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.
Every individual in a society has the responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
In recent years, there has been excessive controversy about whether citizens should uncritically obey laws. Some people argue that laws are designed to be followed unconditionally. Whereas, others claim that it is sufficient to obey only those just laws, and the challenges of unjust laws are desirable. This essay is going to argue that, to a large extent, it is every citizen’s irresistible responsibility to obey every single law, no matter whether they consider it being just or not. Three reasons are provided, explicitly, the chaos created by the disobedience of laws; the availability of alternative preferable way of changing laws; and the advantage of obeying laws.
Firstly, the function of laws, fundamentally distinct from suggestions or propositions, is that they are designed to be obeyed and do not typically allowing challenge in any form once released. The rudimentary reason for creating laws is to ensure the peace of a society, and refusing to obey them could lead to chaotic social environment. A classic example would be the ancient society when laws have not been invented. At that stage, people were living with fear every now and then, since they are subject to plunders and violations without any forms of protection. People in the ancient society did not even need an excuse to commit crimes, and the term ‘crime’ probably had not been introduced, they can merely follow their dispiteous human nature because there were no constraints. Fortunately, nowadays people no longer have to live with fear thanks to the presence of laws, otherwise the society would degenerate to the ancient ruthless mess. However, probably the most compelling challenge to this opinion is that some laws are unjust, they violate some people’s freedom or utility. This criticism may seem plausible at first glint, and people can come up with various complaints about a wide range of laws. For instance, the policy that people cannot own more than two estates might annoy some mongers, and such people indeed feel the law is unjust because people should have the right to invest their money to any possible and profitable realms. Nevertheless, as J.S.Mil, the luminary of liberalism,l argues in his masterpiece On Liberty
, the formation of society is based on people voluntarily sacrifice a small amount of their freedom. As an old saying goes, ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’, people cannot hope to enjoy all the privileges of being in a well-functioned society without any sacrifice. Therefore, obeying all laws might force people to restrict some of their utilities, that is the basis of a smooth-functioned society.
Secondly, people should not challenge the law in any case because the feasible occasion to challenge is before a suggestion or proposition becomes a law. Modern political systems make sure that citizens have plenty of opportunities to arise their challenges before a particular law is passed and fixed. For example, political investigators usually conduct public survey before they determine to pass a proposal. In that case, the best thing to do is to positively participate in those surveys and express opinions before anything unsatisfying turns into laws. But when a suggestion has already been legitimised as a law, the challenge period is over, and all people can do is to obey it. However, some critique might suppose that the participation rate for such public opinion surveys is typically extremely low, and thus the passing of laws might in effect cannot represent the public opinion. With this respect, it seems plausible to argue that some unjust proposals can indeed being legitimised into laws.Notwithstanding, such criticisms ignore the fact that people who do not participate in public rule are typically those who passively accept the laws and seldom come up with criticisms. On the other hand, those people who decide to disobey or challenge laws are those who are more likely to participate in political decision making procedure. Therefore, if after all the discussions, the final decision is to pass the proposal as a law, then everybody should obey it.
Lastly, even if there might be disadvantages of uncritically obedience of laws, there are far more advantages for doing so. Admittedly, the fundamental reason for disobeying laws is that people consider their individual freedom as being restricted or even violated. This might be true in some occasions, and an often used example is that the protection of Amazon forest limited local people’s freedom to develop the economy. However, there has been a long-lasting misconstruction about the definition of freedom. The genuine way to define this term relies on conditions - individual freedom should not be limited in any form as long as it is compatible with others’ freedoms. From this perspective, people choosing to disobey laws must violates others’ freedoms in some way more or less. Taking the Amazon forest example, if local people were permitted to develop the forest in an unrestricted manner, they are violating the rights of enjoying a healthy ecological system for other people living in other parts of the earth. Moreover, it is worth noting that this violation of freedom is functioning in double direction. As long as people decide to accept any challenging of laws, there must exist an occasion that their own freedoms are being violated by others who have concerns about a specific law as well. Hence, in order to minimise the probability that people’s individual freedom being violated, the best compromise is that everyone simply obey the law even if the law itself is not unchallengeable.
