Issue17

17"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."
(618 words)
The author asserts that the laws can be divided into just ones and unjust ones. He also holds that those just laws must be obeyed by every indicudual, while those unjust ones may be disobeyed and resisted. In my point of view, the conclusion needs to be discussed in a case-by-case way.
Law is important is every society, no matter in ancient or modern societys, no matter in eastern or western nations. In the primarily society, human being didn't have laws, they just fight each other to decide who have the right to eat the food. As time passed by, they found that if such circumstances continue, the society could barely make process anymore, thus they developed laws which helped to set a regulation between mankind. After thousands of years' evolution, modern people can't imagine how could a society survive without laws. In addition, every society has its own history and culture, so the laws are different among each groups, meanwhile, as the culture developed for such a long time, the law also changed along with the history. In short, the laws are diverse during time and among places. No one can easily justify whether the context of a law is just or unjust by a common standard.
However, as there are just and unjust laws, how can one make the line between them clear? In my opinion, the answer is the process of setting the law. The power of a government comes from the pubic, so as the law. Is the law established by the folk, or some repretation voted by the folk? Is the law set through democratic process, not just by a few people's will? If these two things are in case. Then I think that the debate between the just and unjust is just personal. On the contrary, despite the law may help the society become better, I will insist that the law is unjust.
Then, there will be a natural question about how to do with the unjust law, does every method, no matter how violent is suitable? I don't think. In nowadays society, there are many ways to express groups's sound, like through the court or parliament or go on to the street to complain. Martin Luther King, the famous Afirica American, led thousands of black people to the road and delievered them a speech "I have a dream", they don't do any violent things such as robbery, kidnapping, or murder. In the end, they won and got the right which they deserve. Another example is Mahatma Gandhi, who set the India free from the United Kingdom. The way he asked people to resist was legal, as didn't buy the goods produced by the Great Brition and make those production by Indians themselves. Just as Martin Luther King, he made achievement without any blood.
In sum, there are two types of laws: just and unjust. The way to conclusion which kind does a single law belong to is through the way the law set up. After the justification, one must obey those laws which he thinks is just. Meanwhile, those who take some law as unjust have to use legal method to amend them, not by violent. If these legal ways are not effective, one can choose to live in another country instead, living the others who judge these law as just continue to obey them. In short, even if the law may be unjust, we can't use the unjust methods to resist them, because according to the history, those who take the methods of violence to chang the law coule only get another, or even more unjust laws. In the worst situation, another autocracy substitude the contemporary autocracy after the violence.