 The assumption of full rationality initially seems irresistible. If we can discern the reasons citizens would affirm if perfectly rational, surely these reasons would be morally relevant. The public reason liberal tries to justify demands and coercion to members of her society. How could she do better than full rationality? Another motivation for embracing full rationality is to generate agreement. Many assume that suitably idealized individuals will agree on matters they otherwise would not. Rawls ascribes full rationality to parties to the original position to induce agreement. Were they less than fully rational, the parties might reach different conclusions.