The Jews were not considered Greeks, but at least they were higher in status in Alexandrian law than local Egyptians.
犹太人不是希腊人,但在法律规定却比当地埃及人地位高。
but that still is... is kind of related to the, to legal fields or to the law.
但内容仍然和法律相关。
All laws are by definition just, he tells us, but it doesn't follow that all laws are by definition good.
所有的法律均是以公平和正义为界定的,但人们并不以此为据,而是以这部法律是“好“还是“不好“为界定。
It was against the law for Julius Caesar to do that, but he did it anyway.
恺撒这么做是违法法律的,但他就是这么做了。
But those human laws are only legitimate if they respect our natural rights, if they respect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
但这些人类法律合法的唯一前提,就是尊重我们的自然权利,尊重我们不可剥夺的生命,自由和财产权。
So, Achilles is not doing anything sort of illegal or unconstitutional, but he's doing something that's really out of line from a normal point of view.
阿喀琉斯并没做什么不合法律的行为,但从我们的角度来看,他的行为的确过分了
But when you look at it in a comparative light in its legal context, we see that it's a polemic against the class distinctions that were being drawn in antecedent and contemporary legal systems, such as the Code of Hammurabi.
但当你在法律背景下以一种比较的观点看待它时,会发现它驳倒了存在于先前的和同时代的,法律体系中的阶级差异,例如,汉穆拉比法典。
Now, in some countries and in some jurisdictions the law might not be entirely clear on that; they might say there are other stakeholders.
但在某些国家及法律体系中,法律对此的规定并不明确,他们会说还有其他的股东
or you can work in fields that relate to law but aren't exactly law.
也可以是一些和法律相关,但不是只涉及法律的工作。
So he but he moves to question ? should law be changed? Is law changeable?
是的,但他还是质问,法律应被修改吗?法律是可改变的吗?
But so long as there is a non-arbitrary rule of law, then it's permissible.
但只要有一部非专制的法律,那这就是允许的。
He couldn't legally own the money; his master legally owned everything the slave owned.
但法律上那些钱不属于他;,主人拥有他的一切。
But if you're a freedman you're-- the other thing I should tell you is that in Roman law if you're manumitted as a slave, you're made free, if you're manumitted in the normal way they did it, that makes you a Roman citizen, if your owner was a Roman citizen.
但如果你是自由人-,有一点我得解释一下,罗马法律规定,如果奴隶被释放了,如果是正常方法被释放的,他就会成为罗马公民,前提是他的主人是罗马公民。
The question is, why does Socrates exhibit such proud defiance and independence of the laws in the Apology, and such total, even kind of mouse-like, acquiescence to the laws in the Crito?
问题是,为何苏格拉底一方面展现了自豪的反抗,及独立于法律之外如同《自辩篇》所载,但这种绝对性,却化为鼠辈般,默认了全部的法律,一如《克里托篇》所载?
Socrates seems to remain, even until the end, very much a kind of law unto himself while at the same time, again, providing Crito and others like him an example of rational and dignified obedience to the law.
苏格拉底一直到最后,似乎都保持着一种自我定义的法律,但同时,却也提供克里托及其它同类,一种理信,与庄严的服从法律范例。
I think it is morally reprehensible but I think that there is a distinction between what's morally reprehensible and what makes someone legally accountable.
我认为此行为应该受到道德上的谴责,但我认为道德上应该受到谴责,并不等同于法律上应当承担责任。
Well if you have a slave, that slave can't actually sign contracts.
如果你有一个奴隶,但法律规定奴隶不能签署合同。
It seems to me to be evident that whatever it's other characteristics, the West has created institutions of government and law that provide unprecedented freedom for its people.
在我看来,很显然,就算各国国情千秋百态,但西方建立的政府机构与设立的法律制度,都给与其治下的公民史无前例的自由
Antiquity or tradition alone is no justification yet at the same time he seems to recognize that changes in law even when the result : is improvement are dangerous. He writes "It is a bad thing to habituate people to reckless dissolution of laws.
作为借口,但同时,他似乎也体认到法律修改,就算结果是改善,仍是很危险的作法,他写到,“让人民习惯于鲁莽的法律,崩溃是不好的事。
Aristotle in his Politics says this: "As man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst of all when he is divided away from the law and justice."
亚里士多德在他的《政治学》中说,"完美的人是最好的动物,但如果他与法律和公正剥离开来,那也会是最糟糕的动物"
But Hobbes' teaching about law is, in some ways, less Draconian than it might first appear.
但一定程度上讲,霍布斯关于法律的学说,比早期的法律要宽容得多。
The Torah laws-- And also, the laws in those collections very often, despite the prologues' rhetoric that they bring justice to the disadvantaged and so on, many of the laws clearly serve the interests of an upper class. Okay, that's the more important point.
尽管《律法》,和那些材料中的法律,在序言中花言巧语,声称自己为弱势群体,带来正义等等,但很明显很多法律都是为上层阶级的,利益服务,记住,这是一个更重要的观点。
Aristotle, and his politics, made the point neatly, and I quote him, "As a man," - I'm sorry, "As man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst when separated from law and justice.
亚里士多德和他的政治学,很巧妙地说明了这点,我引用他的话来说,"作为一个",不好意思,"人类由于至趋完善而成为最优良的动物,但一旦脱离法律和正义,他就堕落为最恶劣的动物
But the statesman again to the highest degree is the founder of regimes laws and institutions.
但政治家的致高展现即是政体,法律与制度的创建者。
The libertarian says it may be a good thing if people wear seatbelts but that should be up to them and the state, the government, has no business coercing them, us, to wear seatbelts by law.
自由主义者说,系安全带也许是件好事,但这应由人们自己作主,政府没有资格,用法律来强迫人们系安全带。
应用推荐