GLOBAL INJUSTICE: WHAT IS KNOWN, WHAT IS ASSUMED AND WHAT IS PROMISED?
GLOBAL INJUSTICE: WHAT IS KNOWN, WHAT IS ASSUMED AND WHAT IS PROMISED?

Summary/Abstract: It is about a criticism of global justice theory, by raising the problem of time in front of facts of global injustice. These facts have agglomerated during the recent period, but are not at all new. To the old warnings born in the 19th century related to social injustice, some theories have responded with the epistemological detour concerning the quantitative and qualitative cognoscibility of social injustice and its aspects. The paper suggests some solutions to the epistemological problem of the possibility to treat global injustice in a non-emotional manner. But in fact the counter-arguments of relativism are continuous, once they support the dominant policies. This theoretical legitimization of status quo is important: the concrete practice to minimize global injustice depends upon the permanent counteraction to relativist arguments that are certainly ideological. The theoretical debate concerning global injustice contains just these arguments and counteraction, global justice theory being a main participant in debates. But, even with its contrary position to that of relativist standpoints, the present global justice theory does not have enough explanatory power to win over its partners of dialogue . One cause of the wasted time in front of the dangerous facts of global injustice consists just in the inertia of the epistemological “doubts” concerning the phenomenon of social and global injustice. And an implicit form of this inertia manifests through the present global justice theory that is based on the principle of “donating to the poor”. The paper focuses on some theoretical realizations. In this respect, to remember the redistribution of responsibilities at the level of corporations, the Human Development Index and the Human Development Reports, the concept of Gross National Happiness and the Conferences related to it, the concepts and measurements of values and human rights would not be superfluous. All these theories, concepts, efforts are considered as steps toward global justice. However, there are also more challenging standpoints regarding the problem.

• Details
• Contents