In order for every member of society to live with dignity and to develop in a better way, in order to meet their ever-increasing material and cultural needs, and for society to operate safely and to develop in a healthy way, we must hold to a common principle—social justice.Footnote 1 Social justice is a basic concept and code of conduct with eternal value in all human societies. As John Rawls says, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought” (Rawls 1999a).

Social justice is of great importance to a society.

First, social justice is the foundation for the design and arrangement of basic institutions in a modern society. The “normal operation” of a society depends on the existence of systematic rules. The social order of a society without such rules will be vulnerable. Citizens in such a society lack protections for their behavioral and psychological safety, and they lack the trust that is necessary in their interactions with each other. Without rules, there would be no institutional support for citizens’ “long-term behavior.” However, the most important system of rules in a society is the set of institutions, and their design and arrangement require basic values as their foundation. In a modern society, that foundation should be social justice. Thus, the design of social institutions in a modern society must be established on the basic concept of social justice. Otherwise, that society will become “unstandardized” or poorly formed. “A society is well-ordered when it is not only designed to advance the good of its members but when it is also effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. That is, it is a society in which (1) everyone accepts and knows that the others accept the same principles of justice, and (2) the basic social institutions generally satisfy and are generally known to satisfy these principles” (Rawls 1999a).

Second, social justice is of enormous significance in creating and improving efficiency. For stimulating social potential and developing human resources fully, rules of equal opportunity and distribution founded on contribution have an indispensable role to play. This can be interpreted from two aspects. On the one hand, the rule of equal opportunity requires a society to discard ascriptive factors (such as privileges, status, and rank) before it allocates its social resources, including the various forms of wealth. A society must not be improperly influenced by those unjust factors, in order to ensure that each member of the society can compete on equal terms, be treated with fairness, and exert their abilities to the maximum through their own efforts. On the other hand, in allocating social resources, a society must follow the just rule of distribution according to contributions, in order to enable all members of society attain their due share. If this is the case, the interests of all members of society can be steered onto a benign path and the vitality of the society will be fully stimulated.

Third, social justice is a necessary condition for a society to bring about safe operations. Only by following the rules of social justice can social classes engage in positive interactions and establish efficient and regular integration and cooperation. “Without common values, the competition for power is likely to be severe… in the absence of guidelines about what should constitute ‘reciprocity’ and ‘fair exchange,’ considerable strain and tension will persist” (Turner 1974). The most significant factors that make society potentially unstable are artificial barriers, distrust, and contradictions and conflicts between different social strata. By protecting people’s basic rights and dignity and making necessary adjustments to institutions, those social barriers can at least be reduced or removed to the greatest extent possible, and then the potential factors of unrest can likewise be reduced. As long as a society can improve its system of justice as fairness, it is less likely that social problems will increase or become more severe. At the same time, a society can also strengthen its efforts to solve existing social problems. For example, if a society effectively implements fair rules of social adjustment, the middle-income strata will become a central group in society and a powerful force in maintaining its safe operation.

Fourth, social justice can ensure the healthy development of society. The development of society should be people-oriented (以人为本 yi ren wei ben). This view is widely accepted. Here, “the people” refers to the vast majority of members of society, not a small minority. This can be put in another way: The basic purpose of social development is that everyone shares in it and benefits. This leads to a further question: How can we serve the purpose? Clearly, it is only by following the fundamental principles of social justice that this purpose can be served. “A conception of justice must incorporate an ideal form for the basic structure in the light of which the accumulated results of ongoing social processes are to be limited and adjusted” (Rawls 1999b). By following the fundamental principles of social justice, a society can benefit the greatest number of its members, realize development in a true sense, and avoid the situation of growth-without-development in which only a few people benefit. By following those principles, a society can fully stimulate the potential of all classes and the greatest number of its members so that they can obtain different returns from their specific contributions, thus eliminating the possibility of egalitarianism. And by following those principles, a society can achieve effective integration and social unity. All of this undoubtedly ensures the healthy development of society as a whole.

The essence of social justice entails providing everyone with what he or she deserves. Social justice is of primary value to the entire society and its members. Along with the advancement of the processes of modernization and the market economy, social justice comes to play a more prominent role and its meaning and content have been updated. So, what kind of just society do we need?

