Consider how Rawls and one other thinker we have studied deal with this question of whether agreement over the conception of justice is a necessary feature of a just society.

Critical Legal Thinking (John Rawls)

• Demonstration of a strong knowledge and understanding of the subject
• Clear and concise use of English language including sentences, paragraphs and appropriate vocabulary
• Identification of relevant normative issues
• A logical structure (including an introduction, main body, conclusion) and development of the arguments
• Use of appropriate information in support of the argument
• Sophistication of argument
• Appropriateness of reasoning (e.g. the use of logic rather than rhetoric)
• Use of personal reflection which is backed by evidence from a range of sources
• Correct use of juristic and / or philosophical language
• Engagement with various approaches
• Evidence of familiarity with the primary sources
• Evidence of familiarity with relevant secondary sources
• Reference conventions observed

QUESTION – 2500 words (Use case law and primary sources) (OSCOLO referencing + bibliography) PLEASE AIM FOR A MID/LOW 2.1 GRADE!)

“Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust.”

John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised ed, Oxford University Press 1999), 11.

Rawls asserts that individuals “must” decide on a system of ends to pursue, and by analogy any group “must” decide what it collectively considers just. However, many of the thinkers we have studied do not share this view of the individual or the group, seeing individuals and groups as containing clashing values and conflicting ideals of justice. Consider how Rawls and one other thinker we have studied deal with this question of whether agreement over the conception of justice is a necessary feature of a just society.