Issue17 By tracywlz

tracywlzUID: 2522388

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."

As the author puts forward, we are in a world with both just and unjust law existing, and we ourselves may lean to obey laws which are favor of our slants and ignore those object us. Nevertheless, the basic target of a law requires all the people in the society to obey it regardless its justness level. Thereby in my view, even though some laws are unjusted or even error, we are supposed to obey them first and then think about ameliorative measures.


In the beginning, whether a law is just or not cannot be defined by personal willing. Even god cannot be utter impartiality, how can we say we ourselves are completely right when in the role of judging a law? We mass cannot refuse to be affected by thinking our own interests and the like. Moreover, when facing a same law, some may believe it is just, and other may argue it is not. If the former one obey it and the later one object it, the law cannot operate well or even goes to a worse situation. Taking combat monopoly law for instance, as for giant corporations, the monopoly is a considerable way to rapidly increase profits, and for those little scale companies and poor individuals, the monopoly is a devil which results in famine, unemployment and receding living standard. Thus, the combat monopoly law is against the former one's profits and they may say it is unjust while it helps to struggle the later from desperate bog. If the huge company does not obey it, the law is actually losing its function, no matter how canonize the other believe, and the economic market gradually becomes chaos, which are undoubtedly against the aim of making this law. Admittedly, as we can not fairly decide whether a law is fair or not, the law-maker can not do the same thing either. While compared with us nonprofessional judgers, the lawmaker is impartial and objective. They duty is to think for society's most benefits and make laws to promote its implement. Therefore, when a law being taken up, it is more likely to be fair and we ought to obey it with no excuse.

Moreover, as for lawmaker-the governor, the progress of creating a law indicates a ruled force measure being written down. Thus, once it being set down, no matter how much mistakes the law has, we, with trust for our government, ought to obey it. If we were suspicious of law’s feasibility, the law would lose its basic feature-constraint. In this case, law is not the real law, it becomes a kind of suggestion-people accept it and then make their own decision whether let it implement. Slowly, as more and more laws losing its power, the regime will not be stable, and finally, its “free” citizens would overthrow it. Therefore, let the law free do not bring any benefit to the maker. In deed, some may argue that as it prove out, some laws are a totally mistake if all the people abide them without carefully thought. The lawmaker notwithstanding is more professional than we are, when a new law being set down, it has much possibility to be a success than a stupid one. How can we have a suspicion eye to every new law due to few of them may have some improper facets? In short, it is favorable to both citizen and governor to let the law obey by the entire receivers



Howbeit, the necessarily of obey every law do not mean to bear the inappropriate law all the time. It is advisable or even indispensable to question a law-nothing can be last perfect with the rapidly change of the world and in order to sustain its novelty, the law needs sorts of opposite views. In other words, when we feel a law is unjust to us, we need first observe it and then put forward our slant in a legal ways. Meanwhile, the governor would be delighted to see if their laws have varies of attention. And at last, the unjust law will become less unjust.

In sum, it is benefit to obey both just law and unjust law either to society or to individual. Meanwhile, we cannot ignore continuous revising existing laws.