【~4而后生~小组】第五次作业~

hermione371UID: 2276572

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."

   Some norms, because of their importance to social society, are formalized as laws, and enabling the control of human behaviour. Laws, which can be defined as the social control of government, is wrongly classified under the justice and unjustice in speaker's contention. And the disobedience to the unjust laws, in my view, is an irrational behaviour without accountability. Let me state my opinion in the following reasons.
   The famous sociologist, Schur, once pointed out that, "laws are not only a static legislation that transport from generations, instead, it is a method about right or wrong, and what is violation and the punishments for those who step out  of the moral limits." It is not straightforward but subjective issue that laws can be easily sited as just or unjust. Those regulations, which render the value system of the holdstakers, are enacted to protect sovereign's interests. When it comes to sovereign's interests and value systems of a nation, a striking example can aptly illustrate this point is the controversial topic that wether a rogation rite are allowed in public schools. Wether wrongly or rightly, believers of a religion will defend their rights from depriving of those infidel governers. In a not dissimilar way, pegans will defend the rights of their own and share a belief that opponents are wrong to support their own statement. Therefore, with both sides want them to be protected, it is tremendously for laws to dismiss either side as wrong and relevant laws as just.
   Supremely, of course, when faced with all this problems, laws are impossible to be universally fair to every individual or organizations concerned that play roles in this human society. It is presumptous to judge a legislation according to the so-called justice and unjustice. While the manifestation of main function of laws are conciling the living world, maintaining the balance and  sequence of daily life, and making "justice" decisions, we should not lose sight of the fact that laws only serve those who obey the laws and inevitably oppose to some interests. Now, let us turn our attention to another persuasive example of an amended laws No.18 in 1919 which baned the alcohol as some people in United States are growing concerned that the alcoholic influence have an harmful effect on physical body. As everyone can imagine, the result of this prohibition was pessimistic with more and more citizens stood out to request the aquittal of those alcoholic, therefore, this legislation became unwelcome and facing the challenges of rejection. Aggrandization of this legislation stopped, and left us a notion that no laws can satisfy everyone in this society.
Deep down laws, a kind of formal social control defined by sociology, in most people’s views, develop into a bizarre method. However, a further solid aruguement for the speaker’s contention is that justifying one violation of one sort of law will lead us to taining the process of legal behaviour. The example of extrem penalty clearly give the evidence of this point. It is incredibly horrible to indulge the extrem penalty to every prisioner, as we can hardly anticipate the result that potential murders become legal and will no doubt imperil innocent people.
In sum, the ambit of justice and unjustice of laws is ambigious, only through the function of laws, can we find out the laws in a certain period is available or not. Once a regulation is enacted, it is impossible to avoid the leagal loopholes, and may name some behaviour with illegalation, but the disobedience of laws should never be encouraged for the main function of laws is to concile the society and protect the rights of every individual.

insideUID: 2303230

Some norms, because of their importance to social society, are formalized as laws, and enabling the control of human behaviour. Laws, which can be defined as the social control of government, is wrongly classified under the justice and unjustice in speaker's contention. And the disobedience to the unjust laws, in my view, is an irrational behaviour without accountability. Let me state my opinion in the following reasons.

   The famous sociologist, Schur, once pointed out that, "laws are not only a static legislation that transport from generations, instead, it is a method about right or wrong, and what is violation and the punishments for those who step out  of the moral limits." It is not straightforward but subjective issue that laws can be easily sited as just or unjust. Those regulations, which render the value system of the holdstakers, are enacted to protect sovereign's interests. When it comes to sovereign's interests and value systems of a nation, a striking example can aptly illustrate this point is the controversial topic that wether a rogation rite are allowed in public schools. Wether wrongly or rightly, believers of a religion will defend their rights from depriving of those infidel governers. In a not dissimilar way, pegans will defend the rights of their own and share a belief that opponents are wrong to support their own statement. Therefore, with both sides want them to be protected, it is tremendously for laws to dismiss either side as wrong and relevant laws as just.

   Supremely, of course, when faced with all this problems, laws are impossible to be universally fair to every individual or organizations concerned that play roles in this human society. It is presumptous to judge a legislation according to the so-called justice and unjustice. While the manifestation of main function of laws are conciling the living world, maintaining the balance and  sequence of daily life, and making "justice" decisions, we should not lose sight of the fact that laws only serve those who obey the laws and inevitably oppose to some interests. Now, let us turn our attention to another persuasive example of an amended laws No.18 in 1919 which baned the alcohol as some people in United States are growing concerned that the alcoholic influence have an harmful effect on physical body. As everyone can imagine, the result of this prohibition was pessimistic with more and more citizens stood out to request the aquittal of those alcoholic, therefore, this legislation became unwelcome and facing the challenges of rejection. Aggrandization of this legislation stopped, and left us a notion that no laws can satisfy everyone in this society.

Deep down laws, a kind of formal social control defined by sociology, in most people’s views, develop into a bizarre method. However, a further solid aruguement for the speaker’s contention is that justifying one violation of one sort of law will lead us to taining the process of legal behaviour. The example of extrem(?) penalty clearly giveS the evidence of this point. It is incredibly horrible to indulge the extrem penalty to every prisioner, as we can hardly anticipate the result that potential murders become legal and will no doubt imperil innocent people.

In sum, the ambit of justice and unjustice of laws is ambigious, only through the function of laws, can we find out the laws in a certain period is available or not. Once a regulation is enacted, it is impossible to avoid the leagal loopholes, and may name some behaviour with illegalation, but the disobedience of laws should never be encouraged for the main function of laws is to concile the society and protect the rights of every individual.

颇有文采，也很深刻，像英语系的。有一些词在金山词霸里查不着哈。

结构上，我觉得虽然谈得都是在“法律公平”这个大主题下的东西，但是法律怎么调和社会矛盾、保护每个人的权利了，反抗了会有什么后果，至少我没有看出来。那么比如保护奴隶制这样的法律是不是也应该不反抗呢？

看看其他人怎么说吧。。