Can you help me understand this questionWatch this thread
“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  EWCA; ? If so can you give an example.
I'm just a little confused and would appreciate the guidance.