In defence of partisan justice - an ethical reflection on �the preferential option for the poor�

In defence of partisan justice - an ethical reflection on �the preferential option for the poor�

Blog Article

Can one defend a form of partisan justice? This question is answered in the affirmative in the light of two broad arguments:� The theological argument arises from the preferential option for the poor from Latin America, and the philosophical argument is derived from John Rawls�� notion of the least� advantaged representative person and assistance due to burdened societies in a global context.In closing, a number of important implications of such a partisan notion of both distributive and cultural justice are explicated.This article is developed in three sections.

The first section briefly sketches a profile of the different theological arguments underlying a preferential option for the poor as Coffee Tables particularly developed by Latin American liberation theologians, and later accepted in wider ecumenical circles.� In the second section, philosophical arguments for a position of �prioritarianism� which seems to support such �preferential option� are outlined.� This is attempted via a discussion of two influential books by well-known� American political philosopher , John Rawls, namely his A theory of justice (1973), and The law of
peoples (1999).

� Section three concludes the article by demonstrating the synergy between these theological HONEY and philosophical views, and by pointing out � in a provisional manner - the important consequences of such a �preferential� or �partisan� view for guiding ethical reflection on local and global socio-economic relations.