Abstract

This paper will discuss two different ways of dealing with an impasse in the recent debate about the social contract theory and global justice. John Rawls defines the original social contract as limited to members of a nation whose representatives subsequently contract with others to form principles of international justice. On the other hand, critics of Rawls maintain that a just social contract would have to be global from the beginning and include all human beings. I discuss the two most prominent solutions to the problem offered by Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, and I identify their styles of reasoning as Kantian and Hegelian, respectively. I argue that Nussbaum’s criticisms of Rawls are strong, but but by rejecting the social contract theory as a whole, she throws out the baby with the bath. Sen’s approach is a more promising model of global justice that moves beyond Rawls while retaining the insights of the social contract tradition.