Abstract

In the article two seminal theories of global justice are compared: one concerned with individuals, the other with peoples. The striking feature of Pogge’s theory is that noble aims are to be achieved through the implementation of global justice for the permanent betterment of the situation of people living in extremely severe conditions. It is not entirely clear, however, whether helping them is a moral obligation or is due rather to a sense of guilt towards the descendants of the exploited. Justice among peoples, in turn, is a set of rules of the well-ordered society of peoples based on a social contract decided upon by the representatives of peoples. Rawls’s theory of relations among peoples is realistic, although he unconvincingly argues in favour of peoples as moral agents, neglecting the fact that the representatives play a governmental role, and that the social contract is in the end achieved by states rather than peoples.