In a modern society with a market economy, social justice is the fundamental value pursued by individuals. Social justice consists of two indispensable waypoints by which values are oriented: equality and justice. In other words, all members of society should share in the fruits of social development, and, at the same time, sufficient space should be provided for them to freely develop. The primary content (or fundamental rules) of these two waypoints is expressed in four ways: through the safeguarding of the basic rights of members of society, through equality of opportunity, through distribution according to contribution, and through social adjustment—all of which are guaranteed through equitable procedures. Social justice is the conceptual basis for the design of society’s fundamental institutions and policies. As Rawls says, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought” (Rawls 1999).

Social justice is an extremely important goal that is universally pursued across modern society. However, due to cognitive bias, the divergent interests and preferences of different social groups, historical conditions, or practical circumstances, social justice is sometimes pursued improperly. The pursuit of equality or liberty might be taken to extremes, or procedural justice might be neglected or distorted. Once this occurs, social justice inevitably loses its original meaning, growing warped and even inclining toward injustice, thereby producing all sort of negative effects within society. Each of these issues ought to be given sufficient attention.

1 The Improper Pursuit of Equality

Modern society is people-oriented. Communities are composed of numerous specific individuals. As mentioned earlier, each individual makes an indispensable contribution to the community while also possessing their own human dignity as members of the species—both of which entitle each to equal rights. As Engels pointed out: “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 resp. social status for all human beings, or at least for all citizens of a state or all members of a society” (Marx and Engels 1995a). Crucially, the emergence and development of modern productive forces has made it possible to achieve equality. Equality is a historical phenomenon. In practical terms, equality is only able to emerge in modern societies with highly developed levels of productivity. The enormous material wealth created by modern productive power has fundamentally ended scarcity in the basic resources necessary for people’s survival, thereby creating possibilities and laying the foundation for the protection of fundamental equal rights.

Within modern society and the market economy, equality carries an irreplaceable significance for social integration and social unity, for the stimulation of society’s overall potential, and for its stable operation.

Though equality is of the utmost importance, going too far is as bad as not doing enough. Once taken to the extreme and made into the only goal of social justice, divorced from freedom and specific historical conditions, equality becomes excessive. Accordingly, the excessive pursuit of equality becomes an inappropriate practice with harmful effects.

Although an excess of equality can take different outward forms, in essence it places undue emphasis on the similarity of individual living conditions and attempts to realize such similarity through a kind of “levelling,” all while denying the reasonable differences that exist between people. In other words, excessive equality only sees that “all are born equal,” but not “all are born different.” Nor does it acknowledge that individuals’ different situations are primarily shaped by their own self-motivated efforts.

1.1 Three Categories of the Improper Pursuit of Equality

The improper pursuit of equality can be roughly divided into the following three categories, according to intensity and the degree of irrationality:

The first is egalitarianism. The crux of egalitarianism lies in exceeding the reasonable bounds of equality. Under the conditions that prevail in a modern society and market economy, society must ensure that the basic rights of all individuals—including their rights to subsistence, education, and social security—are guaranteed so as to safeguard basic dignity, to ensure social cooperation and solidarity, and to address personal and social risks. All members of society must enjoy the fruits of development. There is no doubt about this point, which is also a central element of social justice. The problem is that egalitarianism considers this to be the only element, ignoring the equally important and fundamental principle of distribution according to contribution.

Egalitarianism pushes for social wealth to be unconditionally distributed according to the principle of “one share per person.” This is obviously unfair. As social wealth and other resources are accumulated, the quantity and quality of labor invested by each member of society differs. Similarly, the factors of production that they invest will not be entirely identical. Therefore, each individual worker’s contribution will differ from that of others. Under such circumstances, egalitarianism’s unconditional method of “one share per person” is actually a form of expropriation that takes from those who contribute more to the benefit of those who contribute less.

In many circumstances, egalitarianism is not necessarily expressed in an extreme fashion. On the contrary, it is often implemented through pre-existing systems and institutions. Before the period of reform and opening in China, egalitarianism was practiced through the planned economy. At that time, individuals had extremely similar status in terms of income, with only minor differences that had almost no relation to the concrete investment made by each worker. In certain developed countries in Europe today, egalitarianism manifests in the form of welfare systems that far exceed all reasonable limits. In West Germany in the 1980s, the rate of social transfers was 55% of the average tax rate, while in Sweden and Britain, it was above 78% (Zhou 2001). The National Health System (NHS) in the UK accounted for 9% of GDP in 2008, up from 5.8% in 1998 (Ran 2017). It ought to be admitted that such a high rate of social transfers clearly exceeds any fair and reasonable limits.

