 All four theorists recognize the diversity of private judgments about justice. All allowed moral judgments to diverge for any number of reasons. They all concluded that private judgment could not ground legitimacy for a diverse public. As Rawls (2005, vii) would put it, these theorists recognized reasonable pluralism. Citizens who reason freely will disagree about fundamental values and principles. Contract theorists concluded that justifications for political power had to respect diverse judgments. So justification could not rest on one specific set of beliefs and values. A public justification had to be impartial, at least among respectable but diverse viewpoints.