Issue 17第一次作业

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，应该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.