ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1177|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[作文互改] ISSUE65 大神们求改

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2013-3-3 10:45:56 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
ISSUE 65: 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.

Once appearing in human society, debating about the fairness of law by authorities as well as ordinary people never suspend for even one day. For purpose of law, as is known to all, is to maintain and promote stability and harmony of society. Admittedly, to unjust law, we should not obey it unconditionally. However, there is no doubt that “absolute” law has not appeared up to now and it will not appear in the future. Shall we, you may wonder, obey only just law and resist unjust law?



To begin with, everyone have the right to resist irrational things including the law. Given an example, the history that black people are not allowed to sit dress circle of the bus ended up with Martin Luther King’s calling black people for striking for equal human rights with white ones. Likewise, law of slaughtering Jews, enacted by Nazi in the Second World War, ended up with peaceful people revolting for their own human rights. In short, people should resist unjust law and fight for their proper rights.

Nevertheless, fairness of a law depends on one’s personal interest as well as position. Consider, for example, an environmental law which regulates toxic effluent a certain factory can emit into a nearby river, is designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the law will be costly for the company and accordingly, profit of the factory will decline and lead it to lay off employees or even shut down. On the contrary, if the factory doesn’t comply with it, its profit goes up while the public health is faced with menace. To sum up, the fairness of law is subjective, depending to great extent how one’s interest is affected by it.

In the second place, disobeying unjust laws often has opposite effect of what was intended for or hoped for. For instance, our income taxation system is unfair in one respect or another. Yet the end of widespread disobedience, in this case tax evasion, is to perpetuate the system. As is known to all, law, which serves as the weapon of the society, is mandatory. Accordingly, any action try to avoid this weapon will counterproductive strengthen this weapon.




In the final analysis, we are supposed to obey just law while resist unjust law under rational precondition. Even though law cannot be just for everyone in the society, the law which can fit interest of majority of people will be an adequate law. As a result, law should be revised when time, position and condition change.
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2013-3-3 13:01:43 | 只看该作者
我觉得作者指出了矛盾,但是没有给出一个很清晰可行的解决方案。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2013-3-3 13:29:19 | 只看该作者
嗯,明白了,普渡哥,多谢指导!要是我这样改呢:在最后一段加上“我们应该从不同的角度和立场综合考虑这个问题”,再加上本来就有的“法律应该在时间、地点、条件改变的时候而改变”这样能否算一种完善的解决方案呢?
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-15 20:44
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部