The Student Room Group

Need help with Jurisprudence argument.

I've been sat here for hours now trying to come up with a reasonably logical counter-argument.

The argument in question is that for normative order to exist, there need not be any single concrete formulation of the underlying ideas which underpin it. In other words, the reason why there doesn't have to be a any single normative formulation that attracts universal agreement, and no reasonbale interpretation has to be the right one. For normative order to work practically, it is suggested by the author that there only has to be overlapping consensus or broad commonality of attitude among the participants.



Can anyone help guide me in the right direction as to develop an idea as to what is wrong with this argument?

If you need me to reword it or make myself clearer then please feel free to ask.

Thanks.
Reply 1
bump

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending