Issue180 【0906G 文以载道三月四月小组】第四周第一次作业 by NormalFuJen

NormalFuJenUID: 2571208

Issue 180
"Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated."

现代社会的很多问题是法律和立法系统无法解决的，因为道德行为是无法用法律约束的。

提纲：
态度：
   个人层面上的赞成，在商业领域上反对。

开头：
   同意这个论调：因为个人上的很多道德问题无法通过立法解决，但是商业层面上的道德问题必须通过立法解决。
第一段：
   侵犯个人自由选择权的法律是很难有效的。
       例如：1930年代的禁酒令
             以及安乐死
第二段
   以对社会大众好的名义制定的法律效果不佳，因为代价比收益大
       例如：禁洒的话带来的影响
             以保护动物名义禁止皮毛交易
第三段
   在商业领域，需要道德立法
       例如：如果没有强制立法的话工厂不会主动增加成本来降低污染
             如果没有强制立法，就会有动用童工来减少成本
结尾

The speaker claims that many laws are ineffective in solving society's problems because moral behavior cannot be legislated.  Considering aspects of the personal freedom, I agree with this assertion. However, when it comes to the level of conducting business behavior, I tend to the view point that moral behavior should be legislated to alleviate some societal problems.

Morality laws with the idea of conducting what we should do and what we should not while impinging upon the freedom of choice of us simply do not work in a democratic society.  People will try to find any possible way to circumvent such laws, which finally will give way to other more lenient laws which acknowledge personal freedom of choice. A paradigmatic example of this is the failed Prohibition experiment of the 1920s which focused on limiting the drinking of American. However, the Prohibition did not allow people to drink with friends in a party, making the parties held that time bored.  With the opposition of many citizens, the national wide Prohibition of alcohol ended in 1933, giving most American the rights of drinking freely. Another example to support this viewpoint is the current trends toward legalization of Euthanasia.  Doctor who helps his patient suicide would be accused of murder in the past. However, Euthanasia is now legal in many European countries. In short, history tells us that legislating morality merely for morality's sake simply does not work.

Morality laws impinging upon personal freedoms will be ineffective by purporting to serve the greater good of society because the costs overweigh the benefits on balance. Taking the failed Prohibition experiment of the 1920s as a example again. The purpose of the law was to forbid too much drinking in the society, making drinking with friends and in parties illegal. I concede that too much drinking brought up many problems: increased incidence of domestic violence, increased burden on our health-care and social-welfare systems, and decreased productivity of sots. However, the lawmakers overlooked the fact that the many people were not addictive to alcohol but enjoyed drinking a little with friends after work. The Prohibition compelled people to hold secret parties to drink with friends and resort to illegal means to get alcohol as they could not be able to buy alcohol in legal ways. In the end, alcohol smuggle was popular, harming the economy of the society. Another similar example is the forbiddance of fur trade with the idea of protecting wild animals. The demand of fur coat of people will lead to the popularity of fur smuggle, making harm to the domestic economy. In short, the costs overweight the benefit.

In sharp contrast to personal behavior, the behavior of businesses can and must be legislated. Without the controls of laws, if left unfettered, businesses tend to chase for the maximal financial interests, leaving the interest of society aside. For example, although the advancement of technology has made the elimination of polluting emissions from factories possible, the manufacturers are unwilling to improve their product line and use the environment-protecting machines as they will cause much, leading the increase of their costs. Without the legislation of forbidding the employment of child labor, manufacturers will tend to employ underage workers to reduce their labor costs, thereby increase profits; without the legislation of ensuring the basic working environment, employers will not pay much attention to the improvement of the working environment of employees, for the purpose of reducing extra costs. In short, only the legislation could ensure moral business behavior.

