issue17 法律类，我熬阿熬阿~~准备好接招了！！

fircattyUID: 166248

17"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."
提纲：
1无论什么样的法律都必须遵守
2不能凭个人判断just，unjust与否
3如果大多数人认为unjust，民主也可以通过更合理有效的方法解决
Does every individual in a society have a responsibility to obey just laws and, more importantly, to disobey unjust laws? As for me, people only have the responsibility to abide by laws, just or unjust, and if a law is judged as an unjust law, people could amend it through a more effective and safe method in democratic countries.

To begin with, people are not allowed to disobey and resist the laws anywhere and anytime. As ordinances both enacted by the nation and serve for the nation, laws are compusorily carried out to ensure the stability of the whole society and the nation, no matter whether they are just or unjust. For instance, according to the traffic law, cars should not exceed the speed limit when droven on the speedway, no matter how magnificent the cars are and how skillful the drivers are. The law seemingly delay people’s job, but in fact, to some extent, it assures the low rate of accident. Viewing at this angle, people only have the responsibility to strictly obey the laws rather than to resist them.

Further, there does not exist a recognized standard differentiating just laws and unjust laws. People’s judgement that  whether a law is just depends on the personal experiences, social status, religious belief and so on, varying dramaticly from one to another. When the law is closely related to people’s interests, the divarication may be apprent. Take laws and regulations in China for examples, the law of marriage seems just for the heterosexual marriage, but it is unjust for the homosexual marriage; the regulations of registered permanent residence is just for individuals in cities in that people enjoy privileges for education if they are born in cities, but it is unjust for people born in the countryside. If people all judge the justice of laws by their own thinking, obeying the just laws they admit and disobeying or resisting the unjust laws they do not admit, what would our society be? Therefore, unless there is a uniform standard for individuals to examine the justice of a law, casual disobedience and resistance to “unjust” laws would lead to a chaos of the whole society.

Although there is not a uniform standard for all individuals to analyze justice, every individual has a personal standard, and if most people of the society consider a law is unjust, maybe the law itself indeed has something wrong. If the government fail to notice this and take effective measures, people in authoritarian countries do have the right to disobey and resist the law.  But people in democratic countries have much more effective solutions instead of abrupt disobedience or resistance of the law. People can submit their suggestion to the government and require the amendation of the law. Thereby people can express their dissatisfaction of the so-called unjust laws and turn to steady approaches to deal with them.

To sum up, people do not have a responsibility to disobey and resist the “unjust” laws, however, if a law cannot admitted by most people, they can do something to change the law themselves and solve the problem radically.

ironcatUID: 2119178

Does every individual in a society have a responsibility to obey just laws and, more importantly, to disobey unjust laws? As for me, people only have the responsibility to abide by laws, just or unjust, and if a law is judged as an unjust law, people could amend it through a more effective and safe method in democratic countries.

To begin with, people are not allowed (permitted) to disobey and resist the laws anywhere and anytime. As ordinances both (are) enacted by the nation and serve for the nation, laws are compusorily (compulsorily) carried out to ensure the stability of the whole society and the nation, no matter whether they are just or unjust. For instance, according to the traffic law, cars should not exceed the speed limit when droven (driven) on the speedway, no matter how magnificent the cars are and how skillful the drivers are. The law seemingly delay people’s job, but in fact, to some extent, it assures the low rate of accident. Viewing at this angle, people only have the responsibility to strictly obey the laws rather than to resist them.

Further, there does not exist a recognized standard differentiating (to differentiate) just laws and unjust laws. People’s judgement that  whether a law is just depends on the personal experiences, social status, religious belief and so on, varying dramatically from one to another. When the law is closely related to people’s interests, the divarication may be apprent. Take laws and regulations in China for examples, the law of marriage seems just for the heterosexual marriage, but it is unjust for the homosexual marriage; the regulations of registered permanent residence is just for individuals in cities in that people enjoy privileges for education if they are born in cities, but it is unjust for people born in the countryside. （觉得这两个例子是否有点不恰当，总觉得应该举例子说某个法律一部分人认为是合理的，另一部分人认为是不合理的，你好像没有表达出这个意思） If people all judge the justice of laws by their own thinking (criteria), obeying the just laws they admit and disobeying or resisting the unjust laws they do not admit (object), what would our society be? Therefore, unless there is a uniform standard for individuals to examine the justice of a law, casual disobedience and resistance to “unjust” laws would lead to a chaos of the whole society.

