【Flyer杀G作文组】7.23-Issue17-By topfengtop

topfengtopUID: 2854481

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."

Law, as a result of the development of human’s civilization, must have two types: just and unjust as stated by the issue, since they are all made by human. It’s obvious that we all should to obey the just laws to keep the society sound. However, should we really disobey and resist them when they are regarded as unjust. Maybe in moral we need to do that. But in reality, they are too much difficult to do it.
Aristotle once said that an ideal society has to have two fundamental conditions: 1, every citizen in it has to obey the laws 2, the laws obeyed by the citizens must be good ones. It seems that Aristotle’s theory is comprehensive. However, because no society is perfectly ideal and every law is made by the persons who cannot be perfectly moral, the laws used in a society must represent just for a part of population’s interests, thus they must be regarded as unjust for another group of people. This phenomenon can be substantiated by examining every country’s history, and seems that it can never be voided as long as the process of make of law doesn’t change. Another raison for the existence of unjust law is that different people may have different opinion. The law makers are also ordinary people in some extent and may have different opinions. So when they are making a law, the justness must be influenced by his personal preference. Take the homosexual phenomenon as an example, some think homosexual marriage should be allowed by law because of their respect of individual life choice, while
others thinks it should be forbidden because exert bad effect to the society. Because of the different standpoints of a phenomenon, it’s hard to decide that the law forbidding homosexual marriage is just or unjust.
Even it’s well acknowledged that unjust laws absolutely exist in a society, should we all choose and disobey them? As for me, the answer is no. Abeyance of laws is crucial force to keep the society sound. If everyone tries to challenge the authority of the system of law, there will be a big problem. Imagine that everyone who is charged for a criminal could challenge the laws and claims that they are innocent, what would be the bad social situation. The difficulty of distinguish which one is just and which one is unjust discussed above suggest that encouraging people to disobey unjust laws is not appropriate. To the aspect to executor of law like a judge, should they try to disobey a law considered as unjust while using the moral standard?
Absolutely no.
They are just authorized to make their decisions and execute the necessary actions strictly according to law, rather than using they personal thinking to challenge the laws. What they ought to do when encountered a law that has been regarded unjust largely by the society is to try to modifier it strictly following legal process. But before the new law takes action, they must still follow the old one, which may seems unjust.
In conclusion, since no society is perfectly ideal and all laws are made by human, the existence of unjust laws can never be avoided. But this doesn’t mean people need and can disobey the unjust law because of the lack of strict standard to distinguish the just and unjust laws, and also the need of maintaining the authority of the system of laws.