What is your confused Q for 5/9?

If a consent is usually never fair, why form one if you know one person might not fully fulfill their obligations?

From the case of the elderly woman with leaky toilet, a contract can be revoked if there is a question of morality?

what is hypothetical consent?

cont. By both parties doesn't mean that there is a fairness within the contract

cont. Overall it showed that there would be no fairness in Contract or in society because of how we live. it said that just because contracts are agreed.

What does it mean when sandel writes "a hypothetical arguement behined a veil of ignorance is not a pale form of an actual contract...." (pg 151 the very top)

i am confused about what hypothetical concern really is?

cont. What reason do we have to obey rules. The text gave different types of examples of contracts and how one would pick our the terms of the contract.

I understood the reading somewhat it talked about fairness of contracts and how we as citizens did not sign an obligatory contract so..

I personally believe that our society is never fair when it comes to agreements. I have seen many cases and when take to court i believe they're unjust

while reading this consent situation about the car and the repair man it got me thinking, because i actually have a current situation about agreements.

We have laws that the public was never ask to consented.do we still have to follow those laws.

JUST because a person was born here means they are not required to obey the law?

what is the hypothetical argument in the difference principle?

egalitarian appears to be similar to socialism

Am confused of the different theories of consent, and is it consent as in giving approval or something

what is meritocratic theory and hypothetical consent

confused on what is the meritocratic theory of justice and hypothetical consent.

what is the meaning of the consent?? The reading was very informative otherwise

What does the "meritocratic conception corrects for certain morally arbitrary advantages, but still falls short of justice" mean?

What is the meritocratic theory of justice?

What is it meant really by "consent"

I did not understand the concept of a hypothetical consent?

I don't understand what tacit consent means on page one of the reading.

was interesting

i understood everything, i thought the idea of tacit consent

or the government pay for that mandatory service that is being used

what is david humes "philosophical fiction" mean ? And if a person is obligated for a service by law, why shouldn't they pay?

I did not really understand the argument from moral arbitariness that Rawls presents on page 153.

Is Rawls touching on communism when he talks about two principles of justice?