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.

An injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice.

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions.

Peace surely is a good reason, yes. But there are other reasons too.

When the basic structure of society is publicly known to satisfy its principles for an extended period of time, those subject to these arrangements tend to develop a desire to act in accordance with these principles and to do their part in institutions which exemplify them

Justice as fairness provides what we want.

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