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

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

There are infinitely many variations of the initial situation and therefore no doubt indefinitely many theorems of moral geometry.

The concept of justice I take to be defined, then, by the role of its principles in assigning rights and duties and in defining the appropriate division of social advantages. A conception of justice is an interpretation of this role.

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

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

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.