issue17 Gter四月''无名''小组第33次作业-Expire7

expire7UID: 2160574

TOPIC：ISSUE 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."
WORDS：613          TIME：上午 12:39:05          DATE：2006-3-20

People should obey just laws and resist unjust laws, for laws are composed of just ones and unjust ones, as the speaker said. On balance, although in some sense I concede that many laws are not proper in modern society, the speaker goes too extremely, when it comes to overemphasize disobeying and resisting those inappropriate laws.

The threshold reason why I fundamentally disagree with the contention of the speaker is that in nowadays some problems mixed with new factors can not be solved by original laws in the past. In this era of rapidly developing in economy and society leading to increasing more and more personal and social problems, and enhancing the complexity of human lives, certainly, people will feel and experience some laws that can not handle and address those old problems in new conditions. Consider, for example, the scientific discoveries and technologies. In recent decades, new inventions and methods are created and devised everyday. Comparing with the velocity of new technologies, our politics can not immediately react changes in society and enact laws to restrict and handle some inherently problems evoked by those technologies. It is undoubted that laws lag behind technologies that bring many debates and issues. Since the procedure of enacting laws is complicate and delicate, people will hesitate that some laws are unjust, when they encounter some problems can not be good mitigated by existed laws.

The second reason why I tend to suspect the speaker's statement is that there is not a meet means to judge whether some law is just or not. How can we consider one law is just, the other is unjust? Hardly can we find a right means to accomplish this task. Weather one law can save benefits of the majority of people is the just one. It is possible that those people unjustly restricted in the minority will receive terrible harm. As a matter of fact, under some circumstances, personal value, experience and subjectivity will influence people to judge laws. There is an example can illustrate this point: when a business man want to achieve greater share in the market, he sometimes thinks some laws are unjust. As his behaviors are beyond the bound of laws, though he hold the view that his ways are right in personal subjective standpoint.

In addition, in my observance, people ought to obey laws and expect to politics to modulate those unfair or outmoded ones. Even though some laws can not suit for new century, people can not consciously disobey and resist those laws to show their discontent. For example, the Internet brings many problems to our society, but some countries have not found good laws to control and regulate it. If anyone, who lost privacy in it, would want to revenge others in that there is not law to save them, the environment of the Internet would be damaged.

On the other hand, when some laws are indeed unjust to human lives, people should utilize proper methods to call for revolution and changes. It is true that people should not only accept the terrible situation no matter how bad it is. But, they should apply positive ways to ask for adjust and enact new laws, not depending largely on disobeying and resisting unjust laws.

To sum up, due to analysis above and relevant examples, there is no doubt that people will safely draw to conclusion that with the development of society, some laws lag behind our varying world and incite discontent and annoy from people. However, in order to benefit people themselves, they should find right way to display their opinions and thoughts, and thus they can not use negative methods--inobservance and resistance.

cyclone011UID: 2198637

People should obey just laws and resist unjust laws, for laws are composed of just ones and unjust ones, as the speaker said. On balance, although in some sense I concede that many laws are not proper in modern society, the speaker goes too extremely, when it comes to overemphasize disobeying and resisting those inappropriate laws.

The threshold reason why I fundamentally disagree with the contention of the speaker is that in nowadays some problems mixed with new factors can not be solved by original laws in the past. In this era of rapidly developing in economy and society leading to increasing more and more personal and social problems, and enhancing the complexity of human lives, certainly, people will feel and experience some laws that can not handle and address those old problems in new conditions. （as the rapid development in economy and society, there is so many personal and social problems occurred to us that it inevitablely to deepen the complexity of human lives. No wonder people increasingly realize that some laws have not been able to deal with the problems we meet now） that  Consider, for example, the scientific discoveries and technologies. In recent decades, new inventions and methods are created and devised everyday. Comparing with the velocity of new technologies, our politics can not immediately react(改 为response to) changes in society and enact laws to restrict and handle some inherently problems evoked by those technologies.[句子不连贯，我的建议句形 people even can’t immediately response to the changes brought by the technology, let alone enact laws to restrict the problems evoked by those technologies] It is undoubted that laws lag behind technologies that bring many debates and issues.（删掉，多余）Since the procedure of enacting laws is complicate and delicate, people will hesitate that some laws are unjust, when they encounter some problems can not be good mitigated by existed laws.


The second reason why I tend to suspect the speaker's statement is that there is not a meet means to judge whether some law is just or not. How can we consider one law is just,（while）the other is unjust? Hardly can we find a right means to accomplish this task. Weather one law can save benefits of the majority of people is the just one.(这句怪怪的) It is possible that those people unjustly restricted in the minority will receive terrible harm. As a matter of fact, under some circumstances, personal value, experience and subjectivity will influence people to judge laws. There is an example （which）can illustrate this point: when a business man want to achieve greater share in the market, he sometimes thinks some laws are unjust. As his behaviors are beyond the bound of laws, though he hold the view that his ways are right in personal subjective standpoint.

In addition, in my observance, people ought to obey laws and expect to politics to modulate those unfair or outmoded ones. Even though some laws can not suit for new century, people can not consciously disobey and resist those laws to show their discontent. For example, the Internet brings many problems to our society, but some countries have not found good laws to control and regulate it. If anyone, who lost privacy in it, would want to revenge others in that there is not law to save them, the environment of the Internet would be damaged.

On the other hand, when some laws are indeed unjust to human lives, people should utilize proper methods to call for revolution and changes. It is true that people should not only accept the terrible situation no matter how bad it is. But, they should apply positive ways to ask for adjust and enact new laws, not depending largely on disobeying and resisting unjust laws.

To sum up, due to analysis above and relevant examples, there is no doubt that people will safely draw to conclusion that with the development of society, some laws lag behind our varying world and incite discontent and annoy from people. However, in order to benefit people themselves, they should find right way to display their opinions and thoughts, and thus they can not use negative methods--inobservance and resistance.

[ 本帖最后由 cyclone011 于 2006-3-20 23:07 编辑 ]