issue17 [0806G-desperado小组]第7次作业by hongdan

hongdanUID: 2228730

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.      公正和不公正的没有确切的界限。
2.      准许反抗不公正法律的危害。
3.      可以采用其他方法反映对某一法律的不满。运用公正合理的方法。
In the title statement, the speaker asserts that each individual has a duty to not only obey just laws, but also disobey and resist unjust ones. However, the speaker wrongly categories the laws as either just or unjust, and at the same time fails to recognize the real functions and purposes of legislation. In my observation, any law, once being in legislated, should be strictly obeyed by all individuals in a society. Obviously, only under the premise of following certain regulations and principles, which laws include, can a society go steadfast and keep in order.

To begin with, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. Different personal value systems, personal interests, or religious beliefs result in different standpoints towards the judgment of laws. We can look no further to one vivid instance, the issue of allowing euthanasia. It is one of current heated discussion issues. In general populace’s value viewpoint, depriving of others’ life is guilty and must be executed to death penalty. However, what about the claim when one wants to end one’s own life with a subjective means? Similarly, while most people consider it appropriate and reasonable, there still exist a certain amount of people who disprove. In their value beliefs, they regard birth, older, ill and death as individuals’ natural process and then nobody should be allowed to attempt to change. In this sense, when judging whether laws, allowing euthanasia, are just or unjust, diverges are thereby generated.

Apart from the fact that personal value can contribute to distinct judgments, discrepancy may be aroused as a result of different, or opposite personal interests. An aptly illustration involves in another controversial event, the contradiction between industry development and environment pollution. Certain regulations prohibit factories from emitting toxic effluents, either into atmosphere or rivers. From the public viewpoint, such laws are just and considerate to ensure public environment and people’s health. However, as for the manager of these factories, they have to spend large quantities of money on processing procedures of toxic effluents. Consequently, they turn to curtail employees, cut down manufacture scale and even give up high-profit business. Having witness so many disadvantages of these laws from their angle, assuredly they will regard them unjust. In the main, attempting to carve out an explicit line between these two kinds of laws can never be realized.

As we know, the fundamental function of laws relies on regulating and controlling the behavior of a society’s members to guarantee its smooth progress. One sociologist once said (and I paraphrase): “Regard every one as a tree in the garden, then the laws is like the gardener, who pollard redundant leaves and twigs in order to restrict these trees’ growth in a certain way and thus help them grow healthily and properly.” This objectively illustrates the essential function and purpose of the laws. Without the regulations of laws, the whole society will be bogged down in a confusion state and be replete with criminals and murderers. Just consider the assumption that it is just to disobey unjust laws without any fetter. By encouraging disobeying unjust laws, everyone will be on a slippery slope towards various kinds of illegal behavior based on his or her own discretion. Perhaps plethora of extreme crimes, such as large-scale strike, bombing and even terrorism, may be rampant through the whole world. At that time, the real existence of a society is very likely to disappear. In other words, as we are a member of our society, we are incumbent to obey legislative laws.

However, we are now in a democratic society, therefore we can completely adopt legal and proper approaches to reflect disagreement with some unjust laws to the legislators. The frequent modification of current laws is an evidence for the implementation of people’s active suggestion concerning about laws. In each democratic society, the various opinions of common populace transmit to certain kinds of governmental institutions through mass global media or yearly and periodic congregating meeting. In addition, while in the election process, the viewpoints can be conveyed effectively and efficiently to the government. In such case, new legal issues can be addressed, not having to apply any illegal behavior at all.

In sum, with respect to the actual functions and purposes of laws, each individual should obey the laws. Meanwhile, when we are confronted with so-called unjust laws, we should adopt legal and proper way to reflect our dissatisfactory. After all, only by this way, can our society be more prosperous and smoothly progress.