ISSUE17【0706G－~4而后生~小组】第5次作业 by nap 有拍必回

napUID: 196976

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: 588->497          TIME: 0:41:16          DATE: 2007-3-17 Updated!

The assertion argues that every one should only obey just laws. As far as I am concerned, because of the ambiguity of the law and the potential serious result it is law makers that should decide whether a certain law is just or not and we citizens should only obey it. On the other hand, if the law heavily damages a part of people’s interests and only cater for another group of people, the former part of people should disobey it.

Since the standard of determining whether a law is just is ambiguous, it is difficulty to unjust laws from normal laws. The standard varies from time to time. Whether a law is just or not is the conclusion of the people's views which has been changing with the development of culture. The set of religion laws is an example. In the middle age, most of the laws were from the bible. Though to us these laws may be very strange, because at that time the law and the religion is combined and most of people believed in it, those people of old age tended to believe it was reasonable. On the other hand, whether a law is just or not also largely depends on the position of different group of people. Suppose that if there is a factory which contaminates the local environment. If the local government make laws to order the factory to deal with the contamination, though it is a favor to the local residents, it harm the interests of the factory for they should spend a lot of money on bring in environment tools and consequently the salary of the works may fall. Despite the fact that the law seems just to the residents, it is likely to be unjust to the factory. Because of the ambiguity, people can not easily establish a standard to distinguish unjust laws and just laws.

Because the laws are the combine of interests of different group, people should all obey it regardless whether it harms their interests. Disobeying seemingly unjust laws, however, may lead to serious result. Because people who are repugnant to one thing may tend to diminish the unjust effect, the most probable result of the disobeying seemingly unjust ones may be that the supporters attack the probable criminal. If the unjust law opponents indulge their actions, the society will be full of damage.

However, to some extent, people should disobey obvious unjust laws. With the development of the society, there always were some laws that were proved to be unjust. Martin Luther King is such one that disobeys the unjust law. Since laws heavily break the interests of the blacks, M. L. King stir up the blacks to antagonize these unjust laws and finally succeed.

In sum, because of the fact that determine whether a certain law is ambiguous and disobeying it may lead to serious result, people should obey it. Additionally, people should involve in persuading changing these laws while comply with them.



感觉这是我写的最混乱的文章了。但结构也就到这个水平了。

我的几个例子和逻辑关系应该都有问题因为我不擅长写法律类文章尤其是考虑到有如此多的法律术语和感念我不知道，希望大家帮我分析一下我如何改进逻辑关系，谢谢。
还有大家讨论一下花多少时间检查拼写错误最好，以大家的经验。

[ 本帖最后由 nap 于 2007-3-21 12:24 编辑 ]

hezhifei2008UID: 2233976

The assertion argues that every one should only obey just laws. As far as I am concerned, because of the ambiguity of the law and the potential serious result it is law makers that should decide whether a certain law is just or not and we citizens should only obey it.

The standard of determining whether a law is just is ambiguous. The standard varies from time to time. Whether a law is just or not is the conclusion of the people's views which has been changing with the development of culture. The set of religion laws is an example. In the middle age, most of the laws were from the bible. Though to us these laws may be very strange, because at that time the law and the religion is combined and most of people believed in it, those people of old age tended to believe it was reasonable. There was a law, as an example of religion law, argued that if someone said something contradicting the items of the Bible, he or she should be burned. Despite the cruelty, people at that time thought it was just. Further more, some laws today may even be viewed as cruelty for the future people. The laws that permit clone are potential ones.许可克隆cruel吗？ If these laws will cause some serious results in the future, the people at that time may forbid these ones and think we are unreasonable. However, as the views of us, these laws may be just.克隆今天也是有限制和争议的吧，而且好像和公平不公平有点距离

Besides, the standard largely depends on the culture. There are many kinds of cultures and they always own a quite incompatible thought with other ones. Because the attitude to the law is essentially based on the ideology of people and the latter is formed locally, people from different place tend to think differently to one matter. Someone may think one thing is reasonable while another one who is from an quite different culture may find it hard to accept. Multi-gamy, for example, is unreasonable in many countries. In some Arab countries, however, it is just. Because of these traditional different views, an Arabian man may not be in favor of the fact that in the United States, he should not marry with more than one wife.

