ABSTRACT
This chapter presents the universalist approaches to justice with contextualist approaches. It argues that universalists cannot explain why so many different theories of justice have been put forward, nor why there is so much diversity in the judgements that ordinary people make. The failure of universalism as a way to think about justice is not by itself sufficient to justify contextualism. Contextualism is defended against the charge that it cannot explain why contextually specific principles are all principles of justice, the charge that it can offer no practical guidance when principles conflict, and the charge that it inevitably collapses into a form of conventionalism. Justice is one of the oldest topics in political thought, but as anyone working in contemporary political theory will testify, it shows no sign of becoming exhausted. Contextualists assume that principles of justice are context specific rather than invariant across contexts.
