24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3016)
>虫友互识 (732)
>文献求助 (167)
>休闲灌水 (134)
>导师招生 (133)
>考博 (124)
>教师之家 (80)
>找工作 (73)
>硕博家园 (72)
>博后之家 (71)
>论文投稿 (70)
>论文道贺祈福 (65)
>基金申请 (61)
>考研 (55)
>公派出国 (49)
>招聘信息布告栏 (31)

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

wang_xing11

木虫 (知名作家)

不作金币奴隶的鎠虫虫

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
贵宾: 0.06
金币: 2908.1
红花: 1
沙发: 1
帖子: 5247
在线: 25.2小时
虫号: 183578
注册: 2006-02-13
性别: GG
专业: 生物大分子结构与功能

[交流] 考考你的阅读能力：马丁．路德．金的Letter from Birmingham City Jail的一段

Question: What reasoning method does the author use? Deductive or inductive?

Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

附件：全信的中英文

回复此楼