issue17 拍~

zhoumaye425UID: 2262458

WORDS: 478          TIME: 00:47:49          DATE: 2007-7-18 21:12:48

As the speaker claims, there are two types of laws: just and unjust. Each of us has a duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust ones. Are there only two types of laws? If there are, should we disobey unjust ones? I will say no to the both questions.

To begin with, the purpose of the laws, the rules regulating the behaviors and conducts of us, in fact, is to protect the interests of us, making a peaceful and orderly society. Laws against crimes protect our safety. Laws on property and contact make the process of business go smoothly. Laws, in certain respects, limit the power of governments, giving more freedom to the public. As Aristotle, the Ancient Greek philosopher, said (and I paraphrase): "Good laws make the society in good order.", where I would add that "With all the citizens obey the laws strictly,". In my view, no matter how legitimated the law is, only all the citizens obey it, can it be effective.

Secondly, I would point out that the statement of the speaker has a fundamental problem with it. The speaker simply put the laws into either just or unjust, which is too extreme. It is obvious that whether a law is just or unjust is not a straightforward issue in most time. When it comes to personal freedom, the view of different people to the justness of a law could be sharply different, which depends on one's value system and personal interests. The most controversial issue, euthanasia, is a paradigmatic to that. The law to euthanasia varies from nation to nation since it comes out several decades ago, and constantly subject to change as better alleviate care or treatments become available. However, whether to define it legal or illegal, there are always a group of people regarding the law as unjust, which is resulted from the different value systems of the public. Also, consider, the law regulating the effluent a certain factory could emit is unjust to the company for the high cost for complying it but just in respect that protecting the safety and health of the region's residents impacted. In short, the fairness of a law depends on one's value system and personal interest.

How could you define which law you should be obey to and which should not, since the boundary is so vague? Therefore, I maintain that we should obey to laws, both just and unjust. Because a law is only unjust to the person who view it as unjust, while it is still not the sufficient reason to suspect that it doesn't express the general will of citizens. As Thomas Jefferson, America present said (and I paraphrase): “No nation could make a perpetuate constitution, or even a perpetuate law.” The law would be improved continuously as the development of society but not simply changed for a certain people resisting it.

In sum, whether a law is just or unjust, we should obey it in most time.