So-called social justice means giving everyone what he or she deserves, that is, members of society “get what they deserve.”Footnote 1 The pursuit of social justice is doing everything in one’s power to get what one can through mutually beneficial interactions. Undoubtedly, social justice is extremely important and indispensable in modern society. Where there is a market economy, social justice is a basic value. Because social justice is so important, accurately understanding and promoting it has become a major issue in both policy and institutions.

Furthermore, universal justice and differential justice in a modern sense are integral components of social justice.Footnote 2 They complement each other and are indispensable, therefore constituting the basic elements of social justice. Many scholars obviously have differences in understanding the basic components of social justice, partly because they unilaterally value universal or differential justice. A tiny error can lead to missing the mark by a vast distance. Misunderstanding and biased promotion of either complementary element impacts safe operations and the healthy development of society.

1 Universal Justice and Differential Justice Are Integral Components of Modern Society

1.1 People Have a Historical Understanding of Social Justice, Historical Demands for It and “Weighty” Demands

People understand social justice as a historical concept. They have historical demands for social justice, which involve a “weight” of demand, and a subsequent acceptance. Although people have pursued social justice throughout human civilization, in different societies with varied historical conditions, people not only have different understandings of the concept, but also have different demands, “weights” of demand and degrees of accepting it. Karl Marx said, “The conception of eternal justice, therefore, varies not only with time and place, but also with the persons concerned” (Marx and Engels 1964). Social justice doesn’t make sense if it is divorced from historical circumstances. Rawls’ “veil of ignorance,” to some extent, avoids explaining social justice in terms of specific groups’ interests. Its explanation can only describe “what it is” and not “why it is,” so it is still not convincing enough. Although “the veil of ignorance” implies a choice, that is, a judgment over what constitutes justice by modern citizens and the market economy, who have “independence” and “contracts” as well as “freedom” and “equality,” it excludes mention of people from past eras. Therefore, Rawls’ veil of ignorance lacks historical explanatory power. Because of that, “the veil of ignorance” cannot explain the historical phenomenon of “Greeks and Romans holding slavery to be just” (Marx and Engels 1964).

During the last millennium, some great thinkers such as Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Mencius made valuable statements on social justice. They even put forward some views beyond the specific conditions of the times.

In ancient Greece, philosophers believed the essence of justice to be “giving everyone what he deserves” and equality according to worth. Such arguments not only have positive significance for some unfair social phenomena at that time, but they are also instructive for people to understand social justice issues. However, we need to understand that “according to historical materialism, the determining historical element was production and reproduction” (Marx and Engels 1995a). At that time, philosophers had historical limitations in their understandings of social justice. Some could only visualize moral “justice,” independent of the existing economic foundation and real life, which was therefore not feasible or operational. Some were limited to idealized goals of what “should-be” and set expectations far beyond people’s common interests/demands, meaning they were difficult for most society members to accept. Some simply bound social justice to the existing social order, believing that “what is lawful is just” (Xenophon 1984), and had different ideas about deviating from their ideal goals.

More importantly, many philosophers’ early discussions on social justice often could not grow and ferment into the basic concept underlying that society’s fundamental institutional arrangements. The reasons for this are quite simple. Fundamentally speaking, “the mode of production in material life constitutes social, political and intellectual life processes. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness” (Marx and Engels 1995b). In traditional society, productivity was backward and material wealth was extremely scarce. Most people lived simple lives of producing and reproducing, that is, in a state of maintaining their own basic living standards. Society as a whole was not able to effectively redistribute.

Moreover, as productivity was extremely backward, people lacked ideas about “subjects,” “independence,” and “humanism.” Marx said that when society has a natural economy: “personal dependence characterizes the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organized on the basis of that production” (Marx and Engels 1972). However, personal dependence is essentially exclusive of freedom and equality.

Furthermore, where there was extremely backward productivity, the rationality of society was very low. Thus, obscurantism and a herd mentality dominated the masses. It was impossible then for the public to expect groups to be mutually beneficial and to form benign interactions with one another. The most important thing for the people was simply that they could adapt to basic living conditions (such as the weather) to survive and that a basic social order could be guaranteed. As long as such conditions were met, one could accept even the more unjust autocratic hierarchies like “the divine right of kings.” “Despotism’s only thought is disdain for mankind, dehumanized man; and it is a thought superior to many others in that it is also a fact” (Marx and Engels 1960).

