issue6....O(∩_∩)O谢谢

JCBrenda

   

65. Every individual in a societyhas a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to whichyou 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 beused to challenge your position.


The speaker asserts that it is individuals’duty to hold their righteous attitudes towards the justness or unjustness oflaws. Admittedly, unjust laws will pose a threat to our society’s fairness anddemocracy, making us feel that it is not essential for us to follow it.However, the definition of justness and establishment process of a perfect law isso complicated that we cannot choose our actions on our own.

From one perspective, I concede that weshould disobey and refuse unfair laws. During the stage of amending this filesof laws, its content is changing and not fixed. If the government provideopportunities for citizens to offer suggestions, you can send your files to therelevant departments. If not and you want to fight for the nation’s democracyand freedom, taking advantage of mass media to attract populace’s attention isa good means, which will spread the disadvantages of the laws and force thedepartment to improve its flaws without being conflict with current functioninglaws and at the end of reaching your goals.

Nevertheless, I strongly disagree that peopleinformally determine their behaviors to laws because justness has enormous meaningsfrom various perspectives. First, according to normal definition in theconstitution, some laws whose natures are neutral are just regulations ofpeople’s behaviors to make the society full of order and make sure thateveryone won’t have the thought to do damage to others. For instance, it is forbiddenif you cross the street while the light is red. Someone think that it is unfairthat the light of the street I usual pass is red, which will endure a long timewhile others not. It is the person who give nature to the laws. And this is thesecond point I would like to discuss about. The criterion of justness or not istoo subjective for common people of different personal values to determine. If people all give a label to a lawaccording to their willingness and behave irrationally, the dominance of theauthority will not persist for too long. Consider, for example, in many religious countries, condemningsomeone to death is unable for them to tolerant while some think that only bykilling evil cultists can they live a safe and peaceful life. Hence,the fairness or not of laws have a lot to do withpeople’s values. Finally, to make additionto what talked about above, I have to mention that the final part of buildingthe laws system, the execution. When the police executive the laws, even if itis unfair, people must not disobey them. This statement make enormous readersuncomfortable. Yet   due to improvement of laws system, the completelyunjust laws is becoming less. If making conflict with laws, then the growingquantity of citizens will break the law they dislike, think unjust or elserandomly, generating the disorder of the whole society. Barely visualizing thephenomenon of that circumstance will alter your notion disobeying the unjustlaws.

To sum up, admittedly it is almost everyone’s nature toconfront the justness and unjustness of laws to protect our freedom anddemocracy. However, the implications of fairness and laws system contain toomany perspectives and details for us to take all of them into consideration. Itis a better solution to offer advice to it than to defy.

普渡哥

admittedly it is almost everyone’s nature to confront the justness and unjustness of laws to protect our freedom anddemocracy.

这句话有语法问题。