In sum, whether legislating morality is effective or not depends on whether the behavior involved personal freedom or public interests. The morality legislations of personal freedoms is neither effective nor proper in a democratic society while those conducting businesses are effective and necessary considering the public health and safety.

nohevenUID: 2447539

我的修改如下：
Issue 180
"Many problems of modern society cannot be solved by laws and the legal system because moral behavior cannot be legislated."
现代社会的很多问题是法律和立法系统无法解决的，因为道德行为是无法用法律约束的。
提纲：
态度：
   个人层面上的赞成，在商业领域上反对。
开头：
   同意这个论调：因为个人上的很多道德问题无法通过立法解决，但是商业层面上的道德问题必须通过立法解决。
第一段：
   侵犯个人自由选择权的法律是很难有效的。
       例如：1930年代的禁酒令
             以及安乐死
第二段
   以对社会大众好的名义制定的法律效果不佳，因为代价比收益大
       例如：禁洒的话带来的影响
             以保护动物名义禁止皮毛交易
第三段
   在商业领域，需要道德立法
       例如：如果没有强制立法的话工厂不会主动增加成本来降低污染
             如果没有强制立法，就会有动用童工来减少成本
结尾
The speaker claims that many laws are ineffective in solving society's problems because moral behavior cannot be legislated.  Considering aspects of the personal freedom, I agree with this assertion. However, when it comes to the level of conducting business behavior, I tend to the view point that moral behavior should be legislated to alleviate some societal problems.  (这个开头和Argument太像，ETS不是很倾向于这样的开头哦。建议换个说法)

Morality laws with the idea of conducting what we should do and what we should not while impinging upon the freedom of choice of us simply do not work in a democratic society.  People will try to find any possible way to circumvent such laws, which finally will give way to other more lenient laws which acknowledge personal freedom of choice. A paradigmatic example of this is the failed Prohibition experiment of the 1920s which focused on limiting the drinking of American. However, the Prohibition did not allow people to drink with friends in a party, making the parties held that time bored.  With the opposition of many citizens, the national wide Prohibition of alcohol ended in 1933, giving most American the rights of drinking freely. Another example to support this viewpoint is the current trends toward legalization of Euthanasia.  Doctor who helps his patient suicide would be accused of murder in the past. However, Euthanasia is now legal in many European countries. In short, history tells us that legislating morality merely for morality's sake simply does not work.
(禁酒令的例子本身比较特别，但是和北美范文里的同题作文用一样的特别例子，个人认为不是很妥；安乐死的例子应该加以引申和进一步分析)

Morality laws impinging upon personal freedoms will be ineffective by purporting to serve the greater good of society because the costs overweigh the benefits on balance. Taking the failed Prohibition experiment of the 1920s as a （an） example again. The purpose of the law was to forbid too much drinking in the society, making drinking with friends and in parties illegal. I concede that too much drinking brought up many problems: increased incidence of domestic violence, increased burden on our health-care and social-welfare systems, and decreased productivity of sots. However, the lawmakers overlooked the fact that the many people were not addictive to alcohol but enjoyed drinking a little with friends after work. The Prohibition compelled people to hold secret parties to drink with friends and resort to illegal means to get alcohol as they could not be able to buy alcohol in legal ways. In the end, alcohol smuggle was popular, harming the economy of the society. Another similar example is the forbiddance of fur trade with the idea of protecting wild animals. The demand of fur coat of people will lead to the popularity of fur smuggle, making harm to the domestic economy. In short, the costs overweight the benefit.（这一段和上一段的关系不是很明确，上一段似乎已将禁酒令作为一个简略的例子带过了，这里再次展开，与上文有一定联系和对比应该会更好）

In sharp contrast to personal behavior, the behavior of businesses can and must be legislated. Without the controls of laws, if left unfettered, businesses tend to chase for the maximal financial interests, leaving the interest of society aside. For example, although the advancement of technology has made the elimination of polluting emissions from factories possible, the manufacturers are unwilling to improve their product line and use the environment-protecting machines as they will cause much, leading the increase of their costs. Without the legislation of forbidding the employment of child labor, manufacturers will tend to employ underage workers to reduce their labor costs, thereby increase profits; without the legislation of ensuring the basic working environment, employers will not pay much attention to the improvement of the working environment of employees, for the purpose of reducing extra costs. In short, only the legislation could ensure moral business behavior.（这两个例子的推论都有点绝对化了，其实还可能有别的情况，可以做对比）

In sum, whether legislating morality is effective or not depends on whether the behavior involved personal freedom or public interests. The morality legislations of personal freedoms is neither effective nor proper in a democratic society while those conducting businesses are effective and necessary considering the public health and safety.
（这篇文章似乎太“北美范文”了，建议作者对题目多做一些思考和不同角度的分析）