Although some ancient thinkers’ views on social justice were “critically” significant, they had neither a broad, constructive effect nor a far-reaching impact on society.

It is different in modern society. There is not only a realistic material foundation for social justice, but society as a whole is dependent on it; it is a common interest. From an economic perspective, modern society provides the necessary conditions for the realization of social justice. One of the basic characteristics of modern society is highly developed productivity. Modern society, which began with the revolution of large machines (steam engines), has experienced an industrial revolution in the electric and automation era. Productivity has developed at a speed beyond imagination, and material wealth has greatly accumulated.

In modern society, whole communities are wealthy enough for redistribution to be implemented, thus solving the problem of vulnerable society members’ basic survival. It has become possible to realize mutually beneficial and benign interactions between various social groups.

Furthermore, the needs of most where there is a highly developed economy, is for a “people-oriented” principle and increased massification. The importance of social justice has become increasingly prominent and a common demand for people’s survival and development. It has mass interest and is a matter of great concern to all social groups.

1.2 Social Justice in the Modern Sense Includes Universal Justice and Differential Justice

Since it is possible to realize social justice and make it a “popular” thing in modern society, there is further analysis to be had over what social justice actually includes.

To grasp the basic elements of social justice, we must discover what people most need in terms of basic interests and their value orientation. Only then can we reasonably explain how society members “get what they deserve” in a modern context.

Where there is a modern society and a market economy, people mainly have two common interests and basic value orientations. They pursue equal treatment (related to human dignity and basic survival) and the development of their own diversified needs. In line with this, social justice can actually be divided into two parts: universal justice and differential justice.

The first part focuses on protecting the needs of society members’ “dignity of their species,” that is, their needs and desires for equal rights. As some scholars have said, “people enjoy basic social rights equally, with their membership in community as a sufficient condition” (Zhang 2015).

Every member of society lives in a certain community and has prerequisites for their survival and development. At the same time, the communities themselves are made up of numerous types of people. Each member makes an indispensable contribution to the community, and they also have dignity as a member of the “human species” (“human dignity”). “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). The contribution of a created society and the dignity of the “human species” mean that every society member is entitled to equal “qualifications” that they, “as a human being,” should have and to the equal rights inherent in it. Rawls believed that “everyone should have an equal right to a similar freedom system compatible with the most extensive and equal basic freedom system owned by all” (Rawls 1999). Furthermore, in modern society, the concept of equality will inevitably lead to a common interest or demand for universal justice.

What is important is that the development of modern productivity makes it possible for most members of society to obtain equality. Equality is a historical phenomenon. In reality, equality can only appear in a modern society with highly developed productivity. In traditional society, the extreme shortage of living resources meant that society members inevitably resorted to “animal instincts” in order to have their basic necessities and to survive. In such circumstances, it was impossible to correct the problem of inequality. People’s pursuit of equality could only be a utopian goal or a weapon to criticize injustices. In other words, in traditional society, equality only had a subjective “humane” meaning, but not an objective “change the whole society” meaning. From an objective point of view, when there was extremely backward productivity, there was only egalitarianism—which looked somewhat similar to equality but was difficult to sustain. At that time, the normal social phenomenon that was most accepted was for different hierarchies to correspond to the different amount of owned resources. The emergence of modern productivity has completely changed this situation. The huge material wealth of modern productive forces has fundamentally ended people’s extreme shortage of basic living resources. However, the formation and development of a market economy has made equal communication among society members a common social norm. “Equality and freedom are thus not only respected in exchange based on exchange values, but, also, the exchange of exchange values are the productive, real basis for all equalities and freedoms…Equality and freedom, developed to this extent, are exactly the opposite of freedom and equality in a world of antiquity…” (Marx and Engels 1995c). All these make the concept of equality and the behavior of society members more universal.

The second part focuses on society members’ diversified needs and pursuits, that is, their needs and pursuits for space to freely live and develop.

