The idea that the veil of ignorance makes Rawls's theory easier to accept when building a new society from scratch than when trying to change existing power structures is true because the veil of ignorance removes all heteronomy (specific personal characteristics and interests) and forces pure minimalist reasoning.

Every moral theory attempts to modify human conduct by claiming something should be different from what is, except for Alexander Pope's position that 'everything that is is right,' making anyone who believes anything is wrong a moral theorist of some sort.

Disciplines like history, philosophy, literature, religion, and mythology are not truly separate; they are different vocabularies and approaches to the same underlying reality, and the distinction between disciplines exists primarily for administrative purposes (university salary accounting) rather than reflecting fundamental differences in subject matter.

The Western philosophical tradition has included the social contract (from Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) and Kantian ethics as two major elements that Rawls synthesizes to create his theory of justice as fairness.

Utilitarianism, while useful as a moral tool in specific contexts like medical resource allocation, ran out of intellectual steam in England and the United States but thrived in Australia with philosophers like Peter Singer as its most prominent contemporary defender.

The utilitarian maxim of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is useful and appropriate for specific moral problems like medical resource allocation, but it fails as a comprehensive moral theory because it can justify horrific outcomes like slavery when the pleasure of the majority outweighs the suffering of an enslaved minority.

Rawls's assumption that risk minimization is the rational choice behind the veil of ignorance appeals particularly to intellectuals and cautious people, but opportunity maximization is equally rational and appeals to a different psychological disposition, suggesting Rawls conflates his preferred risk-minimization strategy with rationality itself.

No single moral theory serves as a universal solution; instead, moral philosophers should maintain multiple frameworks (Aristotelian golden mean, Kantian categorical imperative, utilitarian greatest good) in their toolkit and deploy them contextually based on practical wisdom about which tool fits the situation.

Rawls's first principle of justice demands maximum liberty for everyone consistent with equal liberty for all, but determining what counts as a primary good (freedom itself) versus a secondary good (property, contract freedom) creates difficult conceptual boundaries that Rawls never fully resolves.

Rawls's second principle, the difference principle, justifies inequalities only when they serve everyone's interests, particularly the interests of the least advantaged, because improving the position of the least well-off ensures that all of society is at least that well off.

Rawls's religious impulses—despite his rejection of Christianity—manifest in his theory, which can be understood as a lengthy philosophical meditation on the gospel passage 'Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me,' attempting to derive Christian ethical conclusions from rational principles rather than faith.

The American Revolution was fundamentally about political liberty rather than political equality, which is why equality does not appear in the Constitution until the 14th Amendment, while the French Revolution first made equality central to revolutionary ideology.

Rawls is the founder of a benign gnostic cult focused on the well-being of the least among us, which makes a worthwhile contribution to political discussion at the same level as Aristotle's golden mean or Kant's categorical imperative, but is not the only or ultimate standard by which to judge morals and legislation.

Kant's categorical imperative and approach to morality focus on intentionality and hard, exceptionless rules (such as absolute prohibitions on lying and killing), making Kantians naturally suited to be judges because of their rule-oriented thinking and strong connection between theory and practice.

Some of the conclusions Mill (the utilitarian) endorses would be rejected by Kant as simply impermissible regardless of consequences, such as slavery justified by majority pleasure, revealing a fundamental incompatibility between utilitarian and deontological moral frameworks.

Rawls's theory is inconsistent with the American founding documents' doctrine of natural rights, which holds that certain rights are discovered (not invented) and are endowed by a creator, whereas Rawls is a conventionalist who treats rights as socially constructed artifacts without metaphysical foundation.

Political theorists who abandon religion typically build something that functionally replaces religion or serves the same purpose while not formally counting as religion, revealing that complete secularization of political philosophy is impossible.

Robert Nozick's libertarian theory of justice as entitlement, developed as a response to Rawls at Harvard, appeals to ordinary intuitions more than Rawls's theory—for example, the person who catches a fish owns it and does not have to share it equally with everyone on the pier.

Rawls's theory cannot adequately protect against the tyranny of the minority because his rigid adherence to the principle of never harming the least advantaged means he would reject even beneficial policies (like curing cancer) if they required doing minor harm to even one person, which most people find irrational.

The principle of office and position should be open to all talented individuals regardless of background, ensuring there is no exclusive political caste and allowing all those with capability to develop their talents and influence political life.