Public reason arguments can be good or bad just like other arguments.

The idea of public reason isn't about the right answers to all these questions, but about the kinds of reasons that they ought to be answered by.

There are infinitely many variations of the initial situation and therefore no doubt indefinitely many theorems of moral geometry.

The idea of public reason has to do with how questions should be decided, but it doesn't tell you what are the good reasons or correct decisions.

Man is a historical being : The realisations of the powers of human individuals living at any one time takes the cooperation of many generations (or even societies) over a long period of time. By contrast with humankind, every individual animal can and does do what for the most part it might do, or what any other of its kind might or can do that lives at the same time.

The intolerant can be viewed as free-riders, as persons who seek the advantages of just institutions while not doing their share to uphold them.

I'm concerned about the survival, historically, of constitutional democracy.