As human beings, every member of society is not only born equal, but also born different. “However important the environment may be, we must not overlook the fact that individuals are very different from the outset. As a statement of fact, it just is not true that ‘all men are born equal’” (Hayek 1987). Everybody has a “species-character” pursuit for the same dignity and equal rights, but they also have a “species-character” pursuit for free and diversified demands. As Marx said, “free, conscious activity is man’s species-character” (Marx and Engels 1979). These kinds of free, diversified demands and pursuits mean the existence of diversity, differentiation, and development among people. Diversity and differentiation manifest in people’s different types and levels of needs, but also in people’s abilities, families, and opportunities, as well as the resulting differences in the way people pursue their ultimate living conditions. In traditional society, where material wealth was extremely scarce and there was limited space for social mobility, if it was impossible to fully realize the “species-character” of people’s diversified needs/pursuits, then the advancement of modernization and the market economy, the great development of productivity, the great enrichment of material wealth and the substantial expansion of social mobility space mean that people’s “species-character” of diversified needs/pursuits can be fully revealed. Correspondingly, society can recognize people’s diverse needs and pursuits. Hobhouse said, “The difference between a civilized society and a barbaric society lies not in how much order it has established, but in its tolerance for pluralistic development” (Xu 2005).

In particular, the development of a market economy has greatly impacted people’s “species-character” of diversified needs and differentiated pursuits. “Where there are limited resources, how to reasonably allocate these for different purposes in economic activities is a key issue that society should consider in the process of economic development. As far as this is concerned, the market economy can effectively solve this problem” (Wu 2000). The market economy is essentially a competitive economic system. In order to achieve high economic benefits, the market economy must have extremely high requirements for the effective allocation of resources. It urges society members, as independent individuals, to be responsible for their own actions. “Now the freedom of the sane adult individual… carrying with them the right to reach such agreements as best suits their own interests, involves him having both the right and the duty to determine the lines of life for himself” (Hobhouse 1911). The competitiveness of the market economy and the high efficiency of resource allocation enable society to expand its freedom of mobility, thus making the diversified, independent choices of society members not only a reality, but a demand for continuous accumulation and expansion.

To summarize, the conditions of modern society with a market economy mean that pursuing diversified demands has become normal behavior. People will inevitably form universal interest demands for differential justice accordingly.

Although equality and freedom are of vital importance and, in a modern sense, are the bases for the concept of social justice, it should be noted that equality and freedom can be “excessive” if necessary and reasonable restrictions are not imposed. Once “excessive” equality and freedom become reality, they will cause various social problems such as “egalitarianism,” “populism,” and “the law of the jungle,” thus damaging the safe operations and healthy development of society to varying degrees. Obviously, equality and freedom both require necessary restrictions or balance, which can only come from justice. The reason is simple: proper and reasonable equality and freedom constitute justice. In this sense, justice is not a simple marriage of equality and freedom, but a basic concept rooted in equality and freedom. Therefore, “out of liberty, equality and justice, only justice is an unlimited good…no society can be too just…When justice thus regulates the pursuit of liberty and equality, both can be maximized harmoniously within the limits set” (Adler 1984), Compared to equality and freedom, the basic concept of social justice is more reasonable, and the systems and policies formed on this basis are less likely to make mistakes.

Much as there can be proper equality and reasonable freedom, we can divide the basic concept of social justice into universal justice and differential justice. Equality and freedom are ambiguous and easy to idealize, but universal justice and differential justice are more readily accepted as concepts by the Chinese people. As for whether they are feasible, they can be carried out relatively easily.

The above analysis demonstrates that people in modern society have basic interest needs and value orientations that determine social justice is part of two complementary and indispensable parts, namely, universal justice and differential justice. It should also be noted that since social justice includes universal and differential justice, it is closely related to the daily life and vital interests of society members. It is therefore a common interest and demand of people from all types of social group, who can find their own positions from it. We can therefore regard social justice as the greatest common divisor of wishes and interests/demands of all society members.

2 The Content and Characteristics of Universal Justice and Differential Justice

2.1 The Main Components of Universal Justice and Differential Justice

Of course, we cannot regard social justice as an absolute thing, set apart from history. Similarly, we cannot ignore history and regard social justice as a relative thing with no definitive meaning. Social justice is absolute and relative unity. “In (objective) dialectics, the difference between the relative and the absolute is itself relative. For objective dialectics, there is an absolute within the relative” (Lenin 1972), Social justice, in the modern sense, includes universal justice and differential justice. Once formed, society will have relatively long-term stability. As a core value for society members and a basic concept for institutes and lawmakers, social justice has very broad and far-reaching impacts across modern society.Footnote 3

So-called universal justice mainly revolves around the issue of “equal treatment.” It means that each social member’s dignity and basic livelihood can be protected, guaranteed, and improved with the continuous development of society. Each society member can continuously obtain benefits brought about by social development, and all society members can share the fruits of this development. Friedrich Engels suggested that “the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others” means “the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society… participation by all means enjoyments for all” (Marx and Engels 1995d). John Rawls also said: “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason, justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others” (Rawls 1999).

