【喜洋洋杀G大队】七月三号作业by jahson

jahsonUID: 2628322

issue 17
开头
法律是否公正很难判定
有时候不得不违反just laws
unjust laws也有好处
结尾

Everyone has a strong desire for freedom and none wants his own freedom to be deprived of himself and that is why people have constituted a host of laws to restrict everyone's behaviors. Throughout the world there are many different kinds of laws in various aspects. Therefore the issue that how we should evaluate laws and what attitude towards laws we should have is a critical one that deserves our attention.
Many people hold an opinion that laws are divided into two kinds, just and unjust, which is actually a arbitrary decision. Whether a piece of law is just or unjust is difficult to judge because the intention that the laws are set for sometimes cannot be figured out. Even if why people make a piece of law come into effect is clear to us, we cannot judge the law by the intention since the intention itself is too complex to be given straightforward comments. There is a assertion that we should judge whether laws are just or unjust by the impact the laws impose on the society and people's welfare and the laws that have a negative impact and reduce people's welfare must be unjust and vice visa. This is not necessarily the case. The same laws may have sharply different influences when applied to different situations. So when we set this standard, we must take actual situations into account. For example, a piece of law that forbids people to fish for seafood, is just in a place where people are not living by seafood and meanwhile the sea animals are in danger of dying out, and is unjust in a place where people are living only by seafood.
When laws that contribute to improve the condition of the society are instituted, every individual in the society has an undoubtedly responsibility to obey the laws in order to increase the welfare of the whole society. But it is not correct of every case. If a man lost in a forest, where it is strongly forbidden to light a fire, is going to be frozen to death, he should save himself regardless the law. Moreover, in a very few cases two piece of ''just'' laws collide with each other, where the individual have to disobey one and obey the other. For example, a man driving a car that is too fast to stop comes to a cross leading in two different directions and unfortunately on one side there are two children and there is one on the other side. The driver has to choose the former because less loss means more gains.
On the other side, unjust laws have some advantage in some cases. In China, a couple is required to have no more than one baby, which sounds unreasonable in western countries. But for the sake of avoiding the shortage of food and the exhaustion of resources resulting from the population expansion, China have to make a restriction on the number of babies. So everything has its two sides.
In conclusion, we can judge laws by their actual impacts considering the situation they are applied to. Meanwhile, whether to obey or disobey a piece of law is not only determined by the characteristic of the law, but also by the situation. In addition, when we institute laws, we should take as more possibilities as possible into account.

ncnysUID: 2347325

1# jahson

Everyone has a strong desire for freedom and none wants his own freedom to be deprived of himself and that is why people have constituted a host of laws to restrict everyone's behaviors.此句太长，连用两个and，可以拆成几句，或加逗号． Throughout the world there are many different kinds of laws in various aspects. Therefore the issue that how we should evaluate laws and what attitude towards laws we should have is a critical one that deserves our attention.第一段逻辑有点乱，感觉是为写开头而写．法律跟自由的关系最好再交代下．可以的话最好再把题目的内容联系上．
Many people hold an opinion that laws are divided into two kinds, just and unjust, which is actually a arbitrary decision. Whether a piece of law is just or unjust is difficult to judge because the intention that the laws are set for sometimes cannot be figured out. Even if why people make a piece of law come into effect is clear to us, we cannot judge the law by the intention since the intention itself is too complex to be given straightforward comments. 句子太长There is a assertion that we should judge whether laws are just or unjust by the impact the laws impose on the society and people's welfare and the laws that have a negative impact and reduce people's welfare must be unjust and vice visa. This is not necessarily the case. The same laws may have sharply different influences when applied to different situations. So when we set this standard, we must take actual situations into account. For example, a piece of law that forbids people to fish for seafood, is just in a place where people are not living by seafood and meanwhile the sea animals are in danger of dying out, and is unjust in a place where people are living only by seafood.为什么后者就是unjust，前者就是just？感觉最好举点人所共知的unjust的例子．
When laws that contribute to improve the condition of the society are instituted, every individual in the society has an undoubtedly responsibility to obey the laws in order to increase the welfare of the whole society. But it is not correct of every case. If a man lost in a forest, where it is strongly forbidden to light a fire, is going to be frozen to death, he should save himself regardless the law. Moreover, in a very few cases two piece of ''just'' laws collide with each other, where the individual have to disobey one and obey the other. For example, a man driving a car that is too fast to stop comes to a cross leading in two different directions and unfortunately on one side there are two children and there is one on the other side. The driver has to choose the former because less loss means more gains.这个不算触犯法律吧，不过这段两个例子都很可爱
On the other side, unjust laws have some advantage in some cases. In China, a couple is required to have no more than one baby, which sounds unreasonable in western countries. But for the sake of avoiding the shortage of food and the exhaustion of resources resulting from the population expansion, China have to make a restriction on the number of babies. So everything has its two sides.这段可适当增加说理成分
In conclusion, we can judge laws by their actual impacts considering the situation they are applied to. Meanwhile, whether to obey or disobey a piece of law is not only determined by the characteristic of the law, but also by the situation. In addition, when we institute laws, we should take as more possibilities as possible into account.

