issue17 just VS unjust law【自由女神小组第2次作业】

毛毛头头UID: 2293281

issue17 justVS unjust law【自由女神小组第2次作业】

issue17：There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in asociety has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, todisobey and resist unjust laws.
(第一篇Issue，549字，花了一整天再加一个晚上一个上午才完成。自己感觉思想上是够深度的，就是表达上还差把劲，哎……得猛加油才行。望大牛们猛拍！)
Head:
Body:
1.法律的公正性似乎没有明确的标准。它因时、因地、因人而异。但有一条：公正的法律必然是公平的机会、符合人美好善良的本性的。
2.公认公正的法律，带给人们很多好处，应遵守。
3.你认为不公正的法律，如果不遵守会有什么后果？受惩罚，以awake people's awareness. 没必要，法律的本意不是惩罚，而是通过惩罚使
人遵守，使人们生活得更好。有人说，政治应该是妥协而不是conflict. 逃避惩罚，导致违法行为泛滥，社会不再安全稳定。这不是我们想看到的。所以，在democracy, 我们应该把不公正说出来，以利改善（通过合法方式解决）
Tail:

I cannot agree with the speaker's aboardassertion in a whole. Indeed, there are some criteria about just in man'sheart, but there are no objective just laws in the world. Civilized person should obey the laws whether you like it or not, and the speaker provides a too extreme andineffective way of aping the law to social changes.

Reasonable peoplehave dissimilar judgments toward whether a special law is just living invarious places on the earth with different priority, divergent custom backgrounds.But generally in every individual's heart, just laws must be the ones providefair opportunities, correspond to humanity of kindness.  

There is no problemfor a person with commonsense to obey the just laws. After all, just laws helpto safeguard our personal property and lives, strike a balance among competinginterests, provide a way to resolve disputes peacefully and make sure the societyrunning smoothly.

I concede that thespeaker stands on the correct philosophical side above the need of adaptability to society of the law. Afterall, world is changing in every second. Various situations require differentsolutions to deal with. Yet, on how to express uncomfortable against a speciallaw laysmy second contention with the speaker. As discussed above, the criteria over fairness ofa piece of law is controversial. Consider, what will happen if every person whofeels treated unfairly conduct directly against the law? There will be twoconsequences: to be punished or not. First, for laws always are enforced by means ofpenalties, most people do violations will be caught and asked to takeresponsibility for their conduct or be sentenced to a fine or a period ofimprisonment. Through the case, someone feels sympathizing with you may stand out and work against thespecial law as you do. But do you think your satisfaction is the only way toaware the crowds and the government of the unfairness of this special law? Of coursenot! After all, the terminate purpose of such social rules as laws is not giving coercivepunishment but through which building a highly structured society and improvingindividual life quality. Second, disobeying "unjust" laws escapingremedies crafty often has opposite affect of what was intended for. By justifying aviolation of one sort of law we find ourselves on a slippery slope towardsanctioning all types of illegal behavior. Most anyone who argues, for instance, oursystem of medical assurance is unfair for patients. A person strongly against the high fee required by hospital mayrefuse to pay amounts to justifiable disobedience. However, it is aprecariously short leap from this sort of civil disobedience to physicalconfrontations with hospital workers, then to the infliction of propertydamage, then to the bombing of the hospital and potential murder.

In sum, because ofthe nature and function of the law is to keep society peace and balance competing interests,there must be someone stands in various situation feels uncomfortable toward thefairness of a special law. Resistance or disobedience against the law may carrysignificant costs or cause chaos demolishing our peaceful life. In a democracy,anyone who feels that a particular law is flawed has the right to speak outpublicly and seek to change by lawful means rather than disobey rudely.