issue17 by ABZERO 欢迎互改

abzeroUID: 2308499

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.

According to the speaker’s claim, each person would appropriately and necessarily disobey the so-called unjust laws. In my view, however, the statement of the speaker oversimplifies the attitude that people should take to the laws. Except under some extreme conditions, people should obey the laws.
To begin with, the premises of the speaker’s claim, that is, we can figure out whether one piece of law is just or not, are more idealistic than pragmatic. It is hard and hasty to categorize laws as just ones and unjust ones. The line between just and unjust is difficult to draw. Each group of people has their own situations and interests, and people’s attitudes are always influenced by their stands. Accordingly, the different people’s views towards the same issue are different. Besides, the judgment of just varies greatly according to customs, traditions, and religions. For instance, in some nations, especially these influenced deeply by Christianity, people argue that even the fetus posses the humanity and the right to live, and thus consider the induced abortion as unmoral or even illegal. In contrast, in other nations, to protect the rights of the women, the induced abortion is just taken as one normal medicinal method. It is hard, if not impossible, to clarify the definition of just.
Admittedly, some laws are out of date or seriously damage the profits of most people. These laws should be adjusted or abolished. Nevertheless, such power cannot be hold by individuals. The freewheeling disobey and resist to the laws which people catalog as unjust will only led to chaos and disaster, bringing crimes, impeding the process of democracy, and destroying the legal system of a country. As the evolution of human society, the law systems are becoming more and more perfect, which provides people legal methods to change the unjust laws. In most occasions, it is the responsibility of legislative, like council, to improve or abolish laws. The Prohibition in 1930s-is an example of how the legislative adjust the mistakes they had made before.
However, the analysis above does not follows that people should always obey under any condition. When every legal effect to adjust the apparent unjust laws fails, when the legislatives have been controlled by the arbitrary rulers and can no longer represent the willing of most people, when the laws do harm to people’s lives and treasures seriously, people could and should resist the governors. In fact, it is one of the powers that promote the wheel of history moving forward. The Independence War is a proof that resisting the law about taxation finally brings a democratic, free, and powerful country.
To sum up, to disobey and resist the unjust laws, which the speaker claims as the methods to change them, is an ineffective and harmful means to improve our legal system, except under the extreme conditions.
---------------------------------

[ 本帖最后由 abzero 于 2008-3-30 22:41 编辑 ]

leftkissUID: 2347956

:)
字数：471
According to the speaker’s claim, each person would appropriately and necessarily disobey the so-called unjust laws. In my view, however, the statement of the speaker oversimplifies the attitude that people should take to the laws. Except under some extreme conditions, people should obey the laws.

To begin with, the premises of the speaker’s claim, that is, we can figure out whether one piece of law is just or not, are more idealistic than pragmatic. It is hard and hasty to categorize laws as just ones and unjust ones. The line between just and unjust is（too） difficult to draw. Each group of people has their own situations and interests, and people’s attitudes are always influenced by their stands. Accordingly, the (-) different people’s views towards the same issue are different. Besides, the judgment of just varies greatly according to customs, traditions, and religions. For instance, in some nations, especially these influenced deeply by Christianity, people argue that even the fetus posses the humanity and the right to live, and thus consider the induced abortion as unmoral or even illegal. In contrast, in other nations, to protect the rights of the women, the induced abortion is just taken as one normal medicinal method. It is hard, if not impossible, to clarify the definition of just.
这是经典例子，范文里面好像就是这个，会不会雷同？

Admittedly, some laws are out of date or seriously damage the profits of most people （建议＋maybe considered to be unjust by the most）. These laws should be adjusted or abolished. Nevertheless, such power cannot be hold by individuals. The freewheeling disobey and resist to the laws which people catalog as unjust will only led to chaos and disaster, bringing crimes, impeding the process of democracy, and destroying the legal system of a country. As the evolution of human society, the law systems are becoming more and more perfect（用integrate比较好，perfect是完美）, which provides people legal methods to change the unjust laws. In most occasions, it is the responsibility of legislative, like council, to improve or abolish laws. The Prohibition in 1930s-is an example of how the legislative adjust the mistakes they had made before.虽然支持ts但是这个例子没有说明你前半句的论述which provides people legal methods to change the unjust laws，所以是否再论述一下？

However, the analysis above does not follows that people should always obey under any condition. When every legal effect（vt.） adjusting the apparent unjust laws fails, when the legislatives have been controlled by the arbitrary rulers and can no longer represent the willing of most people, when the laws do harm to people’s lives and treasures seriously, people could and should resist the governors. In fact, it is one of the powers that promote the wheel of history moving forward. The Independence War is a proof that resisting the law about taxation finally brings a democratic, free, and powerful country.

To sum up, to disobey and resist the unjust laws, which the speaker claims as the methods to change them, is an ineffective and (even) harmful means to improve our legal system, except under the extreme conditions.
小结：
你的文笔很好，看了几篇文章后更加这么觉得了，很流畅，没有什么大问题啦已经，

[ 本帖最后由 leftkiss 于 2008-3-31 18:10 编辑 ]