issue17【同心砥砺】by sup1428

sup1428UID：2576931

The statement actually consists of a series of two related claims: 1)laws are divided into only two types which are just laws and unjust laws. 2)it’s our duty to obey just laws and disobey ,even resist, unjust laws. While I can hardly concede any of the two claims，as discussed below.

The chief reason why I consider the statement too extreme is that there is hardly existing a definitely boundary between the so-called just laws and the unjust ones. First, some items of the laws have nothing to do with the distinction of fairness, such as “no alcohol for teenagers under sixteen”. Secondly, the standard of the justice is always different in distinct values and cultures. As some laws can be considered differently in emotion depends on the various values and cultures, it is not simple to definite the fairness of the laws. For example, individual with particular religion beliefs tend to consider the law’s opposing euthanasia a unjust one, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just. Thirdly, it is especially true when it comes to the personal affairs. Even in a well-ordered society, people have disagreements and conflicts arises. The law must provide a way to solve these problems fairly. However, as long as the controversial existing because of the personal interest and straight stake, there is always dissatisfaction of the judgment.

Even assuming that we can distinct the unjust laws in ideal aspects, the compelling reason for questioning the statement that we have the responsibility to resist the unjust law is related to the crucial foundation of the legislation. The consistency and stability of laws is vital for a society to function smoothly and to assure the well-function of the legislation. Laws bring us rights, as well as obligations to obey laws. If we were to take the extreme measures of disobeying or resisting the laws, it would lead to social disturbances, even be in the state of anarchy, impede the pace of the social development, finally has an opposite effect to what we hope for. Hence, people should obey laws to guarantee laws' solemnity.

Admittedly, laws should evolve to keep pace with the changing society values, moral standards and our collective sense of equality. However, the way to modify laws is not only resistance or disobeying. Reforming or adding new laws will be a good way to improve out-of-date laws. Thus it will de more reasonable to try more other ways--such as reforming or adding new laws--instead of disobeying or resisting to make laws up to date.

In sum, the speaker’ assertion is too extreme. It is not a easy thing to judge a law whether it is just or unjust because of that judgement’s depending on a lot of relative and competing factors. What’s more, the law itself should have not only the compulsoriness, as well as the flexibility in order to amend the obsolete laws and satisfy individuals as many as possible. so people should be more reason to judge the fairness of the law and should take more rational reactions to unjust laws.

同心砥砺UID：2600324

The statement actually consists of a series of two related claims: 1)laws are divided into only two types which are just laws and unjust laws. 2)it’s our duty to obey just laws and disobey ,even resist, unjust laws. While I can hardly concede any of the two claims，as discussed below.(开头比较实用，但是最好能暗指一下三段的内容） The chief reason why I consider the statement too extreme is that there is hardly existing a definitely boundary between the so-called just laws and the unjust ones. First, some items of the laws have nothing to do with the distinction of fairness, such as “no alcohol for teenagers under sixteen”. Secondly, the standard of the justice is always different in distinct values and cultures. As some laws can be considered differently in emotion depends on the various values and cultures, it is not simple to definite the fairness of the laws. For example, individual with particular religion beliefs tend to consider the law’s opposing euthanasia a unjust one, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just. Thirdly, it is especially true when it comes to the personal affairs. Even in a well-ordered society, people have disagreements and conflicts arises. The law must provide a way to solve these problems fairly. However, as long as the controversial existing because of the personal interest and straight stake, there is always dissatisfaction of the judgment.（首段讨论just,三方面内容的认识很全面，但讨论不是很深入） Even assuming that we can distinct the unjust laws in ideal aspects, the compelling reason for questioning the statement that we have the responsibility to resist the unjust law is related to the crucial foundation of the legislation. The consistency and stability of laws is vital for a society to function smoothly and to assure the well-function of the legislation. Laws bring us rights, as well as obligations to obey laws. If we were to take the extreme measures of disobeying or resisting the laws, it would lead to social disturbances, even be in the state of anarchy, impede the pace of the social development, finally has an opposite effect to what we hope for. Hence, people should obey laws to guarantee laws' solemnity.（此段说守法的重要性最好能结合just和unjust，并佐以事例） Admittedly, laws should evolve（update？） to keep pace with the changing society values, moral standards and our collective sense of equality. However, the way to modify laws is not only resistance or disobeying. Reforming or adding new laws will be a good way to improve out-of-date laws. Thus it will de more reasonable to try more other ways--such as reforming or adding new laws--instead of disobeying or resisting to make laws up to date.（观点比较鲜明，论证略显单薄） In sum, the speaker’ assertion is too extreme. It is not a easy thing to judge a law whether it is just or unjust because of that judgement’s depending on a lot of relative and competing factors. What’s more, the law itself should have not only the compulsoriness, as well as the flexibility in order to amend the obsolete laws and satisfy individuals as many as possible. so people should be more reason to judge the fairness of the law and should take more rational reactions to unjust laws.（最后总结照应的很好）