This essay will look at what is meant by the Common Sense of Law as written by Mansell, Meteyard and Thomson in A Critical Introduction to Law.

Authors Avatar by thetrixsta (student)

Shaun Rogers - Critical Law - LW313 – M. Afshary

Critical Analysis Assignment – The Common Sense of Law

Introduction

This essay will look at what is meant by the Common Sense of Law as written by Mansell, Meteyard and Thomson in A Critical Introduction to Law.

Straight away we are told of the intention of the authors, and that is to persuade the reader to reconsider what is usually taken for granted and to question common sense assumptions about the law. We are immediately then given an example which shows that the richest and most powerful states exert the most influence regardless of each sovereign state being equal and having one vote in the United nation’s general assembly, simply because the vast majority of the major countries make up the biggest proportion on a map. In response to this example a question is given of whose idea was that? To be specific, “Who drew that map?” This response questions the authority and right one has just because somebody says it is so, just because that’s the way it is.

The chapter sets out to try and keep asking questions in relation to law, to not just accept something because it says it is so but rather challenge it and ask the question, why? The authors state that there are two underlying premisses of the book. These are said to be value judgements, fundamental assumptions not capable of proof through reason. The first premise is that knowledge has value even if it cannot be instantly translated into learning capacity. It is said then, that this premise is a traditional assumption in education but not necessarily an assumption shared by those with power and governments. The author makes it clear that there is little point in reading on if you do not share the premise as it is a non-negotiable premise for the book. 

Join now!

The second premise of the book is that “It continues to be better to be an unhappy Socrates than a happy pig.”  The authors then say it will look at what it describes as disturbing and even perhaps a little destabilizing because much of what it discusses should challenge both preconceived ideas and common sense. 

The authors go on to say that ordinary people not involved in law directly, ‘Law Consumers’, have a different appreciation of law. This is said to be that, “People tend to think of law as something which maintains order in society without which we ...

This is a preview of the whole essay