issue17 [practise] 公正与不公的法律

SayyesUID: 2186610

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."


outline：
TS：法律不可轻易的划分为公正和不公正，任何人不得违反法律，不论他认为他公正与否
1，法律的公正性是相对的，对于法律公正性的评判基于个人立场，社会很难有一致标准
2，法律一旦制定，就应有权威性，不得违反
3，对于我们认为不公正的法律，可以通过正常立法程序改正

Could the laws be classified into two types: just and unjust? And, do we have the responsibility to resist the unjust one? The speaker claims so. In my view, however, we could not simply make the judgments of laws, and we have no rights to disobey any laws, no matter it is considered just or unjust.

Thought sometimes it is easy for one to tell a law is just or not on one's own standpoint, for the society, which is the aggregation of people, laws could not simply be divided. When the laws are classified, there must be a hidden criterion to which the judgment is according. In a democratic society, however, there might never be such an accordance criterion, since each person would be inclined to base the justification on their own interest or opinion. Thousands of people would create thousands of way of classification. More often than not, the opinions conflict with each other and each one has its own reason. Take the abortion as an example: a Christian believes it is a crime, while liberties would think not. When the opinion comes from the people with different values, emotions or social stratums, it can hardly reach an accordance one, thus the justification of law is not absolute but relatively. And the ultimately law settled by legislation procedure is the major opinion and presents the public willing, and sometimes inevitably, many people would regard it as unjust.        

Once the laws are passed, it must be given the highest authorities and no one are allowed to disobey it, event if one think it is unjust. For example, a man killed another for revenging the death of his father. While according to the law, he will receive his penalty for he has no rights to deprive anyone's live, many people would forgive him and believe he just did the right thing. So, this example is used to point out that if individual has the rights to disobey the law for his own opinion, the existence of law, as the behavior standard of everyone, would become meaningless. If everyone has the right to act in his own way, regardless the law, the society would no longer be just for its citizens.

Nevertheless, obedience of every law does not mean that each law is absolutely right and reasonable. Any people could fight against the unjust law, if one has reasons, and try to alter the law itself through the regular legislation procedure. Since the law are settled under a certain circumstance or just in present of a part of people's interest, when the times changed, the opinions altered, or more people become aware of the unjustness of some laws, they choose not to submissive, but demonstrate their rights and believes, pressing the legislators to alter the laws, in peaceful way. One successful example is the Martin Luther King, Jr and his civil rights movement. Though different kinds of demonstrations or public speeches, he tried to awake the Americans the unjust treatment from which the black people had suffered, rather than any simply way of disobedience.

In sum, thought we have rights to judge the laws on our own position, on one are allowed to disobey them, for the law is the present of public wills, as a conciliation of diverse interests in different opinions. However, a peaceful way to alter the laws through a legislation procedure is available for us to fight against the unjust laws we consider.

SerendipUID: 2227806

感觉B1提到的标准问题应该放在最后写，本着最重要的最后出现的原则，还有觉得句式需要在变化一下，+U

yvonnewhuUID: 2202979

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."


outline：
TS：法律不可轻易的划分为公正和不公正，任何人不得违反法律，不论他认为他公正与

否
1，法律的公正性是相对的，对于法律公正性的评判基于个人立场，社会很难有一致标准
2，法律一旦制定，就应有权威性，不得违反
3，对于我们认为不公正的法律，可以通过正常立法程序改正

Could the laws be classified into two types: just and unjust? And, do we have

the responsibility to resist the unjust one? The speaker claims so. In my

view, however, we could not simply make the judgments of laws, and we have no

rights to disobey any laws, no matter it is considered just or unjust.

Thought [though?although?]sometimes it is easy for one to tell a law is just

or not on one's own standpoint, for the society, which is the aggregation of

people, laws could not simply be divided. When the laws are classified, there

must be a hidden criterion to which the judgment is according. In a

democratic society, however, there might never be such an accordance

criterion, since each person would be inclined to base the justification on

their own interest or opinion. Thousands of people would create thousands of

way of classification. More often than not, the opinions conflict with each

other and each one has its own reason. Take the abortion as an example: a

Christian believes it is a crime, while liberties would think not. When the

opinion comes from the people with different values, emotions or social

stratums, it can hardly reach an accordance one, thus the justification of

law is not absolute but relatively. And the ultimately law settled by

legislation procedure is the major opinion and presents[represent] the public

willing, and sometimes inevitably, many people would regard it as unjust[最后

一句话可以改成从句，连着用几个and，感觉有些累赘。这一段的思路很清楚，说理也很

透彻，赞！].        

Once the laws are passed, it must be given the highest authorities and no one

are allowed to disobey it, event if one think it is unjust. For example, a

man killed another for revenging the death of his father. While according to

the law, he will receive his penalty for he has no rights to deprive anyone's

live, many people would forgive him and believe he just did the right thing.

So, this example is used to point out that if individual has the rights to

disobey the law for his own opinion, the existence of law, as the behavior

standard of everyone, would become meaningless. If everyone has the right to

act in his own way, regardless the law, the society would no longer be just

[society 存在just和unjust的说法吗，个人认为还是应该围绕这law来说。]for its

citizens. [这段当中的例子如果是举成不同的人犯了同样的罪行确处理不同就是unjust

的，可能会更好些。因为TS提到的是No one are allowed to disobey it.换言之就是不

管你是乞丐还是王子，都要受罚。即天子犯法，与庶民同罪]

Nevertheless, obedience of every law does not mean that each law is

absolutely right and reasonable. Any people could fight against the unjust

law, if one has reasons, and try[tries] to alter the law itself through the

regular legislation procedure. Since the law are settled under a certain

circumstance or just in present of a part of people's interest, when the

times changed[这里用现在时应该就可以了，时态好像有些乱], the opinions

altered, or more people become aware of the unjustness of some laws, they

choose not to submissive, but demonstrate their rights and believes, pressing

the legislators to alter the laws, in peaceful way. One successful example is

the Martin Luther King, Jr and his civil rights movement. Though different

kinds of demonstrations or public speeches, he tried to awake the Americans

the unjust treatment from which the black people had suffered, rather than

any simply way of disobedience.[赞！这个例子举得好！]

In sum, thought we have rights to judge the laws on our own position, on one

are allowed to disobey them, for the law is the present of public wills, as a

conciliation of diverse interests in different opinions. However, a peaceful

way to alter the laws through a legislation procedure is available for us to

fight against the unjust laws we consider.

[纵观全文，思路非常清楚，说理深入，例子得当。但是还是有一些老毛病，例如语法和

用词。建议每次写完都认真检查一下，然后形成习惯。其实我这方面毛病也很严重，一

起加油！]

SayyesUID: 2186610

谢谢yvonnewhu的修改，一定好好修炼基本功