In Spheres of Justice, Walzer offers an interpretive account of distributive justice that connects the just distribution of social goods to the meanings they have within and for particular societies. Many of Walzer’s critics maintain that this analysis fails to account for the different opinions people can have about their goods. Warnke’s paper defends Walzer by distinguishing between differences in opinion about a good and what the good is about which they disagree. At the same time, using the example of American health care, Warnke argues that Walzer downplays the latter differences.