球拍！！！！[戮力同心]小组大帖 issue 17 10号

jiangzuodongUID: 2371192

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

By reading this issue, I find that the speaker divides the laws into two aspects:just and unjust. I foundamentally agree with the speaker's division, however, there are a few small points to be discussed . The speaker does not tell us that which laws are the just laws,and which are unjust. As for the second statment of this issue, the opinion that one should obey just laws, and resist unjust laws is reasonable in some degree . It is a complex issue, I will discuss it from my view in the following paragraphs.

Whether the laws should be divided into just and unjust, depends on the our understanding of the law. First we should give the law a definition. In my words, I define that the law is the tool by which the goverment control the behavor and moral standard of the people. However the problem is that the law must satisfy the interests of the public, otherwise the law can be overthrowed by the public. So I define the laws that can meet the public's benefits ,as just laws.  Besides,different kinds of the laws are drawed up by the goverment, but the goverment cannot easily judge whether the laws are justifiable to meet the public's interests. Therefore, some laws are only the requirement of a few autocrats, and they can  severely harm the public. Here I define such laws as unjust laws.

After my definition of the two types of laws, I think people and society should obey the just laws. Just laws are the criterion for the behavior of everyone in the society. For example just criminal laws can  encourage the people to do legal things, and prohibit the people from crime by strictly punished unlegal behavior. The just laws in economic area can effectively control the regulation of the market.  Just laws have already become the legal tool to protect people from unfair treatment from others or society.Therefore,undoubtedly , the public can benefit a lot from the just laws, and obeying just laws is correct criterion and standard for every public.

However, unjust laws endurely exist in human's society from ancient times to now. In modern society, people and society are increaingly aware of the  democracy and legal system, which can effectively reduce the emerge of the unjust laws. But in some special periods or some circumstances, unjust laws are doing the great harm to the public.For example, before the Civil War ,the laws in some southern states from the USA permitted and encouraged people to own the slaves. How notorious this law is, and how great damage it bring to African people. Besides, 还应该找个例子 ，时间有限了。So when unjust laws exist in our society , we should take actions to resist them to ensure our interests.

In sum, from the definition of the two types of the laws, we actually obey the just laws, and disobey unjust laws. Because only if the laws can meet the interests of public, we can call them "just laws" and they can embody the existence value  of the law.

DacyUID: 2272369

By reading this issue, I find that the speaker divides the laws into two aspects: just and unjust. I foundamentally (fundamentally) agree with the speaker's division, however, there are a few small points to be discussed. The speaker does not tell us that which laws are the just laws, and which are unjust. As for the second statement(statement) of this issue, the opinion that one should obey just laws, and resist unjust laws is reasonable in some degree. It is a complex issue; I will discuss it from my view in the following paragraphs.

Whether the laws should be divided into just and unjust, depends on the(去掉the) our understanding of the law. First we should give the law a definition. In my words, I define that the law is the tool by which the goverment (government) control the behavor(behavior) and moral standard of the people. However the problem is that the law must satisfy the interests of the public, otherwise the law can be overthrowed(overthrown) by the public. So I define the laws that can meet the public's benefits, as just laws.  Besides, different kinds of the laws are drawed (drawn) up by the goverment(government), but the goverment(government) cannot easily judge whether the laws are justifiable to meet the public's interests. Therefore, some laws are only the requirement of a few autocrats, and they can severely harm the public. Here I define such laws as unjust laws.

After my definition of the two types of laws, I think people and society should obey the just laws. Just laws are the criterion for the behavior of everyone in the society. For example just criminal laws can encourage the people to do legal things, and prohibit the people from crime by strictly punished unlegal (illegal) behavior(by strict punishment of illegal behaviors). The just laws in economic area can effectively control the regulation of the market.  Just laws have already become the legal tool to protect people from unfair treatment from others or society. Therefore, undoubtedly, the public can benefit a lot from the just laws, and obeying just laws is correct criterion and standard for every public.

However, unjust laws endurely(enduringly?) exist in human's society from ancient times to now. In modern society, people and society are increasingly (increasingly) aware of the democracy and legal system, which can effectively reduce the emerge (emergence) of the unjust laws. But in some special periods or some circumstances, unjust laws are doing the great harm to the public. For example, before the Civil War, the laws in some southern states from the USA permitted and encouraged people to own the slaves. How notorious this law is, and how great damage it brings to African people. Besides, 还应该找个例子，时间有限了。So when unjust laws exist in our society, we should take actions to resist them to ensure our interests.

In sum, from the definition of the two types of the laws, we actually obey the just laws, and disobey unjust laws. Because only if the laws can meet the interests of public, we can call them "just laws" and they can embody the existence value of the law.

觉得深度不太够，公正的法律和不公正的法律的定义应该不止如此，法律有可能会满足一部分人的利益，伤害一部分人的利益。而你的定义说满足大伙的利益的法律就是公证法律，不免有点欠缺。哪怕说满足了多数人的法律是公证法律也好啊。不过这个题目确实很难讨论。加油。

[ 本帖最后由 Dacy 于 2007-8-5 20:20 编辑 ]

jiangzuodongUID: 2371192

[ 本帖最后由 jiangzuodong 于 2007-8-7 12:44 编辑 ]