Although there is not (no) a uniform standard for all individuals to analyze justice, every individual has a personal standard, and if most people of the society consider a law is unjust, maybe the law itself indeed has something wrong. If the government fails to notice this and take effective measures, people in authoritarian countries do have the right to disobey and resist the law (and even overthrow this government).  But people in democratic countries have much more effective solutions instead of abrupt disobedience or resistance of the law. People can submit their suggestion to the government and require the amendation of the law. Thereby people can express their dissatisfaction of the so-called unjust laws and turn to steady approaches to deal with them.

To sum up, people do not have a responsibility to disobey and resist the “unjust” laws, (是吗？是你body表达的观点吗？) however, if a law cannot (be) admitted by most people, they can do something to change the law themselves and solve the problem radically. (感觉结尾是不是太简短了，总结不够或者写到后面时间来不及了)
第一次拍我女朋友以外的人，拍的不好，请楼主多包涵。你什么时候考啊？

fircattyUID: 166248

谢谢ironcat，我慢慢消化去~
我是8月9号的

fircattyUID: 166248

晕死~
有那么多低级错误，难为ironcat了，惭愧中~
为啥我的word就没有词句的监测功能呢？郁闷
自己看一遍都看不出来
你说的例子那块，确实，我真没想出有什么好的例子，主要法律学得太不好，sigh~~

ironcatUID: 2119178

你时间充裕些，努力吧:handshake！  我是没剩几天就要去挨上这一刀了。

edgarluUID: 203648

17"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."
提纲：
1无论什么样的法律都必须遵守
2不能凭个人判断just，unjust与否
3如果大多数人认为unjust，民主也可以通过更合理有效的方法解决
Does every individual in a society have a responsibility to obey just laws and, more importantly, to disobey unjust laws? As for me, people only have the responsibility to abide by laws, just or unjust, and if a law is judged as an unjust law, people could amend it through a more effective and safe method in democratic countries.

To begin with, people are not allowed to disobey and resist the laws anywhere and anytime. As ordinances both enacted by the nation and serve for the nation, laws are compusorily carried out to ensure the stability of the whole society and the nation, no matter whether they are just or unjust. For instance, according to the traffic law, cars should not exceed the speed limit when droven on the speedway, no matter how magnificent the cars are and how skillful the drivers are. The law seemingly delay people’s job, but in fact, to some extent, it assures the low rate of accident. Viewing at[from] this angle, people only have the responsibility to strictly obey the laws rather than to resist them.

Further, there does not exist[虽然语法无误，但最好不要这样用there be] a recognized standard differentiating just laws and unjust laws. People’s judgement that   [about] whether a law is just depends on the personal experiences, social status, religious belief and so on, varying dramaticly from one to another. When the law is closely related to people’s interests, the divarication may be apprent. Take laws and regulations in China for examples, the law of marriage seems just for the heterosexual marriage, but it is unjust for the homosexual marriage; the regulations of registered permanent residence is just for individuals in cities in that people enjoy privileges for education if they are born in cities, but it is unjust for people born in the countryside. If people all judge the justice of laws by their own thinking, obeying the just laws they admit and disobeying or resisting the unjust laws they do not admit, what would our society be [like]? Therefore, unless there is a uniform standard for individuals to examine the justice of a law, casual[casual在这里表“随便的”或者“不负责任的”意思感觉有点怪] disobedience and resistance to “unjust” laws would lead to a chaos of the whole society. [最后一句unless的好像有点问题，TS说根本没有这样的uniform standard，这里又何来除非？]

Although there is not a uniform standard for all individuals to analyze justice, every individual has a personal standard, and if most people of the society consider a law is unjust, maybe the law itself indeed has something wrong. If the government fail to notice this and [take ]effective measures, people in authoritarian countries do have the right to disobey and resist the law.  But people in democratic countries have much more effective solutions instead of abrupt disobedience or resistance of[to] the law. People can submit their suggestion to the government and require the amendation of the law. Thereby people can express their dissatisfaction of[with] the so-called unjust laws and turn to steady approaches to deal with them.
[TS没有能很好地概括全段观点]

To sum up, people do not have a responsibility to disobey and resist the “unjust” laws[have no responsibility to do sth.就是说，不做无所谓，做了还是可以地], however, if a law cannot admitted by most people, they can do something to change the law themselves and solve the problem radically. [最后一句话颇有疑义，radically可以表示“以极端激进的方式”，好像和楼主前文论证对不上。]

fircattyUID: 166248

改得好仔细，感动中~
谢谢
下午再反馈一下意见