Issue17 [0806G-desperado小组]第七次作业by铅华落尽

hdofrucUID: 2434623

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: 476          TIME: 01:14:40          DATE: 2007-12-18 1:21:25

法律本身没有绝对的公正和绝对的不公正。遵守较公正的法律是应该的（但如遇特殊情况可以灵活），但抵制较不公正的法律未必是件好事
Laws can not simply be divided to just and unjust, and there is no advantage for people to think it this way. A law seems to be just should be obeyed in most of the times, however one seems not to be so just should not be simply ranged to a 'no need to obey' law. We shall think it more rationally.
1、把法律分为公正和不公正两类过于简单，没有绝对。一方面，几乎任何看似公正的法律都有其不完善之处，任何看似不公正的法律也可能只是触犯了一部分人的利益。另一方面，法律的公正性随着时间的推移会有变化（堕胎），此外，公正性的判断离不开价值观的左右（克隆、原子弹）
First of all, as I mentioned, we can not oversimplify the distinguishment of laws, because nothing is absolutely just or unjust. On one hand, not every law looks like to be just is a real fair and square, as no law is completely fair to everyone lives in a society. And laws seem to be unjust might not be unfair to all the people, or are actually the best choice throughout all the options. On the other hand, the justice of a law would be changing with the time going on. Abortion, which was a forbidden action in most countries in the long history, is now allowed by some national or state laws, as people's conception changes and move on. That is to say, justice is an ideaistic issue that when people's minds change, it might change too.
2、对于较公正的法律，同时也必然是针对绝大多数人民的法律，应该尽可能地遵守。比如民主国家的宪法，充分保障公有和私人财产的安全，你不遵守它意味着别人的财产受损，那么你自己的安全也就没了保障。但也要考虑到一些特殊情况，战争时期、脱离传统人类社会自身又遭受安全威胁的情况。
When a law seems to be fair and square is generally a law equitable to the majority of it's people, and therefore people should comply to. Take democratic countries' constitutions for instance, they prevent possessions, either private or commonable, from danger of being encroached by others. If we do not follow it, how can ourselve's property be protected? When one person crosses the line, more will follow, and the world would run into a chaos. However, we should concern about some special situations to kind of remission, like when war occurs, or when we are in great danger in an uncivilized district.
3、对于较不公正的法律，完全的抵制和不遵守也会出问题。一是法律不可能调和所有人的利益，总有一些人受损，也就会觉得不公正，二是完全的抵制可能造成社会动乱，无益于社会进步，应该采取文明的方式，谈判的方式、民主的方式来解决。
However, totally resist or disobey to a likely unjust law is probably not a wise way to solve the real problem lies in front. The first thing is that no law can satisfy all people's interests, there always be some people who profit from but some do not, which means we should carefully assess whether the law is against the benefit of the majority of people. The second thing is that unnecessary resistance and break might lead to an unexpected convulsion, which is of no advantage to the progress of the whole society, and result in a disaster to all the people. We have a system of democracy, a platform to present public's voice, a society which is supposed to be civilized, so why we have to choose unwise violence and resistance?
4、结论，要本着发展与全局的观点来看一个法律应不应该遵守，而不是简单地通过划定其公不公正。
All in all, we have to consider whether a law is fair and worth of obeying in a developmental and comprehensive point of view, rather than simply place them into just or unjust, obey or resist.

gaojiehahaUID: 2149729

法律本身没有绝对的公正和绝对的不公正。遵守较公正的法律是应该的（但如遇特殊情况可以灵活），但抵制较不公正的法律未必是件好事
Laws can not simply be divided into just and unjust, and there is no advantage for people to think it this way. A law seems to be just should be obeyed in most of the times, however one seems not to be so just should not be simply ranged to a 'no need to obey'(双引号还是单引号呢?!i am confused, 呵呵!) law. We shall think it more rationally.

1、把法律分为公正和不公正两类过于简单，没有绝对。一方面，几乎任何看似公正的法律都有其不完善之处，任何看似不公正的法律也可能只是触犯了一部分人的利益。(好!)另一方面，法律的公正性随着时间的推移会有变化（堕胎），此外，公正性的判断离不开价值观的左右（克隆、原子弹）
First of all, as I mentioned, we can not oversimplify the distinguishment of laws, because nothing is absolutely just or unjust. On one hand, not every law looks like to be just is a real fair and square, as no law is completely fair to everyone lives in a society. And laws seem to be unjust might not be unfair to all the people, or are actually the best choice throughout all the options. On the other hand, the justice of a law would be changing with the time going on. Abortion, which was a forbidden action in most countries in the long history, is now allowed by some national or state laws, as people's conception changes and move on. That is to say, justice is an ideaistic(学到一个新单词:) issue that when people's minds change, it might change too.(这段思路很清晰,很赞!)

2、对于较公正的法律，同时也必然是针对绝大多数人民的法律，应该尽可能地遵守。比如民主国家的宪法，充分保障公有和私人财产的安全，你不遵守它意味着别人的财产受损，那么你自己的安全也就没了保障。但也要考虑到一些特殊情况，战争时期、脱离传统人类社会自身又遭受安全威胁的情况。
When a law seems to be fair and square is generally a law equitable to the majority of it's people, and therefore people should comply to. Take democratic countries' constitutions for instance, they prevent possessions, either private or commonable, from danger of being encroached by others. If we do not follow it, how can ourselve's property be protected? When one person crosses the line, more will follow, and the world would run into a chaos.(好!) However, we should concern about some special situations to kind of remission, like when war occurs, or when we are in great danger in an uncivilized district.

3、对于较不公正的法律，完全的抵制和不遵守也会出问题。一是法律不可能调和所有人的利益，总有一些人受损，也就会觉得不公正，二是完全的抵制可能造成社会动乱，无益于社会进步，应该采取文明的方式，谈判的方式、民主的方式来解决。
However, totally resist or disobey to a likely unjust law is probably not a wise way to solve the real problem lies in front. The first thing is that no law can satisfy all people's interests, there always be some people who profit from but some do not, which means we should carefully assess whether the law is against the benefit of the majority of people. The second thing is that unnecessary resistance and break might lead to an unexpected convulsion, which is of no advantage to the progress of the whole society, and result in a disaster to all the people. We have a system of democracy, a platform to present public's voice, a society which is supposed to be civilized, so why we have to choose unwise violence and resistance?

4、结论，要本着发展与全局的观点来看一个法律应不应该遵守，而不是简单地通过划定其公不公正。
All in all(好!), we have to consider whether a law is fair and worth of obeying in a developmental and comprehensive point of view, rather than simply place them into just or unjust, obey or resist.

这篇文章思路超清晰,赞一个!多种可能性都考虑到了,论证的很全面.:handshake

[ 本帖最后由 gaojiehaha 于 2007-12-18 10:56 编辑 ]