Issue17 just and unjust laws

Issue17

Outline

Position:任何法律都有公正与不公正的方面，不能简单地将法律分为两类，更不能因为法律的主观不公平性打破法律的权威性，而应采用合理的方式改善现行的法律。

反：任何法律都有公正与不公正的方面，不能简单地将法律分为两类。

法律公平与否，以我的个人理解，通常是以某个特定角色的角度，针对某个特定的条款产生的判断，这必然牵涉到一个问题——该条款对这个特定角色利益的影响，这将严重影响对法律公平与否的判断，因此，法律的公平性是一个非常主观的问题。

基于以上原因，涉及到某些具体的条款，通常会存在两个群体，一个认为法律是公平的，另一个认为法律是不公平的。而当在另外一种情况下，这两个群体会混合并重新分配成以上两个群体。也就是说，对于同一部法律，同一个人以不同的角色，在不同的情况下，会有不同的判断。所以，不能简单地将法律分为两类。

反：即便对法律的公平性产生严重质疑，也不能因此违反法律。

法律具有权威性和强制性。也就是说，既然是法律，就必须要遵守。法律与道德标准的一个明显的区别就在于此。违反了道德，可能会受到来自他人或自己内心的谴责，但是违反法律，就要受到法律的制裁。

法律的这种性质，就好比在军队中，军人和士兵所要做的就是服从命令，如果士兵在战场上只服从那些他们认为正确的命令而不服从他们认为不正确的命令，那么这个军队肯定会不堪一击。法律也一样，如果法律不能得到很好的贯彻，有人执行，有人不执行，那么法律就会失去尊严而形同虚设。

扩展：如果法律中存在严重的公平性问题，应采用合理的方式改善现行的法律。

法律在严厉统一中也是具有灵活性的。如果现行的法律中存在明显的问题，那么也应该通过司法程序来修改。

Response:

It is true that laws have just and unjust aspects, but do we have to disobey and resist unjust laws? When this question comes to me, I think it is too extreme. We should, however, show some respect to the authority of laws, and try some appropriate and rational ways to “improve” flawed laws other than “destroy” them.

First of all, we can hardly divide laws into two categories—just and unjust. It is rarely a straightforward issue. The fairness of a law, as I comprehend, usually depends on a certain role which the people who evaluate the law play, and is only relevant to a specific jurisdiction clause. If this is the case, how the interests of the certain role will be affected by the law will dominate the person’s judgment on the law. Then we can draw a conclusion that whether a law is just or not is pretty much a subjective thing.

Moreover, thinking in the way mentioned above, when talking about a specific jurisdiction clause, it is accompanied by two different groups. One is the people whose interests are endangered; the other is the ones protected. For example, the Road Traffic Law of China indicates that pedestrians are the weak side when they have accidents with cars, as a consequence, no matter whether the drivers are responsible or not, they need to undertake some part of the liability. A pedestrian will certainly think the law as just and reasonable. However, a driver will think in a very different way. “Why should I pay for what I have no responsibility for?” In his eyes, the law is definitely unjust. Now let me presume that the yesterday’s driver has become a today’s walker and he unluckily broke his leg in an accident with full responsibility of his own, how will he judge the law now? Then we know that people judge a law depending on their role and possibly some other relevant subjective conditions, consequently, we cannot simply say a law is either just or unjust.

Admittedly, some laws go against most people’s interests and need to be corrected, what should we do about it? Disobedience is hardly a choice. The very function of law is to bring stability and order to work for a society, the laws must be implemented equally among the population. Accordingly, laws have inviolable authority and coerciveness. This is one of the major differences between laws and ethics. Being contrary to morality, one may be denounced by others or even himself, but he will not be punished. But violating a law, one will never escape legal sanction. It is the right quality of law that guarantees that most people conform to it so that it can function well. Otherwise, laws would be meaningless. This mechanism is just like that soldiers have to obey commands. They cannot take actions according to their own judgment. If they do so, the whole army will collapse at the first blow.

Resistance seems not a wise way, and then what else can we do to correct a law? Actually, the law is adaptable and flexible in certain situations, places and times, though the written rules of law must to be fixed and seldom changed. Every political system includes an access to renew its laws. Inform the legislative of people’s attitude towards specific laws. That is the right measure we should take to deal with questionable laws.

In sum, reasonable people will always disagree about the fairness of specific laws. So, irrational and unpractical action such as resistance or disobedience is rarely justified merely by one’s subjective viewpoints or personal interests. Nevertheless, legal and practical measures to improve laws are strongly encouraged.