Issue17 【0706G－LOVEAW小组】第十三次作业

welcomebsUID: 2235250

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: 600          TIME: 上午 12:45:00          DATE: 2007-2-28

Should people obey the just laws and disobey unjust laws as the author conclude? I do not agree with the author firstly on her category of lows. And I deemed that the mind to obey laws is irresistible belief people should acquire.

To begin with, the ambiguous definition of justice of the law has dimmed the basis the issue of this topic stands on.  As we know, as the relationship between "right" and "wrong", "just" or "unjust" are relative issues which depend on different groups who evaluate certain matter. Take humans and animals as an example. It is just for humans to eat animals in that the essential power of our lives should be provided by them. On the contrast, if animals can talk, they, who are deprived of the right to live on the earth, will censure the slaughter around them to be absolutely unjust. Hardly an easygoing issue is it to balance the benefits between incompatible groups. Similarly, laws are taken out by controllers of each country which present the class they are in. Take slave society as an example, the class of slave owners establish law system to preserve their power which is considered as just in their minds. But on the contrast, exploitation to the slaves which is existent in laws harms the benefit of slaves who consider the law system unjust. Though, in contemporary world, laws have been compelled to preserve the behalf of common people to a broader extent, but the nature of impossible balanced benefit decides that the conflict existing in laws will be forever, just like that no one can found a true communism society which guarantees everyone's benefit in the society. Consequently, people can not classify laws into two types: just and unjust.

However, though the justice of laws is an ambiguous definition, whether to obey laws was a relatively clear issue to discuss. On the one hand, to disobey flawed laws, basically, has default. Similar to the old saying in China – there is no perfect person, law system created by humans are inevitably with no default. But, imaging the scenario that any people who is against the default stands out to accuse the government, how jumbled the world will be. And I think that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is wrong, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law which improves the harmony and the conformability of the world. Further, to ameliorate the law system is a long and harsh way to process. Without individuals’ magnanimity, the government can not obtain enough time to revise laws which is a stable path at the respect of the long future other than an unstable path on appearance. So, essentially, we should obey the law without doubt. But when the law seriously degrades the human personality such as segregation statutes people should not be quiet anymore which, of course, does not equal to disobey it. Methods such as parade, petition, and even ceaseless suggestion letter mailed to the government could be taken which can arouse the governments’ self-examination on their decision. Though people will doubt the effect of these methods, it is undoubted that law disobedience which often results in detention and even penalty will highly possibly leads to the lose of possibility to make endeavor to change it.

Consequently, humans should obey laws regardless the justice of it. And faced with laws with flaws it is needed for us to present our disaccord trough a violent but peaceful way.