 So we have our article from John Rawls, and the question is, well, what question is Rawls trying to answer? Now, before we launch into it, I want to make something clear. Rawls is doing something very different than the previous philosophers we've studied. I mean, pretty much everybody we've looked at so far has tried to answer the question, how should you live your life? And they've all attempted to answer that question by answering a second question. Human Summoner said, well, answer the question, how you should live your life by answering the question, what justifies your moral beliefs? Glaucon and Hobbes answered the question, who's interested most important? Epicurus and Aristotle answered the question, what has moral worth? And then Aristotle gives an answer, how you should acquire, how should you acquire what has moral worth? Mills does the same thing that Aristotle does, what has moral worth and how should you acquire it? Locke answers the question, what is your right? Kant answered the question, what is your duty? Rawls is not doing, is not taking this approach. He is not trying to answer the question, at least not directly, how should you live your life? Rather, he's doing something else. He's trying to answer the question. Well, is there a decision procedure for ethical theory? So we have all these different approaches, which we just looked at. We have all these different approaches trying to answer the question, how should you live your life? Each of these approaches has their appeal, each of these approaches has their, how should we say, shortcomings. Sometimes there's disasters, results lurking in the background for some of these theories, yet they each do appeal to something, right? So we need a way to figure out whether one of these ethical theories is the right one, in which case we've got to have a way to decide between these different ethical theories, or we have to have a way to figure out a different moral theory that is right. A decision procedure is just a way of doing this. A decision procedure is just a series of finite steps to achieve that goal. So this is the question that Rawls is trying to answer. Is there a decision procedure for ethical theory, and what is it? And he says, yes, there is a decision decision procedure. And in the simplest and roughest terms, his procedure is this. First, you identify competent moral judges. Second, you compile their considered moral judgments. And then finally, third, from those considered moral judgments, you abstract away the applications, the moral principles that cover those considered moral judgments. And from that, you get your moral theory.