According to Professor Sandel, if judgments about the good are unavoidable in debates about justice and rights, is it possible to reason about the good?

According to Professor Sandel, if judgments about the good are unavoidable  in debates about justice and rights, is it possible to reason about the good?

a)If reasoning about the good means that contending parties must share a single rule or maxim or criterion for the good life, to which one can appeal in every disagreement about morality, then the answer is "Yes."

b)If reasoning about the good means that contending parties must share a single rule or maxim or criterion for the good life, to which one can appeal in every disagreement about morality, then the answer is "No."

c)If reasoning about the good life (or, for that matter, justice) means moving back and forth between our considered judgments about particular cases and the general principles we would articulate to make sense of these judgments, then the answer is "Yes."

d)If reasoning about the good life (or, for that matter, justice) means moving back and forth between our considered judgments about particular cases and the general principles we would articulate to make sense of these judgments, then the answer is "No."

e)b) and c)

a) If reasoning about the good means that contending parties must share a single rule or maxim or criterion for the good life, to which one can appeal in every disagreement about morality, then the answer is "Yes."

Explanation:

According to Professor Michael J Sandel, he believed that if judgments about the good cannot be avoided in debates about justice and rights, then it is possible to reason about the good if the two differing parties  have a similar rule or maxim for the good life which can appeal to every of their disagreement about morality, then yes, it is possible to reason about the good.

right of the table i believe