ISSUE17 =August Rush=小组第5次作业 by 尾羽

尾羽UID: 2482591

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." 17． 有两种法律：公平的和不公平的。社会中的每个人都应该遵守公平的法律，更重要的是，应该不遵守或者违抗不公平的法律

反：把法律仅仅分为公平与不公平太过简单。每个人的标准和对法律的理解不同，也就对法律的公平性持不同的态度。法律的公正与否也会随着历史的变迁和时间的推移而发生变化。有多少冤案，在当时被判有罪，但后来得到平反；又有多少“冤案”，在当时被判无罪，但后来认定是有罪的。因此，没有绝对公平的法律也没有绝对不公平的法律。

反：是法律我们就应该遵守。正因为每个人对法律的看法不同，因此没有一个统一的标准来衡量什么是公平的法律和不公平的法律。如果单凭个人观点来判断法律是否公平，从而决定是否应该遵守，那么法律的意义和权威性也就不存在了。

反：即使法律的确存在不公平，我们也应该努力修正它，而不是违抗。在民主社会中，个人或组织应该行使对他们不公平的法律发表意见的权利，而立法部门应该秉着严谨和公正的原则，修改法律条款。

尾羽UID: 2482591

words:527

It is suspect to the speaker’s two claims on both accounts. The claim that laws should be divided into two types: just and unjust, while appealing in some respects, is an over-statement at best. And the claim that individuals should obey just laws and more importantly disobey or resist unjust ones is poorly deducted by unilateral consideration.

To begin with, from my point of view, the speaker oversimplifies the category of law to assort into two types: just and unjust. I concede that there are both some just clause and unjust ones in laws. However, in terms of distinctive attitudes and criticisms claimed by individuals in this freedom speech society, there is not a standard which could be accepted by everyone to determine whether the law is just or unjust. And people’s belief would change during different periods of times in human’s history which more or less affects the standard to the law’s judgment. When religion had the surpassed power over the law, Giordano Bruno who was an opponent of heliocentrism theory was burned by the secular authorities after the verdict of the Roman Inquisition that was a system of tribunals. We believe definitely in that the heliocentrism theory is scientific and objective, while Bruno was accused by the charge of criminal pantheist believe about God. Thus, from this observation, I would conclude that laws are neither absolutely just nor unjust.

Moreover, consider the claim that we should obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. In another word, we could judge a law whether is just or not according to personal understandings which may have distinctive varieties and even could fight against the law that we do not agree with. How a horrible assumption it could be! If we implement this, with the law losing the pivotal role of keeping justice and authority, the world would be falling into a chaos. Robbers and thieves would be secure by the excuse that they have not got enough money to afford the family expenditure; murders would be released because the persons they killed are their enemy; terrorists would not be wanted due to the unshakeable loyal faith to their organization’s belief. Inasmuch, I would agree another more reasonable viewpoint that we might obey all authoritative laws rather than the former claim.

Ultimately, even assuming that certain cases were judged by law unfairly, further optimizing is acceptable rather than resisting. In the democracy society, free speech is allowed for citizens giving opinions to the government and even certain representatives of them would participate in the procedure of legislating in order to making a law with justice as much as possible. For instance, both senators and representatives in the United Sates Congress which is the department for legislation are chosen through the direct election, that means citizens’ suggestions may have been absorbed when a bill is passed or not.

In sum, just laws and unjust laws are existent relatively in the modern democracy society but not purely. We should obey all contemporary laws made by our legislative department supporting by giving probable opinions rather than resisting. In the final analysis, I fundamentally disagree with the both aspect of the speaker’s claim.

wisleUID: 2578616

修改