Universal justice roughly includes the following: an aim to protect the basic rights of society members (the rights to subsistence, development, and education), social security (funded by society but mainly through the state), compulsory education, public healthcare, employment security, and housing for everyone through taxation and redistribution (which is compatible with the social economic level and financial strength).

So-called differential justice mainly revolves around the basic idea of “free development.” It means that the diversified needs of the people and their development space can be protected. With social improvement, people’s varied survival and development patterns can be increasingly accommodated or protected, and they can fully capitalize upon their development potential. Marx attached great importance to the free development of human beings, believing that a just and ideal society would be “an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Marx and Engels 1974).

Differential justice mainly has two components. First, each member of society should have the will to choose for himself his relevant chances of survival and/or development. The basic elements of differential justice include “the agents who are free, the restrictions/limitations they are free from, and what it is they are free to do or not to do” (Rawls 1999). These involve each society member having a differentiated development space. However, if members of society are prohibited in this respect, their future space will be squeezed and their pursuit of diversity will become impossible. In order to ensure their existence and space for development, society needs to create smooth flow channels for them. All discrimination should be eliminated, including birth, racial, gender, belief, household registration, wealth, and age discrimination. We should “break through the barriers of interest solidification” (Xinhua News Agency 2013). Second, distribution should be based on contributions. In creating social wealth and other socially beneficial products, the contributions of each society member are different. Therefore, in the field of distribution, society should make different distributions according to the different contributions of each person. Although in principle this seems simple, it is easy to be ignored or belittled by Rawls or other scholars, due to their overemphasis on the issues of “equality” and “redistribution.”

2.2 The Distinction Between Universal Justice and Differential Justice

Since the focuses of universal and differential justice are respectively to ensure “equality” and “freedom,” there must be some obvious differences between the two.

First of all, universal justice emphasizes the concept of “one share per person,” while differential justice emphasizes different treatment. In modern society, equality and dignity are important factors of “humanization” and must be possessed by every member of society, so they should be guaranteed. Otherwise, it is impossible to talk about putting people first. Although the demand for the pursuit of diversity differs to that for equality, it is also an important “humanizing” element and must be carried out in accordance with the fair rules of equal opportunity and distribution according to contributions. Therefore, it should also be guaranteed. It can be seen that both universal and differential justice are necessary so that people are “humanized.”

Secondly, universal justice focuses on “assistance from society,” while differential justice focuses on the “personal efforts” of society members themselves. Generally speaking, universal justice depends on effective state-owned institutions, that is, the direct operations of the state and their mandatory intervention. The social security system, compulsory education, and public health system are arranged as social redistribution systems. They cannot be organized or implemented by individuals or non-governmental organizations. The required public funds are drawn from other groups according to laws and regulations. However, differential justice is different. Although it depends on the relevant arrangements made by the state and on the encouragement of policy protection, differential justice can only be realized by society members through their own “personal experiences” of entrepreneurship, mobility, or hard work.

Thirdly, the social cost of universal justice is relatively large and the personal cost is relatively small. However, differential justice is the opposite. Relatively speaking, the promotion of universal justice comes at the expense of many social costs, whereas in contrast, personal costs are relatively small. For example, the establishment of social security and public health security systems not only requires complicated and careful system designs, but also years of public investment. A society with universal justice will have public investment policies such as plans for a public health service. But these form a huge bottomless pit and seriously drag down the entire development process of the country. In contrast, the cost of social investment is relatively small where there is fair promotion of differential justice. “In a sense, it is generally acceptable for society to issue relevant systems and policies, draw certain insurmountable boundaries, and set up relevant protection agencies to pay the free costs, while the input costs for coordination of social groups and public funds are relatively small” (Wu 2012). As far as the promotion of differential justice is concerned, although social costs are minimal, the cost of personal investment is relatively high. The reason is quite simple. When relevant systems and policies of differential justice are promulgated, personal entrepreneurship and pursuit need more physical and mental investment, as well as personal financial contributions. This means that individuals bear corresponding risks. Only in this way can members of society realize their diverse needs.