1 We Need a Society in Which Everyone Shares and Benefits Universally

Social development should be people-oriented. As Marx writes in “On the Jewish Question,” “Every emancipation is a restoration of the human world and of human relationships to man himself” (Marx and Engels 1956). People-oriented development has two meanings. From a material perspective—that is, in terms of science and technology and the economy—human beings should be the subject of the process, not its appendages. When we look at it in terms of this basic tenet, development should focus on the basic rights and interests of every member of society. Clearly, the latter meaning is directly related to social justice.

In a modern society built around people, everyone should be entitled to a fair share and be able to benefit from doing so. This should be a key objective, because then, the fruits of social development can be more widely enjoyed by the masses. As society develops, everyone should be entitled to more dignity. People’s potential should continuously be cultivated, their basic needs should be consistently met, and their living standards should constantly be improved. By contrast, if social wealth is amassed by only a few social groups, then the fruits of social development will only be enjoyed by those groups. Society will not “truly” develop; there will be “growth without development.” Social development is a driving force for the vast majority of people, and so ultimately, goals should be set that allow everyone to share and benefit from the fruits of their labor. As Engels states in his famous work The Principles of Communism: “The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country—these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property” (Marx and Engels 1995a).

2 We Need a Society in Which Everyone Has Dignity

Before men evolved from apes, they had no dignity. It was only when people left the animal world and became self-conscious that they acquired a human “species-dignity” or a “human dignity.” As society has evolved, people’s sense of dignity has also evolved. Every human being has a sense of dignity; this is evident in every social group and among every individual.

In a modern society or a country moving toward becoming a modern society, everyone should possess this kind of dignity and be able to recognize their own value. Every member of the social community should have a sense of their basic dignity and basic, equal rights. If social institutions become fundamentally flawed, and the dignity of certain social groups (generally speaking, vulnerable groups) is trampled on (e.g., people lose their basic dignity and sense of independence due to extreme poverty and personal attachment), we should recognize that this impacts not only the dignity of those groups but everyone. Some people are subsequently regarded as being “inhumane,” and if their being trampled on is directly related to defects in the social institutions, then everyone could, in theory, be trampled on. Arguments are made that people avoid this kind of thing based on luck. However, if we think rationally, we would regard this “luck” neither as normal nor as an “inevitable” trend; we should simply be more vigilant. Safeguarding the dignity of every member of society is a basic form of justice in a modern sense.

3 We Need a Society That Has Equality and Liberty

It is only when human beings have dignity that there will then be ideas about basic equality. Engels explained the concept of modern equality in this way: “The idea that all men, as men, have something in common, and that to that extent they are equal, is of course primeval. But the modern demand for equality is something entirely different from that; this consists rather in deducing from that common quality of being human, from that equality of men as men, a claim to equal political and social status for all human beings, or at least for all citizens of a state or all members of a society” (Marx and Engels 1995b). Adler also states, “The equality of all human beings is the equality of their dignity as persons… The truth of the proposition that all human beings are by nature equal is confined to the one respect in which that equality can be truly affirmed; namely, their all being equally human, their having the species-specific properties and especially the differentiating properties that belong to all members of the species” (Adler 1984).

Liberty and equality are closely related to one another but also inseparable from one another. “Liberty, equality, and fraternity” is commonly used as a fixed term. Liberty without equality, just as equality without liberty, is unthinkable. If there has to be a distinction between the two, it is that equality focuses on the recognition and protection of the basic human species, while liberty focuses on respecting and protecting individual differences. “In governments, that is, in societies directed by laws, liberty can consist only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will” (Montesquieu 1777). As Mill states, “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it… The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (Mill 2001). Marx and Engels attached great importance to the idea of freedom. In 1894, the year before Engels died, he wrote a letter to Italian socialist Giuseppe Canepa, saying: “XI have tried to find a short epigraph of the kind you wish from the works of Marx, whom alone of the modern socialists, it would seem, is able to stand on a par with the great Florentine. However, I have found nothing except for the following passage taken from the Communist Manifesto (Italian edition of Critica Sociale, p. 35): ‘Al posto della vecehia società borghese divisa in class; cozzanti fra loro, subenta un’associazione, nella quale il libero sviluppo di ciascumo è la condizione per il libero sviluppo di tutti.’ (‘In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’)” (Marx and Engels 1974).

