issue17 [SJTU-ETB6 10G] 第8次作业

dacgileUID: 2367722

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: 606          TIME: 00:50:00          DATE: 2007-8-8 20:53:48

The statement categorizes laws as just and unjust types, and then it asserts that every individual should disobey and resist unjust ones. I tend to disagree with it. There is no distinct line between just and unjust laws, and what is more, the action of resisting and disobeying unjust laws might cause violations sometime which are aberrant from the original intention of law.

To begin with, who can tell authoritatively that which law is just and which one is not? No one can. Whether the law is just or not depends closely on who views it rather than all the people hold the same opinion. It is always the case that mainstream viewpoint of a law determines the justification of a law. At the same time, however, other individuals who hold the opposite opinion surely treat this law as unjust one. The situation in realm of economics can illustrate it to some extent. Considering the enacting of antitrust laws in earlier years, one would understand this; on benefits of relatively small companies, these laws are gospels while for those merchants who are capable of taking price-cutting and freezing out competitors, these laws are unjust. Also, laws that aim at unraveling society issues are always being on the focus of controversy, such as "abortion"; some certain religious people think that this action is not different from killing a life, but others may treat it as natural and rational. The reason why these laws are taking into effect nowadays lies in that most people--the mainstream opinion--think that they are just.

Furthermore, obeying just laws is a kind of needs of society's peace, and only via this can society is well-regulated. On the contrary, resisting and disobeying laws--the ones thought as unjust--sometimes entangle the peace of a society--a deed that most of people dislike. Take the monopoly mentioned above as an example. One benefits of these merchants, they are treated unequally--at least they think so--by these unjust laws. If they take resistance and disobeying via the method of refusing to pay tax to unjust laws, and then the results might be formidable: the total revenues declines so sharply that even the normal activities of the government cannot function well. For that matter, it is not the situation that all the social members want. Also, some other social problems might come into occurrence. Juvenile delinquency, for example, might be increasingly manifest due to the reason that those poor children are deprived of the best opportunities of education. In that sense, a society is not going to work well.

Yet, we have other ways out of the issue concerning just and unjust laws. It is commonly known that the function of a legislature of a certain nation is to revise unjust laws. Those representatives who serve in the legislature are tactile about issues, so if a certain amount of them approve that some laws are unjust for people, they will rectify them. The Constitution of the United States, for example, has been 27 amendments till now, much more words than the initial one. When the legislature fails to find there are fallacies with certain laws, it is possible for people to go on a demonstration in some democratic countries--such as America, Canada, and the like.

All in all, law, body of official rules and regulations, is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. That is to say, the original intention of law is to make a society function well. In that sense, we should use and obey law rationally to defend ourselves and to behave ourselves.

zhangjunhaoUID: 2276310

The statement categorizes laws as just and unjust types, and then it asserts that every individual should disobey and resist unjust ones. I tend to disagree with it. There is no distinct line between just and unjust laws, and what is more, the action of resisting and disobeying unjust laws might cause violations sometime which are aberrant（这里用这个词我觉得不妥，可以试试against） from the original intention of law.

To begin with, who can tell authoritatively that which law is just and which one is not? No one can. Whether the law is just or not depends closely on who views it rather than all the people hold the same opinion（这里貌似有语法问题，rather than这样用不可以的把，后面是加句子的吗？）. It is always the case that mainstream viewpoint of a law determines the justification of a law. At the same time, however, other individuals who hold the opposite opinion surely treat （threaten）this law as （an）unjust one. The situation in realm of economics can illustrate it to some extent. Considering the enacting of antitrust laws in earlier years, one would understand this; on benefits of relatively small companies, these laws are gospels while for those merchants who are capable of taking price-cutting and freezing out competitors, these laws are unjust. Also, laws that aim at unraveling society issues are always being（去掉being是不是好一些） on the focus of controversy, such as "abortion"; some certain religious people think that this action is not different from killing a life, but others may treat it as natural and rational. The reason why these laws are taking into effect nowadays lies in that most people--the mainstream opinion--think that they are just.

Furthermore, obeying just laws is a kind of needs of society's peace, and only via this can society is well-regulated. On the contrary, resisting and disobeying laws--the ones thought as unjust--sometimes entangle （这里的entangle是什么意思呢）the peace of a society--a deed that most of people dislike. Take the monopoly mentioned above as an example. One benefits of these merchants, they are treated unequally--at least they think so--by these unjust laws. If they take resistance and disobeying via the method of refusing to pay tax to unjust laws（这里这句话不是很理解，是说不向不公平的法律缴纳税吗？）, and then the results might be formidable: the total revenues declines so sharply that even the normal activities of the government cannot function well. For that matter, it is not the situation that all the social members want. Also, some other social problems might come into occurrence. Juvenile delinquency, for example, might be increasingly manifest due to the reason that those poor children are deprived of the best opportunities of education. In that sense, a society is not going to work well.

Yet, we have other ways out of the issue concerning just and unjust laws. It is commonly known that the function of a legislature of a certain nation is to revise unjust laws. Those representatives who serve in the legislature are tactile about issues, so if a certain amount of them approve that some laws are unjust for people, they will rectify them. The Constitution of the United States, for example, has been 27 amendments till now, much more words than the initial one. When the legislature fails to find there are fallacies with certain laws, it is possible for people to go on a demonstration in some democratic countries--such as America, Canada, and the like.

All in all, law, body of official rules and regulations, is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members. That is to say, the original intention of law is to make a society function well. In that sense, we should use and obey law rationally to defend ourselves and to behave ourselves.

论证展开还可以，我也差不多是这样写得，不过在遣词造句上要多加注意。希望你有认真看过我的修改，如果有什么不妥的地方，请及时指出，我不想浪费时间