Apologies for lateness, public holiday and travel over the weekend had distracted me.
1. Rawls writes extensively about the duty to uphold a just constitution as a central tenet for when we should discern upholding or protesting an unjust law. My question is: if a constitution is just for all citizens (and let's say residents) of a state, does the duty to not comply with unjust laws or actions extend to severe atrocities committed outside society (e.g. in another country)? It seems to me it would be interesting to discuss if an otherwise liberal society should undermine its own "just" constitution for those who are not under that constitutions jurisdiction.
2. It seems to me that Rawls' understanding of people's mentality is that problems of paying for public goods and faith in others ( two instabilities on page 296) can be removed with well ordered societies, and that individuals will feel then compelled to uphold the relevant just institutions. Is this not a mischaracterisation of human tendencies, and is a questionable foundation for his theory? I'm thinking for example the tendency for many individuals to minimise tax legally (even if to an unethical extent), and the fact many people would not pay taxes if it were not for the punishment exerted by the state?