issue17 [0710G 戴三个表冲刺小组] 第23次作业

pinuoUID: 2328081

Syllabus1.不同意，制定好的，适用的法律，就都应该遵守。不遵守不公平的法律容易成为违法者的一个借口。
2.法律的公平性是在制定的时期进行讨论的，而不是在实施阶段讨论的。可以在制定阶段通过一下方式保证法律的公平。
1>制定法律的人可以对法律的公平性进行讨论，考虑每个不同情况的人的利益，保护最大多数的人的利益，不能把部分人的利益置于其他人的利益上，牺牲部分人的利益来保证另一部分人的利益。公平的对待社会成员。
The law is a set of rules for society, designed to protect basic rights and freedoms and to treat everyone fairly.
One most critical goal of law is fairness. This means that the law should recognize and protect certain basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality. The laws also serve to ensure that strong groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions in society to take unfair advantage of weaker individuals

2>可以在制定法律的过程中，邀请不同的人对draft提出修正意见，反映各个阶层的利益。
3>可以对一个新的法律在一定的时期内，在局部地方进行试验。在试验结束后，对其进行评价和修正。
Despite the best intentions, law are sometimes created that people later recognize as being unjust or unfair. In a democratic society, law are not carved in stone, but must reflect the changing needs of society.

1.       但一旦通过，生效。就要尊重。必须无条件的接受。因为As a result, if any action of disobeying so-called unjust laws from his or her perspective, the whole society would undoubtedly come into chaos, owing to that everyone may consider some laws as unjust ones according to his or her own criterion.

1>每个人对法律都有不同的理解，对同一个法律公平性也会有不同的认识。如果因为对法律的公平性有异议而拒绝遵守就会造成混乱。
法律不遵守，disobedience 会带来危害 poses certain risks , jeopardize to
比如：交通左右
For example, the law in China requires that we must drive our cars on the right-hand side of a two-way street. If people were allowed to choose at random which side of the street to drive on, driving would be dangerous and chaotic.

2>如果每个违法的人都以法律的公证性为借口，而拒绝为自己的行为负责，法律就会失去权威。
2.       In sum, 法律的公平性是在制定的时期进行讨论的，而不是在实施阶段讨论的
   The correct attitude toward the flaws of established laws is to reflect them to the legislators through proper way. Only in this mild way could social regulations be improved appropriately and we maintain our right to the most and without imprudence.


Initial workTOPIC: 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: 619          TIME: 00:45:01          DATE: 2007-8-20 16:06:31

I strongly disagree with the assertion that socieal members should abey just laws and disobey unjust laws. Whether a law is just or just, in my view, should be decide in the process of making. When the daft document making into a law, it is responsibility of every member in the society to obey it without any condition.

Laws is a set of rules, designed to protect basic rights and freedoms and to treat everyone fairly and equally. One of the most critical goal of law is fair. This means laws should prevent the strong group in the society using their to take unfair advantage over the other people.

It is far from an easy task to lineate an line between just laws and unjust laws because different people or group may have totally different understanding on them just as it is highly unlikely we are always sharing the some interests. Thus it is entirely impossible to make a law that satisfied everyone's requirements, they should basicly reflect the interests of majorty in the society. The discussion of whether a law is just or unjust should be made in the process of making, the lawmaker, who represent the members of society ,fierce dabate on a draft version of law, to guarantee the interests of group they reperesent and thus make sure the final version will be fair to every social member. Generally, there is a try period, the new law is issued in a small area in a short duration to test the effect of law, just as we do an experiments in laberay. The fairness and other features of law is encouraged to reported to the legislation official, and the further modification will then be made to gurantee the law,which public to the whole nation or state, meet the requirements of most people. The law are not carved in stone, it should reflect the changing of society, the people can express their suggestion to the official in an approiate way when most of people found they are out of date.

The chief reason I disagee with the assertion lies in the nearly horrible results if people are permitted to mere aboy the just laws and disobey the so called unjust laws.  First, As mentioned before, wheather a law is just or unjust greatly rely on the individual's education background, experiences, the view on the world and the like, which can be diverse. If one refuse to obey the law which he regarded as unjust law, more often thant not he will not realize what he do has vailated the law and  refuse to take responsibility for what his behavior. Few will argue it is the most dangerous thing in a democratic society to present someone the previlige no to obey the law for that it will cause a loss  and even a disaster of society. The authority of social system will be chellanged, and certianly inflict on the social orders. Second, it will provide an excuse for the people who do some illegal things on purpos. Third, when the law is made into a law, it is the basic responsibility for every in the society to respect it, any disobedience will pose certian risks and jeopardize to the society. One sample and parodical example is all the people are required to drive on the right, it will bring danger and chao in the road if drivers are permitted to drive on the side which they think is appropiate.

