【☆09GRE作文冲刺组☆】圣斗士2月11日作业ISSUE

d596086UID: 2522476

Issue 17“There are two kinds 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 theory of Rousseau, a French political philosophy in 18th:
in an ideal state, the laws of land express the general will of the people, a will that aims at the common good, and everyone should obey the laws. But the question is: are we living in this kind of ideal state? The answer to this question can be different for deferent people. Simply categorizing laws to just and unjust, as the author does, makes no sense to me from personal perspective. As far as my concern, a final judgment should depend on case-by-case analysis.

To begin, I have to concede that disobeying unjust laws is just as important as obeying just ones. Undoubtedly, every citizen should conform just laws, which precondition a stable and orderly society. Like Mencius said:” No rule, no order”, which means that nothing can be accomplished without norms or standards, and so as a peaceful and stable society does. At the same time, a real democratic society also should allow individuals to challenge unjust laws through civil disobedience. For example, before the Civil War in America, some unreasonable laws referring to racialism issues challenged the ethics about the equitableness for all people, and damaged black people’s reasonable right. As for this law, the later fact prove that it is correct to resisting this kind of unjust laws, for doing so, in tureen, will help improve the legal system of nation.

However, in most of cases, the standards that define the justice of laws differs among social individuals, since any law could have both justices to a part of population whiles injustice to other people—as every sword has two sides. For example, some people may think that the law of allowing abortion is right, because it maintain the female’s personal interests; while others might server it as immorality, since it deprives babies’ rights of survival. Also, some people claim that permitting homoerotism represents the respect of people’ freedom; while others may argue that consenting this phenomenon undermines positive ethics. Also, like former American President Thomas Jefferson stated,”No society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law”. People’s views and standards will be changed through distinct situation, places and times. If allows people to resist complying laws when they think the laws are unjust, then people will form a consciousness that they have not the obligation to obey national laws. If so, our society will out of order.

Although justice is blind, it is not stupid. Citizens have the responsibility to obey laws instituted by the government, aimed at protecting interests of major population and carry out their wishes, even though these laws are not just all the times. It is like the case that if allow solders to decide which order can be conformed and which are not necessary to obey simply according to their own view stands, then this army must be a weak one. Although the written rules of law must be fixed and changed, the duty should be taken by the national legislature department rather than personal will. If the law can not be effective carried out, some people can obey and some can not, then the law itself will lost its original authority, power and efficiency. Disobedience, even resistance to a so-called unjust law would be an ineffective way of law reform and often has the opposite consequences.

In conclusion, since it is hard to tell the standards of the justice of a law, for maintain a stable and orderly society, every individual should obey laws and express their doubt of an unjust law in legal means rather than disobey it. After all, every national laws have been evolved for hundreds years, so I believe that nowadays, the unjust elements in laws are seldom, and will be improved better and better.

swbaiUID: 2600532

According to the theory of Rousseau, a French political philosophy in 18th:
in an ideal state, the laws of land express the general will of the people, a will that aims at the common good, and everyone should obey the laws. But the question is: are we living in this kind of ideal state? The answer to this question can be different for deferent (different)people. Simply categorizing laws to just and unjust, as the author does, makes no sense to me from personal perspective. As far as my concern, a final judgment should depend on case-by-case analysis.

To begin, I have to concede that disobeying unjust laws is just as important as obeying just ones. Undoubtedly, every citizen should conform just laws, which precondition a stable and orderly society. Like Mencius said:” No rule, no order”, which means that nothing can be accomplished without norms or standards, and so as a peaceful and stable society does. At the same time, a real democratic society also should allow individuals to challenge unjust laws through civil disobedience. For example, before the Civil War in America, some unreasonable laws referring to racialism issues challenged the ethics about the equitableness for all people, and damaged black people’s reasonable right. As for this law, the later fact prove that it is correct to resisting this kind of unjust laws, for doing so, in tureen, will help improve the legal system of nation.

However, in most of cases, the standards that define the justice of laws differs among social individuals, since any law could have both justices to a part of population whiles injustice to other people—as every sword has two sides. For example, some people may think that the law of allowing abortion is right, because it maintain the female’s personal interests; while others might server it as immorality, since it deprives babies’ rights of survival. Also, some people claim that permitting homoerotism represents the respect of people’ freedom; while others may argue that consenting this phenomenon undermines positive ethics. Also, like former American President Thomas Jefferson stated,”No society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law”. People’s views and standards will be changed through distinct situation, places and times. If allows people to resist complying laws when they think the laws are unjust, then people will form a consciousness that they have not the obligation to obey national laws. If so, our society will out of order.


Although justice is blind, it is not stupid. Citizens have the responsibility to obey laws instituted by the government, aimed at protecting interests of major population and carry out their wishes, even though these laws are not just all the times. It is like the case that if allow(allowing) solders to decide which order can be conformed and which are not necessary to obey simply according to their own view stands, then this army must be a weak one. Although the written rules of law must be fixed and changed, the duty should be taken by the national legislature department rather than personal will. If the law can not be effective carried out, some people can obey and some can not, then the law itself will lost its original authority, power and efficiency. Disobedience, even resistance to a so-called unjust law would be an ineffective way of law reform and often has the opposite consequences.




In conclusion, since it is hard to tell the standards of the justice of a law, for maintain a stable and orderly society, every individual should obey laws and express their doubt of an unjust law in legal means rather than disobey it. After all, every national laws have been evolved for hundreds years, so I believe that nowadays, the unjust elements in laws are seldom, and will be improved better and better.


写得很好，但我觉得论证引用的例子应该具体些，不能仅仅是一句名人名言