Can you help me understand this question

Watch this thread
Orion 123
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Hi guys, I am confused when it comes to answering the following question:

“Once we decide to look for a conception of justice that prevents the use of the accidents of natural endowments and the contingencies of social circumstances … these principles [of justice] … express the result of leaving aside those aspects of the social world that seem arbitrary from a moral point of view.”

Evaluate the impact of Rawls’ approach to what is morally arbitrary to his method and principles of justice and consider how it differs in the area of what features of a person are relevant for moral judgment from the analysis of moral responsibility in at least one reported case.

Is this asking me to apply Rawls approach and his two principles, mentioning the veil of ignorance and conflicting theories from the likes of Sandal and Nozik to a case that mentions Rawl or any case relating to moral judgement (say R v R relating to marital rape; R v Price [2014] EWCA; ? If so can you give an example.

I'm just a little confused and would appreciate the guidance.
0
reply
Orion 123
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#2
Thank you.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you done work experience at school/college?

Yes (155)
41.67%
Not yet, but I will soon (69)
18.55%
No (148)
39.78%

Watched Threads

View All