Issue17 Thrive小组第9次作业 有拍必回!谢谢!!

vic_rainUID: 2304309

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "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."
WORDS: 591          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2008-2-21 下午 09:43:07

Laws, body of official rules and regulations, found in constitutions, legislations, judicial opinions, and the like, are used to govern certain society and control its members. Bycategorized laws as just and unjust ones, the speaker asserts that every individual should be respossible obey just laws, as well as disobey and resist unjust ones. As the assertion is well-presented on the surface, in my consideration, it is absolutely irrational in ignoring the significance of certain constancy in legal system.

Frist, whether a law is just or unjust is more of a subjective issue that differs from personal interests, social class, personal value system and so forth. Consider, for example, the controversial issue abortion. Accoding to some ones' personal understanding, laws is unjust and unfairly grant the pregnant mother the right to deprive the baby's right for life, while someone else insist that the final decision should be at the mother's will. And, not only the persona value system can influence personal judement for laws' equality, but the social class might also play a important role in this case. For example,  certain laws may prohibit sevaral factoties from emitting toxic effluents into rivers for the well-bingt of local residents. In common populace's eyes, the laws is just, however, as for the business class of these factories, prohibition meas increasing manufaturing costs and decreasing profit, undoubtly was  unjust. During our daily life, these vivid examples are all over around. Therefore, it is apparently not easy but arbitrary to lineate an explicit line between these two kinds of laws, which is always varing from indivual preference to another.

Fortunately, in most cases, in democratic society, the chief function of laws is to strike a balance between competing interests. For example, laws require drivers to control their cars working on the right side of the street, which aim to ensure smooth transportation  and avoid unnecessary traffic accidents effectively. Similarily, carious criminal laws, civil laws and business laws, on which every democratic society is based, are enacted for securing the overall order and people's lifes at all. Or else, supposing without people's compliance, anarchy would reign supreme, not to metion insurance of basic human rights.

But In terms of truly unjust laws, often resulted from ill-awareness of legislators or changing social conditions, how could we deal with? The speaker tell us to disobey and resist them, as these laws are not likely to be dismissed and disappear automatically. Though I concede that indiciduals not only have the rights but also the resposibility to do something meaningful to build up a more hamonious and human-oriented world, yet not in the forms of disobedience even resisting. Consider nowadays the tax policy, which generally stands for the benefit of poorer people. A person, who feel unfaily towards the tax policy, would show his disagree and angry by blocking roads, bombing public buildings and like, which, in his/her own aspect, is justifiable because it is ordinary behavior of resisting unjust laws. From this example on,  every sort of action threatening public security and disturbing social order could find a well-established excuse  if every individual is allowed to disobey and resist unjust laws in their own opinion.

In conclusion, the speaker's statement is essentially unreasonable in that it naively divides just laws with unjust ones and neglects the importance of constancy in legal system to secure social orders and people's common interests. However, considering the natural limitation of legislators's insights, laws should be flexible to keep pace with changing reality insofar as this proposition is not overextended and accord with legal methods.

[ 本帖最后由 vic_rain 于 2008-2-21 22:41 编辑 ]

z12y12l12UID: 2452277

Laws, body of official rules and regulations, found in constitutions,legislations, judicial opinions, and the like, are used to governcertain society and control its members. Bycategorized laws as just andunjust ones, the speaker asserts that every individual should berespossible obey just laws, as well as disobey and resist unjust ones.As the assertion is well-presented on the surface, in my consideration,it is absolutely irrational in ignoring the significance of certainconstancy in legal system.(感觉不明确...可以再解释一下这句话的意思...)

Frist(First), whether a law is just or unjust is more of a subjective issuethat differs from(differ from = is different from,前者与后者不同) personal interests, social class, personal valuesystem and so forth. Consider, for example, the controversial issueabortion(我看半天才看懂是流产的意思,有歧义，可以是abort controversial issue的意思，即取消有争议的issue). Accoding to some ones' personal understanding, laws is unjustand unfairly grant the pregnant mother the right to deprive the baby'sright for life, while someone else insist that the final decisionshould be at the mother's will. And, not only the persona(l) value systemcan influence personal judement for laws' equality, but the socialclass might also play a important role in this case. Forexample,  certain laws may prohibit sevaral factoties from emittingtoxic effluents into rivers for the well-bingt of local residents. Incommon populace's eyes, the laws is just; however, as for the businessclass of these factories, prohibition meas increasing manufaturingcosts and decreasing profit, undoubtly was  unjust. During our dailylife, these vivid examples are all over around. Therefore, it isapparently not easy but arbitrary to lineate an explicit line betweenthese two kinds of laws, which is always varing from indivualpreference to another.

Fortunately, in most cases, in democratic society, the chief functionof laws is to strike a balance between competing interests. Forexample, laws require drivers to control their cars working on theright side of the street, which aim to ensure smoothtransportation  and avoid unnecessary traffic accidents effectively.Similarily, carious criminal laws, civil laws and business laws, onwhich every democratic society is based, are enacted for securing theoverall order and people's lifes at all. Or else, supposing withoutpeople's compliance, anarchy would reign supremely, not to metioninsurance of basic human rights.(错字太多了...是说很多law是没人质疑的吧...)

But(个人感觉不成转折关系) In terms of truly unjust laws, often resulted from ill-awareness oflegislators or changing social conditions, how could we deal with? Thespeaker tell us to disobey and resist them, as these laws are notlikely to be dismissed and disappear automatically. Though I concedethat indiciduals not only have the rights but also the resposibility todo something meaningful to build up a more hamonious and human-orientedworld, yet not in the forms of disobedience even resisting. Considernowadays the tax policy, which generally stands for the benefit ofpoorer people. A person, who feel unfaily towards the tax policy, wouldshow his disagree and angry by blocking roads, bombing public buildingsand like, which, in his/her own aspect, is justifiable because it isordinary behavior of resisting unjust laws. From this exampleon,  every sort of action threatening public security and disturbingsocial order could find a well-established excuse  if every individualis allowed to disobey and resist unjust laws in their own opinion.(最后最好点一下题，或者一个疑问句，用来总结这个例子。感觉这段没写完的样子。比如but is such activity fair to the victims and the whole society?)

In conclusion, the speaker's statement is essentially unreasonable inthat it naively divides just laws with unjust ones and neglects theimportance of constancy in legal system to secure social orders andpeople's common interests.(接近argu了..) However, considering the natural limitationof legislators's insights, laws should be flexible to keep pace withchanging reality insofar as this proposition is not overextended andaccord with legal methods.

其实我觉得可以说一些不平等的法律我们需要抵制，用和平手段，比如罢工阿等等。你只考虑了破环公共安全的手段抵制...