issue17[AW狂人社]第一次作业Goku

GokuUID: 2209997

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: 535         
TIME: 2:27:17         
DATE: 2007-3-4

In accordance with this statement, every individuals in a society has the obligation to obey just laws as well as to disobey unjust ones. In an objective observation, this statement too extremely suggests some types of unreasonable behaviors, especially in two perspectives.  First, it is unwise to assume that any laws can be recognized as either just or unjust. And secondly, it rudely proposes a measure, which would be unproductive to the whole society while it would mean a latent threat to the legal transformation.

At the first glance, it would be too complicated for almost everybody to judge whether a law is just or unjust. The issue of the impartiality of any law involves nearly every element of a society, especially the individuals' views of world or personal liberties. One compelling example lending credibility to this attitude is the contentious issue of homosexuality. Modern citizens may view the laws allowing homosexuality as an ordinary symbol, which presents an indispensable right of a human being to choose personal lifestyle. Nevertheless, some individuals with specific religious beliefs are susceptible to see such laws entitled people a homosexuality choice as unjust. Another element dealt with the evenhandedness of a law might be one's private concern, or involvement. One of the most significant goals of a democratic society is to use laws to make a compromise among the conflicting interests. However, usually it would be unrealistic to produce a perfect solution that satisfies everybody. Consider for example, the laws abolishing slavery might boost the economic transformation of the North, and the merchandisers living in North would think the laws just. At the same time, the same laws destroyed the basis of  farming economy in South, which resulted in an view that view these laws unjust among farmers in South. In short, the impartiality of a law is subjective, taking account on personal judgment which will surely influence the disinterest of it.

Another elemental problem, which lies behind the proposal of disobeying unjust law, is that it brought about a great threat to the function of a society. Actually, it can do much more damage instead of the intended help. Take criminal law for example, it is not fleckless and may seem unjust in some details. Yet government should adhere to this law severely, considering the great cost and instability of disobeying this law.

Furthermore, it is specious to argue that through disobeying unjust laws people can easily go even farther to a dangerous violation of laws. Returning to the homosexuality example mentioned above, it is obviously unreasonable to protest the homosexuality by splitting the legal married gays or lesbians. If such behavior goes just a little further, it may lead an action against the legislators or executives which will probably cause a turmoil in a society.

In sum, since the functions of laws is to strike a balance among different groups,  the diversity of inclinations among people usually lead to an opposing view of the imperialness of a law. Hence, radical actions such as resistance or disobedience can barely find substantial grounds for them regarding all these subjective influences. And disobedience is never encouraged-even should be banned-as long as the legal rights of others cannot be fully preserved.  

小勺子的反思UID: 2280216

我来改你的了~~

In accordance with this statement, every individuals in a society has the obligation to obey just laws as well as to disobey unjust ones. In an objective observation, this statement too extremely suggests some types of unreasonable behaviors, especially in two perspectives.  First, it is unwise to assume that any laws can be recognized as either just or unjust. And secondly, it rudely proposes a measure, which would be unproductive to the whole society while it would mean a latent threat to the legal transformation.

At the first glance, it would be too complicated for almost everybody to judge whether a law is just or unjust. The issue of the impartiality of any law involves nearly every element of a society, especially the individuals' views of world or personal liberties. One compelling example lending credibility to this attitude is the contentious issue of homosexuality. Modern citizens may view the laws allowing homosexuality as an ordinary symbol, which presents an indispensable right of a human being to choose personal lifestyle. Nevertheless, some individuals with specific religious beliefs are susceptible to see such laws entitled people a homosexuality choice as unjust. Another element dealt with the evenhandedness of a law might be one's private concern, or involvement. One of the most significant goals of a democratic society is to use laws to make a compromise among the conflicting interests. However, usually it would be unrealistic to produce a perfect solution that satisfies everybody. Consider for example, the laws abolishing slavery might boost the economic transformation of the North, and the merchandisers living in North would think the laws just. At the same time, the same laws destroyed the basis of  farming economy in South, which resulted in an view that view these laws unjust among farmers in South. In short, the impartiality of a law is subjective, taking account on personal judgment which will surely influence the disinterest of it.

