We must choose for others as we have reason to believe they would choose for themselves if they were at the age of reason and deciding rationally.

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 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.

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.

A society regulated by a public sense of justice is inherently stable.

If A were not allowed his better position, B would be even worse off than he is.

No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society.