In conclusion, this essay has argued that laws, in any situation, should not be disobeyed or challenged, even if people suspect that it is unjust. Because laws are meant to protect individual freedom, any concerns should be rise before a proposal has been passed as a law, and disobedience of laws would cause extreme social chaos and unrest. Further studies could be conducted on possible ways to stimulate people into participating in public rules. After all, the nature of a liberal democratic society is that everyone has chances to express their opinion, and everyone’s freedom being respected.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-28 | vibhu04 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-27 | Ammu helen | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | Sumaiya Mila | 75 | view |
| 2020-01-01 | Reetin | 75 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | NobodyUp | 79 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 58
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Parkville Daily Newspaper Throughout the country last year as more and more children below the age of nine participated in youth league softball and soccer Over 80 000 of these young players suffered 68
- The human mind will always be superior to machines because machines are only tools of human minds Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In de 82
- The author is primarily concerned with 16
- Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...; and the advantage of obeying laws. Firstly, the function of laws, fundament...
^^^^
Line 5, column 466, Rule ID: EVERY_NOW_AND_THEN[1]
Message: Use simply 'now and then'.
Suggestion: now and then
...hat stage, people were living with fear every now and then, since they are subject to plunders and...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 933, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...therwise the society would degenerate to the ancient ruthless mess. However, prob...
^^
Line 5, column 1494, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Mil
...profitable realms. Nevertheless, as J.S.Mil, the luminary of liberalism,l argues in...
^^^
Line 5, column 1525, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , l
..., as J.S.Mil, the luminary of liberalism,l argues in his masterpiece On Liberty ...
^^
Line 5, column 1553, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f liberalism,l argues in his masterpiece On Liberty , the formation of societ...
^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...argues in his masterpiece On Liberty , the formation of society is based on p...
^^
Line 7, column 2, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...rgues in his masterpiece On Liberty , the formation of society is based on pe...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...asis of a smooth-functioned society. Secondly, people should not challenge th...
^^^^
Line 11, column 1009, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Notwithstanding
... can indeed being legitimised into laws.Notwithstanding, such criticisms ignore the fact that p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... law, then everybody should obey it. Lastly, even if there might be disadvant...
^^^^
Line 15, column 891, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an unrestricted manner" with adverb for "unrestricted"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...le were permitted to develop the forest in an unrestricted manner, they are violating the rights of enjoy...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 15, column 1529, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the law itself is not unchallengeable. In conclusion, this essay has argued tha...
^^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 225, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'risen'?
Suggestion: risen
...ividual freedom, any concerns should be rise before a proposal has been passed as a ...
^^^^
Line 19, column 344, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
... cause extreme social chaos and unrest. Further studies could be conducted on possible ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, whereas, after all, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in any case, more or less, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 64.0 19.5258426966 328% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.4196629213 234% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 28.0 14.8657303371 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 29.0 11.3162921348 256% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 63.0 33.0505617978 191% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 124.0 58.6224719101 212% => Less preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 5292.0 2235.4752809 237% => Less number of characters wanted.
No of words: 1009.0 442.535393258 228% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24479682854 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.63602345174 4.55969084622 124% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98932817033 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 435.0 215.323595506 202% => Less unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.431119920714 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1686.6 704.065955056 240% => syllable counts are too long.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 15.0 4.99550561798 300% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 12.0 1.77640449438 676% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 40.0 20.2370786517 198% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.9614136819 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.3 118.986275619 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.225 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.875 5.21951772744 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 15.0 7.80617977528 192% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 5.13820224719 331% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0983768711819 0.243740707755 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0323613284139 0.0831039109588 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0285702109808 0.0758088955206 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0631302789827 0.150359130593 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0236749521829 0.0667264976115 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 245.0 100.480337079 244% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.