29号作业

tenshiwuyuUID: 2452740

今天感觉脑袋空空的，就在作整理工作，所以没有写29号的作业
贴的是前几天写的issue17 也是高频的
请谅解哈~

方便看 写下中文思路
1 unjust law的定义
2 抵制unjust law 的原因
3 抵制应是理性和有引导的
4 判断unjust law 的标准应符合社会公共利益和常理

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."



“An unjust law is no law at all”, said St Augustine, providing the foundation of the civil disobedience movements across the globe. Martin Luther King Jr articulated this view further, in the letter from Birmingham Jail:” one also has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” To the thesis whether or not to break unfair laws, people may hesitate to the dilemma---the moral obligation to resist injustices and the compulsion, as a social member, to follow laws. Considering the infantile deference to the will of legislators, however ill-informed, is sill common today, I will argue that we are not obliged to obey the unjust laws whose definition I would state later in detail.

Why, someone may wonder, should unjust laws cease to have binding force? To begin, it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. The primary character lies in its end: unjust law does not square with the common good and it places impropriate burden on the individuals involved. On the other hand, a just law is legislated on behalf of the common good, rather than the mere interest of the controlling authority.

The resist towards unjust law may serve as the catalyzer of the advent of a more reasonable code and subsequently accelerant the improvement of our society. The 20th century has witnessed the vanishing of some unjust laws in disrepute, which can aptly vividly illustrate the case. During the World War 2, the mass genocide of non-Aryan race under Hitler was legal. Tyrants and murderers are protected by the unjust laws, while thousands of innocent Jews, including babies, women---the most vulnerable groups, were sent into prisons or even lost their lives there. If it were not the rebel, thousands of Chinese labors, called Chinese Contract Bondage, may still be classified as the lowest level as the society , suffering from the tremendous abuse by their employers in Latin-America; if it were not the nonviolent action and civil disobedience supported by Gandhi, India may still under the rule of colonialism. Supposed the country turn a blind eye to the genocide and its citizens complied with such commands, more lives would be deprived of the basic rights; the country would be blamed by history and inevitably end in chaos. That is to say, an unjust law can only lead a country to be lawless and corrupt ,and the disobedience ,according to one’s moral responsibility, seems to be the sovereign remedy.

“No country can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law”, said Tomas Jefferson . Definitely, since no law is perpetual, they need to be examined and supervised by the public. The threshold problem is, to which extend and in which way, can we appropriately break and subsequently revise unjust laws. I concede that one who rebel may make an example for others and when the effect multiplies, it would lead to civil war in some extreme cases. No one want to see the conflict that contribute to the blood, death ,etc, but when the otherwise obedience would lead to a worse catastrophe and anarchy would rule, then the disobedience is essential. Furthermore, only in some extreme cases where the moral cost of obeying the law is higher than that of resisting it, and violence is inevitable. In more commonplace cases, disobedience within the guidelines that avoid the violence is more reasonable and advisable.

Admittedly, in some cases, owing to the discrepant personal conviction, different moral beliefs, it is difficult to judge whether a law is just or not. For instance, issues including euthanasia and abortion are controversial ----attitudes vary from country to country. To some measure, justice is a subjective conception. That is why we should not rudely disobey law simply because “I think it is unjust”. That is to say, the judges need to square with the nation’s religious beliefs, widely accepted conventions and customs.

To sum up, the disobedience towards unjust laws is suggested from my prospective. However, it does mean the blind and subjective judges supplemented through violence, but the judges that square with the common good and the disobedience within the guidance instead.









  

  

  

imyyUID: 2373833

“An unjust law is no law at all”, said St Augustine, providing the foundation of the civil disobedience movements across the globe. Martin Luther King Jr articulated this view further, in the letter from Birmingham Jail:” one also has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” To the thesis whether or not to break unfair laws, people may hesitate to the dilemma---the moral obligation to resist injustices and the compulsion, as a social member, to follow laws. Considering the infantile deference to the will of legislators, however ill-informed, is sill common today, I will argue that we are not obliged to obey the unjust laws whose definition I would state later in detail.