The second category is populism. This term originated with thinkers such as Alexander Herzen, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, and others in the mid-nineteenth century in Russia. Although the term has come to encompass many schools of thought, their basic viewpoints are roughly homologous. The concept, rooted in equality, has certain positive aspects visible in its criticism of absolutism and exploitation. However, insofar as it unconditionally takes the standpoint of the populace at large, populism proves to be one-sided and harmful. One reason for this is that it constructs a fantastic utopia. Populism thereby negates any sense of periodicity and rejects the historical trend toward modernization. Commenting on Sun Yat-sen’s populism, Lenin argued, “That is the essence of Sun Yat-sen’s Narodism … From the point of view of doctrine, this theory is that of a petty-bourgeois ‘socialist’ reactionary. For the idea that capitalism can be ‘prevented’ in China and that a ‘social revolution’ there will be made easier by the country’s backwardness, and so on, is altogether reactionary” (Lenin 1995). Secondly, populism denies social differences. As modernization and the market economy progress, the social division of labor inevitably grows more intricate while its constituent elements become more complex and its overall composition more heterogeneous. Populism, on the other hand, considers itself to be on the side of the people, opposing and attempting to eliminate all “elite” groups.

Populism’s major misconception is its attempt to construct fundamental social institutions based on absolute equality and calculated in terms of the simple majority. This standpoint not only denies individuals’ rational pursuit of freedom within modern society and the market economy—as well as their diverse conditions of existence and development—but also denies the crucial social justice principles of equal opportunity and distribution according to contribution. More troublingly, when compared to egalitarianism, populist practices are more irrational and extreme. Populism not only rejects the historical rationality underlying modern society and the market economy, but also tries to invoke the name of “The People” and the principle of absolute equality as a sort of threat, organizing the modernization process under the banner of historical inevitability and thereby subverting the “normal state” and “regularity” of modern society. Also worth noting is the fact that, although populism is hostile to elitism, it often finds that it is easier to move toward “strongman politics” or even “dictator politics” than to progress in the direction of liberal democracy (Liu 2016).

The third category is the “tyranny of the majority.” This is the most extreme form of equality, and it has completely lost the proper meaning of social justice. Rooted in the mere numerical superiority of the majority rather than the principles of social justice, the “tyranny of the majority” directly determines the fate of the minority in the name of opposing inequality. Populism is already an extreme form of equality, but the “tyranny of the majority” is even more extreme and irrational since it uses threats and violence to “coerce” or eliminate dissidents. Furthermore, the “tyranny of the majority” is even more arbitrary and lacking in its sense of responsibility. Under certain conditions, it entirely disregards the need for social order that every society must take into consideration. In a sense, the will of the majority is even worse than the autocracy of a minority since the latter at least bears a certain responsibility and is more likely to consider ways to maintain society in the long run—albeit from the perspective of a hereditary monarchy—maintaining social order and never daring to stoke social chaos (Wu 2012).

1.2 The Negative Social Effects of the Improper Pursuit of Equality

In practice, the improper pursuit of equality will inevitably lead to obvious or even severely negative social effects.

The improper pursuit of equality is bound to stifle social vitality and creativity. Within modern society and the market economy, excessive equality—which emphasizes the similarity between individuals—will suppress people’s pursuit of differentiated goals, limit the space for individuals to freely develop, and dampen their enthusiasm in work. “The relationship between equality and freedom is a love-hate relationship, depending on whether we demand an equality that suits diversity or an equality that sees inequality in every diversity. And, certainly, the more equality is sameness, the more an equality so conceived feeds a distaste for variety, self-assertion and eminence, and thereby, in the final analysis, for freedom” (Sartori 1987). Thus, the improper pursuit of equality will eventually undermine a society’s vitality and creativity to various degrees.

