. A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” This illustrates the point that it is the sense of justice rather than personal convenience that encouraged him to violate the law – there were no alternatives to address the scourge of racial discrimination at that time.（整个这一段，从“名人例证”的角度来说，应该很有说服力了。如果你是在“计时”内写成这样，希望保持。如果临时参考过资料，则需要注意的是，把它记下！对于本段论证的思想，我个人有点置疑。名人太具体的例证，会不会又陷入了特例的“陷阱”。即是说，金的这种行为，有其特殊性，普遍意义不大。可以这么设想，如果人人都以“社会为重”的名义采取“违法”行为，那么，社会也有不再稳定的危险。不过，你下面一段的论证，似乎在弥补说明这一点。即是，“违法”也应该遵循某些特定的规则，这是保持社会稳定的必要条件。所以，我对自己的这个置疑也不太确定，只是提出来，共同商讨。BTW，这个问题本来就是很具争议的问题，即便用中文，也足够开一个辩论题目，而最终不会有什么“压倒性”结果。从你的论证来看，已经很有力了！）What is more, another question may arise: what （word说，这个what该首字母大写，冒号引起的应该是一句完整的句子吧？但前面那个question的冒号又允许了how不大写。办公室的word今天很奇怪诶！）is the reasonable way to protest against an unjust law. In my view, King’s protests as presented above can also apply to this answer. He staged the protest in accordance with “civil disobedience” which was proposed by Henry David Thoreau in his great essay On Civil Disobedience in America in 1849, as the Civil War over slavery loomed. King himself also argues that the direct action must be non-violent. Protestants may engage themselves in a strike by not showing up for work. Or perhaps they could perform marches in front of the parliament house. Furthermore, another effective way to rebel the law can be resorting to the media, which is virtually balanced on the issue. Any objections to the law, for instance, should be splashed （splash这种表达是口语化还是比较formal的用语，我记得不太清楚了，如果你确定，则大胆的用吧。至少很地道！）on the front page of newspapers.  In this new era of individualism and self-responsibility, the words of Martin Luther King still provide guidance for the government who enacts the law. While we ought to obey the just laws, it is the responsibility for us to break the laws which （办公室的word居然要求改成laws, which或者 laws that  我不苟同，觉得本身这样也是对的，写在这儿告诉你有这么个情况）require you to be the agent of injustice to another. After all, an unjust law could bring just as much destructions– if not more so – as no law at all.（总结很好！特别是里面的“回应”很具特点。）

1.       思想性、结构性都没什么问题。论证有说服力，结构层次清晰，TS明显。
2.       语言流畅，用词丰富。就我个人感觉，基本脱离了中式英语模式，值得我学习。
3.       总得来说，整篇文章很不错。就我的水平来看，能够改动的很少，（若排除特定问题好写不好写的因素）也是改过的三个人中最好的一篇。除了On the other hand那一点我提到的对“思想”的置疑，但实际上，我自己也没能完全说服自己的置疑，毕竟是“名人例证”。
4.  加油，加油！继续努力！

[ 本帖最后由 欣馨之火 于 2007-2-6 18:45 编辑 ]