[e]ach Person Is To Have

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.

I Have Tried To Set Forth A Theory That Enables Us To Understand And To Assess These Feelings About The Primacy Of Justice. Justice As Fairness Is The Outcome: It Articulates These Opinions And Supports Their General Tendency.

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.

What's Important Is That People Give The Kinds Of Reasons That Can Be Understood And Appraised Apart From Their Particular Comprehensive Doctrines: For Example, That They Argue Against Physician-assisted Suicide Not Just By Speculating About God's Wrath Or The Afterlife, But By Talking About What They See As Assisted Suicide's Potential Injustices.

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