> "justice", which used to mostly mean "the proper administration of law". Citation needed. That isn't what that word has meant since, at least, Socrates. Rea

> "justice", which used to mostly mean "the proper administration of law". Citation needed. That isn't what that word has meant since, at least, Socrates. Read academic works of jurisprudence from the past 3 centuries, and you'll see that most people are concerned with defining "law" as subsidiary to "justice", just as Rawls does, rather than the other way around (as suggested by you). Rawls didn't suddenly come out of nowhere and change the game completely. He's just another voice in a conversation that is thousands of years old. Namely, how can we say with confidence that a set of laws is just? You may not like his answer, but Rawls is certainly not the first (nor the last) to pose the question.