The improper pursuit of equality will also inevitably damage the material foundations for a society’s sustainable development. Modern society must ensure the necessary social welfare of its individual members. However, the provision of welfare through the social security system must take place according to ability. Otherwise, the financial resources of the nation will be overdrawn and sustainable development weakened. The improper pursuit of equality can easily result in an overgenerous welfare system—that is, high welfare provisions that exceed the capacity of their material foundation—and this will obviously hinder a country’s long-term development. Such a situation exists to differing degrees in both developed and developing countries and regions.

Sometimes, the improper pursuit of equality even directly undermines the safe operation of society. Egalitarian leveling increases the unreasonable benefits received by those who contribute less by impairing the reasonable benefits of those who contribute more, which will inevitably lead to dissatisfaction among the latter. Populism harms the legitimate interests of the minority in the name of the majority such that it becomes impossible to guarantee the interests of all members of society. Today one minority might be sacrificed, tomorrow another, and the day after that yet another. In the end this increase amounts to a large total number of people. When considered over an even longer timespan, everyone in the majority group could become a member of the minority group. Accordingly, when viewed from a long-term perspective, the equal rights and reasonable interests of the majority will not have any stable boundaries and thus will not be guaranteed (Wu 2012). As a result, many people will find themselves in a state of anxiety and panic. Meanwhile, the “tyranny of the majority” easily stokes unrest across the entirety of society, which carries an enormous price. As Tocqueville commented with regard to the social unrest caused by the French Revolution: “One, older and more deeply rooted, was the violent, inextinguishable hatred of inequality. This was ignited and fueled by the sight of inequality itself, and with constant and irresistible force it had long driven the French to seek to destroy, down to the very foundations, whatever remained of the institutions of the Middle Ages, and once the ground was clear, to build upon it a society in which men would be as similar and conditions as equal as humanity would allow” (Tocqueville 2011).

2 The Improper Pursuit of Liberty

In “people-oriented” modern society, consensual free development is of the utmost importance. As stated in the Communist Manifesto, “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). Moreover, the great abundance of modern material wealth, the huge demand for an efficient allocation of various factors of production within the market economy, and the substantial increase in opportunities for social mobility all also provide an ever-increasing space for the free development of individuals within society.

Just as modern society is inseparable from equality, so too is it inseparable from liberty. In a modern society with a market economy, the universal free development of individuals is a necessary condition for effective and sustainable economic development; a direct driving force behind the prosperity of ideology, culture, science and technology; a catalyst for the diversification and enrichment of people’s lifestyles; a necessary requirement for society to be full of vitality and creativity; and the desire of every individual member of society.

2.1 Two Categories of the Improper Pursuit of Liberty

It should be noted that, although free development is a common interest that appeals to individuals across modern society, it is not their only goal. “Everyone should have only as much liberty as justice allows, and no more than that” (Adler 1984). Once the pursuit of liberty exceeds a reasonable limit, it will become inappropriate and will grow to negatively affect the safe operation and healthy development of society.

The first category of the improper pursuit of liberty is the liberty of economic supremacy.

At the fundamental level, as far as the relationship between humanity and the economy is concerned, humanity is itself the end, and the economy, however important, is only a means or tool to meet this end. “Growth was a means to an end, not an end in itself. The objectives were to eliminate poverty, illiteracy and disease, to increase the range of human choice, to give mankind greater control over the natural environment and thereby to increase freedom” (Griffin 1999). However, in the early industrial period, the intense demands of the majority to meet the basic needs of survival and the intense desire of business owners to “make a profit” led to the emergence of “economic supremacy”—a seemingly inconceivable form of alienation possessing a certain type of historical inevitability. Economic supremacy takes the economy to be an end in itself, with humanity made into a tool for the expansion of wealth. Under such circumstances, the economy (capital) grows to dominate all aspects of society and is free to do as it pleases. At the same time, as the personification of the economy (capital), business owners (known in this early period as capitalists) grew into the “core group” influencing or even “dominating” the economic life of the entire society as well as the basic livelihoods of the employed population, with the latter attached to and subordinate to the business owners.

