There Is A Divergence Between

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.

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.

The Only Thing That Permits Us To Acquiesce In An Erroneous Theory Is The Lack Of A Better One, Analogously, An Injustice Is Tolerable Only When It Is Necessary To Avoid An Even Greater Injustice.

There Are Two Kinds Of Comprehensive Doctrines, Religious And Secular. Those Of Religious Faith Will Say I Give A Veiled Argument For Secularism, And The Latter Will Say I Give A Veiled Argument For Religion. I Deny Both. Each Side Presumes The Basic Ideas Of Constitutional Democracy, So My Suggestion Is That We Can Make Our Political Arguments In Terms Of Public Reason. Then We Stand On Common Ground. That's How We Can Understand Each Other And Cooperate.

Clearly When The Liberties Are Left Unrestricted They Collide With One Another.