Why, someone may wonder, should unjust laws cease to have binding force? To begin, it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. The primary character lies in its end: unjust law does not square with the common good and it places impropriate burden on the individuals involved. On the other hand, a just law is legislated on behalf of the common good, rather than the mere interest of the controlling authority.

The resist towards unjust law may serve as the catalyzer of the advent of a more reasonable code and subsequently accelerant the improvement of our society. The 20th century has witnessed the vanishing of some unjust laws in disrepute, which can aptly vividly illustrate the case. During the World War 2, the mass genocide of non-Aryan race under Hitler was legal. Tyrants and murderers are protected by the unjust laws, while thousands of innocent Jews, including babies, women---the most vulnerable groups, were sent into prisons or even lost their lives there. If it were not the rebel, thousands of Chinese labors, called Chinese Contract Bondage, may still be classified as the lowest level as the society , suffering from the tremendous abuse by their employers in Latin-America; if it were not the nonviolent action and civil disobedience supported by Gandhi, India may still under the rule of colonialism. Supposed the country turn a blind eye to the genocide and its citizens complied with such commands, more lives would be deprived of the basic rights; the country would be blamed by history and inevitably end in chaos. That is to say, an unjust law can only lead a country to be lawless and corrupt ,and the disobedience ,according to one’s moral responsibility, seems to be the sovereign remedy.(例子都很不错，可是除了甘地之外，其他的例子讲的都是unjust law怎样破坏文明。ts所表达的是抵抗unjust law有助于更理性的立法，加速社会进步。而例子更多的是在说，unjust law是如何的unjust，而不是反抗之后的进步。)

“No country can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law”, said Tomas Jefferson . Definitely, since no law is perpetual, they need to be examined and supervised by the public. The threshold problem is, to which extend and in which way, can we appropriately break and subsequently revise unjust laws. I concede that one who rebel may make an example for others and when the effect multiplies, it would lead to civil war in some extreme cases. No one want to see the conflict that contribute to the blood, death ,etc, but when the otherwise obedience would lead to a worse catastrophe and anarchy would rule, then the disobedience is essential. （感觉你在支持对于unjust law极端的抵抗，这有点过分了，战争是一个禁区，并不是高喊为了避免更大的流血，就必然可以义正言辞的战争的。扯得远了点，个人观点是，不要扯到最极端的情况，或者选择不要支持极端强烈的反抗方式。）Furthermore, only in some extreme cases where the moral cost of obeying the law is higher than that of resisting it, and violence is inevitable. In more commonplace cases, disobedience within the guidelines that avoid the violence is more reasonable and advisable.

Admittedly, in some cases, owing to the discrepant personal conviction, different moral beliefs, it is difficult to judge whether a law is just or not. For instance, issues including euthanasia and abortion are controversial ----attitudes vary from country to country. To some measure, justice is a subjective conception. That is why we should not rudely disobey law simply because “I think it is unjust”. That is to say, the judges need to square with the nation’s religious beliefs, widely accepted conventions and customs.

To sum up, the disobedience towards unjust laws is suggested from my prospective. However, it does mean the blind and subjective judges supplemented through violence, but the judges that square with the common good and the disobedience within the guidance instead.

这个问题我们的观点有很多不同
不过，你的语言很好，很顺利的支持了自己的观点
那个关于极端抵抗的部分，属于我的个人喜好。不过前一段中的例子确实没有对TS有很强的支持，建议索性换掉TS，说Unjust law带来很多伤害，值得也应该抵抗
最后是关于引用的小看法。我觉得引用最好作为证据，而不是观点。

tenshiwuyuUID: 2452740

我也看过一些提纲和韦小宝的提纲
感觉都是说虽然unjust但不应抵制的   象儒家思想怕出乱子！
开始我也是这样想的
后来看了很多外国的网站  尤其是马丁的文章
太有说服力了  语言也超好的
所以我改观点了 hehe
你的思路很有启发  我再想想~

[ 本帖最后由 tenshiwuyu 于 2008-8-30 21:31 编辑 ]