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.

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

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 strength of the claims of formal justice, of obedience to system, clearly depend upon the substantive justice of institutions and the possibilities of their reform.

Many of our most serious conflicts are conflicts within ourselves. Those who suppose their judgements are always consistent are unreflective or dogmatic.

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

Thus I assume that to each according to his threat advantage is not a conception of justice.