Another elemental problem, which lies behind the proposal of disobeying unjust law, is that it brought about a great threat to the function of a society. Actually, it can do much more damage instead of the intended help. Take criminal law for example, it is not fleckless and may seem unjust in some details. Yet government should adhere to this law severely, considering the great cost and instability of disobeying 不是disobey 吧 ，应该是  forfeitingthis law.

Furthermore, it is specious[这个词是个否定词，用错了 ，要用一个肯定的] to argue that through disobeying unjust laws people can easily go even farther[further] to a dangerous violation of laws. Returning to the homosexuality example mentioned above, it is obviously unreasonable to protest the homosexuality by splitting the legal married gays or lesbians. If such behavior goes just a little further, it may lead an action against the legislators or executives which will probably cause a turmoil in a society.

In sum, since the functions of laws is to strike a balance among different groups,  the diversity of inclinations among people usually lead to an opposing view of the imperialness of a law. Hence, radical actions such as resistance or disobedience can barely find substantial grounds for them regarding all these subjective influences. And disobedience is never encouraged-even should be banned-as long as the legal rights of others cannot be fully preserved.[觉得观点有失偏颇 ，中国的革命做如何解释呢 ，资产阶级革命做如何解释呢 ]



评：语言还可以哦 ，有点北美的味道 。
   
      但是内容可以更充实 ，可以多角度想想 。

[ 本帖最后由 小勺子的反思 于 2007-3-7 03:46 编辑 ]

expire7UID: 2160574

标题格式不对，请修改

simahuiUID: 2208751

In accordance with this statement, every individuals in a society has the obligation to obey just laws as well as文章中有个大大的more，more定了这篇的性，比较型 to disobey unjust ones. In an objective observation, this statement too extremely suggests some types of unreasonable behaviors, especially in two perspectives.  First, it is unwise to assume that any laws can be recognized as either just or unjust. And secondly, it rudely proposes a measure, which would be unproductive to the whole society while it would mean a latent threat to the legal transformation.
跟xdf黄皮范文很像
At the first glance, it would be too complicated for almost everybody to judge whether a law is just or unjust. The issue of the impartiality of any law involves nearly every element of a society, especially the individuals' views of world or personal liberties. One compelling example lending credibility to this attitude is the contentious issue of homosexuality. Modern citizens may view the laws allowing homosexuality as an ordinary symbol, which presents an indispensable right of a human being to choose personal lifestyle. Nevertheless, some individuals with specific religious beliefs are susceptible to see such laws entitled people a homosexuality choice as unjust. Another element dealt with the evenhandedness of a law might be one's private concern, or involvement. One of the most significant goals of a democratic society is to use laws to make a compromise among the conflicting interests. However, usually it would be unrealistic to produce a perfect solution that satisfies everybody. Consider for example, the laws abolishing slavery might boost the economic transformation of the North, and the merchandisers living in North would think the laws just. At the same time, the same laws destroyed the basis of  farming economy in South, which resulted in an view that view these laws unjust among farmers in South. In short, the impartiality of a law is subjective, taking account on personal judgment which will surely influence the disinterest of it.Another elemental problem, which lies behind the proposal of disobeying unjust law, is that it brought about a great threat to the function of a society. Actually, it can do much more damage instead of the intended help. Take criminal law for example, it is not fleckless and may seem unjust in some details. Yet government should adhere to this law severely, considering the great cost and instability of disobeying this law.Furthermore, it is specious to argue that through disobeying unjust laws people can easily go even farther to a dangerous violation of laws. Returning to the homosexuality example mentioned above, it is obviously unreasonable to protest the homosexuality by splitting the legal married gays or lesbians. If such behavior goes just a little further, it may lead an action against the legislators or executives which will probably cause a turmoil in a society.In sum, since the functions of laws is to strike a balance among different groups,  the diversity of inclinations among people usually lead to an opposing view of the imperialness of a law. Hence, radical actions such as resistance or disobedience can barely find substantial grounds for them regarding all these subjective influences. And disobedience is never encouraged-even should be banned-as long as the legal rights of others cannot be fully preserved.  
例子举得很有说服力，哈哈，披着xdf皮的goku