First. thanks to this author for an edifying article.

It has occurred to me that a valid distinction can be made between consensual knowledge and observational knowledge. The social sciences depend on the former to establish what is to count as true (i.e., sufficiently verified) knowledge (beyond historical facts), but in the physical sciences observation within material existence forms the 'bottom line'. In those sciences consensus is not the means of establishing what counts as a truth (as defined in this article); it follows (eventually) from valid findings.

I thought this author might find interesting an ethic of justice following from observation within material existence. That observation (which I got from Warren J. Samuels) is that human beings have no choice but to effect choices: choose among perceived alternatives and take action to bring that choice to fruition. That makes choosing integral to being human. To recognize one another as fellow humans requires respecting one another's capacity to choose, beginning with choosing whether/to what extent to be involved in the process whenever any choice is being effected. So the ethic of "real justice" (as I have come to call it) is mutual respect in effecting choices.

No human being can deny the applicability of that ethic to all humans, including oneself. To assert any claim to the contrary is to verify one's humanness.

To act otherwise is to assert some claim regarding the relative status of the beings involved that cannot be verified within material existence. No one can be under any compunction to accept as valid any such claim.