issue17 [jet小组] 第八次作业

sendUID: 2200778

issue17"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in asociety has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, todisobey and resist unjust laws."

Everyone hasnot only a privilege and a responsibility to laws. I agree with the statementthat every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws andto disobey and resist unjust laws because it will help us to protect our privilegeand to perform our responsibility.

First of all, weshould absolutely obey just laws. In our society, large popularity made thesociety management become more and more sophisticated so that every member ofthe society should follow a variety of laws. The majority of these laws areprescribed by those who want to maintain calm society and provide the best fairto everyone. If someone fails to obey the law, the counterparts will lose partof benefits. Consequently, the two sides cannot get a fair balance in thiscase. Thus, everyone should obey just laws in order to maintain fair of thesociety. Moreover, obeying the laws is also beneficial to the development oflaws. Since if everyone all obeys the laws, the modifying of laws does notfocus on whether the laws are fair or not but on how to humanize or perfect it.

Secondly, likeobeying just laws, we also have a responsibility to oppose unjust laws. Onedirect method is to disobey unjust laws. As we all know, the development oflaws is not only based on modifying just laws but also on abolishing unjustlaws. Some of unjust laws may come from the change of society fair sense. Someof unjust laws may be caused by individuals. Whatever reasons are, lawconstitutor and observer all are responsible for opposing unjust laws. It willpromote the development of law system and progress of society.

Thirdly, disobeyingunjust laws is also a privilege for public. The purpose of laws existence is toserve to public positively and public need laws in order to keep their benefitsin every social activity. If public have not the privilege to disobey unjust lawsand public have not opportunity to take part in legislation and modifying, itwill contradict the original intention of laws existence and then theeffectiveness of law will be trampled.

All in all,everyone should obey just laws and at the same time they should disobey unjustlaws. Because everyone has a privilege and a responsible to promote thedevelopment of laws and maintain the society fair.

sunneptuneUID: 2451588

issue17"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in asociety has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, todisobey and resist unjust laws."

Everyone has not only a privilege and a responsibility to laws.(搭配不对吧） I agree with the statement that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws because it will help us to protect our privilege and to perform our responsibility.

First of all, we should absolutely obey just laws. In our society, large popularity（large population?) made the society management become(感觉去掉比较好） more and more sophisticated so that every member of the society should follow a variety of laws. The majority of these laws are prescribed by those who want to maintain calm society（keep society stable) and provide the best fair(the fairness) to everyone. If someone fails to obey the law, the counterparts will lose part of benefits. Consequently, the two sides cannot get a fair balance in thiscase. Thus, everyone should obey just laws in order to maintain fair(fairness) of thesociety. Moreover, obeying the laws is also beneficial to the development oflaws. Since if(我不确定能否连用） everyone all obeys the laws, the modifying of laws does notfocus on whether the laws are fair or not but on how to humanize or perfect it(them).

Secondly, like（just as) obeying just laws, we also have a responsibility to oppose unjust laws. Onedirect method is to disobey unjust laws. As we all know, the development oflaws is not only based on modifying just laws but also on abolishing unjustlaws. Some of unjust laws may come from the change of society fair sense. Someof unjust laws may be caused by individuals. Whatever reasons are, lawconstitutor and observer all are responsible for opposing unjust laws. It willpromote the development of law system and progress of society.

Thirdly, disobeyingunjust laws is also a privilege for public. The purpose of laws(laws') existence is toserve to public positively and public need laws in order to keep their benefits in every social activity(activities). If public have not the privilege to disobey unjust lawsand public have not opportunity to take part in legislation and modifying, itwill contradict the original intention of laws existence and then theeffectiveness of law will be trampled.

All in all,everyone should obey just laws and at the same time they should disobey unjustlaws. Because everyone has a privilege and a responsible to promote thedevelopment of laws and maintain the society fair.

小结：感觉语言表达比较简单，思想不是很深刻，缺乏例子支持。
           建议多看些材料来开扩思路，多读些文章来丰富语言。

sendUID: 2200778

Laws, body of official rules andregulations, found in constitutions, legislations, judicial opinions,and the like, are used to govern a society and control the behavior ofits members. Concerning laws, the author asserts that since laws arecategorized as just ones and unjust ones, every individual in a societyis incumbent to obey just laws and to disobey unjust laws. This view,in my eyes, is fundamentally irrational in ignoring the significance ofcertain constancy in legal system. To better present my viewpoint letme illustrate it in details.

To begin with, whether a law is justor not is more of a subjective issue that differs according to personalinterests, social class, as well as one's personal value system.Consider, for example, the controversial issue abortion. For people ofcertain religious belief, laws indulge abortion are unjust since theybelieve mothers do not have the freedom to deprive infants of theirrights of life, while for people of other religions, right of lifecomes into being after birth, which render abortion not an infringementof human right and should be at the pregnant woman's will. Besidesdiverges generated due to personal value system, different, or evenopposite, personal interests may also result in divarication. Forinstance, certain laws may prohibit factories from emitting toxiceffluents into rivers for the well-being of local residents. In the eyeof common populace, doubtlessly, this law is just and considerate toensure public interests, however, as for the manager of a factory, thislaw, which causes it to curtail employees, increase manufacturingcosts, and adopt related costly processing procedures, may be regardedas unjust. Consequently, it is arbitrary to lineate an explicit linebetween these two kinds of laws, to which type a law belongs should bedetermined on a case-by-case basis varying with changing socialconditions.

Nevertheless, in most occasions,whether a law is justified or not is definite with just ones more oftenthan not fall into a line with interests of the majority, and henceevery individual should faithfully abide by just laws. For example,highway codes in most countries require drivers to drive automobiles onthe right side of the street, the goal of which is to ensure smoothtransportation and to avoid unnecessary traffic accidents, and thedisobey of them would inevitably result in chaos that threaten humanlives. Similarly, various criminal laws, civil laws and administrativelaws, on which every democratic society is based, are enacted for thesecurity and order of the society. Without people's compliance, anarchywould reign supreme, not to mention insurance of basic human rights.

In terms of unjust laws, oftenresulted from ill-awareness of legislators or changing socialconditions, some people, the author included, suggest that since theyare not likely to be dismissed or disappear automatically, everyindividual should be incumbent to take up responsibility to overthrowthem to build up a more harmonious, democratic and human-orientedsociety. Ostensibly, this assertion is appealing, however, an in-depthreview would reveal its naivety and vulnerability. As a matter of fact,more often than not, by justifying a violation of one sort of law wefind ourselves on a slippery slope toward sanctioning all types ofillegal behavior, for the same reason that there may not be definitedivision between justness and unjustness. Consider the abortion exampleagain. A person opposing freedom of abortion would overthrow the law byway of blocking roads to the abortion clinic, which, in his/her visualangle, is justifiable because he is just showing his opposition tounjust laws. However, it is a precariously short leap from this sort ofcivil disobedience to physical confrontations with clinic workers, thento the infliction of property damage, then to the bombing of the clinicand potential murder! Evidently, every sort of action threateningpublic security could find a well established excuse if everyindividual is allowed to disobey and resist unjust laws in theirdiscretion.

In summary, from all the discussionsabove, we can safely draw the conclusion that the author's assertion isessentially unreasonable in that it naively divides just laws withunjust laws and neglects the importance of constancy of legal system toensure a democratic and harmonious society. However, with socialconditions changing at a breathtaking speed and considering thelimitation of human insights of the future, laws should be flexible tokeep pace with changing reality insofar as this proposition is notoverextended.