3 The Social Functions of Universal Justice and Differential Justice

Social justice is undoubtedly of vital importance to the safe operations and healthy development of society. And as integral components of social justice, universal justice and differential justice serve different social functions. The social function of universal justice is on promoting social integration and social security, as well as developing society’s potential. The social function of differential justice is to stimulate social vitality and creativity, formulating/promoting a colorful and flexible society and giving people hopes and prospects. Both are indispensable and they both help in promoting the progress of modern civilization.

3.1 The Social Function of Universal Justice

The social function of universal justice is as follows:

First, it is conducive to social integration and so helps improve social security.

Social integration is a basis for the safe operations and healthy development of society. It is necessary so that members of society have a sense of belonging and trust in each other. Universal justice is necessary because it helps to solidify that sense of belonging and trust. With this in mind, Muller said: “…for purpose of public utility; among which purposes the subsistence of the people is the foremost. Since no one is responsible for having been born, no pecuniary sacrifice is too great to be made by those who have more than enough, for the purpose of securing enough to all persons already in existence” (Mill 1909). Universal justice enables society members to acquire a human “species-dignity,” based on which people can find equal footing in society. Through universal justice, those members of society on benefits, especially vulnerable groups, will feel the assistance that society offers. They will feel that there are people out there who care about them and that the society in which they live is “their own society,” thus naturally feeling a sense of identity and belonging.

At the same time, universal justice helps to reduce the huge gap between rich and poor. It helps to promote mutually beneficial interactions between various social groups and further promotes trust among those groups. All of these enhance social integration. Increased social integration can weaken social contradictions and internal frictions, which in turn improve social security.

On the contrary, if society lacks universal justice, social integration and security are greatly reduced. A lack of universal justice puts large numbers of people in a state of poverty or disadvantage, and their basic “species dignity” cannot be guaranteed, thus making it difficult for them to enter “mainstream society.” As a result, social barriers, exclusion, and conflicts are all inevitable. For example, if there are many who have been long-term unemployed, they will feel “abandoned” by society—“especially some young people will be likely to become alienated from society and turn to anti-social behavior such as crime and drug abuse” (Stiglitz and Walsh 2011). What’s more, “from the unequal distribution of wealth and power arise all the disorders of which nine-tenths of the inhabitants of all civilized countries justly complain. From thence result to them privations, sufferings, humiliations, and slavery” (Buonarroti 1989). When there is little universal justice in society, resulting in a serious gap between the rich and the poor, the rapid expansion of some groups’ interests inevitably means others’ are damaged. In such circumstances, there will be resentment toward those groups that are benefited. Social integration will be seriously weakened, and social security will be greatly reduced. In serious cases, there may even be social unrest or social turbulence. Transgressions of money/rights “may be as important a source of cynicism, radicalism and alienation as the vast disparities in material living standards between rich and poor” (Okun 1975). We can’t generalize and say that societies with small rich-poor gaps have high degrees of social integration and security, but we can say that societies with big rich-poor gaps have little social integration, serious social conflicts, and unguaranteed social security. Looking at how things stand currently, we can say that, in general, countries/regions with a large rich-poor gap have little social integration and security. Some countries in Latin America and Southeast Asia are typical examples.

Second, it is conducive to boosting domestic consumption.

The driving forces behind economic development are mainly export, investment, and domestic consumption. Among these, the most important is domestic consumption. However, universal justice is just as conducive to stimulating domestic consumption. This can be understood in two ways:

On the one hand, universal justice can generally enhance the purchasing power of middle and low-income people. One of the key features of universal justice is that it can generally improve people’s living conditions. It does this with social transfer payments, which increase incomes and purchasing power. Increasing low and middle-income people’s purchasing power helps boost domestic consumption, increasing the corresponding market’s commodity orders and thus effectively stimulating the whole economy.

