Issue17 [0806G-desperado小组]第七次作业by 绿松石

绿松石UID: 2427549

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."
  [outline]:1.不认为世界上只有公正和不公正的法律，但是同意作者观点：人们更应该反抗不公正的法律
               2.公正与不公正的分界是概念上的，模糊的
               3.不同的人对同一事件有不同的看法，所以对同一法律有的人认为不公正，有的人认为公正
               4.因此，由于评判标准不同，不能武断的将法律分为公正与不公正
               5．同时，也承认存在人类普遍公认的准则，人们更应该反对违法这个准则的法律

Although I cannot agree with the speaker that there are only definitely two types of laws in the world, I admit that, as our social responsibility and human conscience demands, it is more important to disobey the extreme unfair laws than acquiescently consent to the relatively fair laws.

At the start, in my view, the definition of "just" is nothing more than a construction of a perfect circumstance which suggest a universal rule that is the utermost fair and morally correct and laudable. Yet,there is virtually no guarantee that justice invariably exists in the universe, no matter how eloquent the contender is. Objectively speaking, those who always resort to sheer standard concerning justice and make an absolute distinction between good and evil on every aspect of jurisprudence practices are mentally reliant on an agnostic existence of deity or a blind faith in a mysteric entity without critical thinking and moral introspection. The practice of justice is by no means universal but a mere secular one. And even such existence is only viable in the world, the division between good and evil, in most situations, appears ambiguous.

Second，the idiom--"No one ever look at the world with pristine eyes" -illustrates that we human beings view the world, for example, when concerning laws, at different angles, as the social customs and ideologies correspondingly varied. For instance, family planning laws are widely accepted and practiced in the populous nation of China while in some other countries, abortion is illegal due to a rooted belief that the fetus is a life and abortion unfairly deprived a human's opportunity to enter this world. Undoubtedly such an enforcement is deemed "unjust"(probably defined in the speaker's ideas) outside China due to certain western ideology, either stresses the holiness of god's give or their standard of human morality. However, this belief is not applicable to the overcrowded China, with the majority of its citizens holding another set of ideology in which fetus is not necessarily a tangible life, and is less important than the maintenance of sound family and prosperity of other family members and their country.

Clearly, as the standard differs, people in different society may choose either obedience or protestation on the same law practice. Thus, it is not a wise plan to claim that there is a definite distinction between "just" and "unjust" laws in all situations, that people should present a concord attitude for pros and cons.

Despite the fact that in many cases such categorical devided does not subsists, sometimes, we admit that there are some genuine ideas we human share in common, in spite of our differences in sex, race, and ideology. These principles, which could be applied to the vast majority of men and nations, stand out for a relative clear divide between justice and injustice. The flagrant Hitler and Nazi minions, together with their satanic cruelty betrayed in the mass murder and racial extinction laws and policy, are condemned by all men and nations. People of good will across the world should have the responsibility to defy and fight such unjust laws at all costs, rather than bowing humble obeisance, because their dignity motivate them to do so. Although the fighters under such laws of terror are in great peril and may not succeed before their death, their bravery and characters should never be forgotten, which evinced a high moral standard and conscience that followers should pursue.

While there is not an overall rule that well divides the just and unjust laws in most aspects of our human existence in the world as we each possess a different set of beliefs, we recognize that there are some intricate, fundamental principles available that we share in our lives. Undoubtedly such precious ideas should be defended and fulfilled by our devotion to the maintenance of order, which aims at the preservation of our common morality. And when it conflicts with the arrant wielders of the same arrant laws, it comes our responsibility to fight, what ever the cost may be.

anndyUID: 2436020

Although I cannot agree with the speaker that there are only definitely two types of laws in the world, I admit that, as our social responsibility and human conscience demands, it is more important to disobey the extreme unfair laws than acquiescently consent to the relatively fair laws.

At the start, in my view, the definition of "just" is nothing more than a construction of a perfect circumstance which suggest a universal rule that is the uttermost(utterly?) fair and morally correct and laudable. Yet, there is virtually no guarantee that justice invariably exists in the universe, no matter how eloquent the contender is. Objectively speaking, those who always resort to sheer standard concerning justice and make an absolute distinction between good and evil on every aspect of jurisprudence practices are mentally reliant on an agnostic existence of deity or a blind faith in a mysteric(mysterious?) entity without critical thinking and moral introspection. The practice of justice is by no means universal but a mere secular one. And even such existence is only viable in the world, the division between good and evil, in most situations, appears ambiguous.

