- UID
- 782390
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-7-17
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
65 Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
（+）追求公正是值得赞扬的，正是这种精神推动人类文明的进步。
（-）但是反对抵制不公正的法律是不可行的。1 难以从个人角度判断是否just 2disobey是不明智的，即不会起到好的效果，还有可能伤害自己。
（-）如何面对法律的公正度：肯定对法律条文有合理的质疑；可以找到适当的途径发表言论，进行讨论
There is no doubt, for humans, that the spirit of pursuing just is a perfect quality which helps humans go to civilization on and on. However, when we try to tell whether some law is just, it's not a simple question which can be answered by one person. And the issue that the observation of a law is determined by the ‘justice’ of the law is too hasty.
Admittedly, we will loud the spirit of pursuing just because it is an attitude towards the 'brightness' of humans and it is such insistence in just that helps people progress in the road of civilization. As we all know that the great spirit mentors of the antique Greek, Socrates and Plato once talked much about 'just', recorded in Plato's <Utopia>. Their words and thoughts about just influenced people then a lot, and some artists and philosophers are keeping thinking about the topic, resulting in producing many great works about it. Then the question and the pursuit are spread around the world and keep humans in the direction for just till today.
However, the fact that we should pursue just doesn't equal to that we know exactly what 'just' means and whether some concrete thing is just. After all, even in <Utopia>, there is no exact answer to the question. Take an example of the mainstream value 'Personal interests should be subordinated to the collective interests'. To the socialists and collectivists, it is a just without doubt, but it defies the personal basic right for the human-rights activists, then it is unjust. Thus, there is no consistent idea about what just is among people with different positions, different values. Based on the discordance about just, it seems absurd to qualify 'law' with just, and even to judge whether some law is just.
There is another reason, besides the discordant understanding of just, for the unfeasibility to disobey and to resist unjust laws. Such a resistance can do nothing about the resolution about 'unjust', even it may disorder the society, as well as harming oneself. Because laws are being implemented in terms of force and arms, if one resists to obey some law or disobey some punish of laws, there is no result but get harms or detention. Even though there would exist some law which were considered unjust by all people, 'playing hardball' is unfeasible forever. What we should do is to find some effective and practical way in which most people can public their argues and where officials and lawmakers can listen to it.（觉得这段光是在讲道理，说呀说呀，干巴巴的，应该加例子~~~~(>_<)~~~~ ）
All in all the intention to pursue just and to defend it with behaviors is laudable, but rigorous measure and consideration for the feasibility of an impassioned suggestion is also indispensable. After all, distance and distinguish do exist between idea and reality. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-17 22:04:37
收藏
收藏
楼主
