Public Reason Arguments Can Be Good Or

A Scheme Is Unjust When The Higher Expectations, One Or More Of Them, Are Excessive. If These Expectations Were Decreased, The Situation Of The Less Favored Would Be Improved.

The Principles Of Justice Are Chosen Behind A Veil Of Ignorance.

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.

How Did Madison Get Separation Through Virginia And Later Congress? The Baptists, The Presbyterians, And The Smaller Sects Hated Jefferson; To Them He Was A Secularist Of The Worst Kind. But Madison Could Get Jefferson's Bill Passed Because The Baptists, The Presbyterians, And Smaller Sects Who Were Excluded In New England And In The South Got Together For Their Own Protection.

You Might Say That, If Citizens Are Acting For The Right Reasons In A Constitutional Regime, Then Regardless Of Their Comprehensive Doctrines They Want Every Other Citizen To Have Justice. So You Might Say They're All Working Together To Do One Thing, Namely To Make Sure Every Citizen Has Justice. Now That's Not The Only Interest They All Have, But It's The Single Thing They're All Trying To Do. In My Language, They've Striving Toward One Single End, The End Of Justice For All Citizens.