issue17 <aspire小组>第六次作业

kooyiiUID: 2177986

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."
Outline:
1.法律是没有所谓正义或者不正义的。当道德或者其他的东西与法律相悖时，我们以法律优先（一个越狱的杀人犯，他救了很多人，但他还是要被法律所制裁~）。法律风俗思想情感不同;在无法判断一个法律是否公平的情况下去反对一个法律是不理智的
2.在不同的国家，由于观念不同，法律存在着不公平性，使得法律看起来不正义（死刑）法律的功能(该不该判死刑death penalty)在不同的人群看来，法律维护的是某些人的利益（）有争议就有利益纠纷，而争议永远存在(tax)
3在一个法律还没有被撤消前,鼓励去反对不公平的法律,会不可避免的导致和怂恿越来越多的人去违背法律,走向另一个极端,甚至滑向一个更加难以想象的地步,他们都有一个共同的理由:这个法律对他们来说不公平~他们是"合法"的违背法律~
4.....in sum.....
字数:512                          时间:限时1.5小时~(结尾没完成)
The speaker asserts that people should conform the just laws and on the other hand act against the unjust laws. On the first glance, I concede that it's necessary for people to fight for the unfair low when it comes to them. After consider carefully, I take exception with the claim when it comes to practice.

On one hand, there is not an impassable a great gulf fixed between just laws and unjust laws. Laws are stipulate to protect the people who obey the laws and in the reverse side punish the unobservant ones, it resemble morality because they are designed to control or alter our behavior however, not much sensation has been taken into the laws to distinguish from the just laws and unjust laws. For example, one homicide break from prison who save a large number of life after he out of prison will be punish without question, although many people plead for him. It's hard to define a law to be a just law or not.

On the other hand, people from different area may hold an opposite opinion in whether a law is just. For example, the controversial issue of death penalty, individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing death penalty as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just. Otherwise, whether a law is just also depend on one's benefit and social class. Social stipulate laws to harmonize the benefit conflict and noncooperation, while people judge it by their sentiment at most time, which would undoubtedly lead to incorrect point of view. One of the obvious example is the tax rate changes from differ people of dissimilar income. The low income person insists that the high income person hand up a higher proportion of income taxation is just while the high income person holds a diverse opinion. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective, depending largely on how one's personal interests are affected by it.

Otherwise, disobedience would surly poses certain risks. It’s not intellect to disobey a law especially when you couldn't affirm whether it is just. What’s more, in the author's opinion--justifying a violation of one sort of laws--would doubtless push more people to break the laws, even worse, may cause egregious criminal conduct. They "legitimately" disobey the laws for only one reason below that the law is unfair and unjust to them. Returning to the example mention above, a person strongly opposed to the death penalty might maintain that rescue a homicide from the prison amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, the one who have been rescue may give bad feedback to our social.

In sum, because the inherent function of our laws is to balance competing interests, reasonable people with different priorities will always disagree about the fairness of special laws. Accordingly, radical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one's subjective viewpoint or personal interest. And in nay event, disobedience is never justifiable when the legal rights or safety of innocent people are jeopardized as a result.


在限时内没把结尾写好~所以结尾就随便用北美的上了~