1) Is it the case that the possibility of a justified civil disobedience, as defined in the pertinent section of the book, is by definition excluded in a society subscribing to the (classical) utilitarian doctrine?Rawls seems to answer this question on p.339, but it seemed to me an interesting observation to raise nonetheless.
2) Doesn´t Rawls´ description of the subtle dimensions of our sense of justice (p.339-340) provide a reference point of sorts in the context of our discussion last week about the normative justification of power putatively necessary even in the field of the social scientist, i.e. "the legitimacy in context"? Furthermore, doesn´t this also answer Victoria´s second question with regard to the "militant" nature of activists?