issue17 留链接必回拍

ningning86UID：2518206

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.

Does every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust ones? I find this allegation to be specious. It wrongly suggests that laws can be devided into two types: just and unjust. In contrast, there are not such evaluation standerds for the laws.

To begin with, there are no such standerds to objectedly measure whether laws are just and unjust. Whether a law is just is mesured by people, and people are not objective. Some may think the law which is good for them are just, while the law against their goods are unjust. An example in case is that if we pass a law for increaing welfare for retired old people, the retired ones will be diligent, while companys may think it is unjust. Expect benefits, culture and ethics will also impact the people`s judgement, such as the law for artificial abortion, while someone think it is good for the unprepared mother , some others think it kills the life. And in some countrys, it allows one man married with two or three different women, which is accroding to the customs and cuture of their own, although others may think it it unequal for women.

In addition, for the very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of peple that the laws are enforced upon, the law should be obeyed equally among the population, unless it is just or unjust. If the soldier did not obey the disciplies in war, you can imagine what a mass the armed forces would be. Just like this case, if somebody obey laws and somebody do not, our society would be a mass without any order. Laws must be compulsory, without it laws can not have its funciton, and our society can not survive.

However, besides compulsory, laws should also be adaptable and flexible in certain situations, places and times. Take United States as an example, they have different laws in different states. Although the written rules of law must be fixed and seldom changed, the people that enforce the laws, as well as those who judge those who break the laws, have responsibily to see whether justive is done. Moreover, things rarely remian the same over an extended period of time, that is to say, what is true in ten years ago maybe faulse today, take the human cloning for example, it is unbelievalbe five years ago, yet it is accepted by some countrys conditionally now.

In sum, the speaker fails to recognize that theare are no such objective standerds for indiivduals to judge whether laws are just or unjust and laws should be complusory which allows nobody disobey it though personally you think it is unequal. In the final analysis, we should obey rules whether you think the laws are right or wrong.





thanks to revise: )

sequenceUID：2600146

Does every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust ones? I find this allegation to be specious. It wrongly suggests that laws can be devided into two types: just and unjust. In contrast, there are not(no)such evaluation standerds for the laws.

To begin with, there are no such standerds to objectedly measure whether laws are just and(or) unjust. Whether a law is just is mesured by people, and(while) people are not objective. Some may think the law which is good for them are just(谓语不一致）, while the law against their goods（interests） are unjust. An example in case is that if we pass a law for increaing welfare for（of 会不会好点） retired old people, the retired ones will be diligent（in appreciation）, while companys（companies） may think it is unjust（regard as ，view as 可能好点，同意替换）. Expect（Without） benefits, culture and ethics will also impact the people`s judgement, such as the law for artificial abortion, while someone think it is good for the unprepared mother , some others think it kills the life. And in some countrys, it allows one man married with two or three different women, which is accroding to the customs and cuture of their own, although others may think it it unequal for women.

In addition, for the very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of peple that the laws are enforced upon, the law should be obeyed equally among the population, unless（ regardless of ）  it is just or unjust. If the soldier did not obey the disciplies in war, you can imagine what a mass the armed forces would be. Just like this case, if somebody obey laws and（but） somebody（others） do not, our society would be in chaos without any order. Laws must be compulsory,for without it laws can not have its funciton, and our society can not survive.（compulsory 是形容词，可能用of  undouted compulsion 好点，与之后it回应）

However, besides compulsory, laws should also be adaptable and flexible in certain situations, places and times. Take United States as an example, they have different laws in different states. Although the written rules of law must be fixed and seldom changed, the people that enforce the laws, as well as those who judge those who break the laws, have responsibily to see whether justive （justice）is done. Moreover, things rarely remian the same over an extended period of time, that is to say, what is true in ten years ago（去掉in） maybe faulse（illegitimate可能好点） today,（改成句号吧） take the human cloning for example, it（which） is unbelievalbe five years ago, yet it is （去掉）accepted by some countrys（countries） conditionally now.

In sum, the speaker fails to recognize that theare are no such objective standerds for indiivduals to judge whether laws are just or unjust and laws should be complusory which allows nobody disobey it though personally you think it is unequal. In the final analysis, we should obey rules whether you think the laws are right or wrong.
第一次在这里发帖，可能不习惯字体。。。不知道会改成什么样子，见谅
果然很乱，编辑了一下，更乱了，LZ凑合着看吧，再次见谅
可能打字的时候比较急吧，多练练就好了

ahidmcUID：2609153

To begin with, there are no such standerds to objectedly measure whether laws are just and unjust. Whether a law is just is mesured by people, and(改成BUT） people are not objective. Some may think the law which is good for them are just, while the law against their goods are unjust. An example in case is that if we pass a law for increaing welfare for retired old people, the retired ones will be diligent, while companys may think it is unjust. Expect benefits, culture and ethics will also impact the people`s judgement, such as the law for artificial abortion, while someone think it is good for the unprepared mother , some others think it kills the life. And in some countrys, it allows one man married with two or three different women, which is accroding to the customs and cuture of their own, although others may think it it unequal for women.这个例子似乎有些牵强

In addition, for the very function of law is to bring stability and order to the group of peple that the laws are enforced upon, the law should be obeyed equally among the population, unless？ it is just or unjust. If the soldier did not obey the disciplies in war, you can imagine what a mass the armed forces would be. Just like this case, if somebody obey laws and somebody do not, our society would be a mass without any order. Laws must be compulsory, without it laws can not have its funciton, and our society can not survive.

However, besides compulsory, laws should also be adaptable and flexible in certain situations, places and times. Take United States as an example, they have different laws in different states. Although the written rules of law （是说宪法吗）must be fixed and seldom changed, the people that enforce the laws, as well as those who judge those who break the laws, have responsibily to see whether justive is done. Moreover, things rarely remian the same over an extended period of time, that is to say, what is true in ten years ago maybe faulse today, take the human cloning for example, it is unbelievalbe five years ago, yet it is accepted by some countrys conditionally now.（克隆的立法现在还在争啊，这个例子似乎不妥）

除了一些例子有问题，其他应该都可以了

ningning86UID：2518206

谢谢修改。：）
如需回拍，请留链接或者贴上原文。

ningning86UID：2518206

我觉得把最后的克隆人，改为网络犯罪就好了。
3# ahidmc