At best the principles that economists have supposed the choices of rational individuals to satisfy can be presented as guidelines for us to consider when we make our decisions.

A political conception covers the right to vote, the political virtues, and the good of political life, but it doesn't intend to cover anything else.

Any comprehensive doctrine, religious or secular, can be introduced into any political argument at any time, but I argue that people who do this should also present what they believe are public reasons for their argument. So their opinion is no longer just that of one particular party, but an opinion that all members of a society might reasonably agree to, not necessarily that they would agree to. What's important is that people give the kinds of reasons that can be understood and appraised apart from their particular comprehensive doctrines.

The extreme nature of dominant-end views is often concealed by the vagueness and ambiguity of the end proposed.

First of all, principles should be general. That is, it must be possible to formulate them without use of what would be intuitively recognized as proper names, or rigged definite descriptions.

It is of first importance that the military be subordinate to civilian government

The bad man desires arbitrary power. What moves the evil man is the love of injustice.