Original Research

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

PJ Naude
Verbum et Ecclesia | Vol 28, No 1 | a102 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v28i1.102 | © 2007 PJ Naude | This work is licensed under CC Attribution 4.0
Submitted: 17 September 2007 | Published: 17 November 2007

Full Text:

PDF (228KB)

Share this article

Bookmark and Share

Abstract

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 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 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.

Keywords

No related keywords in the metadata.

Metrics

Total abstract views: 1938
Total article views: 3155


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.