TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "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."
WORDS: 573 TIME: 0:45:00 DATE: 2006-8-22
According to the speaker, each people should not only obey just laws but also disobey the unjust ones. But I hold an opposite view insofar as that there is no difference between the "just" and "unjust" laws, and it is harmful for the society to disobey some "unjust", in someone's opinion, laws.
As I see it, there are three fundamental arguments for supporting my claim that it is unwarranted to tell unjust laws from just ones. One of them has to do with the standard of fair. At any rate, no matter whether the laws are 'just' or 'unjust', they are the very standard of fair. On other words, obeying laws is just, while disobeying is unjust, which is the basically sense of law what we citizen should have indeed.
The second argument has to do with the individual value. The value changes ,of cause, from individual to individual, and whether the laws are just or not also changes for person to person. For instance, a law to restrict the noisy in the city will be regarded as just by the listener but unjust by the noisy maker. Now how to evaluate this law? Certainly, it is just, as common sense tells us.
The third one is a developmental view that a laws is 'unjust', to some one, maybe become a just before long. As we know, the human rights of black looked as a unjust one by the white in the last century but became more and more just nowadays. Although some one will arguers, of cause, that it is far-fetched, historians and politicians tell us that is the case.
What is more, the thought of disobeying some laws, which we consider unjust, is dangerous to the society and nation in two compelling arguments. The first is on the individual level. Whichever law is established to prevent most, at least some, of the public's rights, which will be broke by the actions to disobey the "unjust" laws of some one. An example could be cited to illustrate this argument that we want not to hand in the tax. But if none hands in the tax, our nation's tax income will reduce sharply, then the public building stops certainly which bring us the discommodious ness in daily life. That is not the result we want at all. To keep all of our rights from infringing, we must obey all the laws established by the government.
The second argument, and the one that I find most cogent, is on the society level. Disobeying any laws will damage the stability of our society. It is entirely possible that the laws lose their power to restrict people from some actions when I obey this law and you obey anther. Anyway the authority of government must not be overlooked, which is the key to keep the stability of the society.
To sum up, the issue of obey or disobey some laws is a complex one, but I insist on the attitude that we must obey all the laws established by our nation, although some of them seems unjust to some one. Maybe it is the legislators who due to solve this problem but not we at any rate. On the other hand, the issue is easy indeed for the function of laws is set up the standard of fair. Furthermore, the issue is affirmed insofar as it is the fundamental way to keep the stability of our society.
A za a za fighting ....