Clearly, equality and liberty constitute the most basic conceptual bases of social justice and they are an important part of social justice in a modern sense. Without these bases, social justice cannot be truly distinguished from justice in a traditional sense.

4 We Need a Society with Equal Opportunities

Opportunity is the space and scope of possibility for the survival and development of members of society. Opportunities are a kind of resource, and when people seize opportunities, there are principles that should be followed. That is, the equal should be treated equally, and the unequal should be treated unequally. Theoretically speaking, these principles should be followed before there is a certain degree of social wealth, so these principles should be regarded as ex-ante principles.

Broadly speaking, having equal opportunities means the following: first, having an equal start and being given the opportunity to survive and develop. Those with the same amount of potential should be given an equal start and the same prospects. “In all sectors of society there should be roughly equal prospects of culture and achievement for everyone similarly motivated and endowed. The expectations of those with the same abilities and aspirations should not be affected by their social class” (Rawls 1999a). This is the most basic requirement of the principle of equality of opportunity. Second is realizing equal opportunities. It is not sufficient enough to simply say that having the same starting point is important. The process of realizing opportunities is also of great significance in order to ultimately realize the principle itself. Any abnormal factors that might interfere with the process should be eliminated. “It was a demand that all man-made obstacles to the rise of some should be removed, that all privileges of individuals should be abolished, and that what the state contributed to the chance of improving one’s conditions should be the same for all” (Hayek 1987). People can only be guaranteed just results if they have an equal starting point and sustained opportunities.

Since opportunities have different meanings for people at different levels, equal opportunities can be divided into two types: shared equal opportunities (or shared opportunities) and differentiated equal opportunities (or differentiated opportunities). Shared opportunities mean that, on the whole, every member of society should have roughly the same opportunity to develop. Differentiated opportunities imply that people cannot have completely equal opportunities in order to survive and develop, and therefore, they should be different to some degree. In modern society, shared opportunities and disparity opportunities exist as an organic whole, together constituting the idea and criterion of equal opportunities.

Equality of opportunity is an important value orientation, and its idea and principle have a far-reaching influence on modern society. It provides them with a fair environment in which they can compete on equal terms and encourages them to eliminate “abnormal” factors that affect their development (e.g., their ascribed status). The idea of equal opportunities is to provide people with more choices and an effective space for development. Equal opportunities allow individuals to have higher societal expectations and at the same time establish basic rules. They bring vitality to society and facilitate social progress.

5 We Need a Society That Distributes According to People’s Contributions

The question of how to distribute existing social resources directly reveals to what degree the principle of social justice is fulfilled. In theoretical terms, this occurs after the point at which social wealth and other resources have been accumulated, so it can be called the ex post rule of social justice.

In the process of the accumulation of social wealth and other resources, the quantity and quality of labor invested by each member of society is different, and similarly the factors of production they invest may also not be the same. Therefore, their specific contributions to society are different. The rule of distribution according to contribution embodies the idea of equality (especially equal labor rights). Additionally, the rule embodies the idea of liberty, fully respecting and recognizing the individual’s different contributions to society.

The rule of distribution according to contribution connects individuals’ vital interests closely with their own contributions. The results stimulate the enthusiasm of each member of society and the vitality of society as a whole. This rule is completely compatible with a modern society and also conforms to the practical principle of the market economy.

There is not much room for ambiguity about whether distributing according to people’s contributions is an important principle. However, there are different views on the importance of distribution according to people’s contributions. Rawls clearly favored “welfare socialism.” He focused on “the least privileged” and was instinctively wary of people who were favored during the distribution process. He advocated with his “difference principle” that benefits should be distributed so that the least privileged can benefit the most (within a certain scope). His view has been praised by many. How should we regard Rawls’ view? There is some justification to it; however, he proposed this idea in the climate of advanced modernization, amid a relatively mature market economy. His ideas cannot necessarily be adapted to serve most developing countries. For example, a major problem that China is facing is how to increase social wealth and related resources; otherwise, nothing else will work. If there is relatively little development in a society and there is an underdeveloped economy, Rawls’ viewpoints could simply be applied without analysis; however, there would likely be a social effect whereby the “highest are being trimmed to level out the low.” This could mean that egalitarianism becomes even more prominent, thereby weakening the vitality of society. Of course, we should not go to the other extreme and focus on only serving the “least disadvantaged.”

