GRE写作Issue范文——比较类（四）

题目：
    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.

范文：
    Since the construction of a society, there have been conventions. Every later law has been delineated by the convention it derived from. Though homogeneous with convention in intention, law has a distinct form and different effect. A law is a written indication, ruling people’s action and leading the society towards certain orientation. As the conventions go, a just law can protect the right of the majority of people, insuring their interest, and unjust ones cannot. To obey just laws sure is the accountability for very social member. However, what determines whether a law is just, progressive or unjust, degenerated, and so whether we should obey it or roar to destroy it is relatively a more complicated thing. Sweeping assaults at the considered unjust laws may thus be presumptuous.
    To obey the just law is certainly necessary. Laws and conventions are the constructions with which the society can be coherent and progressive. Human is a social animal, every member at any time comes to the point where people’s thoughts or interests conflict. In that case, to follow the law is the proper way to meet those conflicts and insure the inner consistence of the group. To abide by the law is a right as well as a duty. Rousseau, the famous philosopher once said, “Laws are such things following which people could give some of their freedom in and protect the larger freedom, and they protects themselves by this behavior as well.” The discursive and unruly nature of men indicate there to be some force to gather people, thus a group as the type of a society could be coherent and progressive.
    The phenomenon of unjust laws is a more implicit thing. Social situation is periodical. Some unjust laws, though sometimes only care for the interest of a minority, can lead the society to an appropriate way. We cannot simply sweep assaults at the unjust law before contemplate its social limitation. Take the feudal society, for example. Law in the feudal society surly only protected the rights of the governing class. Some may draw conclusion simply from the appalling cruelty the majority had suffered that it would be an extreme unjust one and should be abominated thousands of years. Yet this conclusion ignores so basic a problem of social productivity that it becomes presumptuous. Laws in the feudal society could be periodically ideal according to its limitation, the productivity determined democracy and just laws to be a distinct impossibility, and to gather resource to a minority of people thus became a necessary way. Some unjust laws, say, the laws of Nazis are, absolute abhorrent even anti-human, and should be devastated, but unjust laws may has complicated social and periodical meaning. We should cogitate before act.
    Nowadays, the boundary between unjust laws and just laws becomes very vague, to judge becomes difficult even impossible. For incidence, the law of birth ruling in China can be regarded a ruin of human natural rights as well as a protection for a better future. This conjunction reveals the embarrassment people encounter in terms of justness, thus the notion we should disobey the unjust laws is rendered meaningless.
    The accountability to obey just laws is undeniable. Yet unjust laws are not necessarily ought to be destroyed. The puzzle whether we should obey it or roar to destroy it is relatively a more complicated thing. Rather than assault at the considered unjust laws, we should combine the social situation and contemplate twice before action.

       微信“扫一扫”，考试资讯早知道。真题机经、考前预测、精准题库、地道解析，应有尽有。
        关注“新通学霸团”回复“姓名+电话”即享20元话费。
        如有疑问，欢迎联系在线老师，或拨打新通教育免费热线。