We may suppose that everyone has in himself the whole form of a moral conception.

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

Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact.

The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance.

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

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 fundamental criterion for judging any procedure is the justice of its likely results.