"Justice: Thinking Through the Tough Decisions"

After Nietzsche hollered "God is dead", do we still have common truths? It partly explains the spiritual crisis of people in the post-truth era. Nowadays, the controversies take place seldom between opinions, but between truths. We can easily differ good from bad, right from wrong, but we cannot distinguish two or more right things. Thats why the debates are endless and worthwhile.

Our goal is not to find the sole and final truth, which isnt likely to exist, but to "think it through" when encountering questions. This is the most important takeaway from this book. We should learn from the authors thinking pattern – think more, think deep, think free.

The arguments about justice can be analyzed from three main aspects: maximizing welfare (utilitarianism), respecting freedom (libertarianism), and promoting virtue (Aristotle). For Kant and Rawls, who are both advocates of individual autonomy and freedom, the right is prior to the good. The principles of justice that define our duties and rights should be neutral with respect to competing conceptions of the good life. To arrive at the moral law, Kant argues, we must abstract from our contingent interests and ends. To deliberate about justice, Rawls maintains, we should set aside our particular aims, attachments, and conceptions of the good and think behind a veil of ignorance.

Aristotle is the adverse, for he maintains that one of the purposes of a just constitution is to form good citizens and to cultivate good character.