Issue17【0806G desperado小组】第七次作业by坐照

wangyu0920UID: 199396

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: 465        DATE: 2007-12-28 21:45:54

1.         有保留的反对，应该遵守正义的法律，努力改变非正义的法律，但不能忽略正义的不确定性和维护法律权威的重要性来要求每个人都抵制非正义的法律
2.         对非正义的法律的抵抗可以促使社会进步，“波士顿倾茶”事件是独立战争的导火线
3.         正义的定义具有模糊性，是由多数人还是掌权者来决定是否正义？每个人的价值观有所不同，法律是否正义不好判断
4.         只要法律通过合法的常规途径通过，就应该遵守并维护其权威。苏格拉底拒绝逃跑的例子。
5.         结论：遵守所有的法律，通过合法的手段剔出非正义的法律。

The speaker strongly recommends that every individual has the responsibility to disobey unjust laws as well as obey just laws. In my point of view, there is no doubt that everyone should obey just laws and I concede that unjust laws are harmful to the society and people should put effort to reform the unjust legal system. However, the speaker unnecessarily extents this board assertion to embrace the extreme situation that everyone should disobey unjust laws, while ignoring the uncertainty of just and the importance of safeguarding legal authority.

Admittedly, resisting unjust laws would possibly lead to a reform of legal system which lends a hand to support the social improvement. For example, the Boston "tea party", which fought against the Tea Act of 1773, which gave the Britain's East Indian company the right to export its merchandise directly to the colonies without paying any of the regular taxes. People dumped the offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters and soon lit a fuse that led directly to the explosion of independent war. It was the spirit of resisting unjust act that won the freedom of all American people.

However, the definition of "just" is too vague due to a multiple conviction systems and interest groups that it is hard to judge whether a law is just or not. Is it decided by the numerical majority or powerful groups? If every individual has the freedom of making a judgment about the law , it is difficult to reach an agreement with everyone whose personal value system could probably different. In other words, there is no suitable standard which is accepted by every individual and therefore it is hard to judge whether a law is just or not, especially in our contemporary life when democracy has mostly taken the place of autocracy.

On the other hand, as long as a law had been passed in a regular legal procedure, people have to obey the law and express respect to the law authority. For instance, Socrates, the influential Greek philosopher, who refused to escape when he was sentenced to death on a charge of impiety. As what ha said, "One can never return injustice for injustice". He willingly took the punishment while showing it was wrong. From this point of view, obeying unjust law does not mean surrendering to it, on the contrary, that would reveal the utmost injustice as well as show the highest respect to the just law authority.

To sum up, I believe that the unjust laws should be eliminated because of lacking justice which is the soul of law. Nevertheless, the laws are ought to be implemented no matter they are just or not. Therefore, we should abide by all the laws as well as improve the legal system by legal means.

grace040802UID: 2348819

我觉得三段比较独立而且和主题有点不会是很符合（因为你在篇末是那么确定的说要遵守正义法律剔除不正之法），且和第四段在逻辑矛盾，前者说法律正义的界限是模糊的，四段又说要维护法律的威严，有点怪哦！
第二段的波士顿倾茶事件一个例子很好但是有点单薄，可以多举几个如马丁路德金的奴隶自由等

ICEYOUNGUID: 2437642

这篇ISSUE自身有矛盾的地方， 偶觉得原因在于作者没有给laws: just and unjust 下定义，其实作者有提到Is it decided by the numerical majority or powerful groups?
If every individual has the freedom of making a judgment about the law , it is difficult to reach an agreement with everyone whose personal value system could probably different. 这句我很不同意，LAW是社会上的majority 的AGREEMENT，而不是everyone的different personal value system
大多数人同意就可以了， 不必suitable standard which is accepted by every individual
所以对LAW 下定义是关键，JUST LAW符合MAJORITY的利益， UNJUST LAW则反
There are two types of laws: just and unjust这句话是个ARGUMENT，NOT FACT,这也是我们写文章在第一段要POSITION的地方
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws也是个ARGUMENT,但基本是废话，但也可以动动笔墨，也有人有ANTI-SOCIETY的行为，不就是NOT obey just laws吗
even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."是个重要的ARGUMENT，第一段重点POSITION 的地方，不符合MAJORITY 利益的unjust laws可以disobey and resist 波士顿倾茶”事件
有的unjust laws可以通过立法程序逐步改良，如，给予妇女投票权
这个题比较难， 偶也想了又想，不太成熟，就这样了