写了篇GRE的Issue，大家来批评批评

题目"Laws should not be rigid or fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places."
- Y$ X$ s; U* m. T- i! N
! I# R3 D& T' t0 N# Z

Laws and morality are symbiotic and interdependent. While laws are tangible and rigid, the morality is intangible and more prone to be flexible. They supplement each other, when one of them is not functioning, we could still resort the other one.

" s7 Q4 U0 D) `: K! vGoverning a country under a legal system is what the most countries do nowadays. Black characters against white paper explicitly stipulate what the people’s rights and obligations are. Once a rigid and fixed law comes into force, the society can immediately reach a consensus, so that the societal administration is facilitated and the punishment to incompliance is much more convincing.
! q7 G6 u+ \% F, T
  Q4 U" u0 p1 WAnother system to rule the people is moral system. It is a completely flexible system, in comparison with the legal system. The conviction is totally based on morality, where sympathy and selfish motivation may play roles. The same incompliance might receive even contrary judgment, so in this way it is impossible to maintain the justice and people would no longer advocate your governance.

: {1 X& r6 H( T  T+ o5 [It is true that along with the gradually varying circumstances the obsolete rigid laws are highly likely shown to be inadaptable to the encountered situation. Revisions or complements are inevasible at the legislature. But despite all that, we have to notice the circumstances are persistently altering, so do the minds of people. In case that the laws became so flexible that they are keen to perfectly adapt each situation, then the problem should arise with executability. The laws could be so fast reactive that people violate the law without consciousness and executors judge cases with out of date regulations. This is apparently not what we want to see. So in the other words, laws must keep some of its rigidness, make full use of the societal tolerance and morality control, and change themselves only when unavoidable.

fizza

怎么只有看客啊

大家只管来拍好了啊

吃花生的大灰狼

- k  O* V) ~/ F& Dwhen one of them is not functioning, we could still resort the other one.
0 o; I' [2 K9 x
I would say: when one of them does not work/function, we could resort to the other (one).

4 w( Z& w" o* d+ R' w! A

learnEnglish

怎么只有看客啊

* @) K+ h$ v5 P8 p; i大家只管来拍好了啊
Anonymous 发表于 2009-9-13 20:29

' h% M' c5 ~8 L: [+ d; I6 H
Sorry, I can't read it yet.
Because for me, there are many new words in it.

when one of them is not functioning, we could still resort the other one.

I would say: when one of them does not work/function, we could resort to the other (one).
, A& F5 |4 e0 \# {6 ~
; R% T- O( D, H$ z( k0 D' B3 t
/ |; k2 |! l0 w/ ?吃花生的大灰狼 发表于 2009-9-13 20:53

Thanks for your comment

Sorry, I can't read it yet.
Because for me, there are many new words in it.
# l) }7 |, X; M/ j
learnEnglish 发表于 2009-9-13 21:43

2 D% v7 N9 Q/ H7 t/ Q0 K

吃花生的大灰狼

I haven't quite understood these two sentences.
: V% Y* O3 G8 A/ @9 J: [, M5 z
In case that the laws became so flexible that they are keen to perfectly adapt each situation, then the problem should arise with executability. The laws could be so fast reactive that people violate the law without consciousness and executors judge cases with out of date regulations.

I haven't quite understood these two sentences.
* u3 ?9 `/ p/ ~& w% h, H! W8 T- |
( l4 f& a- }6 pIn case that the laws became so flexible that they are keen to perfectly adapt each situation, then the problem should arise with executabil ...
* B5 k# g1 _+ V* |4 f5 a) M' p! S吃花生的大灰狼 发表于 2009-9-13 22:04

我是想表达，如果法律修改的太快，情况稍微一变就改。那么法律就无法执行了。执法者不熟悉法律，而平民也不熟悉法律，可能就无意中触犯了法律。

Chris81

just something off the top of my head:
. open up sth pertinent to the statement in the topic, about property of laws/ morality is the supporting item
6 D; c, B" y# x( E7 b1 N( b( d. avoid using "completely". this sets a sharp contrast.
0 P  R" e7 F0 b. not sure "flexible" means being modified frequently as you meant: it is clearly written, flexibility in terms of considering circumstances, times, places. That calls for "OFF".
. lack of structure
laws:
' R3 r# h( e/ X2 U# Edefinition, functionality, purpose to serve (...)
-> if it is to ensure the justice/right, then its about equity, another factor Morality is to be considered
; f0 |8 H0 x' S! O3 e, n-> rigid laws&moral system
-> being flexible helps promote the fairness, however rigid fixed laws are more executable