ISSUE 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.
According to the statement, the speaker asserts that it is everyone’s duty to obey just laws, at the same time, disobey and resist unjust laws. I agree his statement to some extent. Yet, strictly followed, in some cases, some kinds of laws could not be discriminated from just laws and unjust ones.
Admittedly, every individual should obey just laws, which keeps a stable and orderly society. Consider, for instance, almost every country and region set traffic lights at crossroads and relative laws are required to be obeyed. If people disobey these laws, the traffic will be in a mess and even the society will be chaotic. Besides, it is some sort of unjust laws that should be disobeyed or resisted for the sake of justice. Apt examples involve that Hitler established several laws which could be regarded as unjust laws in the period of World War II. Under the control of these laws, scads of the Jews were imprisoned and killed. So these laws could be anything but justice. Still, some people with a sense of justice in Germany and other countries disobeyed the laws and help the Jews hide in safe places regardless of the risk of their own lives. If it were not for the resistance to these laws and Hitler, no triumph of World War II will be achieved.
However, whether a law is just or not is rarely a straightforward issue. In some circumstances, every individual can not discriminate from just laws and unjust ones. Due to the discrepancy of cultures and social values, different countries have diverse criterions to judge the justness of laws. For example, in Singapore, an item of laws prohibits local citizens as well as foreigners chewing gums in the avenues and public areas. If someone who comes from China
chews gums in Singapore, then he will be imprisoned. Although he views this sort of laws as unjust because his homeland does not restrict the freedom of chewing gums in the streets and public places, the local citizens regard it as just on account of the neatness and beauty of their country.
In addition to, due to the discrepancy of interests, different groups have various standards to judge the fairness of laws. Consider, for example, a law with respect to the protection of the environment that forbids the noxious and chemical gas produced by a certain factory being emitted into the sky. Such laws are designed mainly to protect public health. But complying with the law, the factory could not make any production; the employer might not have any choice but lay off employees and shut down the factory altogether. The interests of employees and the employer are damaged resulting from this law which be regarded as unjust in their eyes. While the citizens who are nearby the factory support the fairness of this law for having clean and healthy air breathing. In the light, there is not an identical criterion to judge the fairness of laws in some circumstances. Our judgments on whether a specific law is just or not, which are as distinct as fingerprints.
To sum up, I concede that there incontroversially exist just and unjust laws that every one has a responsibility to obey just ones and disobey unjust ones. However, some kind of laws which can not be discriminated from just laws and unjust ones at the first sight should be analyzed case by case.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-2-9 22:05:19
收藏
收藏
楼主