On the other hand, universal justice can also significantly increase the proportion of people making instant and advanced purchases. In modern society with a market economy, everybody will inevitably encounter risks during their life and career, such as illness, elderly care, school expulsion, or unemployment. Faced with such risks, society members often use savings set aside for a rainy day. This kind of practice cannot remove risk completely. With regard to society’s overall economy, this trend delays development. As many people “save” (actually “freeze”) a large amount of funds, in a sense they artificially reduce productive investment and inhibit the economic pull. However, the establishment of a social security system means that individual responses to risks can be transformed into a collective response with society-wide backing. This kind of practice not only is effective at enabling people to resist risk, but also means they “greatly ease worries such as pension, medical care, unemployment, etc., and can have relatively stable expectations for future life, thus can greatly reduce [their] personal savings. Associated with this is an increase in real-time consumption, or even an increase in advanced consumption, that is, a mortgage (loan for consumption)” (Wu 2008). The promotion of immediate and advanced consumption greatly boosts and is a driving force for domestic consumption.

Third, it is conducive to effectively developing society-wide potential.

Universal justice is a big issue concerning whether society-wide potential can be effectively developed. If society lacks universal justice, society’s holistic potential cannot be effectively developed. Here, we might as well hypothesize. In society, if there is no universal and just system, such as compulsory education, some children will be unable to attend school due to their poor families. If this is the case, these children’s innate potential cannot be fully recognized. Moreover, if such children account for a large proportion of their peers, the potential of a large population cannot be fully recognized. This would be a huge loss to society. Therefore, compulsory education, an inclusive and just institution, provides the necessary conditions for the effective development of most society members.

Universal justice is conducive to the development of all society members so that they obtain necessary equality. Through social security, compulsory education, public health services, employment, and other universal and just institutions, society members can acquire equal dignity and basic vocational skills and cultural knowledge. These should be basic conditions for everybody so that they integrate into society equally, have normal social lives, and obtain employment opportunities. As Rawls said, “in order to treat all persons equally, to provide genuine equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those with fewer native assets and to those born into the less favorable social positions. The idea is to redress the bias of contingencies in the direction of equality” (Rawls 1999). For society members, equal development has not only realistic significance in justice, but vertical significance in just, intergenerational transmission. Without such a platform with universal justice as the foundation for society members’ general development, the effective development and realization of peoples’ potential would be impossible.

3.2 The Social Function of Differential Justice

The social function of differential justice is mainly illustrated in the following ways:

First, it is conducive to stimulating social vitality.

In order for society to have sustained development, it must stimulate social vitality or improve efficiency. In this regard, differential justice plays a key role.

A major part of differential justice is distribution according to contribution. Where there is primary distribution, differential justice emphasizes that each society member’s specific interests should be combined with their own contributions. He who contributes more gets more and vice versa. In fact, this means associating the specific contributions of society members improvement with their own vital interests. The results stimulate the enthusiasm and motivation of society members to create social wealth and develop vitality. People would inevitably become increasingly inert if their specific contributions were divorced from their own vital interests.

In modern society, the market economy, which is the cornerstone of economic operations, provides a feasible path for the concrete contributions of society members and their vital interests. This in turn can then be transformed into high efficiency. Chinese President Xi Jinping said, “It is a general rule of the market economy that the market decides the allocation of resources, and a market economy in essence is one in which the market determines resource allocation” (Xi 2013). The requirements of a market economy are to maximize benefits, maximize the cost-performance ratio of products, determine different types/quantities of products according to the changing needs of the market, and require relevant society members as production factors to carry out equal and necessary—even fierce—competition with each other. In order to not become redundant, society members must upgrade their professional skills, increase their labor/capital input, and improve their technology and other production tools, all while reducing their production costs. The result is enhanced social vitality and efficiency, which can subsequently promote social development. As Adam Smith states, where there is a market economy, society members are “led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of their intention. Nor is it worse for society that it was not part of it. By pursuing their own interests, they frequently promote society more effectually, more so than when they really intend to promote it” (Smith 2007).

Guaranteed differential justice, to ensure smooth social mobility, provides the necessary support framework for continuous social vitality and efficiency. By eliminating the unjust factors that hinder society members’ free development and maintaining a smooth, reasonable flow of social mobility, people can be productive forces. They can meet their own needs, plus those of the social economy, thus ensuring society-wide vitality and efficiency. Otherwise, “if opportunities, such as higher education, taking a civil service examination, starting an enterprise, taking on a project, getting a promotion, buying a house, looking for a job, giving a performance, going abroad, depend on relationships and the need to pull strings, those with prominent backgrounds will be given more care, and those without will not be able to stand out. This will seriously affect social fairness and justice” (Xi 2014). On the contrary, barriers to social mobility will inevitably stifle social vitality and reduce socio-economic efficiency.

