issue17 [AWB小组]第十二次作业，痛苦的法律题目

tly823UID: 2145205

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.

○1无法判断法律是否是平等的
○2时代不同环境不同导致判断不同
○3由于修改法律的滞后性，使我们不得不暂时遵守现行法律
○4让步：有些法是必须废除的，有些是必须遵守的

The purpose of laws is not only to govern people as tools for rulers, but also to protect people’s basic interests, such as physical health, work safety, and to realize the ultimate equality, human rights, and freedom. When a law is established, in most cases, it will promote discussion about the justice involved in. In my point of view, it is hard to judge a law is just or unjust, which further will thwart our choice to obey or resist it.

No deny that no law is just enough for every citizen, every company, and every institution, with  time elapsing and circumstance changing. Although law will protect certain people’s privilege, it will harm others as consequence. Provided with no definite criterion, how to judge whether a law is just or not? For example, a law regulates the toxic gas a certain factory can emit into air. This kind of law can benefit the nearby residents protecting them from hazardous substance in air , and provide them a health environment to live. However, obeying the law may costly for the factory. To prevent this harmful gas, the factory may have to change some of the facilities into newly advanced ones which is free of pollution but more expensive to purchase and operating, or even causes bankruptcy. Thus, for the residents this law is just, while for factory it is unjust.

Moreover, laws have to be regulated according to different situation, and thus their justice change with time. Like just law of marriage in the past is no longer just for homosexuality in modern time; the law of family planning is reasonable in China because of the urgency of natural resource shortage and booming population, while years later, as the mitigation of these urgency and the popularization of people’s awareness on human right, it will become unjust and should be abandoned. As we known that law is based on the social reality, once an established law is conflict with new situation and notion, it should be adapted or demolished.

From another aspect, for the reason that abolishing an unneutral law and setting up a adapted law or new law has a hysteresis quality.Take China as example, in amending a constituation, it should experience the process of suggesting, proposing, drafting, informing, reviewing, deciding, publicizing, which always lasts years long. Until the new law well established, we have to still obey to the original but unjust law.

Admittedly, certain law is apparently violate human rights, equality and freedom, which should be resisted at once. In 18th century, the monarch publicized the ideology that monarchy was above everything, and practiced autocracy throughover the country. King is everything. His personal will is law. Closely following this unfair law were mass riot and copious of opposing great soldiers, such as Rousseau who denounced the monarchy and uphold justice. On the other hand, we should abide the traffic law, labor law, and the like, in order to protect the safety of others and ourselves as well.

In sum, we cannot conclude which law is just and which is not, because there are no solid criterions to judge them, and this will hinder our choice to abide or combat the law.

hcpengUID: 2309510

同是17，感觉思路大不同。 我倾向于从social stability角度分析。
Your basical ideas appears far too complicated. I suggest you ignore some of the aspects, and focus more, write more on some factors.