In the early industrial period, liberty typically took the form of economic supremacy (the supremacy of capital). With this as the starting point, the law of the jungle inevitably prevailed. On the one hand, business owners (capitalists) were free to accumulate wealth at a frantic pace, with no limits placed on this freedom even if it caused excessive harm to the employed population. As Marx argues, “But in its blind unrestrainable passion, its were-wolf hunger for surplus-labor, capital oversteps not only the moral, but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the working-day … It higgles over a meal-time, incorporating it where possible with the process of production itself, so that food is given to the laborer as to a mere means of production, as coal is supplied to the boiler, grease and oil to the machinery” (Marx and Engels 1972). On the other hand, the employed had only the freedom to work in order to earn a meager income and maintain a miserable life. As described by an American worker at the time, “factory laborers worked ten- to twelve-hour days, six days a week; in the steel industry they worked twelve hours a day. Many worked in appallingly unsafe or unhealthy factories. Industrial accidents were frequent and severe … At least 1.7 million children under sixteen years of age were employed in factories and fields in 1900, more than twice the number of thirty years before. Ten percent of all girls aged ten to fifteen, and 20 percent of all boys, held jobs” (Brinkley 2014). Therefore, pushed to the extreme, the liberty of economic supremacy is not only unjust, but can sometimes become extremely unjust or even inhuman.

Even in the latter half of the twentieth century, economic supremacy existed in many developing countries and regions to differing degrees. Sometimes, it manifested as the “supremacy of GDP.” “ ‘Growthmanship’ has become a way of life … In fact, for many years the conventional wisdom equated development with the rapidity of national output growth” (Todaro 1989). Although this phenomenon possesses a certain historical rationality, in the final analysis it is unsustainable and must be rectified.

The second category of the improper pursuit of liberty is the one-way liberty of vested interests.

For various reasons (such as the absence of a system of rules), in periods of social transformation some vested interests forge alliances and form their own spheres of influence, utilizing all kinds of privileges to enjoy a one-way liberty conducive to the expansion of their own interests. Marx argued that “every kind of freedom has always existed, only at one time as a special privilege, at another as a universal right” (Marx and Engels 1995b). What these vested interest groups possess is the freedom of privilege and exclusivity. This kind of unidirectional liberty is an injustice that seriously damages equality of opportunity.

On the one hand, the unidirectional liberty of these vested interests creates a “closed circle of interests” limited to their “own people.” Groups from different social spheres will often form such alliances, using various policies or unspoken rules beneficial to their own interests in order to build an exclusive sphere of influence that then further benefits their “own people.” These circles are what General Secretary Xi Jinping calls “barriers of solidified interests” that must be broken down. Since allied groups possessing vested interests can freely swap and stack interests within their own circles—with the winner taking all—they can thus expand their respective interests as they please and to the fullest extent possible.

On the other hand, the one-directional liberty of these interest groups also “erects barriers” against the interests of others. By obstructing the freedom of others, such groups restrict the opportunities available to those outside their sphere and limit the scope of these outsiders’ freedom to move and develop. More importantly, as time passes this typical form of social discrimination will solidify into an “intergenerational” phenomenon.

2.2 The Negative Social Effects of the Improper Pursuit of Liberty

The improper pursuit of liberty is also bound to have a number of negative and severe effects.

The improper pursuit of liberty will weaken social unity. The improper pursuit of liberty implies that those in groups that occupy relatively favorable positions are using their overpowering “freedom” in a way that undermines the freedom and dignity of those who occupy relatively unfavorable positions, inevitably creating a social structure marked by imbalanced interests. This imbalanced system, in turn, further enables certain groups to inappropriately encroach on the reasonable interests of other groups at no cost to themselves, thus gaining benefits through others’ loss (Wu 2008). As a result, many individuals who find themselves in a relatively unfavorable position are deprived of due benefits both in an absolute and relative sense. In this way, dissatisfaction and even hatred toward those who benefit under such an imbalanced system will be fostered among those who have lost out, weakening social solidarity and social cooperation.

The improper pursuit of liberty will impede the effective production and deployment of social potential. Firstly, it inhibits the ability workers to improve their technical skills. Since the improper pursuit of liberty causes widespread poverty, many workers and their children will not have the ability or opportunity to receive necessary education, making it impossible to improve their level of culture. In the long run, the productive potential of society will be suppressed. Secondly, it curbs domestic consumption. Again due to widespread poverty, many of the poor will lack necessary purchasing power, thus inhibiting the domestic consumption demand necessary for development. Thirdly, it weakens the vitality of the market. The improper pursuit of liberty generates numerous forms of economic privilege and monopoly, which in turn hinder the effective allocation of the factors of production. “When the market is imperfect, inequalities of power and wealth become an inequality of opportunity, which results in the waste of productive potential and inefficiency in the allocation of resources” (World Bank 2006). As a result, the economic vitality that the market economy should possess cannot be effectively stimulated.