In addition, disobeying seemingly unjust laws may lead to serious result. Because people who are repugnant to one thing may tend to damage it, the most probable result of the disobeying seemingly unjust ones may be that the supporters attack the probable criminal. In a certain time, the KKK party is very popular in the United States. In the view of them that allowing the American African with the equal statues with the White is unjust and sequentially they published their view to the public. However, after a short time, they break the Black's shops and attack these people. Thus, the overall United States was in a mass: many policemen were fighting with the KKK partisans and the whole society was in a nervous feeling. Not only are the KKK parties but also there many opponents of certain laws attacking with the policemen.我觉得题目说的不公平法律主要还是指真的在某些方面存在不公的法律，而不是从这种角度理解，看起来这段还是潜在的站在对事物认识的不同角度来说的，不大切题

However, to some extent, people should involve in judging whether a law is just or not though they should at the same time obey it. With the development of the society, there always were some laws that were proved to be unjust and people tended to forbid them. Though people should not disobey them, they can publish their thought. Martin Luther King is such one. In spite of the discriminatory laws, he let the Blacks not take buses which is not disobeying any laws. With these efforts the laws were fixed and they won the war.

In sum, because of the fact that determine whether a certain law is ambiguous and disobeying it may lead to serious result, people should obey it. Additionally, people should involve in persuading changing these laws while considering them legal.
对于法律是否有公平之分的问题，好像不是issue探讨的问题，更像是argument的逻辑错误，用2大段来说这个有点浪费，但你的例子是很好的，使我不得不佩服，你总有好多好例子支持你的观点。这篇文章总体感觉是游走在话题的边缘，没有探讨出题人本来的意图。看你自己的说法好像对这类题目有点畏惧，可是像你这莫高超的作者都这样说，我这样的就不用写了，不一定要用多少法律名词，把逻辑搞搞清，一定能写出很棒的文章，我可是向都来很佩服你噢
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-631210-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 hezhifei2008 于 2007-3-20 00:52 编辑 ]

insideUID: 2303230

讨论一个法律到底是否公平的目的是建立一个评价体系，然后在这个体系中进行评判人们是否应当在遵守公平法律的同时，违背不公平的法律。体系的不同，结论也是不同。

你花了两大段建立这个体系，却没有按这个体系的标准来进行评判，在结构和论述上是有问题的。

你的主要观点是不能不遵守不公平的法律，可你只举了一个原因说它会导致严重后果。在论证上稍显力薄。

此外，最后一句话没看懂。

insideUID: 2303230

针对第二稿：

我先来分析一下你的逻辑，呵呵，然后再来看问题：

你先说公平与否对不同的人来说，答案是不同的。比如文化不同的人对公平的看法不同，比如不同团体可能有不同的利益。

然后你说，因为法律代表了不同团体的利益，所以人们都需要不考虑自己利益地去遵守它们。然而，不遵守表面上不公平的法律，会导致严重后果。你举3K党的例子，说他们认为让黑人拥有和白人一样的权利是不公平的，这个法律伤害了3K党的利益，所以他们反对它，并导致了严重后果。（in a mass经我多方查证貌似应该是in a mess，我原先一直看不懂）

最后你说，人们应该在遵守法律的前提下同时考虑这个法律是否公平。举例说金让黑人们不坐那些不违反（绕）法律的公共汽车。（言外之意大概是去坐那些违反法律的汽车）

有这么几个问题值得商榷：

1、3K党到底违背了什么不公平的法律？如果你说他们违背了应该公平看待黑人和白人的法律的话，那言外之意就是你认为这个法律是不公平的，这会让人感到你有种族歧视倾向。其次，即使按照你所定义的，不同团体的利益会有不同，他们就是认为这个法律不公平，那么由于3K党带有黑社会的性质，所以我觉得你这个举例不具有一般代表性，比较极端，因为导致最后混乱局面的很可能不是因为他们的违反，而是因为他们是黑社会。你在主题句中说“ people should all obey it regardless whether it harms their interests”，你应该举一个一般性的People，而不是3K党这样的特殊People。比如一个人认为汽车税不合法，那么他不交税了，这会不会导致混乱等等。

2、人们在遵守不公平法律的同时考虑它是否公平，这样做的目的是什么？你没有明确说出来。实际就是为了改变不公平的现状。你举的金的例子，我觉得恰恰说反了。金实际是公民反抗运动的支持者，他恰恰是主张非暴力不合作的，这在美国人心目中是有共识的，你不要试图颠覆他们的这种观念。你说他让黑人不坐符合法律的汽车，这不恰恰说明了他对不公平法律的违反嘛！！只不过这种违反是非暴力的。

3、关于法律是否公平的评判那段，我没有仔细看。因为那不是本文最重要的部分。

如上。。

[ 本帖最后由 inside 于 2007-3-21 09:43 编辑 ]