1. I'm confused by Horton's response to the objection about immoral or unjust institutional obligations on 156-7. What does he mean by "It is one thing to show that a particular institution does not
violate other fundamental moral principles or commitments, but
quite another to have to show that the institution is justified by
these other moral principles"? How does this respond to the objection?
2. Did Horton succeed in providing an account that allows us to "see the intelligibility
and understand the appropriateness of the ways in which we think
and feel about our membership of a polity" (155)? In particular I wonder if he provided any basis to evaluate the appropriateness of certain ways of thinking or feeling about membership in a polity, as opposed to others?