总的来说，结构框架都不错，太喜欢写长句子，例子很可爱很贴近生活，让人看了觉得有意思，但是跟论点的关系有些不恰当．加油拉！

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

Everyone has a strong desire for freedom and none wants his own freedom to be deprived of himself and that is why people have constituted a host of laws to restrict everyone's behaviors. Throughout the world，（逗号~） there are many different kinds of laws in various aspects. Therefore the issue that how we should evaluate laws and what attitude we should have （移动过来）towards laws we should have is a critical one that deserves our attention.
Many people hold an opinion that laws are divided into two kinds, just and unjust, which is actually a（an） arbitrary decision. Whether a piece of law is just or unjust is difficult to judge because the intention that the laws are set for sometimes cannot be figured out. Even if why people make a piece of law come into effect is clear to us, we cannot judge the law by the intention since the intention itself is too complex to be given straightforward comments. There is a（an） assertion that we should judge whether laws are just or unjust by the impact the laws impose on the society and people's welfare and the laws that have a negative impact and reduce people's welfare must be unjust and vice visa.（这句话分成两句要清楚些） This is not necessarily the case. The same laws may have sharply different influences when applied to different situations. So when we set this standard, we must take actual situations into account. For example, a piece of law that forbids people to fish for seafood, is just in a place where people are not living by seafood and meanwhile the sea animals are in danger of dying out, and is unjust in a place where people are living only by seafood.
When laws that contribute to improve the condition of the society are instituted, every individual in the society has an undoubtedly responsibility to obey the laws in order to increase the welfare of the whole society. But it is not correct of(这个用in 还是啥的我一下没想清楚) every case. If a man lost in a forest, where it is strongly forbidden to light a fire, is going to be frozen to death, he should save himself regardless the law. Moreover, in a very few cases two piece of ''just'' laws collide with each other, where the individual have to disobey one and obey the other. For example, a man driving a car that is too fast to stop comes to a cross leading in two different directions and unfortunately on one side there are two children and there is one on the other side. The driver has to choose the former(later) because less loss means more gains.
On the other side, unjust laws have some advantage in some cases. In China, a couple is required to have no more than one baby, which sounds unreasonable in western countries. But for the sake of avoiding the shortage of food and the exhaustion of resources resulting from the population expansion, China have to make a restriction on the number of babies. So everything has its two sides.
In conclusion, we can judge laws by their actual impacts considering the situation they are applied to. Meanwhile, whether to obey or disobey a piece of law is not only determined by the characteristic of the law, but also by the situation. In addition, when we institute laws, we should take as more possibilities as possible into account.
就觉得第二段写的不是很清楚，其他的还可以拉，再就是有的句子太长了啊，其实写作文表达清楚才是最重要的拉

jahsonUID: 2628322

嗯嗯～短句我担心连词不够用 我注意下 谢谢～
3# dingyi0311