ISSUE17 [AW狂人社] 第一次作业

kathleenfangUID: 2303115

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: 642          TIME: 1:00:00          DATE: 2007-3-4

    As a basic means to protect the individual needs and rights for a modern society, laws have irreplaceable function for any civilized nation. However can laws be classified any just and unjust, and what actions should we take to improve the law system? The author claims disobedience and resistance is the answer to unfair laws, yet I have some reserves about this claim. The fairness of social regulations is hard to define, and imprudent resistance would be more detrimental than beneficial.

    To begin with, the fairness of certain law is difficult to decide, especially for people and groups with various aims and beliefs. Since the purpose of law is to regulate and direct people's conduct, as well as recognize and protect certain basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality, it might naturally conflict with the interests of certain groups while attempting to ensure an orderly-operative society. For instance, high import tariff may seem unacceptable to merchants running international business, yet the ultimate aim of tariff law is to protect the healthy development of domestic industry from dumping of foreign companies, thus prevent the probable devastating effect to civil economy and ensure a relatively stable market price in the future. Apart from tariff law, certain rules might be controversial over centuries, arousing disputes between groups of people with different beliefs and values. Take the law that legitimate abortion for example, it might have attributed to the ceasing of the soaring rate of juvenile violence and social crimes, as asserted in the book " Demoeconomy ", it has undoubtedly been a heated contention to religious disciplines who believe unborn children have rights to live. In face of the examples given above, it is basically hard to define the fairness of current laws, let alone deciding one's attitude toward it with sound grounds.

    I agree with the speaker that we have obligation to obey just laws which respect individual rights and contribute to social stability by resolving disputes in a civilized fashion. Without the enforcement of public and private laws, the society would be dangerous and chaotic, giving rise to instability and severe conflicts. The law provides a way to peacefully resolve disputes, which exist even in a well-ordered society. Living in a socialized world where no individual can simply do as he/she pleases without consideration to others, laws have been the glue that has kept society together. Laws regulating our business affairs help to ensure that people keep their promises. Laws against criminal conduct help to safeguard our personal property and our lives. Obedience to laws ensures a stable society that respect individual's rights without impeding others. Enforced by the courts and police forces, laws equip societies with a moral compass and ballast to prevent them from being tossed about aimlessly in a turbulent sea.
   
    However it is unreasonable and maybe detrimental to disobey or resist unfair laws, for two fundamental reasons, respectively on the individual and social level. For any citizen of a civilized society whose peace and order are maintained by laws, imprudent resistance or disobedience would lead to no end but suffering to the disobedient. Consider anyone expresses dissentients with property laws by grabbing lands and houses that should belong to them, as they might assert, but by law are the property of others. Through indiscreet disobedience with the law suits, the grabber would gain nothing apart from sanction by laws. It is rules, rather than emotions, that dominate any modern democracy, and contribute to the well-being of our society.
Viewing from the societal level, the failure to enforce and apply legal regulations would benefit neither the improvement of the society nor the members of it. Despite the best intentions, law are sometimes created that people later recognize as being unjust or unfair. However large-scale of opposition or outburst of hatred will usually be answered by equally or even more cruel governmental sanction and suppression. History doesn’t lack examples of bloody and violent combats between government and common people, which seldom result in improvement of the society.
   
    Rather than resisting the enforcement of current laws imprudently, in any democracy, speaking out publicly and seeking to change the law by legal means serve as a much appropriate and effective method. Strong-arm tactics may provide a great deal of order, but we reject this form of control. Any democratic nation would respect individual rights while, at the same time, ensuring that society operates in an orderly manner. Laws are not fixed, with the changing of society, many crimes which have been unimaginable before such as hickers, the disputes over cloning, and restriction on massive destructive weapons, are in great need. Laws should be updated in face of the urgent needs to regulate new phenomena.

    In the final analysis, it is complicated to define the fairness of any law, since the interests and beliefs of societal members various tremendously. Laws are not carved in stone, thus any one who feels that a particular law is flawed has the right as well as the obligation to inform the legislative of the fallacy and seek an effective and lawful means to bring changes to the prevailing law system.

[ 本帖最后由 kathleenfang 于 2007-3-5 23:04 编辑 ]

kathleenfangUID: 2303115

希望大家指点