issue17 [savior第五次作业]

lsyunxUID: 2443450

Issue 17 There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual have the responsibility to obey just laws, and, even more importantly, to resist the unjust ones.

The speaker’s statement that the laws can simply be categorized as just ones and just ones is one to be specious, and we should be confused by the claim that one individual has the responsibility to obey the just laws and disobey the unjust laws.

A law cannot be categorized as just or unjust in that whether it is just or not depends on an individual’s value system as well as his interest. As we know, the purpose of the law is to sustain the society in stability by caterring to the majority’s concept about justice. And laws inherently reflect the common values but not everyone’s. Those whose value system conflict to certain law are likely to view it as unjust. For example, in the case of euthanasia, individuals who held a belief that private rights should not be deprived and of course the right to die might incline to support the law allowing euthanasia as just, while those who consider it as a sort of murder tend to view this law as unjust.

Whether a individual will regard a law as just also hinges on whether his personal interest is impaired. A bill that entitles the government to wire tapping is helpful to protect the national security may lead to the bankruptcy of many telecommunications companies, and as a result raises the protest of the companies’ employers. The factories that manufacture paper may have no choice to avoiding increasing the cost due to the legislation of a environment law, thereby viewing the law as unjust. In short, the fairness of a law also have a relation with how one’s interest is affected.

Now that whether a law is just is subjective, the statement that we should disobey the unjust laws is an agitation that absolutely has a deteriorative effect on the society. If all the citizens of the society take the resistance of the so-called unjust laws as a responsibility, the laws would lose their authorities and the society are lost control, not to mention the personal rights. For example, the paper manufacturing companies that regard the environmental bill as unjust continue to pour waste water into the river, and the public healthy will be threatened. An individual who are not satisfied with certain laws might demonstrates his anger by anti-social behaviors, and many innocent persons will be harmed due to his “responsibility”. In short, to disobey the so-called unjust laws would have an opposite effect to what was intended instead of the improvement of the law.

In sum, we cannot simply classify laws as just ones and unjust ones due to that whether a law is just is a personal viewpoint rather than an objective one. And radical resistance of the “unjust laws” would help nothing but work the society into confusion.

(464words)

macaoUID: 2404395

The speaker’s statement that the laws can simply be categorized as just ones and unjust ones is one to be specious, and we should be confused by the claim that one individual has the responsibility to obey the just laws and disobey the unjust laws.开头不是很好，观点不明确，字数也不够

A law cannot be categorized as just or unjust in that whether it is just or not depends on an individual’s value system as well as his interest. As we know, the purpose of the law is to sustain the society in stability by caterring to the majority’s concept about justice.这个推论我感觉不是有必然性，我个人理解法律是保护既定人群的利益，从而保证整个社会稳定 And laws inherently reflect the common values but not everyone’s. Those whose value system conflict to certain law are likely to view it as unjust. For example, in the case of euthanasia, individuals who held a belief that private rights should not be deprived and of course the right to die might incline to support the law allowing euthanasia as just, while those who consider it as a sort of murder tend to view this law as unjust.感觉着段论证力度不是很强，关于例子应该写的再深一点

Whether a individual will regard a law as just also hinges on whether his personal interest is impaired. A bill that entitles the government to wire tapping is helpful to protect the national security may lead to the bankruptcy of many telecommunications companies, and as a result raises the protest of the companies’ employers. The factories that manufacture paper may have no choice to avoiding increasing the cost due to the legislation of a environment law, thereby viewing the law as unjust.这个我觉得也不尽然，即使环境法限制工厂的生产，明事理的人也不会觉得环境法是不公证 In short, the fairness of a law also have a relation with how one’s interest is affected.

Now that whether a law is just is subjective, the statement that we should disobey the unjust laws is an agitation that absolutely has a deteriorative effect on the society. If all the citizens of the society take the resistance of the so-called unjust laws as a responsibility, the laws would lose their authorities and the society are lost control, not to mention the personal rights. For example, the paper manufacturing companies that regard the environmental bill as unjust continue to pour waste water into the river, and the public healthy will be threatened. An individual who are not satisfied with certain laws might demonstrates his anger by anti-social behaviors, and many innocent persons will be harmed due to his “responsibility”. In short, to disobey the so-called unjust laws would have an opposite effect to what was intended instead of the improvement of the law.
In sum, we cannot simply classify laws as just ones and unjust ones due to that whether a law is just is a personal viewpoint rather than an objective one. And radical resistance of the “unjust laws” would help nothing but work the society into confusion.

我觉得这篇文章就从两个点入手，1什么是法律公证与否的标准，2如果的确是不公证的法律，是否我门应该以反抗及不遵守作为回应。我觉得你这两个点找对了，但是攻击的力度都不够，整篇文章的字数也不够，共同努力啊

这个题目说难不难，但也不简单，我憋了一天想写的有深度点，也写的不杂样，呵呵`