Thus, despite our first impressions of the potential benefits of Habermas’s theoretical reflections for understanding the nature of social justice especially with respect to destitute street children in many EU capital cities today, the character of his diff erences with Rawls about the relative primacy of the ethical and the moral as well as of the right and the good introduces some elements of doubt.

Clearly Habermas’s debate with Rawls is of first importance for arriving at a less unsatisfactory account of ethics and morality today. But it is hardly so clear that these very abstract discussions can suffi ciently advance just yet our concerns here to assemble pertinent reminders of several dimensions that renewed refl ection not on justice generally but on social justice in particular still needs to re-articulate.