Second, it is conducive to forming and enriching a diversified society.

With differential justice, society members’ individual wishes can be respected and protected, and this helps to create and/or enrich diversified lifestyles. With the development of modern productive forces and the abundance of material goods, people’s basic survival is no longer a problem, and people can pay more attention to their quality of life. It has become common for society members to create personalized and diversified lifestyles, based on their own unique needs in modern society. People’s lifestyles are becoming increasingly personalized and socially inclusive. “The wishes, concepts, pursuits, personalities and preferences of society members are very different, so the lifestyles formed on this basis must be quite diversified and colorful” (Wu 2012). People’s pursuit of diversified and personalized lifestyles makes society more energetic and full of vitality. At the same time, it means there is increased demand for more types of consumer products, thus enhancing domestic consumption.

Differential justice is conducive to the diversity of society. Traditional society was simple and homogeneous, but modern society is a highly differentiated heterogeneous society. “The specialization, high efficiency and ever-expanding scale of modern production require society to fully explore and utilize social resources… various trades and professions in the social organism are increasing day by day, as are various components of different natures” (Wu 1999). This kind of “heterogeneity” shows that there are many types of social component, and there is a high degree of integration between them. “The interdependence of all parts in modern society makes the modern order much more sensitive than a simpler form of economic organization” (Mannheim 1960). The existence/development of this heterogeneous component is an important power source and integrated foundation in modern society. However, the inclusion of differential justice among these heterogeneous components, as well as smooth channels for social mobility, can be effective in promoting the development of necessary heterogeneous components in modern society. These include industry-related groups, geographical groups, interest groups, and various social organizations, which ensure the existence and development of society in its diversified form.

Third, it is conducive to the prosperity and development of ideology and culture.

Differential justice can be effective in protecting and promoting the diversity of ideologies and cultures. It can protect the space needed for their survival and development. Differential justice can provide necessary room for people to explore ideologies and cultures through “trial and error.” This can help people to understand various ways of thinking and the merits and cruxes of such viewpoints. The thoughts and viewpoints expressed in this sphere have room for development, yet firm foundations and creative significance. This is consistent with the laws of ideological and cultural development and means they can effectively promote prosperity and ideological/cultural development. “That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable” (Mill 2001). Furthermore, differential justice allows for the existence of many different ideas and viewpoints. This can provide people with opportunities for confrontation in their thinking methods or viewpoints but can also provide opportunities for a large number of references, for full criticism and correction, or to further enable people to continuously improve and deepen their respective viewpoints, in doing so promoting the prosperity and development of ideology and culture. As Hayek said, “Civilization begins when the individual in pursuit of his own ends can make use of more knowledge than he has himself acquired and when he can transcend the boundaries of his ignorance by profiting from knowledge he does not himself possess” (Hayek 1987).

To summarize, when universal justice and differential justice exist together, society can maintain unity and integration. All social groups can have hopes for the future, and society can be full of vitality and creativity, thus “ensuring that the vigor of labor, knowledge, technology, managerial expertise and capital keep bursting forth, all the wealth-creating sources fully flow so as to benefit all people” (Xi 2014).

4 Universal Justice and Differential Justice Complement Each Other and Are Indispensable from One Another

4.1 Universal Justice and Differential Justice Are Wholly Integrated

As earlier mentioned, universal justice and differential justice are the basic components of social justice. They complement each other and are indispensable from one another. They constitute the greatest common divisor of the wishes and interests/demands of various social groups. Universal justice and differential justice help things run smoothly in modern society and ensure that society develops in a healthy fashion. We also need to notice that, in social reality, “justice has a Protean face, capable of change, readily assuming different shapes, and endowed with highly variable features. When we look deeply into this face, trying to unravel the secrets hidden behind its outward appearance, bewilderment is apt to befall us” (Bodenheimer 1974). However, we have often found that people have a biased understanding of social justice. There is a tendency to focus on just one of the components of social justice. Analysts either place too much emphasis on universal justice or differential justice, and they disregard the other component. When there is a one-sided view, these two components are treated as separate from one another. This inevitably means that there are biased results, which could lead to a negative impact on society, as such views can impact institutions and policymaking.

It is fair to say that researchers have not absolutely abandoned one component in favor of the other, nor advocated that one component is a “pure” and “singular” representation of social justice. However, it is often quite clear when their focus is on one of these components, that they have a certain disregard for the other.

