a sense of being out of tune with their fellows when their feelings are not in union with those around them. This provides a firm basis for their moral sentiments.

Rawls then looks at the development of moral learning from authority, by association, and through an appreciation of the principles of justice. Parental authority is the first source for a child’s understanding of morals. The conditions influencing it are a child’s love for their parents and seeing them as worthy objects of admiration. Clear and intelligible rules and boundaries, and parents practicing what they preach, are other ways in which moral learning takes place from parental authority. The morality of association is acquired as a child grows up into various roles that they will have to fulfill throughout their life. The standards for such roles are evident in the larger social groups to which an individual belongs. Thus, one learns how to be a good student, a good neighbor, a good friend, a member of a team, and other such roles. The process of fellowship and adapting to others with suitable changes in one’s own behavior leads to an appreciation of the just principles that govern association and social institutions; it makes people want to uphold such principles through their own actions.

The nature of moral feelings or moral sentiment, and the difference between moral and natural attitudes, is explored with examples of how individuals may respond in group situations where they feel their interests have been harmed or where they have themselves committed a wrong. Moral feelings are different from natural attitudes from a person’s explanation of their experience invoking a moral concept or principle of justice. While feelings caused by the violation of a principle of justice may resemble natural feelings of anger or resentment, they are not the same. This is because moral feelings lead us to act out of a sense of justice and perform acts that may be supererogatory. Such actions are performed for the larger good even though one is exempt from performing such a duty.

The sense of justice acquired through the development pointed out by moral psychology helps people to do their part as citizens, building institutions whose public systems of rules reflect their sense of what is fair, right, and just. As Rawls puts it, “a correct theory of politics in a just constitutional regime presupposes a theory of justice which explains how moral sentiments influence the conduct of public affairs.” The three stages that have earlier described how a sense of justice is acquired by people through authority, association, and an appreciation of principles also feature in the stability of the system as a whole. This is because they take into account the affective ties people have with others and their desire for not only their own, but others’ welfare.

What determines the application of a conception of justice? The chapter finally focuses on this question, looking at equality at three levels. At the first level, the administration of institutions as public systems of rules must ensure the impartial application and consistent interpretation of rules. The second application of equality is to the substantive structure of institutions, where the principles of justice require that equal basic rights be assigned to all persons. Finally, it is necessary to determine what sorts of beings are owed the guarantees of justice. As the answer appears to be that moral persons, or those with a capacity for moral personality, should be entitled to justice, Rawls makes it clear that the contractual approach does not discriminate on this account against people with impaired faculties: “It should be stressed that the sufficient condition for equal justice, the capacity for moral personality, is not at all stringent. When someone lacks the requisite potentiality either from birth or accident, this is regarded as a defect or deprivation.” Justice as fairness guarantees justice to all who have the minimum required for moral personality.

Analysis

The chapter is significant because it finally unpacks and reveals what Rawls means when he consistently refers to a well-ordered society. How might such a society be created, and what sustains it? It is clear that it is our conduct as rational citizens, as responsible individuals desirous of doing the right thing, that leads to our collective security and happiness. The preparation that we undergo in such a society through social and moral learning at different levels is what allows us to fulfill our roles as members of this well-ordered society.

By freeing the capacity of moral personality from religious doctrine, Rawls makes it important for all to be considered worthy of justice. As a political philosopher, his emphasis is weighted toward the healthy institutions we must build in order to support and sustain the values we have acquired as individuals. Moral psychology may well understand the development of how a sense of justice is acquired, but it is only our collective efforts for justice and equality that can give meaning to these values. Inequality and injustice around us can cause us to question our most fundamental lessons of what is right and good. Rawls makes us consider the ways in which we are both learners and contributors in the society we inhabit.