issue17[jet]小组第八次作业

O--honeyUID: 2452493

The arguer did a good job to separate laws into two types which he named them just laws and unjust laws, but since the arguer had a strong despise towards unjust laws yet he did not mention any criteria to judge whether a law is just or unjust, therefore I raised serious doubt about the evidence or reasons based on which he used to support his idea.


Law can be definite into a auxiliary file item that used to control human’s behavior, it is fixed by human and obeyed by human, just point to the just laws first, in this case, I firmly believe everybody granted just laws in a same, that is it is very just. Therefore, there is no reason to disobey it, because it can punish those actions that bring serious damage to our society as well as the well-beings of our self in a way that we all accept it. It has become a common criteria to judge our ordinary behaviors, such as if you steal something from others, then the police office will be a best place for you to go, if you invade someone’s benefit, then the consumers’ law would be a principles to tell you what the punishment you will earn, even when there comes a family dispute, the final accessible way to solve also depend on laws save some compromise factors.

However, as to the unjust laws, we can now use a little imagination to vision some consequences if the arguer’s idea is correct. Say, the focus we talk about will have gradually moved from whether we do have to resist unjust laws to what are unjust laws anyway. To our common sense, the law is not only a human-make-out thing, the latter character transcends the former one that we present it as a imperial edict that can not be changed through human’s consciousness, and that is the reason we human-beings ignoring the races, sex, ages all have to cline to it. Upon this standpoint, the judgment of a unjust law item will be the center of the argument, like the issue of death penalty, concerning with the justness and authority, people have been arguing about it for years, someone regarded it as a just law for the death penalty can sentence those who can severely damage the order of people’s life to death in case they bring a lot more trouble that have to sacrifice even lives, this side give us a clear position that they take public interests for consideration, whereas another group of people can hardly accept it, they thought that the law has also support that everyone should respect others’ right, and they emphasize the right here to the human right, they strongly against death penalty for the sake of invasion of human right, more closer, some one who did something that worth death penalty may changed into a absolutely good one after several years in prison, so the death penalty means a deprivation of their chance to be a good man. Consequently, the two sides have been holding each position with no doubt. What about the law of death penalty it self then? Due to the real dilemma of the conducting the death penalty, more cases that involved people’s lives has been postponed, the indirect loss has already expanded.

What’s more, most people rely firmly on morality when they talk about the justness of a law, as we know, morality have something to do with our inner emotion, so, laws here have already been changed into a file that can be changed with consciousness which seriously go against the original standard of law. When we regard law as a whole part while someone stand up to oppose it for some morality reasons, whereas the remain thousands of people each of whom holds their own emotional reasons to oppose the law, then, where is the authority of law? Who on earth will have to obey it then?


In sum, law is a complete system that can not be changed through anybody or anything, as is its justness can not be challenged by a mere thinking of it is just or unjust which will seriously destroy its authority, if their exist some real unjust laws, it is not for us to decide which one is just or unjust but the government and some legislative committee!