Thank you for such a positive and thoughtful comment.

I hadn't thought of or encountered either of those 'concepts. Both strike me as powerful ideas. Off the top of my head, I think I have resolved the problem of justice in a way that violates neither of those analytical constraints. I would appreciate your comment regarding that.

As I see it, the problem that we as a species have is that we by nature live together in groups. That means that at times we must act for the benefit of the group in the face of some problem whether or not all agree that there is a problem, much less any proposed solution for it.

The question becomes how we can justly do that. Understanding the nature of understanding is part of that conundrum.

My ultimate goal has been to get the part about 'justly' figured out. That must begin with an understanding of what justice is that is not arbitrary. Beliefs are arbitrary (from the viewpoint of any non-believer) as a form of knowledge, so justice cannot possibly follow from beliefs. Our only hope for actual justice is an ethic of justice that follows from phenomenal knowledge. Only it can possibly have the commonality that justice requires.

That, I have accomplished (to my satisfaction). I would say that it avoids the 'category of 1' problem, i.e., applying one category of 1 to another, because in it both the determiner of the ethic of justice and its referents are located within material existence. It does not deny the existence of the immaterial realm or its possible import for individuals, but it does legitimately de-legitimate insisting on any immaterial reality for governing the governance of society. It also resolves the top-down/bottom-up issue by making making the 'top'--justice--accessible from the 'bottom'--observation within material existence.

If you are still reading, what say ye (assuming for now for the sake of argument that I have correctly identified such an ethic)?