Issue17 rt860113--Hamming小组第八次作业

rt860113UID: 2256886

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two typesof laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility toobey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjustlaws."
WORDS: 572          TIME: 0:54:10         DATE: 2007-1-12

The word justice is usually associated with courts and laws, those who seek it undertake an arduous journey and can seldombe sure that they will find it. This, however, doesn’t constitute theexplanation that there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust, and every individuals in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly to disobey and resist unjust laws as the speaker asserts.

First of all, there is no strict definition of just law and unjust law. It is rather difficult to judge whether or not one sort of law is just and the others unjust because the standard is quitedifferent to different people for their respective different perspectives. Beingan abstract conception, the fairness of any law depends on one`s personal valuesystem, or his personal interest in the legal issue at hand, whether he isconscious of it or not. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedom. Take the controversial issue of abortion, which has been hotly debated during recent years, as an example. The discussion mainly evolves around humanrights and personal will. Those who consider abortion as unjust argue that itdeprives the rights of an unborn life, while the others who maintain its fairness claim that the will of an individual should take precedent over theformer. Up to now, the controversy has not yet end up with an agreement and the legitimacy of abortion is entrenched in some nations while not in the others.This, in a sense, presents convincing evidence that the classification of lawinto two types as just ones and unjust is at least arbitrary. Under suchsituation, the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests and guarantee the rights of the great majority.

Another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we risk sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminalconduct. Nothing is more dangerous than the criminality in the name of maintainjustice and eliminating unjustice. Were it left for people themselves to determine which kinds of laws should be conformed, while the others should be disobeyed or even resisted, social instability will necessarily arise and thewhole society might be put into a direful havoc, which delineates a dreadful nightmare for anyone longing for peace and stability.

Admittedly, there are inevitably something incomplete and even partial in our laws in question, which should be adjust or modified ina short-term or long-term future. For example, when it comes to such issues as on racial and sexual discrimination, laws in some nations obviously tend toprotect some people’s privilege, not giving any consideration to the rest whose rights can not be entirely ensured. This, undoubtfully, is not only unfair to anindividual or a group of individuals but also to damage the interest of the whole society in a long run.

In conclusion, despite the imperfectness and deficiency of laws, there is no thoroughly neutral and objective judgmenton the fairness of law, and it is even dangerous for individuals to choose to obey just laws while disobey and resist unjust laws according to their owncriteria. On the other hand, it is our responsibility to obey the laws at handand help the government to improve their fairness; only by this means can our benefits and rights be assured at the utmost.

tomato217UID: 2126636

The word justice is usually associated with courts and laws,[断句] those who seek it undertake an arduous journey and can seldom be sure that they will find it. This, however[‘can seldom…’恰好可以从一个侧面说明你的however后面的结论，因此however用在这里不妥], doesn’t constitute the explanation that there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust, and every individuals[单数] in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly to disobey and resist unjust laws as the speaker asserts[to…是补语，你后半句的谓语没了].

First of all, there is no strict definition of just law and unjust law. It is rather difficult to judge whether or not one sort of law is just and the others unjust because the standard is quite different to different people for their respective different perspectives[different用太多了，建议：to people with varied perspectives]. Being an abstract conception, the fairness of any law depends on one`s personal value system, or his personal interest in the legal issue at hand, whether he is conscious of it or not. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedom. Take the controversial issue of abortion[展开主题既然评价是关于堕胎的法律是否公平，就要点明。建议：of legislation for permitting abortion], which has been hotly debated during recent years, as an example. The discussion mainly evolves around human rights and personal will. Those who consider abortion[相应改动] as unjust argue that it deprives the rights of an unborn life, while the others who maintain its fairness claim that the will of an individual should take precedent over the former. Up to now, the controversy has not yet end up with an agreement and the legitimacy of abortion is entrenched in some nations while not in the others. This, in a sense, presents convincing evidence that the classification of law into two types as just ones and unjust is at least arbitrary. Under such situation, the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests and guarantee the rights of the great majority.

