issue17"为我所用"小组第一次作业

yt-sophiaUID: 2342654

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."
有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律。

Laws are the principle of a country or a society, obviously, it is essential for the government to manage the whole nation, and for the citizens to obey the just laws. However, when the laws are in motion, there seems to be some of them unsuitable, now and then, in other words, not very equal in some sense. Therefore, that is the reason why some people, who believe in just, disobey and resist the so called unjust laws. To my mind, it is proper that we should comply with all the law, no matter it is just or unjust. Yet, we can amend the law which has some weakness through a legal fashion.

To begin with, the masses' value and judgment are so different from each other that no one can exactly distinguish the just laws from the unjust ones. Above all, many laws merely formulated to lend facilitate to other laws' depiction. There is no conception lie on those laws such as the meaning of citizen, adult, and death. What is more important is that people with different value standards respect their own principles, in that case, the settled laws are obviously not applicable to all the masses. For instance, death penalty in some countries are illegal, for they believe that people's life can not forced to end, though someone commit a couple of crimes which can not be forgiven, the criminal should serve a prison sentance to make up his guilty. While other place thought people who with capital offence deserve to pay for his big mistake. Accordingly, people always determine whether the law is just or not by means of their value, so we can't define the justice of the laws oversimplified.

Moreover, the judgment of laws link to the profit of litigants in the court. No matter how impartial the law is, either plaintiff or defendant, may be both, might feel the adjudication or the punishment unfair to them. That is one of the reasons why there were always unjust laws appear. When one thought the penalty to him or the reparation to the other side is too much, he will complain the "unjust" law. While the other person involved may has the same feeling. Needless to say, it is presumptuous to judge a law is unjust according to the litigants view.

In a democracy country, one can remonstrance the unjust law, no matter it is unjust or not, through a legal way. For example, call for the case to be retried, bring it to government conference proposal as in China, or attract media's and scholar's attention in order to incite widely social concern about it. Under the public overwhelming force, the government will reconsider the clause which cause the universally discussion for sure, further, amend it. By doing so, one can effectively resolve his problem without going against the law.
To sum up, obeying to laws is the obligation of every citizen, whether it is just or not. Moreover, one can resist a really unjust law by legal way instead of contradicting to it.

guoshishuoUID: 2467577

Laws are the principle（s） of a country or a society, obviously, it is(they are) essential for the government to manage the whole nation, and for the citizens to obey the just laws. However, when the laws are in motion, there seems to be (it seems that) some of them(are) unsuitable, now and then, in other words, not very equal in some sense. Therefore, that is the reason why some people, who believe in just(laws while)disobey and resist the so called unjust laws. To(In) my mind(opinion), it is proper that we should comply with all the law, no matter it is just or unjust. Yet, we can amend the law which has some weakness through a legal fashion.

To begin with, the masses' value (system) and judgment are so different from each other that no one can exactly distinguish the just laws from the unjust ones. Above all, many laws merely formulated to lend facilitate to other laws' depiction.(感觉这句话意思不明确，不好理解) There is no conception lie on those laws such as the meaning of citizen, adult, and death. What is more important is that people with different value standards respect their own principles, in that case, the settled laws are obviously not applicable to all the masses. For instance, death penalty in some countries are illegal, for they believe that people's life can not forced to end, though someone commit a couple of crimes which can not be forgiven, the criminal should serve a prison senta（e）nce to make up his guilty. While other place thought(think) people who with capital offence deserve to pay for his big(fatal) mistake. Accordingly, people always determine whether the law is just or not by means of their value, so we can't define the justice of the laws oversimplified.

Moreover, the judgment of laws link to the profit of litigants in the court. No matter how impartial the law is, either plaintiff or defendant, may be both, might(重复了) feel the adjudication or the punishment unfair to them. That is one of the reasons why there were always unjust laws appear（unjust laws always appear   there be句子里不能再出现谓语）. When one thought the penalty to him or the reparation（compensation） to the other side is too much, he will complain the "unjust" law. While the other person involved may has the same feeling. Needless to say, it is presumptuous to judge a law is unjust according to the litigants view.

In a democracy country, one can remonstrance(remonstrate) the unjust law, no matter it is unjust or not, through a legal way. For example, call for the case to be retried, bring it to government conference proposal as in China, or attract media's and scholar's attention in order to incite widely social concern about it. Under the public overwhelming force, the government will reconsider the clause which cause the universally discussion for sure, further, amend it. By doing so, one can effectively resolve his problem without going against the law.
To sum up, obeying to laws is the obligation of every citizen, whether it is just or not. Moreover, one can resist a really unjust law by legal way instead of contradicting to it.
(条理可以，再加点例子就更好了，我也是第一次改作文，可能改的不到位，请见谅)

ellisUID: 2256846

Laws are the principle of a country or a society, obviously, it is essential for the government to manage the whole nation, and for the citizens to obey the just laws.    (开始句对law进行下定义起到了引起读者注意的作用，不错不错，值得学习，呵呵)    However, when the laws are in motion, there seems to be some of them unsuitable, now and then, in other words, not very equal in some sense. Therefore, that is the reason why some people, who believe in just, disobey and resist the so called unjust laws. To my mind, it is proper that we should comply with all the law, no matter it is just or unjust. Yet, we can amend the law which has some weakness through a legal fashion.



