issue 17【火箭 小组】第一次作业

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

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."

字数：523

The speaker's statement actually consists of three claims: (1) there are two types of laws: just and unjust; (2) individuals should obey those just laws; (3) we should disobey and resist unjust laws. I concede with the second claims, whether I agree with the other two claims depend partly on the definition of justice and partly on the methods we use to amend our laws.
   As for the speaker's first claim, in my view, it is difficult to define what kind of laws are just and what are unjust because almost all people judge laws purely according to their own benefit. For example, in order to regulate the traffic in a city, the lawgiver enact a law that all the autobikes in the city would be prohibited to run. This law will affirmatively be considered as unjust for those who earn their living by autobikes. No laws can completely satisfy all the people for the conflicts among them. A much better example involves the so-called "civil war" in American during 1860s. The slavery system caused irreconcilable conflict between the businessmen and enterprisers in the north, who believed the slavery system to be unjust, and the southern planter who took the law of slavery for granted.
    Another compelling argument in favor of the above position has to do with certain foibles of laws. Admittedly, it is because of the change of our society or the outcome of new technology that new laws are needed to enacted--for example, the inburst of immigrants into American forced the administrator to enact new laws to relieve the conflict between the original habitants and the newcomers. However the initial form of those laws was not quite perfect and relatively unequally. The end result might be a despair of all the people who consider the laws to be unjust.
    By affirming that no laws can be absolutely just, a philosophical argument can be make that we learn to perfect our laws by appropriate method rather than purely resist them, especially in term of violence, which might result in disservice to our nation. One striking example is the Screenwriters' walkout in American, which almost cause  the suspension of film industry in American. Moreover, violence will decrease the wealth of a nation, contract the economy, and reduce our overall standard of living and quality of life.
    In addition to violence, there are also many other methods which are more gentle and peaceable--such as making a congregation or amending the existent law. A mature legislation system must enable the lawgiver to assimilate the conceits of all people in different classes to conciliate their benefit. As for the American Constitution, made in 1791, had been amended for twenty-seven times. When people get used to conciliate their conflict by amending the law instead of violence, we can best ensure the well being of our society.
    In sum, because of the different interest among people and the foibles of our legislation, it is hard to define what laws are just or unjust. We should learn to add amendments to our existent laws to make them more perfect to conciliate the different conflict between us.

[ 本帖最后由 cloudwind-gre 于 2008-6-1 18:20 编辑 ]

babyface1124UID: 2494668

The speaker's statement actually consists of three claims: (1) there are two types of laws: just and unjust; (2) individuals should obey those just laws; (3) we should disobey and resist unjust laws. I concede with the second claims, whether I agree with the other two claims depend partly on the definition of justice and partly on the methods we use to amend our laws.(开头很清晰)
   As for the speaker's first claim, in my view, it is difficult to define what kind of laws are just and what are unjust because almost all people judge laws purely according to their own benefit and world view. For example, in order to regulate the traffic in a city, the lawgiver enact a law that all the autobikes in the city would be prohibited to run. This law will affirmatively be considered as unjust for those who earn their living by autobikes. No laws can completely satisfy all the people for the conflicts among them. A much better example involves the so-called "civil war" in American during 1860s. The slavery system caused irreconcilable conflict between the businessmen and enterprisers in the north, who believed the slavery system to be unjust, and the southern planter who took the law of slavery for granted. (good)
    Another compelling argument in favor of the above position has to do with certain foibles of laws. Admittedly, it is because of the change of our society or the outcome of new technology that new laws are needed to enacted--for example, the inburst of immigrants into American forced the administrator to enact new laws to relieve the conflict between the original habitants and the newcomers. However the initial form of those laws was not quite perfect and relatively unequally. The end result might be a despair of all the people who consider the laws to be unjust.
    By affirming that no laws can be absolutely just, a philosophical argument can be make that we learn to perfect our laws by appropriate method rather than purely resist them, especially in term of violence, which might result in disservice to our nation. One striking example is the Screenwriters' walkout in American, which almost cause  the suspension of film industry in American. Moreover, violence will decrease the wealth of a nation, contract the economy, and reduce our overall standard of living and quality of life.
    In addition to violence, there are also many other methods which are more gentle and peaceable--such as making a congregation or amending the existent law. A mature legislation system must enable the lawgiver to assimilate the conceits of all people in different classes to conciliate their benefit. As for the American Constitution, made in 1791, had been amended for twenty-seven times. When people get used to conciliate their conflict by amending the law instead of violence, we can best ensure the well being of our society.
    In sum, because of the different interest among people and the foibles of our legislation, it is hard to define what laws are just or unjust. We should learn to add amendments to our existent laws to make them more perfect (more relevance      )to conciliate the different conflict between us.

文章引用了很多例子　ＬＺ很强啊，如果分析再多些的话，就更好了　加油～

serene777UID: 2478926

The speaker's statement actually consists of three claims: (1) there are two types of laws: just and unjust; (2) individuals should obey those just laws; (3) we should disobey and resist unjust laws. I concede with the second claims, while whether I agree with the other two claims depends partly on the definition of justice and partly on the methods we use to amend our laws.
   As for the speaker's first claim, in my view, it is difficult to define what kind of laws are just and what are unjust because almost all people judge laws purely according to their own benefit. For example, in order to regulate the traffic in a city, the lawgiver enact a law that all the autobikes in the city would be prohibited to run. This law will affirmatively be considered as unjust for those who earn their living by autobikes. No laws can completely satisfy all the people for the conflicts among them. A much better example involves the so-called "civil war" in American during 1860s. The slavery system caused irreconcilable conflict between the businessmen and enterprisers in the north, who believed the slavery system to be unjust, and the southern planter who took the law of slavery for granted.
    Another compelling argument in favor of the above position has to do with certain foibles of laws. Admittedly, it is because of the change of our society or the outcome of new technology that new laws are needed to enacted--for example, the inburst of immigrants into American forced the administrator to enact new laws to relieve the conflict between the original habitants and the newcomers. However the initial form of those laws was not quite perfect and relatively unequally. The end result might be a despair of all the people who consider the laws to be unjust.
    By affirming that no laws can be absolutely just, a philosophical argument can be make that we learn to perfect our laws by appropriate method rather than purely resist them, especially in term of violence, which might result in disservice to our nation. One striking example is the Screenwriters' walkout in American, which almost cause  the suspension of film industry in American. Moreover, violence will decrease the wealth of a nation, contract the economy, and reduce our overall standard of living and quality of life.
    In addition to violence, there are also many other methods which are more gentle and peaceable--such as making a congregation or amending the existent law. A mature legislation system must enable the lawgiver to assimilate the conceits of all people in different classes to conciliate their benefit. As for the American Constitution, made in 1791, had been amended for twenty-seven times. when people get used to conciliate their conflict by amending the law instead of violence, we can best ensure the well being of our society.提出其他的解决方案
    In sum, because of the different interest among people and the foibles of our legislation, it is hard to define what laws are just or unjust. We should learn to add amendments to our existent laws to make them more perfect to conciliate the different conflict between us.


这里逻辑非常清晰，每一段都有充分的例子证明段落观点，楼主挺有两把刷子。虽然行文很像argu（开头树两个靶子，中间分段驳之），但有大段例证支持,是这篇文的最大优点。如果结尾能拽两句升华主题的话就更好了。