issue17 [0710G ＋U Aug小组]第14次作业

wm23UID: 2245087

The variety of personal values leads to various understandings about the same law of different people. What is the definition of the just laws? What are unjust laws? It is hard to give a uniform criterion for evaluating, please take these two questions to read my essay.

To begin with, in general idea, the law is a kind of rule, which provides a standard for people who live in the same society and was supported by national power. A just law, for most residents of a country, should be a safeguard rather than a rule. The law not only shows people what is right and what is wrong, but also protects right and fair behaviors and punishes wrong and despicable behaviors. Hence, for a just law, as the speaker said, the attitude of the majority of residents should be support and acclamation. An evident case in this point is that no one is willing to resist the law for provide social security with guarantee; the act for protecting the right of consumers is usually supported by demos; People also hope get more support from the law for boosting the improvement of education.

However, the question is not as simple as it was. In most cases, we cannot judge whether a law is just or unjust in a short period. In addition, because each individual has his or her respective value, the assessment for a law is also various. For example, When Abraham Lincoln proposed that the slavery should be abolished from America, and the government would oppose the trade of the slaves, this act was supported by the whole nation except the slave owner in south of America for the reason that the abolition will harm their profit. Though the abolition was resisted by the slave owner, they were finally defeated by the side of just. Consequently, weather oppose a law should give more consideration.

Furthermore, the law is always relative with the politics, which renders s series of historical limitations imposed to it. From the forming of human society to nowaday information society, there is no denying the fact that it is no such law which we have used for thousands of years. Hence, the rationality of the law always changes with the changing of the society. A law maybe can boost the improvement of the society in a period, but after that time, it may interfere with the development of the country. For example, in ancient China which dominated by feudalism, at the beginning, some feudalism law is significantly benefiting the productivity, such as the rule of emphasizing agriculture, and disregarding the commerce. However, when capitalism thrive in western countries, and help these countries develop surprisingly by business, in contrast, those behindhand feudalism laws choked the development of China. Consequently, it is unfair to evaluate a law without society background.

In conclusion, as I mentioned before, it is hard to totally confirm the rationality of a law; however, it is not means we must bear any law whatever it is just or unjust. Besides giving concern to the social conditions and circumstance when we assess a law, the most basic premise is whether the law can benefit the most just and honest demos. After all, the law should serve for the demos but not rule.