issue17 法律的公平性，唉，越写越没感觉了，请大家帮忙给看看，谢谢

alex_leeUID: 2227596

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.

Two assertions
Position: Disagree

A:  把法律简单分为正义或不正义，过于简单。不同的人对正义有不同的看法。比如：clone, free trade and national industries.
B：法律是严肃的，任何人不能以任何借口来违抗法律。不然法律的权威性得不到保证。以free trade为例。
C:  法律的制定者必须不断的修正法律，来适应社会的变化，法律为社会服务，network crimes, national security after 9.11。

Laws are official rules that regulate the behavior of members in a society and plays a vital role in maintaining the peace and stability of the society. Unlike the author's assertion, there is no clear definition of whether a law is just or unjust. It would jeopardize our society if someone violates laws under the excuse of his undeniable right to disobey unjust laws.

To begin with, it is impossible to get a common sense of whether a particular law is just or unjust in any society. The opinion of anybody on the justness of a law must be shaped by his background, value systems, experiences and choices. Take the law to lower the tariff of imports and protect free trade for example. From consumers' point of view, this law is just because the lower tariff means that they can buy the high quality goods with a cheaper price. However, this same law might provoke large scale protesting among the manufacturers and workers in national industries who believe that this law is quite unjust to them because they have to compete with foreign companies and face the dangers to lose their domestic markets. Another typical example comes from scientific areas. The law prohibiting any attempts to clone human might be thought as unjust by a scientist who advocates that this technology brings hopes to cure patients with once incurable genetic disease but might get lots of supports from public who feel this technology contradicts their values.

Therefore, because of the inherent ambiguity in the definition of justness of laws, the violation of laws under such excuse of undeniable right to disobey the inequity should not be allowed or else the authority of laws will be frequently challenged and no longer widely conformed. Still take the law of free trade for example, if a person who strongly opposes this law believes that he has undeniable right to do anything he want to demonstrate his opposition of the free trade law because this law in his mind is unjust, he might carry out extreme behaviors such as burning the shops selling imports or attack the foreign businessmen he sees. He might even organize persons having the same idea with him to antagonize the governors enforcing this law. Laws are the base of oder in the society. If laws can be easily violated like this, no one will take laws seriously and the maintenance of the stability in the structured society is impossible.

However, the authority of laws comes not only from the enforcement of government, but also from that fact that laws must keep compatible with the widely accepted values in the society which is ruled under the laws. Thus if some values once were hold by most citizens, but as the development of the society, now they are thought to be wrong, the laws compatible with those values will also be widely considered as unjust and should be altered. Segregation which once was thought  as the fundamental law to keep the stability in South  Africa for quite a long time was believed brutal and uncivilized by most people in that country after Nelson Mandela’s tens of years of fighting and at last was cancelled.

In summary, anyone's idea of whether a law is just or unjust is shaped by his value systems, experiences or choice. No one should violate laws under the excuse of challenging unjust law. However, laws themselves must be flexible to keep pace with the development of the society.

[ 本帖最后由 alex_lee 于 2007-2-10 21:53 编辑 ]

alex_leeUID: 2227596

几天没动静，自己顶一下，呵呵

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

issue17 法律的公平性，唉，越写越没感觉了，请大家帮忙给看看，谢谢
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.

Two assertions
Position: Disagree

A:  把法律简单分为正义或不正义，过于简单。不同的人对正义有不同的看法。比如：clone, free trade and national industries.
B：法律是严肃的，任何人不能以任何借口来违抗法律。不然法律的权威性得不到保证。以free trade为例。
C:  法律的制定者必须不断的修正法律，来适应社会的变化，法律为社会服务，network crimes, national security after 9.11。

Laws are official rules that regulate the behavior of members in a society and plays a vital role in maintaining the peace and stability of the society. Unlike the author's assertion, there is no clear definition of whether a law is just or unjust. It would jeopardize our society if someone violates laws under the excuse of不确定这个用法 his undeniable right to disobey unjust laws.

To begin with, it is impossible to get a common sense of whether a particular law is just or unjust in any society. The opinion of anybody on the justness of a law must be shaped这个动词用的好 by his background, value systems, experiences and choices. Take the law to lower the tariff of imports and protect free trade for example. From consumers' point of view, this law is just because the lower tariff means that they can buy the high quality goods with a cheaper price. However, this same law might provoke large scale protesting among the manufacturers and workers in national industries who believe that this law is quite unjust to them because they have to compete with foreign companies and face the dangers to lose their domestic markets. Another typical example comes from scientific areas. The law prohibiting any attempts to clone human might be thought as unjust by a scientist who advocates that this technology brings hopes to cure patients with once incurable genetic disease but might get lots of supports from public who feel this technology contradicts their values.这个例子很好

Therefore, because of the inherent ambiguity in the definition of justness of laws, the violation of laws under such excuse of undeniable right to disobey the inequity should not be allowed or else the authority of laws will be frequently challenged and no longer widely conformed. Still take the law of free trade for example, if a person who strongly opposes this law believes that he has undeniable right to do anything he want to demonstrate his opposition of the free trade law because this law in his mind is unjust, he might carry out extreme behaviors such as burning the shops selling imports or attack the foreign businessmen he sees. He might even organize persons having the same idea with him to antagonize the governors enforcing this law. Laws are the base of oderorder in the society. If laws can be easily violated like this, no one will take laws seriously and the maintenance of the stability in the structured society is impossible.

