issue17（aero）

barretshaoUID: 2449682

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: 510          TIME: 00:44:53          DATE: 2008-2-18 下午 08:49:51

This statement asserts that every person has a responsibility to not only obey just laws but also disobey and resist unjust laws. The statement has some merits in some respects. However, it is hard to ensure a law whether it is just or unjust subjectively.

Admittedly, in the law society we have the responsibility to follow the law, especially the just laws. Law and morality are the cardinal forces to keep the world running well. Undoubtedly, numerous disagreements and conflicts happen everyday and we need law to provide a way to resolve these disputes peacefully. For example, we must follow the traffic rules and regulations wherever you are. Without obeying these laws, driving would be dangerous and disorder instead of systematical traffic. In a word, just laws are the fulcrum of lever in our daily life and we must obey them.

Conversely, we also need to resist or fight with some obviously unjust laws. It is easy to find some unjust laws which sacrifice a significant number of persons in the history. Consider, for example, in feudal society, there were a lot of unjust laws which were made to exploit and dominate people. Such as Genghis Khan of Yuan Dynasty in China, he passed an act that all people were forced to be divided in several levels and Mongol belonged to the highest level. If people of that time obeyed these laws rather than resisted and fought against the law, all of the persons would suffer from the unbelievable pain and the society would not make a progress during the resistance of the law. Or consider, in the World War Two, Hilter of Nazi Germany made a law of massacre Jew. Do not you think we must resist the disobey the absolutely unjust laws.

However, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. It is almost impossible to make a just law in accord with everyone's perspective and interest. For example, particular laws are difficult to ensure whether it is just or unjust for different religions. Abortion and death penalty are unjust for some individuals with particular beliefs, while they are just for other individuals who share other value system.


Furthermore, judging the law whether it is just or unjust subjectively would lead to some confuse to us. Some laws which seems ostensibly unjust might be just conversely in the future. For example, the law of limitation forest cutting  might affect a lot of persons' interest whose jobs are related to lumber. Yet, this law will benefit ourselves and the whole society in the future. Similarly, the limitation of petroleum exploiting also follows the same way. Accordingly, it is hard to judge whether it is just or unjust from the personal opinion rather than the whole evaluation by the society.

In sum, we must follow these laws which are just and might be just in the future. However, it is so hard to judge it whether it is just or not and the judgement might be unilateral.  Accordingly, we should disobey and resist "unjust" laws cautiously.

bigyanUID: 2382427

This statement asserts that every person has a responsibility to not only obey just laws but also disobey and resist unjust laws. The statement has some merits in some respects. However, it is hard to ensure a law whether it is just or unjust subjectively.

Admittedly, in the law society we have the responsibility to follow the law, especially the just laws. Law and morality are the cardinal forces to keep the world running well. Undoubtedly, numerous disagreements and conflicts happen everyday and we need law to provide a way to resolve these disputes peacefully. For example, we must follow the traffic rules and regulations wherever you are. Without obeying these laws, driving would be dangerous and disorder instead of systematical traffic. In a word, just laws are the fulcrum of lever in our daily life and we must obey them.

Conversely, we also need to resist or fight with some obviously unjust laws. It is easy to find some unjust laws which sacrifice a significant number of persons in the history. Consider, for example, in feudal society, there were a lot of unjust laws which were made to exploit and dominate people. Such as Genghis Khan of Yuan Dynasty in China, he passed an act that all people were forced to be divided in several levels and Mongol belonged to the highest level. If people of that time obeyed these laws rather than resisted and fought against the law, all of the persons would suffer from the unbelievable pain and the society would not make a progress during the resistance of the law. Or consider, in the World War Two, Hilter of Nazi Germany made a law of massacre Jew. Do not you think we must resist the disobey the absolutely unjust laws.（纳粹和成吉思汗的例子，中西合并，挺好）
However, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. It is almost impossible to make a just law in accord with everyone's perspective and interest. For example, particular laws are difficult to ensure whether it is just or unjust for different religions. Abortion and death penalty are unjust for some individuals with particular beliefs, while they are just for other individuals who share other value system.


Furthermore, judging the law whether it is just or unjust subjectively would lead to some confuse to us. Some laws which seems（seem） ostensibly unjust might be just conversely in the future. For example, the law of limitation forest cutting  might affect a lot of persons' interest whose（这个从句解释应该是person 而不是interest,貌似有点问题） jobs are related to lumber. Yet, this law will benefit ourselves and the whole society in the future. Similarly, the limitation of petroleum exploiting also follows the same way. Accordingly, it is hard to judge whether it is just or unjust from the personal opinion rather than the whole evaluation by the society.（其实后两段是一个意思，我觉得可以合并，从而使论证看着更充分）
In sum, we must follow these laws which are just and might be just in the future. However, it is so hard to judge it whether it is just or not and the judgement might be unilateral.  Accordingly, we should disobey and resist "unjust" laws cautiously.
论证的很充实，只是偶尔有语法和拼写上的错误，这是值得注意的，毕竟因为这个扣分多不值呀

geyserUID: 2446453

This statement asserts that every person has a responsibility to not only obey just laws but also disobey and resist unjust laws. The statement has some merits in some respects. However, it is hard to ensure a law whether it is just or unjust subjectively.

Admittedly, in the law society we have the responsibility to follow the law, especially the just laws. Law and morality are the cardinal forces to keep the world running well. Undoubtedly, numerous disagreements and conflicts happen everyday and we need law to provide a way to resolve these disputes peacefully. For example, we must follow the traffic rules and regulations wherever you are. Without obeying these laws, driving would be dangerous and disorder instead of systematical traffic. In a word, just laws are the fulcrum of lever in our daily life and we must obey them.
首段已经说just 和unjust难以区分, 就应该写如何区分, 而不是第一句话就说”especially just laws” 去掉插入语会比较好.
Conversely, we also need to resist or fight with some obviously unjust laws. It is easy to find some unjust laws which sacrifice a significant number of persons in the history. Consider, for example, in feudal society, there were a lot of unjust laws which were made to exploit and dominate people. Such as Genghis Khan of Yuan Dynasty in China, he passed an act that all people were forced to be divided in several levels and Mongol belonged to the highest level. If people of that time obeyed these laws rather than resisted and fought against the law, all of the persons would suffer from the unbelievable pain and the society would not make a progress during the resistance of the law. Or consider, in the World War Two, Hilter of Nazi Germany made a law of massacre Jew. Do not you think we must resist the disobey the absolutely unjust laws.
最好不要用中国的例子或美国的负面例子, 还是拓展hilter的例子
However, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue. It is almost impossible to make a just law in accord with everyone's perspective and interest. For example, particular laws are difficult to ensure whether it is just or unjust for different religions. Abortion and death penalty are unjust for some individuals with particular beliefs, while they are just for other individuals who share other value system.
Furthermore, judging the law whether it is just or unjust subjectively would lead to some confuse to us. Some laws which seems ostensibly unjust might be just conversely in the future. For example, the law of limitation forest cutting  might affect a lot of persons' interest whose jobs are related to lumber. Yet, this law will benefit ourselves and the whole society in the future. Similarly, the limitation of petroleum exploiting also follows the same way. Accordingly, it is hard to judge whether it is just or unjust from the personal opinion rather than the whole evaluation by the society.
这两段调到第一段前面, 承上启下.

In sum, we must follow these laws which are just and might be just in the future. However, it is so hard to judge it whether it is just or not and the judgment might be unilateral.  Accordingly, we should disobey and resist "unjust" laws cautiously.

论述段的安排最好是正态度放一起, 负态度放一起.