It is very important to maintain focus on the aims of the research without getting bogged down in related themes. However,  in a field such as International Development it is impossible to avoid the reality of extreme poverty without resorting to notions of justice. In Western terms, justice appears polarised between two distinct poles, that of classical approach represented by Aristotle and the liberal approach, first defined by Kant. Aristotle represented a broadly conversative definition of justice based on the premise of telos (purpose). The this context, justice represents a particular strictly rational interpretation of life and ‘the good’ and it is the function of politics (polis) to define and promote particular roles  ( in terms of honours and social recognition) that reflect particular ends. In contrast, Kant believed that the Telos approach to justice (and a particular understanding of the good) was autocratic and an infringement of personal liberty. Consistent with the spirit of European Enlightenment and liberalism, Kant believed in the autonomy of each individual  to determine their own definition of the ‘good’ according to reason. Unlike the Utilitarian ethic,these universal values were beyond the slavish  (pleasure and pain) instincts, demanding the respect for man as ends in themselves rather than just means. Kant then defended justice as the right to protect this individual freedom to define the good. Rawls agreed with Kant but suggested a more egalitarian approach within the modern context, suggesting that society should be structured to benefit the poorest. In a critique of Autocratic and Meritocratic systems of justice, Rawls argued that natural attributes,  talents and social context are no more than arbrary qualitities. Indeed, the fact that society values and rewards certain attributes over others reflects this historically arbitrary quality. According to this reasoning, individuals do not operate independently of their social-cultural environment and a more egalitarian approach to justice is required. Within the context of Modernity, Rawls has no opposition to significant reward provided it is consistent with a framework of distributive justice that most benefits the poor and marginalised i,e a progressive tax system. The notion of social-cultural difference however challenges to very idea of universal justice. MacIntyre notes that we are all products of our environment and that each of us is born with a past (and to cut ourselves off from that past is to deform our present relationships). i,e. the good is a social-cultural construct that effects our understanding of justice. Naturally this creates a tension between the particular (the local) and the universal notions of justice, tensions that are increasingly evident with the expansion of globalisation and our understanding of Universal Human Rights; often inconsistent with local culture and traditions. Rawls acknowledges this dialectic tension throught the notion of reflective equilibrium, demanding an authentic respect of other peoples points of view. According to Sandel, the typical liberal conception of respect, to accept  others moral or religous convictions is to ignore them, to set them aside as issues not relevant to the political process. However, that isnt the only or indeed the most plausible means of demonstrating respect. Consistent with Rawls notion of reflection, Sandel suggests we should engage with them, sometimes contesting and arguing them but also by listening and learning from them. Naturally there is no guarentee of resolution but an environemt of respectful deliberation and engagement appears to represent a more adequate and constructuve basis for a pluralist society. An environment of moral engagement after all is more likely to reveal the distinctive goods that our different lives express and enrich us all.