authur Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Hi, everyone Please send your comments on this essay of mine. Thanks AUTHUR. __________________________________________________ Topic: "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." Chatting with my friends, we usually talk about and comment on the recent cases. Among those comments, "just law" and "unjust law" are two of the most frequently words that appear. Can the laws really be categorized into just laws and unjust laws? Some feel laws have two types - just and unjust, and we have the duty to obey just laws and disobey and resist unjust laws. However, the laws should not and could not be labeled as just laws or unjust laws; people’s standards of justness are different from individual to individual; if we disobey and resist the so-called unjust laws we will lead our society to chaos. Many proponents of categorizing laws are those who falsely regard laws as a tool to protect every individual' interests. In their eyes, if one law let their interests get impaired, then the law is unjust laws. However, what they fail to recognize is that the law, essentially, is authority’s tool to keep our society in order and protect the majority residents' interests, rather than the tool to protect every individual's interests. We should not think the laws unjust as long as our own interests are not protected by the laws, as our society does not have just laws or unjust laws; what we have is the law we should obey. Neither the laws can be labeled as unjust and just from its essence, nor can our residents achieve an agreement on which laws are just and which laws are unjust. The standards of justness differ from individual to individual, because people judge the law basing on their respective interests and knowledge, and their respective interests play a major role in this process of judging law's justness. Thus it is normally to find that one interests group regards the law just, while another interests group will regard it unjust. For example, suppose the environment law requires a chemistry factory, which is emitting poisonous water into the river and exerting negative effects on the local residents, to shut down. The workers in the factory will regard the law unjust, as it leads them to losing job; while the local residents will think the law just, as it protects their local environment. The so-called "just and unjust" is people's subjective opinion; thereby they fail to be taken as a standard to judge laws. People should not falsely judge law according to their respective standards of justness; and if they disobey and resist those so-called laws, our society will be thrown into chaos. Imagine that if people regard the traffic law is unjust, encountering the red lights, they will not stop their cars and just drive across the road. What will our traffic turn into? The number of traffic accidents will surge, a increasing number of innocent people will be killed. Is this outcome what those pursuing justness people deserve? I am afraid not. Our society' harmony is based on people obeying the laws, no matter whether you think the laws are just or not. It is unreasonable to categorize the law into just laws and unjust laws. As a part of the society, we have the responsibility to obey all the laws, which are guarantees for our society's harmony. If we feel some laws are unreasonable, the appropriate means we should take is to inform the situation to the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myshkin Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 This is another very good essay, offering a clearly defined and well-supported view. The reasoning is crystal clear and the sentence structure is nicely varied, so it definitely merits a high score. Well done! When writing an issue analysis, one helpful thing to look for: an opportunity to briefly explore the opposite viewpoint. Doing so will add to the persuasive power of your analysis by demonstrating that you have honestly considered both sides of the issue. In this case, you might devote a few sentences to discussing the recent gains in civil rights that have been achieved by people who resisted unjust laws:Civil and political rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When civil and political rights are not guaranteed to all as part of equal protection of laws, social unrest may ensure. Civil rights movements over the last 60 years have resulted in an extension of civil and political rights... in what way should employment discrimination in the private sector...As you wrote in your essay: "The so-called 'just and unjust' is people's subjective opinion; thereby they fail to be taken as a standard to judge laws." That is certainly true, and you make a good point here. But keep in mind that the laws of a society are always written by human beings, and thus there is always the chance that subjectivity (biases, prejudices, etc.) will influence the law-making process, and that some of the society's laws will therefore be detrimental to the environment or to large groups of people. But again, you've shown some very good writing skills, and should definitely get a high score on your essay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhongjs Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 If people can't disobey and resist unjust laws,can you come up with what should they do if they feel the laws are not fair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wangming Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Just like the revolution of America, English tax heavy on the colony, leading to the rebellion of American people, to disobey the unjust law, and resist for their own interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.