First of all, thank you Dr. Smith for an informative article. I realize that in a very brief summary of anyone's thinking many possible objections that could be successfully rebutted must go unaddressed.

Still, I agree with Mr. Sethi's identification of the problem of diverse moral perspectives within a given society. In such a society, if we rely on morality to determine how its governance should be governed, then some must inevitably be imposing their moral perspective on others in the process of making that determination.

Such a move imbues the entire governance of society with arbitrariness, which Locke correctly identified with injustice. In the “Enlightenment project” universality was recognized as the antidote for arbitrariness, but as this very article points out, the universality justice would require has been deemed an impossibility — which takes us back to Mr. Sethi’s point.

I am convinced (with 38 years of effort) that I have found how mutual respect as the ethic of justice resolves that whole conundrum. I just thought you might find it interesting.