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)