Rawls assumes that liberalism is a worthy political order. Would his case be more persuasive if he defended the superiority of liberalism over other alternatives?

Do you think the original position works as a philosophical foundation for arriving at a meaning of justice, or is it too hypothetical to be useful in the real world?

Is it possible for a society to unite around the idea of “reasonable pluralism,” or does a society need a more specific moral doctrine, such as religion or nationalism, to sustain public support?