issue17 【7\8\9\10】(第14次作业)

野猪大改造UID: 2484392

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: 499          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2002-1-1 1:16:17

The speaker claims that there are two types of laws: just and unjust, and every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. I find this claim to be specious in both respects. Firstly, the law can not be defined as a just or unjust law. Secondly, the disobedience of law poses certain risks.

Consider first the claim that laws can be divided into just and unjust laws. As one function of law is to keep everything in order, the law can not be defined as a just or unjust law. For instance, the law in Canada States those drivers must drive on the right-hand side of a two-way street. If drivers can choose the side to drive freely, what a mass the road will be! Moreover, according to a law in America, individuals can buy a bottle of wine in certain places only after twenty-one years old. And if a person wants to buy a bottle of wine, that person should show the demonstration of his or her age. Obviously, the foregoing laws are a tool to ensure the society operates well, and I think anyone would find it is hard to define it as a just or unjust law.

Furthermore, the law varies in different cultures. There is another function of the law: to govern the society and its member's conducts. As it is known to all, different countries have different attitudes toward citizen's hold of gun. And in American, different states have different laws regarding whether a citizen can be sentenced to death. It seems that the variety of the law in different cultures contribute to the uncertain of the fact that whether a law is just or not.

Consider next the second claim that every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. Since the foregoing reasoning that a law can not be defined as a just law or not, we can foresee that the disobedience of law poses certain risks. Obviously, the law serves to ensure the strong groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions in society to take advantage of weaker individuals, that it another function is to protect the weaker individuals. If the strong groups break the law which they are unsatisfied with freely, a society will lose the base on which a society rely. Hence, a society even may not survive for a long time. Moreover, consider a previous example, if anyone can break the Canadian law and drive on one side of a two-way street randomly, driving would be very dangerous and would not be in order.

In sum, I disagree with the speaker's claim in both respects. In my opinion, there are not just or unjust laws, that is, a law can not be defined as a just law or not. Moreover, individuals should not break the law freely, because the disobedience of law contains certain risks such as accidents or even a disaster.      

zhuzhuorUID: 2452739

The speaker claims that there are two types of laws: just and unjust, and every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. I find this claim to be specious in both respects. Firstly, the law can not be defined as a just or unjust law. Secondly, the disobedience of law poses certain risks.

Consider first the claim that laws can be divided into just and unjust laws. As one function of law is to keep everything in order, the law can not be defined as a just or unjust law. For instance, the law in Canada States those drivers must drive on the right-hand side of a two-way street. If drivers can choose the side to drive freely, what a mass the road will be! Moreover, according to a law in America, individuals can buy a bottle of wine in certain places only after twenty-one years old. And if a person wants to buy a bottle of wine, that person should show the demonstration of his or her age. Obviously, the foregoing laws are a tool to ensure the society operates well, and I think anyone would find it is hard to define it as a just or unjust law.

Furthermore, the law varies in different cultures. There is another function of the law: to govern the society and its member's conducts. As it is known to all, different countries have different attitudes toward citizen's hold of gun. And in American, different states have different laws regarding whether a citizen can be sentenced to death. It seems that the variety of the law in different cultures contribute to the uncertain of the fact that whether a law is just or not.(不知道这段讲的什么...)

Consider next the second claim that every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. Since the foregoing reasoning that a law can not be defined as a just law or not, we can foresee that the disobedience of law poses certain risks. Obviously, the law serves to ensure the strong groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions in society to take advantage of weaker individuals, that it another function is to protect the weaker individuals. If the strong groups break the law which they are unsatisfied with freely, a society will lose the base on which a society rely. Hence, a society even may not survive for a long time. Moreover, consider a(the?) previous example, if anyone can break the Canadian law and drive on one side of a two-way street randomly, driving would be very dangerous and would not be in order.

In sum, I disagree with the speaker's claim in both respects. In my opinion, there are not just or unjust laws, that is, a law can not be defined as a just law or not. Moreover, individuals should not break the law freely, because the disobedience of law contains certain risks such as accidents or even a disaster.  

这篇如果是限时内完成的话, 已经我比强很多了
不过, 我觉得这个topic的关键点在后面的部分, disobey and resisit的那小半句
第一个论点just or unjust的论述一带而过都可以, 个人觉得论证的重心放在后面比较好

你改我的这篇要做好心理准备... 这次我写的很烂...