2. 职称英语
  3. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to diso

Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to diso

游客2024-01-12  7
问题 Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you 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 be used to challenge your position.
选项
答案 Throughout history the conflict between one’s own judgment and the judgment of the lawmakers has given rise to many conflicts, wars and revolutions. In that context, the claim that individuals should follow their own sense of righteousness by opposing laws that are in their opinion unfair and following laws that are fair is justified. Since individual judgment is subjective, however, I cannot completely agree with the claim. One of the negative consequences of blindly following a state’s laws becomes clear when one considers authoritarian, ideologically extreme and fundamentalist countries. It is highly likely that power-hungry and oppressive governments like Nazi Germany are not founded on and buttressed by the most ethical laws. For example, when my grandfather was stationed with the German army in the Czech Republic in 1945, he
was tasked with executing five Czech partisans. As a soldier, he should have followed orders and could have been sent to prison or executed himself if he disobeyed. He managed to convince his superior that his pistol was rusty and would not fire and thereby saved the lives of the partisans by disobeying a direct order. When a state’s laws are in conflict with basic human codes of ethics, therefore, it becomes clear that one should disobey orders.
Not all laws, however, violate human rights, so the decision to follow or oppose them is not black and white. In some cases a subjective sense of what is right might actually oppose a collective sense of what is right. For instance, I remember arguing with my parents while in 5th grade in school that, based on my antipathy towards school at the time, I had a right to freedom and should not be obliged to go to school. In fact, going to school is required by law in Germany, and I was arguing to break the law based on my own set of principles and rights. Since a sense of righteousness can be subjective, it is sometimes reasonable to accept laws that benefit the whole of society as well as the individual - even if the individual is not willing to accept that as a universal truth.
I furthermore can’t completely agree with the claim with respect to the statement that society should obey "just" laws. There are certainly circumstances in which a whole society’s sense of right and wrong has been manipulated by years of propaganda. Consider the law passed in 1939 by Nazi Germany labeled the"Endloesung" i.e., the final solution. That law deprived Jewish people of any human rights and set the scene for the holocaust. Through years of brainwashing, a large proportion of German society accepted that law and actually believed that Jews were an inferior race. Therefore, depending on the circumstances and the manipulative powers of a regime, even laws that appear just to some are utterly appalling to humanity as a whole. Hence, the subjective nature of right or wrong does not only vary from person to person but is also subject to manipulation and deceit. For this reason I cannot agree with the claim completely.
In conclusion, therefore, there are situations, such as when laws clearly oppose basic human rights, in which the claim is true and useful. However, an individual’s interpretation of what is right is often subjective and vulnerable to biased influences by powerful regimes. Therefore the truth of the claim is limited.
解析 This response presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the issue in accordance with the specific task directions. Each paragraph contributes significant analytical reasoning to support the nuanced position that while resistance to authority is obviously justified in the most clear-cut cases, a sense of justification can be too subjective to be reliable not only in a personal sense but also on a societal scale, as when entire populations become deluded. In presenting that analysis, the writer takes a position that one must disobey unjust laws(second paragraph)and obey those that are just(third paragraph). But, in accordance with the task direction to address any compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge one’s position, the writer also recognizes a counterargument to his/her position in instances when people neither resist nor disobey unjust laws(fourth paragraph), particularly when they are "subject to manipulation and deceit." Furthermore, the examples and reasons are both compelling and persuasive as in the dramatic case of the Nazi soldier finding a way to disobey orders even though he "should" have followed them to save his own life. The response conveys ideas fluently and precisely via effective vocabulary and syntax, as in this example: "Therefore, depending on the circumstances and the manipulative powers of a regime, even laws that appear just to some are utterly appalling to humanity as a whole. Hence, the subjective nature of right or wrong does not only vary from person to person but is also subject to manipulation and deceit." For its well-articulated, cogent analysis of the issue, this response earns a score of 6.
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3356937.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)