To begin with, the masses' value and judgment are so different from each other that no one can exactly distinguish the just laws from the unjust ones. Above all, many laws merely formulated to lend facilitate to other laws' depiction. There is no conception lie on those laws such as the meaning of citizen, adult, and death. What is more important is that people with different value standards respect their own principles,  (分号)    in that case, the settled laws are obviously not applicable to all the masses. For instance, death penalty in some countries are illegal, for they believe that people's life can not forced to end, though someone commit a couple of crimes which can not be forgiven, the criminal should serve a prison sentence to make up his guilty. While other place thought people who with capital offence deserve to pay for his big mistake. Accordingly, people always determine whether the law is just or not by means of their value, so we can't define the justice of the laws oversimplified.      （death penalty，我也用这个例子了，汗，撞车了）



Moreover, the judgment of laws link to the profit of litigants in the court. No matter how impartial the law is, either plaintiff or defendant may be both, might feel the adjudication or the punishment unfair to them. That is one of the reasons why there were always unjust laws appear. When one thought the penalty to him or the reparation to the other side is too much, he will complain the "unjust" law. While the other person involved may has the same feeling. Needless to say, it is presumptuous to judge a law is unjust according to the litigants view.

In a democracy country, one can remonstrance the unjust law, no matter it is unjust or not   （这里这句话是不是有点多余？）,    through a legal way. For example, call for the case to be retried, bring it to government conference proposal as in China, or attract media's and scholar's attention in order to incite widely social concern about it. Under the public overwhelming force, the government will reconsider the clause which cause the universally discussion for sure, further, amend it. By doing so, one can effectively resolve his problem without going against the law.

文章对法律的公平与否进行了详细多方面的阐述，不同背景不同价值观的人，对法律的公平度有不同的理解，最后段对应该如何合理的完善那些不合适的法律给出了建议，不过感觉文章有些头重脚轻的感觉，在论证过程中，要是加入些比如“人们偏激的抵制那些所谓的不公正的法律，会有什么样的后果等”这样的论证，再引出“所以应该通过合法合理的途径来表达不满，完善法律”文章感觉就更丰富了。


To sum up, obeying to laws is the obligation of every citizen, whether it is just or not. Moreover, one can resist a really unjust law by legal way instead of contradicting to it.

一点拙见，多多交流，呵呵

simon_qingUID: 2459823

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."
有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律。


Different societies have different problems and different criteria for judging the justice of the laws, so it is unreasonable for us to obey the just laws or not if the certain condition of the concerned society is not fully considered. To better present my viewpoint let me illustrate it in details.

Firstly, whether law is just or not is more of a subjective problem that differs according to personal interests, social class, as well as individual value system. Consider, for example, the controversial euthanasia. For the relative people, euthanasia is unjust since they have no chances to see the painful patient who is their connection. Meanwhile, for himself or herself, the right of life, which render euthanasia not infringement of human right and should be at the will of patient who is close to death. Besides diverges generated due to differently individual value system, individual interests may result in this aftermath. For instance, some laws forbid factories from emitting toxic effluences and plastics into rivers for local residents. In the populace's eyes, doubtlessly, the law is just and considerate to ensure public interests, However, as for a manage of a factory, the law, which causes it to curtail employees, increase manufacturing costs, and adopt expense processing procedure. It may be regarded as unjust. Thus, it is presumptuous to lineate explicit line between the two kinds of laws, to which type the law belongs should be determined on a basis varying with changing social conditions.

Nevertheless, in most cases, whether a law is justified or not is definite by just ones but not by the interest of the majority. Thus, individual faithfully abide by just laws. For example, highway codes require drivers to drive automobiles on the right of the street in most cities, the goal of which is to ensure smooth transportation and to avoid unnecessary traffic accidents, and the disobey of them would inevitably result in chaos that threaten human lives. Similarly, various laws, such as criminal laws, on which every democratic society is based, are enacted for the security of the society. Without people's obedience, predominating is in the chaos, without control, people are more in the jeopardy.

In terms of unjust laws, result from awareness because of the legislator or changing social problems. Some people including the author realize that it is not likely to automatically solve or disappear. Individual should be incumbent to have ability to overthrow system to built harmonious, critical society. Ostensibly, the assertion is amazing, but reconsideration bespeak its naivety and vulnerability. As a matter of fact, it is not so obvious in the just and unjust. As the head of computer college said(and I paraphrase)"If a society has a balance between people and the health of authority, unjust law will be to phase out instead of people's disobeying and resistance." This illustrates that every sort of action will find a well established excuse if every individual is allowed to obey and resist unjust laws.

In summarize, from what has been discussed above judging from all evidence offered, we may safely draw the conclusion that the author's assertion is illegal. It naively divides just laws and unjust laws and neglects importance of constancy of legal system to ensure harmonious, critical society. However, with social conditions changing breathtaking pace and considering the limitation of the human insight of future, law should be flexible to keep pace with changing reality insofar as this proposition is not so overextended.