issue17 just and unjust laws, 请帮我找逻辑错误吧...

lindorUID: 2290025

今天状态很不好,家里很吵...
后来修改了的,把第二段和第三段分别加了一个例子.填了点字数,但是逻辑没有变化.
帮我看看我的逻辑吧..嗯...

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."
WORDS: 324          TIME: 0:44:00          DATE: 2007-2-25

The Laws are always highly concerned and under controversy among people in democratic countries. Some people tend to classify the laws as the just ones and unjust ones. As far as I concerned, it is too arbitrary to judge laws by the standard of justice.

To begin with, on the basis of chasing self-interests, different people may hold distinct views on the definition of justice. As to people who are born at an extra-wealthy family, they might think that receiving a bulk of property from an ancestor is just and legitimate, while others, the poor ones, might think it is unjust and unfair for these people who inherit a large amount of money without any endeavor. The same is true of the economy policy of a state, but on a larger scale. To protect domestic industries, many countries prefer to impose a heavy tax on imported goods. While domestic companies would regard this policy as a just one, consumers and foreign companies do not think so.

Furthermore, immersing in particular cultures, authorities and people in different countries are likely to understand justice diversely. For instance, the majority of people in Uganda, where conflicts and fights occurred merely without a break, believe that in the name of keeping its boundary's safe, it is just and reasonable to enter other regions with guns and kill any so-call dangerous one at their will, which is unacceptable and unjust behavior in the eye of many people of other countries. In a not dissimilar way, Hitler, who thought the German was the most notable nation in the world while the Jew the basest, considered the genocide of Jewish as a just action, contrarily, the Jewish people blamed his unjust persecution.

Therefore, since there is no absolute correct definition about justice in the world, it is hazardous to let people act according to their own standard of justice. As the compulsory rules, the laws should be strictly obeyed by its citizens in order to make the society stable and harmonious, especially those considered as just laws by most citizens. There is no denying the fact that every individual, as a member of society, has a responsibility to obey laws, which are made to protect all citizens in a safe environment by the way of preventing vicious crimes and keep the society in a positive order. Otherwise, the society would sink into disorder.

Admittedly, there is nowhere more ridiculous than on the assertion that people should never question laws. Considering that the laws are produced by legislators which are humans not the God, the laws, hence, inevitably have flaws, which should be diminished through modifying year by year. For instance, every law including the civil laws and the crime laws has supplements. Since the laws are applied to citizens therefore such modifying process also needs suggestions from citizens. The responsibility to improve laws is not to say to disobey and resist the law which one thinks unjust. People should put forward constructive opinions in a civilized way, instead of resistance and disobedience, which could lead to riots and fights.

In general, the definition of just and unjust laws is complicated. Although the laws have flaws, it is wiser to improve the laws through a moderate and legal way but not to resist and disobey laws which are judged subjectively as unjust laws.

askmeUID: 2264776

The Laws are always highly concerned and under controversy among people in democratic countries. Some people tend to classify the laws as the just ones and unjust ones. As far as I concerned, it is too arbitrary to judge laws by the standard of justice.

To begin with, on the basis of chasing self-interests, different people may hold distinct views on the definition of justice. As to people who are born at an extra-wealthy family, they might think that receiving a bulk of property from an ancestor is just and legitimate, while others, the poor ones, might think it is unjust and unfair for these people who inherit a large amount of money without any endeavor. The same is true of the economy policy of a state,sigh~~~ 这个句型好熟悉啊 but on a larger scale. To protect domestic industries, many countries prefer to impose a heavy tax on imported goods. While domestic companies would regard this policy as a just one, consumers and foreign companies do not think so. 例子很丰富，可以适当深入分析一下，不然你如果遇到举不出这么多例子的段落怎么办？

Furthermore, immersing in particular cultures, authorities and people in different countries are likely to understand justice diversely. For instance, the majority of people in Uganda, where conflicts and fights occurred merely without a break, believe that in the name of keeping its boundary's safe, it is just and reasonable to enter other regions with guns and kill any so-call dangerous one at their will, which is unacceptable and unjust behavior in the eye of many people of other countries.没有分析透的感觉 In a not dissimilar way, Hitler, who thought the German was the most notable nation in the world while the Jew the basest, considered the genocide of Jewish as a just action, contrarily, the Jewish people blamed his unjust persecution. 来个conclusion

Therefore, since there is no absolute correct definition about justice in the world, it is hazardous to let people act according to their own standard of justice. As the compulsory rules, the laws should be strictly obeyed by its citizens in order to make the society stable and harmonious, especially those considered as just laws by most citizens. There is no denying the fact that every individual, as a member of society, has a responsibility to obey laws, which are made to protect all citizens in a safe environment by the way of preventing vicious crimes and keep the society in a positive order. Otherwise, the society would sink into disorder.这段也没有分析透，这个段其实有很大发挥余地的

Admittedly, there is nowhere more ridiculous than on the assertion that people should never question laws. Considering that the laws are produced by legislators which are humans not the God, the laws, hence, inevitably have flaws, which should be diminished through modifying year by year. For instance, every law including the civil laws and the crime laws has supplements. Since the laws are applied to citizens therefore such modifying process also needs suggestions from citizens. The responsibility to improve laws is not to say to disobey and resist the law which one thinks unjust. People should put forward constructive opinions in a civilized way, instead of resistance and disobedience, which could lead to riots and fights.

In general, the definition of just and unjust laws is complicated. Although the laws have flaws, it is wiser to improve the laws through a moderate and legal way but not to resist and disobey laws which are judged subjectively as unjust laws.



逻辑大概是这样的  just laws会随人随地变化(1,2)-->disobey unjust laws很危险(3)-->可以通过适当方式改法(4)。
(1,2)-->(3)是没有因果关系的。逻辑应该是这样，虽然(1,2)，但是没有法会出乱子，所以(3) 至少(3)段首的那个therefore和since不应该用。

lindorUID: 2290025

en ...对. 我也觉得第四段的上下文衔接没做好..
我本来是想说, 就是因为justice的定义不同,所以,让人们 behave in accordance with what they think is just 是很危险的. 这一句应该再发展成一段. 这样会造成disorder.
然后再起一段说遵守法律的重要性.