In sum, catagrilizing the law into just laws and unjust law should not be made when they are issued. Every are required to obey them without conditon. The discussion should be made before the draft document made in to alaw.



评价：怎样在制定的阶段保证fairness写的太多了。为什么都要遵守写的相对不够。

pinuoUID: 2328081

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: 895       FROM 8/20/2007 4:12:30 PM TO　8/20/2007 9:04:17 PM

I strongly disagree with the assertion that we have the right to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. We, as social members, have no sound reason to violate any laws, even those seems unjust in our understanding. Whether a law is just or unjust, in my viewpoint, should be discussed before it taking in effect and we can seek legal remedies to appeal the unjust laws if there appears much irrationality rather than the imprudence of disobeying them. That is to say every social member is incumbent to obey any laws which are in effect.

One most critical goal of law, few will dispute, is fairness, because law is the body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions, legislation, judicial opinions, and the like, that is used to govern a society and to control the behavior of its members This means the law should recognize and protect certain basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality. The laws also serve to ensure that strong groups and individuals do no use their powerful position in society to take unfair advantage of weaker individuals.

The fairness of laws is generally guaranteed by the lawmakers’ fully discussion of the draft version before it take effect and the feed back from public in an appropriate way after that. Whether a law is just or unjust should be discussed in the process of making, the lawmaker, who represent the members of society ,fiercely debate on a draft version of law, to protect the interests of group they represent and thus guarantee the final version be fair to every social member. And usually, there is a try period, in which the fairness and other qualities of law is encouraged to reported to the legislation official, and the further modification will then be made to guarantee the law meet the requirements of most people. Since the laws are not carved in stone, they should reflect the changing of society. Now any democratic countries, say, not matter the big country or the small country, have complete constitutional system to amend those laws suffering some unfairness. Thus people can express their suggestion to the legal official in a proper way when most of people found some laws are out of date.

The chief reason why disobeying the so-called unjust laws is unreasonable has to do with the different understanding of the certain law. It is far from an easy task to lineate a line between just laws and unjust laws because different people or group may have totally different understanding on them, just as we are sharing the some interests, which is generally relying on the individual's education background, experiences, the view on the world and the like. Thus it is practically impossible to make a law that satisfied everyone's requirements. This is especially true when comes to the current world in which people are encourage to express their ideas freely and the technology bring some new issues which challenge the traditional understanding of moral and laws. Consider, for example, the issue of clone, which has fueled debate not just in one country, but with countries all over the world. The human clone is forbidden explicitly in laws in most of countries because the governments believe it is not morally and ethically right due to the killing of human embryos, the unsafe process of cloning, and the resulting consequences of having deformed clones. While some scientists consider it provide a new way for organs transplant and help the parent who suffer from infertility. The people who share the understanding of human clone with the government may think these laws are just while those who hold the different viewpoint may think they are unjust.

The second reason I disagree with the speaker lies in the horrible results that people refusing to obey certain laws may lead to. Firstly, the whole society would undoubtedly come into chaos when some people disobey so-called unjust laws because of their own perspective of laws. For example, in China, the laws require us to drive our cars on the right-hand side of a two-way street. If people were allowed to choose at random which side of street to drive on, driving would be dangerous and chaotic. Secondly and most seriously, allowing the people to mere obey the just laws and disobey the unjust laws may provide a perfect excuse for those who want to violate the laws and inflict on the others. Consider, an extreme example, a people, charged by the police with stealing, may say that the law does not guarantee his living requirements thus he has to support himself in this way and claim the law is unjust, therefore, refuses to take responsibility for his behavior. Sounds ridiculous, but it is within the law if disobeying some laws are considered legal. What the society will look like if all the members do in this way, there will surely be a disaster.

In sum, the assertion that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws, is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus does not exist. In contrast, people are obligate to obey all the laws which are in effect, and express their suggestion before the law taking effect or repeal to the legal officials in proper way when any unfairness were found.