First, thanks for an interesting and informative article.

If I may, I have learned that both Moderns and Postmoderns (pro- and anti-'Enlightenment', respectively) have made the mistake of equating ideology with rationality. It is no more rational than theology is. Both are based on immaterial beliefs, i.e., assertions of truths that cannot be evaluated--much less judged to be valid or invalid--using the rational capacity. Theologies are based on sacral beliefs and ideologies on secular beliefs. 'Human equality' is a prime example of a possible secular belief (though it can also be sacral).

I have become convinced that the ethic of justice--the rule for governing human conduct that involves other human beings in any way, at any time, in any place--is mutual respect: taking one another into account as we live our separate lives together in this world. I am certain that all people have an intuitive knowledge of the existence of that ethic. It certainly follows from a belief in equality--whether secular or sacral. I have found that it follows from the observation that human beings have no choice but to effect choices (which I got from Warren J. Samuels), providing a purely rationalistic approach to justice, involving no beliefs. It boils down to a handful of absolute prohibitions in our relations with one another as fellow humans: no killing, harming, coercing, stealing, or manipulating (which includes lying, cheating, etc.). Applying that ethic to the governance of society (as individuals governing ourselves and regarding the structure and functioning of the political process and the economy) would take us "Beyond Liberalism" (here in Medium but not behind the paywall).