ISSUE17 【天下无G askme习作】第20次作业

askmeUID: 2264776

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: 739          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2007-2-25

Ever since the Code of Hammurabi came into being, laws have played significant roles in maintenance of social order and civilization. It, hence, often causes debates and most of them are over the issue: whether every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. To my view, while it is true that to draw a distinction between just laws and unjust laws is difficult, yet, we should obey laws that keep social order and resist laws that deprive the basic human rights.

To begin with, whether laws are just or not is subjective. It is universally acknowledged that laws stem from ideas, such as moral, customs, and culture values, and reflect the inclination of authorities, and that all of these ideas often vary from country to country, even from region to region. Thus, people in different place might hold different opinions about the justice of a certain laws. For supporting examples, one need look no further than abortion. Compared to people in East, who accept abortion and justify such deed, people in West, effected by the Bible, regard abortion as some kind of killing and demur at justice of abortion. In essence, it is the difference in belief that brings about different attitudes towards the same thing and therefore difference opinions about justice of abortion. With these difference opinions, it is nearly impossible to tell whether abortion is just or not. As a result, it is difficult for those who know the cause of difference in laws to absolutely determine what laws are just or unjust.

Furthermore, in most cases, we define just laws as those that are able to keep social order and basic human rights. As Aristotle, a famous Greek philosopher, once said, "Law is order, and good law is good order." This saying is used to point out that one of the most essential purposes to establish laws is to keep social order. Thus, one of the most reliable and universal standards to measure whether laws are just is to take into accounts effect that these laws exert on the society. This statement brings immediately to mind the traffic laws. In China, in order to avoid traffic accidents, all cars go along the right-hand side according to the traffic laws in China, and thus there is peaceful and orderly appearance on the road. It is these laws that keep order on the road and prevent drivers from injury and death. Wary as drivers are, if it were not for these laws, there would be much more tragedies breaking out. As a result, every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws like traffic laws.

On the contrary, in some nascent fields, there are not systematic laws to keep order so that it results in disaster in those fields. As a general rule, people would like to maximize their profits by any means. Particularly, according to the Game Theory, if a great number of people use some extreme methods to pursue interests, it will lead to havoc. Thus, in order to keep order, all people come to consensus to forgo some of their rights to establish laws to limit their activities. For example, in the past, everyone has rights to fish as frequently as possible, which gives rise to the result that there are few fish left for the reason that there are not enough fish to born. Thus, people set up laws to limit the frequency to fish in order to protect fish that are not mature. Thanks to these laws, people are able to continue fishing according to an appropriate frequency. In all, without laws to keep order, the results would be disastrous.

Finally, people have their inborn rights to resist unjust laws, which go against human rights. Generally speaking, another purpose to establish laws is  to protect basic human rights. However, there are chances that some laws, set up by despots, are used as tools to coerce multitude and go against their basic rights. If so, there is good sense in resisting these laws. For example, in the Second World War, Hitler set up laws to coerce the Jewish and kill thousands of the Jewish, which meant depriving the basic rights to live. Conspicuously, these laws are unjust so that they deserved commotion to abolish them. As a result, we should preserve the responsibility to resist unjust laws to protect our human rights.

To sum up, although whether laws are just or not might differ for every individual, it is our responsibility to obey laws that keep social order and human rights and disobey those against our basic rights.

lindorUID: 2290025

Ever since the Code of Hammurabi 这个用的相当赞came into being, laws have played significant roles in maintenance of social order and civilization. It, hence, often causes debates and most of them are over the issue: whether every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. To my view, while it is true that to draw a distinction between just laws and unjust laws is difficult, yet, we should obey laws that keep social order and resist laws that deprive the basic human rights.

To begin with, whether laws are just or not is subjective. It is universally acknowledged that laws stem from ideas, such as moral, customs, and culture values, and reflect the inclination of authorities, and that all of these ideas often vary from country to country, even from region to region. Thus, people in different place might hold different opinions about the justice of a certain laws. For supporting examples, one need look no further than abortion. Compared to people in East, who accept abortion and justify such deed, people in West, effected by the Bible, regard abortion as some kind of killing and demur at justice of abortion. In essence, it is the difference in belief that brings about different attitudes towards the same thing and therefore difference opinions about justice of abortion. With these difference opinions, it is nearly impossible to tell whether abortion is just or not. As a result, it is difficult for those who know the cause of difference in laws to absolutely determine what laws are just or unjust.

Furthermore, in most cases, we define just laws as those that are able to keep social order and basic human rights. As Aristotle, a famous Greek philosopher, once said, "Law is order, and good law is good order." This saying is used to point out that one of the most essential purposes to establish laws is to keep social order. Thus, one of the most reliable and universal standards to measure whether laws are just is to take into accounts effect that these laws exert on the society. This statement brings immediately to mind the traffic laws. In China, in order to avoid traffic accidents, all cars go along the right-hand side according to the traffic laws in China, and thus there is peaceful and orderly appearance on the road. It is these laws that keep order on the road and prevent drivers from injury and death. Wary as drivers are, if it were not for these laws, there would be much more tragedies breaking out. As a result, every individual has a responsibility to obey just laws like traffic laws.

On the contrary, in some nascent fields, (如果你后面不打算举反面的例子, 这些some nascent fields 具体的提一下比较好) there are not systematic laws to keep order so that it results in disaster in those fields. As a general rule, people would like to maximize their profits by any means. Particularly, according to the Game Theory, if a great number of people use some extreme methods to pursue interests, it will lead to havoc. Thus, in order to keep order, all people come to consensus to forgo some of their rights to establish laws to limit their activities. For example, in the past, everyone has rights to fish as frequently as possible, which gives rise to the result that there are few fish left for the reason that there are not enough fish to born. Thus, people set up laws to limit the frequency to fish in order to protect fish that are not mature. Thanks to these laws, people are able to continue fishing according to an appropriate frequency. In all, without laws to keep order, the results would be disastrous.

Finally, people have their inborn rights to resist unjust laws, which go against human rights. (unjust laws是反人权的…) Generally speaking, another purpose to establish laws is to protect basic human rights. However, there are chances that some laws, set up by despots, are used as tools to coerce multitude and go against their basic rights. If so, there is good sense in (我们看的句型都是一样的啊,哈哈) resisting these laws. For example, in the Second World War, Hitler set up laws to coerce (persecute) the Jewish and kill thousands of the Jewish, which meant depriving the basic rights to live. Conspicuously, these laws are unjust so that they deserved commotion to abolish them. As a result, we should preserve the responsibility to resist unjust laws to protect our human rights.

To sum up, although whether laws are just or not might differ for every individual, it is our responsibility to obey laws that keep social order and human rights and disobey those against our basic rights.

要遵守法律的部分强调得很多, 但是为什么要disobey的部分解释的少了一点.
你的例子很多,思维还是很开阔的. 把逻辑再加强一点就很好了.
1 justice 是很subjective的, 2 遵守法律很重要, 3不公平的法律要disobey.
1到2,3 这个中间少了点解释. 那个furthermore用的比较怪的