The improper pursuit of liberty is not conducive to the safe operation of society. In modern society, freedom and equality have become individuals’ most important and universal demands. The improper pursuit of liberty will, however, diminish the baseline of equality and constrain the range of free development for the majority of individuals, thereby damaging their dignity and making them lose hope in the future. In addition, the improper pursuit of liberty by the few will directly harm the vital interests of the many. All of this will trigger resistance by those whose dignity, interests, and hopes have suffered, erecting barriers throughout society while also aggravating disputes and conflicts. For party strife is everywhere due to inequality. In this way, the safe operation of society will be seriously impacted. Moreover, once riotous disturbances or more widespread social unrest emerge, the interests of all groups—including the former vested interests—will be damaged to differing degrees, with no one spared.

3 Improper Procedural Justice

Social justice cannot merely remain at the conceptual level but instead needs to be implemented at a practical level through relevant institutions. Going a step further, this institutionalization of social justice must be carried out through equitable procedures. Substantive justice and procedural justice together compose an organic whole, each indispensable for the other. Without procedural justice, substantive justice cannot be realized.

Procedural justice refers to the fundamental rules and procedural arrangements that should be followed in the formulation and implementation of laws, regulations, rules, and any other policies related to social justice. Social justice can be embodied in procedural justice in two ways: first, the rationale given in the formulation of laws, regulations, rules, and any other policies should be just; and second, the process itself should also be just (Wu 2002). Procedural justice is essentially a kind of “process value,” mainly reflected in the workings of the process, while also acting as a standard to evaluate whether the process itself is equitable (Xiao 1999). Procedural justice has the following fundamental characteristics: inclusivity, impartiality, the participation of many parties, openness, and a scientific character.

The complexity of the problem lies in the fact that, under certain conditions, procedural justice may be ignored or distorted. This improper form of procedural justice—which is still practiced in the name of procedural justice—emerges out of the preferential interests and influence of different groups, as well as the cognitive bias of individuals.

First are cases in which the relevant parties attempting to achieve just outcomes have done damage to procedural justice through technical error. In other words, this is the misconduct of “not doing a good thing well.”

The technical specifications or requirements laid out by specific guidelines in the procedural justice process must be strictly followed in order to achieve procedural justice. “The fairness of the procedural rules is determined entirely by their conducibility in general to just results, but there is no guarantee that even the most fastidious adherence to the rules will lead to a just outcome in a given case” (Feinberg 1973a). Sometimes, the relevant parties act in accord with the principles of universality and impartiality while ignoring or failing to follow other requirements. They thereby fail to realize procedural justice. First, in terms of the participation of multiple parties, even though the relevant groups may try to be objective and invite many individuals to participate, those who do participate are not sufficiently representative and certain groups are overlooked. Additionally, large numbers of unsuspecting netizens sometimes overexaggerate one-sided views on digital media such that certain participants in the procedural justice process are involuntarily swayed, their views hijacked by “public opinion” until they can no longer be objective or fair. Second, in terms of openness, the process may be lacking in the collection and disclosure of information, which results in an asymmetry of information between relevant parties. Third, in terms of scientific requirements, the process may not have established or followed appropriate mechanisms for negotiation and compromise, which makes it difficult for the relevant parties to effectively communicate. Similarly, necessary mechanisms for correcting errors may not have been established, such that it is impossible to rectify miscarriages of justice after the fact. In each of these cases, the implication is that procedural justice is still not properly calibrated and obvious deviations still exist, making it difficult to guarantee substantive justice.

Second are cases in which the arrangement of the process is in fact manipulated and unilaterally controlled by vested interests, effectively “drawing water to their own mill.”

In certain circumstances, vested interest groups may use the guise of procedural justice to obtain formal “legitimacy.” However, this is a selective use of procedural justice that distorts or abandons key elements. First, in terms of universality, this practice only protects vested interests, rather than the interests of all. Second, in terms of impartiality, the parties and arbitrators involved are sometimes members of the same vested interest group, just performing different roles. Third, in terms of the participation of many parties, vested interests will sometimes appoint their own people to participate in the process as “relevant” or “neutral” personnel and thereby prevent other relevant parties from fully expressing themselves. Fourth, in terms of openness, by monopolizing the channels by which information is disclosed, vested interests may only publish select information beneficial to themselves, or they may release large quantities of false information beneficial to themselves, all while restricting or prohibiting other relevant parties from publishing and obtaining true information relevant to the case.

