Issue17 [Victors小组]第八次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

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."


提纲：1一般说来法律是立法机关代表人民制定的，人们应该遵守他。
         2法律不可能兼顾社会各方面的利益和要求，总会有一部分人反对他。
         3在特殊情况下尤其是在专制国家法律不是由人民制订的，在这种社会，人们应该违抗甚至抵制恶法。

There are two types of laws： just and unjust. It is unquestionable that every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws, however, should people disobey and resist unjust laws as the author advocates in the statement? In my view, that depends on case-by-case analysis.

In the first place, normally speaking, laws are established by the legislature which is selected by the people, in other words laws are prescribed by the people themselves. In that sense, of cause, it is every individual' duty to obey laws. In retrospect to pristine society when people lead a life just as savage beasts, live and safety can not be ensured. Then, in order to ensure the safety of every individual's live and property, the people established laws, those evil actions such as purloin, robbery, homicide, rape etc are prohibited. For that matter, laws, the foundation of the society, and the umbrella of every people which protect us from crime, are of ourselves ,by ourselves and for ourselves, so we should obey them.

In the second place, a key feature of laws lies in its universal restraining force, which means every individual must obey laws no matter where they come from, which stratum they belong to and which occupation they undertake. However, society turns out to be polynary, every individual is distinct in the value system, the view about the world, the economic interest and so on. So laws are doomed to fail to satisfy every individual's need, especially considering the need of specific stratum often turns out to be antithetical. So to most provisions of law, there must be some supporters and some objectors. In that case, if objectors disobey even resist laws which they consider as unjust, the whole society will be plunged into chaos.

In principle, the foregoing two points are credible, but, in some extreme environment, it is not the case. In some autocratic society, the laws are established by autocrats, to protect their own interest rather than the interest of the masses. In former Iraq, the laws give the infinite authority to the president, what's more restrict the freedom of the people. In that case, should  individuals disobey and resist unjust laws or stand them? Undoubtedly, they should disobey and resist them, not only for themselves but also for their descendants, otherwise, they and their offspring will live in endless gloom. Apart from those countries, even in the democratic countries just as America, there used to be unjust laws. In the 60st of last centuries, many laws discriminated African American. Martin Luther King lead African American to resist them bravely, and turn the tide at last. Are the action of Martin Luther King and African American reasonable? Of cause.

To sum up, normally speaking, the action of disobeying and resisting laws is to blame, but in particular circumstance, those brave action worth encouraging.  

[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-6-9 11:16 编辑 ]

H-KevinUID: 2182070

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."


提纲：1一般说来法律是立法机关代表人民制定的，人们应该遵守他。
         2法律不可能兼顾社会各方面的利益和要求，总会有一部分人反对他。
         3在特殊情况下尤其是在专制国家法律不是由人民制订的，在这种社会，人们应该违抗甚至抵制恶法。

There are two types of laws： just and unjust. It is unquestionable that every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws, however, should people disobey and resist unjust laws as the author advocates in the statement? In my view, that depends on case-by-case analysis.

In the first place, normally speaking, laws are established by the legislature which is selected（应该是组成的吧？） by the people, in other words laws are prescribed by the people themselves. In that sense, of cause, it is every individual' duty to obey laws. In retrospect to（直接retrospect to） pristine society when people lead a life （？）just as savage beasts, live and safety can not be ensured. Then, in order to ensure the safety of every individual's live and property, the people established laws, those evil actions such as purloin, robbery, homicide, rape etc are prohibited. For that matter, laws, the foundation of the society（法律好像不是社会的基础，The Foundation of Harmonious Society-）, and the umbrella of every people which protect us from crime, are of ourselves ,by ourselves and for ourselves（你敢用估计就是对的，但是我不知道什么意思，可不可以把你看到的原句粘贴过来给我学习一下？）, so we should obey them.

In the second place, a key feature of laws lies in its universal restraining force, which means every individual must obey laws no matter where they come from, which stratum they belong to and which occupation they undertake（是不是太绝对了？可以放在Argument里面找错误了）. However, society turns out to be polynary, every individual is distinct in the value system, the view about the world, the economic interest and so on. So laws are doomed to fail to satisfy every individual's need, especially considering the need of specific stratum often turns out to be antithetical.（太抽象了，和前面也没有什么联系） So to most provisions of law, there must be some supporters and some objectors. In that case, if objectors disobey even resist laws which they consider as unjust, the whole society will be plunged into chaos（这一段没有句子支持这个论点好像）.

In principle, the foregoing two points are credible, but, in some extreme environment, it is not the case. In some autocratic society, the laws are established by autocrats, to protect their own interest rather than the interest of the masses. In former Iraq, the laws give the infinite authority to the president, what's more restrict the freedom of the people. In that case, should  individuals disobey and resist unjust laws or stand them? Undoubtedly, they should disobey and resist them, not only for themselves but also for their descendants, otherwise, they and their offspring will live in endless gloom. Apart from those countries, even in the democratic countries just as America, there used to be unjust laws. In the 60st of last centuries, many laws discriminated African American. Martin Luther King lead African American to resist them bravely, and turn the tide at last. Are the action of Martin Luther King and African American reasonable? Of cause.（例子挺好地）

To sum up, normally speaking, the action of disobeying and resisting laws is to blame, but in particular circumstance, those brave action worth encouraging. 感觉是很明显的中国人的结尾，喜欢抒发感情一类的句子，是不是换个方式好一点？

段落不是很平衡，比列不协调，前面两部分缺少例证，句子还是挺好地