ISSUE17 修改后的作品，觉得自己讲道理多了。欢迎提建议，因为快考了。谢谢

annasweeUID：2294850

我编辑了下格式.相当不错的issue,尤其第二个body.赞. by iq28.


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: 677      TIME: 上午 12:54:55          DATE: 2007-3-20

According to the author's suggestion, each one has a duty to obey just laws, more importantly disobey unjust laws. However, the author's recommendation may be an ineffective and harmful legal cognition. In my point of view, realizing the justice and eliminating the opposite ones needs people’s consensus to what is impartial and unjust.

First of all, from the theory or notion, the suggestion author put forward may be reasonable. After all, justice in action starts from justice in conception. For example, the famous document called "ABOLITION" was signed by Albert Lincoln in 1862. Before he signed the paper, no one else was just and brave enough to write down his name on the document. What was the huge motive force behind him? That was his fairness. Everyone knows that Lincoln was a Native American. If he held the same views as other race-discriminated people, he would have protected their selfish profits as well as resisted the document. Nevertheless, owing to his unshakeable justice, he insisted on freeing the serves. Finally, he putted his conception into action by signing the significant document as well as a series of freedom liberation. As you can see, due to such kind of impartial attitude in mind that people then have the notion of how to imply their conception and arrange a collection of actions follows.

Moreover, the author's suggestion oversimplifies the problems. Before not understanding what is just what is unjust, the recommendation author raised is easily inclined to pursuing unjust laws subsequent damage the just ones. Justice is in the eyes of the beholders, who’s attitudes and opinions on what’s right and wrong diversify greatly, thus the judgment on whether a specific law is just or unjust  varies. Thus, given the actual translation of words into action and the situation that people resist what they regard as unjust, no law is valid and justifiable, which will lead to breach of laws and further destruct the fabrication of society, with chaos ensuing. If two people claim to own the same piece of property with no willingness by settled the problem by a duel, they turn to the law and to institutions like the courts to decide who is the real owner. However, no matter how the magistrate decides, one of them will not be satisfied. The one who finally wined may feel the law is just, while the other one thought opposite. If as the author recommends, he should disobey the unjust one, than such a dispute will never end. So, it is wise to think over what is just and what is unjust not from one’s own subjective view but the objective one which accepted by the mass and confirms with the major benefits.

Finally, in my point of view, after the put forth of laws which satisfied the most benefits and be accepted by the mass, people should obey them. Similarly, people should rise to disobey those Laws came out with the satisfactory of only a few authorities with power who want hegemony, or satisfy their abnormal interests like the things Adolf Hitler made in Germany, which degrades human personality. Those are certain unjust ones. People should rise to disobey them like the people in Germany fighting for the just with heart and soul. But luckily, nowadays most nations are democracy. Things happened in Hitler’s time may not be easily occurred in today. In today’s most places peaceful time, things for people to do are just mending some tiny flaws left in the existent laws. Such kind of disobeying the unjust laws for striving for equity has gone with the wind. So, the author’s suggestion is not very suitable in today’s world.

In a word, the author’ recommendation is not quite feasible in today’s world. Only by obeying what he thinks is right meanwhile disobeying the opposite ones will surely cause the chaos of a society. Real justice is most people’s common recognition which is better fit the society’s needs. Only through people working out impartial legislations which are the fruits of their consensus would we accomplish the justice.

[ 本帖最后由 iq28 于 2007-6-17 12:45 编辑 ]