Another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we risk sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Nothing is more dangerous than the criminality in the name of maintain[-ing] justice and eliminating unjustice[似乎没有这个词]. Were it left for people themselves to determine which kinds[单数] of laws should be conformed, while the others should be disobeyed or even resisted, social instability will necessarily arise and the whole society might be put into a direful[?] havoc, which delineates a dreadful nightmare for anyone longing for peace and stability.

Admittedly, there are inevitably something incomplete and even partial in our laws in question, which should be adjust or modified in a short-term or long-term future. For example, when it comes to such issues as on racial and sexual discrimination, laws in some nations obviously tend to protect some people’s privilege, not giving any consideration to the rest whose rights can not be entirely ensured. This, undoubtfully, is not only unfair to an individual or a group of individuals but also to damage the interest of the whole society in a[the] long run.

In conclusion, despite the imperfectness and deficiency of laws, there is no thoroughly neutral and objective judgment on the fairness of law, and it is even dangerous for individuals to choose to obey just laws while disobey and resist unjust laws according to their own criteria. On the other hand, it is our responsibility to obey the laws at hand and help the government to improve their fairness; only by this means can our benefits and rights be assured at the utmost.

tomato217UID: 2126636

The word justice is usually associated with courts and laws,[断句] those who seek it undertake an arduous journey and can seldom be sure that they will find it. This, however[‘can seldom…’恰好可以从一个侧面说明你的however后面的结论，因此however用在这里不妥], doesn’t constitute the explanation that there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust, and every individuals[单数] in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly to disobey and resist unjust laws as the speaker asserts[to…是补语，你后半句的谓语没了].

First of all, there is no strict definition of just law and unjust law. It is rather difficult to judge whether or not one sort of law is just and the others unjust because the standard is quite different to different people for their respective different perspectives[different用太多了，建议：to people with varied perspectives]. Being an abstract conception, the fairness of any law depends on one`s personal value system, or his personal interest in the legal issue at hand, whether he is conscious of it or not. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedom. Take the controversial issue of abortion[展开主题既然评价是关于堕胎的法律是否公平，就要点明。建议：of legislation for permitting abortion], which has been hotly debated during recent years, as an example. The discussion mainly evolves around human rights and personal will. Those who consider abortion[相应改动] as unjust argue that it deprives the rights of an unborn life, while the others who maintain its fairness claim that the will of an individual should take precedent over the former. Up to now, the controversy has not yet end up with an agreement and the legitimacy of abortion is entrenched in some nations while not in the others. This, in a sense, presents convincing evidence that the classification of law into two types as just ones and unjust is at least arbitrary. Under such situation, the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests and guarantee the rights of the great majority.

Another fundamental problem with the statement is that by justifying a violation of one sort of law we risk sanctioning all types of illegal behavior, including egregious criminal conduct. Nothing is more dangerous than the criminality in the name of maintain[-ing] justice and eliminating unjustice[似乎没有这个词]. Were it left for people themselves to determine which kinds[单数] of laws should be conformed, while the others should be disobeyed or even resisted, social instability will necessarily arise and the whole society might be put into a direful[?] havoc, which delineates a dreadful nightmare for anyone longing for peace and stability.

Admittedly, there are inevitably something incomplete and even partial in our laws in question, which should be adjust or modified in a short-term or long-term future. For example, when it comes to such issues as on racial and sexual discrimination, laws in some nations obviously tend to protect some people’s privilege, not giving any consideration to the rest whose rights can not be entirely ensured. This, undoubtfully, is not only unfair to an individual or a group of individuals but also to damage the interest of the whole society in a[the] long run.

In conclusion, despite the imperfectness and deficiency of laws, there is no thoroughly neutral and objective judgment on the fairness of law, and it is even dangerous for individuals to choose to obey just laws while disobey and resist unjust laws according to their own criteria. On the other hand, it is our responsibility to obey the laws at hand and help the government to improve their fairness; only by this means can our benefits and rights be assured at the utmost.