A comprehensive doctrine, either religious or secular, aspires to cover all of life. I mean, if it's a religious doctrine, it talks about our relation to God and the universe; it has an ordering of all the virtues, not only political virtues but moral virtues as well, including the virtues of private life, and the rest. Now we may feel philosophically that it doesn't really cover everything, but it aims to cover everything, and a secular doctrine does also.

The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are more gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education and for using their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as well.

Properly understood, then, the desire to act justly derives in part from the desire to express most fully what we are or can be, namely free and equal rational beings with the liberty to choose.

The fundamental criterion for judging any procedure is the justice of its likely results.

The hazards of the generalized prisoner's dilemma are removed by the match between the right and the good.

The fault of the utilitarian doctrine is that it mistakes impersonality for impartiality.

There are various ways you might define the common good, but that would be one way you could do it.