First of all, principles should be general. That is, it must be possible to formulate them without use of what would be intuitively recognized as proper names, or rigged definite descriptions.
We must choose for others as we have reason to believe they would choose for themselves if they were at the age of reason and deciding rationally.
Many of our most serious conflicts are conflicts within ourselves. Those who suppose their judgements are always consistent are unreflective or dogmatic.
At best the principles that economists have supposed the choices of rational individuals to satisfy can be presented as guidelines for us to consider when we make our decisions.
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.
Ideally a just constitution would be a just procedure arranged to insure a just outcome.
A just system must generate its own support.
Justice as fairness provides what we want.
When the basic structure of society is publicly known to satisfy its principles for an extended period of time, those subject to these arrangements tend to develop a desire to act in accordance with these principles and to do their part in institutions which exemplify them.
The claims of existing social arrangements and of self interest have been duly allowed for. We cannot at the end count them a second time because we do not like the result.
The fundamental criterion for judging any procedure is the justice of its likely results.
It is of first importance that the military be subordinate to civilian government.
The strength of the claims of formal justice, of obedience to system, clearly depend upon the substantive justice of institutions and the possibilities of their reform.
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.
An intuitionist conception of justice is, one might say, but half a conception.
Intuitionism is not constructive, perfectionism is unacceptable.
No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society.
If A were not allowed his better position, B would be even worse off than he is.
There are infinitely many variations of the initial situation and therefore no doubt indefinitely many theorems of moral geometry.
We may suppose that everyone has in himself the whole form of a moral conception.