6 We Need a Society with Functions to Perfectly Adjust

The system for distributing social resources is far from perfect; what’s more, there are risks with a market economy, and people have different skills and “genetic” advantages/disadvantages. After resources have been distributed, there are inevitably unfair phenomena, for example, gaps between the rich and the poor and ways of accessing opportunities to develop/survive. The disparities that exist between the rich and the poor go against the principle of social development that everyone should be able to share and equally benefit. Society will often be negatively impacted by such a trend: there will be less social integration and more social barriers and conflicts. There will also be less industrialization and democratization, meaning that it is more difficult to develop modern culture. Society is obliged to adjust after the initial distribution of resources. An important factor of social justice is that there are established rules for when necessary adjustments need to be made that serve the overall interests of society so that members of society can continuously benefit and social quality can improve. “As a principle of community life, social responsibility requires every member of a community to play his part in maintaining and promoting the community’s interest. When they come into conflict, he must always give precedence to the community’s interest over his personal self-interest. Each member is responsible to the corporate membership of the community for meeting these requirements” (Milne 1986).

There is a wide breadth of content on such adjustments that cover: realizing full employment, establishing a perfect tax mechanism, mass education, essential social security and welfare, and the creation of a fair/equal social environment. Clearly, as long as the rule of social adjustment is effectively implemented, the very wealthy individuals or families at present are often rich for only a few generations. For example, when the rich are alive, they need to pay progressive taxes, and when they die, their successors must pay inheritance taxes, which are not small in number. Take the inheritance tax in the United States as an example: the specific tax rate is determined according to the value of taxable heritage. The rate is 30% for taxable transfer amounts of US$100,000–150,000, and 41% for taxable transfer amounts of US$1–1.5 million. The highest rate is 55%, which is applicable to taxable transfer amounts exceeding US$3 million. In this way, no matter how much property a person owns, after paying progressive taxes and inheritance taxes and after several generations, most of these properties will eventually be owned by the society.

7 We Need a Developed and Just Society

Throughout different historical periods, people have had different understandings of social justice, and over the course of history, the meaning of “social justice” has been enriched and geared more toward human nature. Nowadays, what we are pursuing is “real” social justice in a modern sense. The idea behind this is that productive forces are a prerequisite for realizing a truly modern and just society. While this idea conveys a very simple truth, it is an easily overlooked piece of common sense.

Only on the basis of highly developed productive forces and a mature market economy can a society have the corresponding social and economic resources to provide the necessary conditions and means for the realization of social justice. A well-developed material base and a mature market economy make the supporting framework of a modern just society. We have noticed that classical Marxist writers, whether Marx, Engels, or Deng Xiaoping, always regard highly developed material conditions as the most important prerequisite when they talk about a just society. “The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day-by-day fuller, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties—this possibility is now, for the first time, here, but it is here” (Marx and Engels 1995b). Deng Xiaoping points out that in essence, socialism is about liberating and developing the productive forces, eliminating exploitation and polarization, and ultimately, it is about achieving prosperity for all (Deng 1993). Obviously, Deng Xiaoping regarded the liberation and development of productive forces as the fundamental premise of justice.

Special attention should be paid to lax productivity, as when there are few social/economic resources, society cannot be truly “just.” If we want a just society, we must create an egalitarian society that appears to offer “equality.” In fact, egalitarianism is another kind of deprivation because it can throw people with strong abilities who make great contributions into deprivation. There are often confused understandings about what constitutes an egalitarian society with “absolute” equality because “their goal is any sort of mechanical equality which would deprive some people of advantages which cannot be provided for all… But to some extent the two conflicting desires of equalizing opportunity and of adjusting opportunity to capacity have become everywhere confused” (Hayek 1987). Egalitarianism emphasizes that equality is everyone’s aim and that people have similar aims rather than equal opportunities. It takes society as a whole as the standard and ignores the specific value of individuals. Sometimes, it exploits the interests of specific social groups and uses them as an excuse to deprive people of their normal and reasonable interests. This unfair phenomenon can lead to society experiencing great harm. In this respect, China has already learned a heavy lesson. If it wants to create a “just” society and avoid repeating previous mistakes, it should attach great importance to vigorously developing productive forces, as these are the prerequisites for establishing a just society. If it doesn’t, the idea of social justice will be inconceivable.