Obviously, this purely formal sort of procedural justice has lost its original meaning. In fact, this distorted “procedural justice” has become a method for vested interests to exert unilateral control while also giving their undue benefits a formal legitimacy. Over time, the process of “procedural justice” becomes a one-sided institutional arrangement used by certain groups with vested interests to “whitewash” these unreasonable benefits. In such cases, procedural justice not only fails to guarantee substantive justice, but also becomes the direct cause of much social injustice.

It is apparent that any of these improper forms of procedural justice will not only fail to guarantee substantive justice but will also cause or aggravate social injustice. What’s more, due to the formal legitimacy of procedural justice and the fact that it is easily trusted and respected by the people, certain social injustices can be given a deceptive surface appearance of “fairness.” Once this deception is exposed, the people will easily lose confidence in society’s general conditions of justice.

4 Concluding Remarks

China has undergone tremendous changes in the 40 years of reform and opening. From 1979 to 2015, GDP increased at an average annual rate of 9.6%. From 2001 to 2015, the average annual growth rate was 9.7%. Looking at the process of modernization across various countries throughout history, this is a very rare phenomenon. Moreover, for the largest community in the world, such an achievement is even more difficult. It is no exaggeration to refer to this as an exceptional miracle of human history. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that there are obvious and even serious problems within Chinese society, visible in the way that social injustice has already become a major influence on China’s overall development.

At the present stage, how can social justice be effectively safeguarded and promoted? Based on the analysis above, we can easily arrive at two conclusions:

First, an accurate grasp and scientific understanding of social justice is necessary to effectively maintain and promote social justice.

Social justice in the modern sense is strictly defined. Each of its elements should not only be complete and treated as indispensable, but also come together to compose an organic whole, each inseparably intermixed into the others. All should take one another as necessary conditions for their own existence. Meanwhile, all have reasonable boundaries, and pushing any beyond their limits is just as bad as falling short. The key to understanding social justice is as follows. First, the two fundamental waypoints orienting social justice must be grasped: all people should be allowed to share in the fruits of social development and sufficient space should be provided for the free development of all members of society. These two complement one another and are each indispensable. Second, the “procedural justice” of relevant institutions and policies must also be grasped. If either of these two key principles of social justice is ignored, society will be led astray down the path of injustice. If the first of these two is not properly understood—only valuing the latter while ignoring the former—the result will be the “improper pursuit of equality” or the “improper pursuit of liberty.” Similarly, failure to correctly understand the second of the two will result in “improper procedural justice.” No matter which of these errors is made, the result will be an incorrect pursuit of social justice with differing degrees of negative social impact.

Second, in essence, the rule of law is effective at protecting and promoting social justice.

At China’s present stage, the interests of individuals within society have grown increasingly visible and diversified as modernization has deepened, the market economy has expanded, and a general sense of independence and equality has taken shape. Among the numerous interests within society are intermingled various kinds of reasonable and unreasonable demands, which create a complicated problem. Moreover, the influence of social anxiety and the ubiquity of the internet have the effect of amplifying these demands. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that China’s current legal system is imperfect, awareness of the rule of law is generally weak, and social justice cannot be effectively maintained at the institutional level. Under such circumstances, some local governments sometimes adopt arbitrary, case-by-case methods for settling disputes and maintaining order. Although this practice is a somewhat understandable last resort, in the long run, it makes it more difficult to effectively alleviate or solve social conflicts. On the contrary, the potential energy driving such conflicts may even be accumulating and growing more serious.

An effective way to solve the above dilemma is to emphasize the essence of the rule of law, using it to protect and promote social justice. Within modern society and the market economy, there exists an equality between individuals and between social groups. The essential spirit of the rule of law is impartiality. Solving social contradictions and disputes in this spirit, though not likely to satisfy all involved, can (with a high probability) establish the credibility of the whole system of social governance and the authority of the legal system over the long run, which ultimately helps every member of society consciously form a sense of reverence for the law and consciously abide by it. Taken further, this can effectively protect and promote social justice.