However, the authority of laws comes not only from the enforcement of government, but also from that fact that laws must keep compatible with the widely accepted values in the society which is ruled under the laws. Thus if some values once were hold by most citizens, but as the development of the society, now they are thought to be wrong, the laws compatible with those values will also be widely considered as unjust and should be altered. Segregation which once was thought as the fundamental law to keep the stability in South Africa for quite a long time was believed brutal and uncivilized by most people in that country after Nelson Mandela’s tens of years of fighting and at last was cancelled. 这句有些乱

In summary, anyone's idea of whether a law is just or unjust is shaped by his value systems, experiences or choice. No one should violate laws under the excuse of challenging unjust law. However, laws themselves must be flexible to keep pace with the development of the society.
通篇动词用的都不错，值得好好学习
还有些疑问：禁止clone已经成为法律了么？

alex_leeUID: 2227596

关于clone，好像已经有国际公约了。谢谢修改。

majiadaiUID: 2235408

今天晚上我也要写这个的,留个位子先 等下来互改吧
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-610245-1-1.html
今天晚了,明早来改

Two assertions
Position: Disagree

A:  把法律简单分为正义或不正义，过于简单。不同的人对正义有不同的看法。比如：clone, free trade and national industries.
B：法律是严肃的，任何人不能以任何借口来违抗法律。不然法律的权威性得不到保证。以free trade为例。
C:  法律的制定者必须不断的修正法律，来适应社会的变化，法律为社会服务，network crimes, national security after 9.11。

Laws are official rules that regulate the behavior of members in a society and plays a vital role in maintaining the peace and stability of the society. Unlike the author's assertion, there is no clear definition of whether a law is just or unjust. It would jeopardize our society if someone violates laws under the excuse of his undeniable right to disobey unjust laws.

To begin with, it is impossible to get a common sense of whether a particular law is just or unjust in any society. The opinion of anybody on the justness of a law must be shaped by his background, value systems, experiences and choices. Take the law to lower the tariff of imports and protect free trade for example. From consumers' point of view, this law is just because the lower tariff means that they can buy the high quality goods with a cheaper price. However, this same law might provoke large scale protesting among the manufacturers and workers in national industries who believe that this law is quite unjust to them because they have to compete with foreign companies and face the dangers to lose their domestic markets. Another typical example comes from scientific areas. The law prohibiting any attempts to clone human might be thought as unjust by a scientist who advocates that this technology brings hopes to cure patients with once incurable genetic disease but might get lots of supports from public who feel this technology contradicts their values.

Therefore, because of the inherent ambiguity in the definition of justness of laws, the violation of laws under such excuse of undeniable right to disobey the inequity should not be allowed or else the authority of laws will be frequently challenged and no longer widely conformed. Still take the law of free trade for example, if a person who strongly opposes this law believes that he has undeniable right to do anything he want to demonstrate his opposition of the free trade law because this law in his mind is unjust, he might carry out extreme behaviors such as burning the shops selling imports or attack the foreign businessmen he sees. He might even organize persons having the same idea with him to antagonize the governors enforcing this law. (再加一句其他人的利益得到损失,社会就不稳定了更好)Laws are the base of oder in the society. If laws can be easily violated like this, no one will take laws seriously and the maintenance of the stability in the structured society is impossible.

However, the authority of laws comes not only from the enforcement of government, but also from that fact that laws must keep compatible with the widely accepted values in the society which is ruled under the laws. Thus if some values once were hold by most citizens, but as the development of the society, now they are thought to be wrong, the laws compatible with those values will also be widely considered as unjust and should be altered. Segregation which once was thought  as the fundamental law to keep the stability in South  Africa for quite a long time was believed brutal and uncivilized by most people in that country after Nelson Mandela’s tens of years of fighting and at last was cancelled. (segregation一开始就是unjust的,这个不是说为了适应社会的变化,我觉得这个例子用做disobey的好处更好,我就是这样用的^_^)

In summary, anyone's idea of whether a law is just or unjust is shaped by his value systems, experiences or choice. No one should violate laws under the excuse of challenging unjust law. However, laws themselves must be flexible to keep pace with the development of the society.个人认为有点偏题

总体我也改不出什么了,觉得结构不错,句子也流畅,所以欢迎来拍我的issue17,地址在上面拉

[ 本帖最后由 majiadai 于 2007-2-15 09:55 编辑 ]