1) How strong is really the moral intuition that we have a duty to comply with and uphold, help create when the costs are not pervasive, (reasonably just) political institutions in our country ? I personally find it sufficiently persuasive, but in view of our previous discussions, other people might be of a different opinion. Thus, my question is more of a intuition check, if you wish.
2) Simmons dispatches Rawls´ interpretation of a natural duty of justice in his Chapter VI. My question, though, is whether one couldn´t posit that a natural duty of justice in Rawlsian terms could admit of degrees? I.e., not really as strong as Rawls imagines, in view of Simmons´ rather compelling counter-arguments, but nonetheless a weaker, yet duty-based and not consent-/obligation-based relation.