(这一段看得有点晕，道理太抽象了，有点哲学。是说公正的概念是模糊的，根本无法肯定一件事情是否完全公正？那是从什么角度呢？时间 or 空间，还是其它？)

Second，the idiom--"No one ever look at the world with pristine eyes" -illustrates that we human beings view the world, for example, when concerning laws, at different angles, as the social customs and ideologies correspondingly varied. For instance, family planning laws are widely accepted and practiced in the populous nation of China while in some other countries, abortion is illegal due to a rooted belief that the fetus is a life and abortion unfairly deprived a human's opportunity to enter this world. Undoubtedly such enforcement is deemed "unjust"(probably defined in the speaker's ideas) outside China due to certain western ideology, either stresses the holiness of god's give or their standard of human morality. However, this belief is not applicable to the overcrowded China, with the majority of its citizens holding another set of ideology in which fetus is not necessarily a tangible life, and is less important than the maintenance of sound family and prosperity of other family members and their country.
（这一段主要说公正与否是因人因环境而异的，计划生育的例子举得很好，不过如果说成计划生育对个人（单个家庭来讲）是不公正的，而对整个社会是公正的是不是更扣题？仅供参考）

Clearly, as the standard differs, people in different society may choose either obedience or protestation on the same law practice. Thus, it is not a wise plan to claim that there is a definite distinction between "just" and "unjust" laws in all situations, that people should present a concord attitude for pros and cons.Despite the fact that in many cases such categorical devided does not subsists, sometimes, we admit that there are some genuine ideas we human share in common, in spite of our differences in sex, race, and ideology. These principles, which could be applied to the vast majority of men and nations, stand out for a relative clear divide between justice and injustice. The flagrant Hitler and Nazi minions, together with their satanic cruelty betrayed in the mass murder and racial extinction laws and policy, are condemned by all men and nations. People of good will across the world should have the responsibility to defy and fight such unjust laws at all costs, rather than bowing humble obeisance, because their dignity motivate them to do so. Although the fighters under such laws of terror are in great peril and may not succeed before their death, their bravery and characters should never be forgotten, which evinced a high moral standard and conscience that followers should pursue.

While there is not an overall rule that well divides the just and unjust laws in most aspects of our human existence in the world as we each possess a different set of beliefs, we recognize that there are some intricate, fundamental principles available that we share in our lives. Undoubtedly such precious ideas should be defended and fulfilled by our devotion to the maintenance of order, which aims at the preservation of our common morality. And when it conflicts with the arrant wielders of the same arrant laws, it comes our responsibility to fight, what ever the cost may be.

语言功底令人佩服。
不过有一点想提出来，文章大部分都在讨论法律是否能被简单的划分成公正或不公正，没有太多的提及个人面对这种情况应该怎么办。会不会太发散？供讨论。

[ 本帖最后由 anndy 于 2007-12-15 22:44 编辑 ]

yzhxinerUID: 2422010

偶还没仔细看你的文章，只看了提纲，觉得有点问题
既然一开始说基本同意作者的观点要反对不公正的法律一说，那何来法律公正不公正的讨论
既然法律没有公正不公正的说法，那也就无从谈起反抗不公正法律了
虽然第五段又冒出来一个准则来
但总觉得有点怪怪的，这不就成了违反这个准则的法律是不公正的法律了？
那么2，3，4讨论了半天的公正与不公正不就没有意义了？
另外计划生育的例子偶强烈建议你不要写
美国一直在攻击中国没有人权，其中攻击的一点就是计划生育，你拿出来夸它就不知道该卷的老师会怎么想了
在美国所有的医院是没有流产的，因为他们认为孩子是上帝赐予的礼物

绿松石UID: 2427549

看来是问题很多 我这篇纯粹放开手脚写的 按我自己的思路 也许我这样的思路发散的人还是靠模版比较实在。。诶 越看越觉得毛病多 确实这样写让人容易混淆 例子我也换掉好了 重写重写