羅爾斯的全球正義理論所引發的爭議集中在他的全球正 義理論偏離了其在國内正義理論中的觀點，主要包含三個方面。在合 宜社會方面，羅爾斯主張對其容忍，而批評者認為合宜社會獲得容忍 所要滿足的條件太低。在人權方面，批評者認為在全球正義層面，保 護人權不是羅爾斯的首要目標，而且他所要求的予以保護的人權在 内容上過於狹窄。在經濟正義方面，羅爾斯受到的批評在於他沒有把 差異原則用於保障全球層面的背景正義。雖然在這三方面可以為羅 爾斯的理論提供各種辯護，但羅爾斯在其全球正義理論中偏離了其 在國内正義理論中將個人作為道德關切的最終對象的立場，無法應 對世界主義的挑戰。

The controversy around Rawls’s theory of global justice focuses on its inconsistency with his theory of domestic justice in three topics. Regarding decent societies, Rawls insists that they deserve toleration from liberal societies while critics hold that the threshold of their toleration is too low. Regarding human rights, critics argue that in his theory of global justice, Rawls does not take the protection of human rights as his primary goal and that the content of human rights Rawls endorses in his theory of global justice is too narrow. Regarding economic justice, critique centers on Rawls’s not extending the difference principle to the global level to ensure global background justice. Although defenses are made for Rawls in the three topics, Rawls’s departure in global justice from his position in domestic justice that individuals are the ultimate of moral concern cannot survive cosmopolitan critique and should be modified accordingly.