issue17 Ares战队第四次作业(by garyknight)

garyknightUID: 2227971

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.

写作提纲：
1、开头，表示部分同意。
2、的确存在两种法律：公正和不公正的。判断的标准是法律是否对所有人都规定了同样的权利和义务。但现实生活中并不可能做到完全平等，所以修正的标准应该是是否对绝大多数人都规定了同样的权利和义务。
3、法律是社会公认的行为准则，而人是社会性的动物，所以作为社会个体人应该有责任遵守法律，不论法律是否公平。因为每个人判断法律是否公平的依据不一样，如果对于自认为不公平的法律就不遵守，那么社会就会陷入混乱。
4、对于个人认为不公平的法律，虽然个人没有制定法律的权利，但是可以通过正当的民主手段提出异议。如果法律真的有不公平的地方，那么民主就会发挥强大的作用去修正它，这样我们的社会也会更加公平。
5、结尾。




    According to the speaker, there are two types of laws: just and unjust. On the one hand, every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws; on the other hand, even more importantly, we should disobey and resist laws which are unjust. I agree the claim of the division of the law, however, the viewpoint of obeying or disobeying is unconvincing.
    First of all, the law existing in the society could be surly divided into two types: just and unjust. In my opinion, it is perhaps indispensable but ignored by the speaker that the standard of just law should be that it make every individual, men and women, graybeard and newborn, millionaire and pauper, have undifferentiated rights and obligations. The first article of Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), born in France revolution, is that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights", which is the goal of the capitalism society. To guarantee to realize the dream, law, representation of the government and citizens, should be representative of equity. Therefore, once the law is settled, it will provide the same rights to everyone and restrain individuals' behavior equally. However, as a matter of fact, it is obviously impossible that law is absolutely just to everybody. Children, for instance, are temporarily lack of some rights, like rights to vote, drink alcohol and so on for their immaturity physically and psychologically, which dose not mean law is unjust. Accordingly, the standard of just law, more exactly, should be it makes most of individuals the same rights and obligations.
    Secondly, once law becomes the accepted rule of the community, every individual has to obey laws, despite that law is just or not. Why should we obey the law even if it seems unfair? The reason is that though the standard of just law is simple, it is ambiguous, which will lead people to have difference, even opposite, judgments to the equity of law. Children, as mentioned before, are possibly against the alcohol ban for some of them need it to release pressure as adults and they may regard law unjust. According to the speaker, children who are crazy about alcohol can disobey the law to buy and enjoy drinks, which is harmful to their physical and mental health. If every one can resist laws which they consider it as not fair, our society will be trapped into chaos and no rights can be protected. Briefly, various individual's judgment of justice of law results in that it is not proper to encourage citizens to disobey unjust laws.
    Do we have to obey the laws that are unfair and against to our rights forever? Obviously not. Though individuals cannot legislate alone, they can demur by the force of democracy. They can speak out their viewpoints through television, broadcast and Internet; they can join together to parade to claim their disagreement; they can even change their president by voting. Admittedly, laws may flaw as a result of temporal limitations of cognition and judgment. However, once laws really damage citizens' rights and justice of the society, democracy could be strong enough to force legislature to amend or abolish the unjust laws. Democracy cannot only cause a steady society, but also make it as just as possible, which is the goal of capitalism.
    In sum, it is indeed that laws could be just and unjust. Moreover, people should obey laws, which is accepted rule of the society, additionally, should bravely protect just rights though the force of democracy. One person's rights are significant, though, stabilization and development should be the core of out entire community.

普洱茶UID: 2220388

According to the speaker, there are two types of laws: just and unjust. On the one hand, every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws; on the other hand, even more importantly, we should disobey and resist laws which are unjust. I agree the claim of the division of the law, however, the viewpoint of obeying or disobeying is unconvincing把unconvincing改成 too extreme.我喜欢这个开头，简洁又把意思完整的表达了出来
    First of all, the law existing in the society could be surly divided into two types: just and unjust. In my opinion, it is perhaps indispensable but ignored by the speaker that the standard of just law should be that it makes every individual, men and women, graybeard and newborn, millionaire and pauper, have undifferentiated rights and obligations这句短小的排比句很有润色的作用. The first article of Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), born in France revolution, is that "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights", which is the goal of the capitalism society/societies. To guarantee to realize the dream, law,把，换成---，否则引起歧义 representation of the government and citizens, should be representative of equity. Therefore, once the law is settled, it will provide the same rights to everyone and restrain individuals' behavior equally. However, as a matter of fact, it is obviously impossible that law is absolutely just to everybody. Children, for instance, are temporarily lack of some rights, like the  rights to vote, drink alcohol and so on for their immaturity physically and psychologically, which dose not mean law is unjust. Accordingly, the standard of just law, more exactly, should be that it makes most of individuals the same rights and obligations.
    Secondly, once law becomes the accepted rule of the community, every individual has to obey the laws, despite that law /those laws are just or not. Why should we obey the law even if it seems unfair? The reason is that though the standard of just law is simple, it is ambiguous, which will lead people to have difference, even opposite judgments to the equity of law. Children, as mentioned before, are possibly against the alcohol ban for some of them need it to release pressure as adults and they may regard law unjust. According to the speaker, children who are crazy about alcohol can disobey the law to buy and enjoy drinks, which /this kind of rejection is harmful to their physical and mental health. If every one can resist laws which they consider it as not fair, our society will be trapped into chaos and no rights can be protected. Briefly, various individual's judgments of justice of law result in that it is not proper to encourage citizens to disobey unjust laws.
    Do we have to obey the laws that are unfair and against to our rights forever? Obviously not. Though individuals cannot legislate alone/ themselves, they can demur by the force of democracy. They can speak out their viewpoints through television, broadcast and Internet; they can join together to parade to claim their disagreement; they can even change their president by voting. Admittedly, laws may flaw as a result of temporal limitations of cognition and judgment. However, once laws really damage citizens' rights and justice of the society, democracy could be strong enough to force legislature to amend or abolish the unjust laws. Democracy cannot only cause a steady society, but also make it as just as possible, which is the goal of capitalism.
    In sum, it is indeed that laws could be just and unjust. Moreover, people should obey laws, which is accepted rule of the society. Additionally, lows should protect bravely just rights though /by the force of democracy. One person's rights are significant, though, stabilization and development should be the core of out/our entire community.

这篇文章写得很不错,首先从结构层次上来看非常的清晰,逻辑严密.语言上也运用得比较精当,只是我觉得用children作为这篇文章的一个大例子有些力度不够