4.2 The Problems When Placing an Excessive Emphasis on Universal Justice

The common view is that too much emphasis is placed on universal justice and differential justice is disregarded. John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin are both examples in this respect. Rawls believes in a market economy and regards people’s freedoms and differences as prerequisites when it comes to society. However, he has obviously demonstrated that he is on the side of universal justice. Rawls places a lot of emphasis on the similarities of human beings and he focuses on their dignity and equality. He advocates improvements being brought to the lives of the “most disadvantaged” and “most vulnerable” members of society. He says: “All social values—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage” (Rawls 1999). Similarly, Dworkin says, “The focus of my argument will be the concept of not liberty, but equality” (Dworkin 1978). He says, “I am equally concerned about the sovereignty of the political community – without it, there is tyranny in the government” (Dworkin 2000). Such views might sound somewhat apt when considering a country like the United States, which has not done enough to achieve universal justice and has a relatively large rich/poor gap. However, these views are—generally speaking—not really applicable to a modern society or a country moving toward becoming a modern society. Neither of these academics have paid sufficient attention to differential justice, to the rules of distribution according to contributions, or to the motivations of people who make relatively large contributions. It is not necessarily the case that there is injustice or that “primary goods” are damaged due to those who contribute more, benefitting more. On the contrary, this practice is likely to strengthen “primary goods” and provide an essential foundation for justice in society. There is little evidence to suggest that those who contribute less and benefit less are unfairly treated in society or marginalized.

Admittedly, there is a certain logic to John Rawls’ and others’ arguments on universal justice, especially when the motivations are improving social integration/solidarity and making society more people-oriented, but going beyond the limit is as bad as falling short. When universal justice is regarded as the sole force behind social justice, and taken as the conceptual basis for institutional arrangements and policies, there will inevitably be egalitarianism because differential justice is ignored or belittled, even though it is extremely important. Society will be negatively impacted.

First, when there is a one-sided emphasis on universal justice, heterogeneous societies become somewhat suppressed and are unable to develop normally. With the advancement of modernization and the market economy, society has become more complex and diverse. There has been the gradual formation of a heterogeneous society. This has inevitably become a trend in many places. In a heterogeneous society, people will pursue diversity, will be self-motivated, and will seek to make choices freely. These are the hopes of every citizen. However, when there is an overemphasis on universal justice, people are not able to realize the importance or characteristics of a heterogeneous society. If one no longer exists or differential justice is absent from society, then in the long run, it will be impossible for people to achieve their goals. “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).

Second, a one-sided emphasis on universal justice will lead to egalitarianism: a form of social injustice. “The equal treatment of people does not lead to differences being eliminated, i.e., it does not mean there are equal conditions or results. This is a recognized fact… an equal start does not necessarily mean an equal end….” However, when too much attention is paid to universal justice, there will be egalitarianism. This may come as unexpected to many people. Universal justice emphasizes that in “the field of redistribution,” there is “one share [of basic necessities] per person.” If this kind of practice is extended to all areas, and differential justice is not viewed as necessary, there will be pure egalitarianism, and universal justice will become distorted. Not only will basic items be distributed as “one share per person,” all items will be distributed in this way. Universal justice will not only lead to “redistribution”; considerations will also be made about “primary distributions.” This kind of practice is unfair because some people get what they do not deserve, and others do not get what they deserve. There may be people who are able to work but have not made basic contributions to society who are still to get an equal share of the goods. An “all-gain-no-pain” system directly encroaches on the reasonable interests of “those who work more” and “those who contribute more.” Workers who contribute much may only receive a fraction of the reasonable benefits they are entitled to. This is social injustice.

Third, a one-sided emphasis on universal justice will stifle people’s vitality and creativity. If the only thing emphasized is people’s similarity/equality and the correlation between their different contributions to society is ignored, people will inevitably develop a sort of dependency and inertia when it comes to generating wealth. There will gradually become a “normal existence” phenomenon. Hayek had good reasons to worry about this. He said that “the more the status of individuals or groups becomes attached to the government’s actions, the more they will insist that the government implement some kind of just distribution plan that can be approved by them” (Hayek 1973, 1987). This will suffocate social vitality and creativity. Meanwhile, if there is no differential justice, most people will have few opportunities to develop and will see no prospects or hope, thus losing their will to work and strive. Society will similarly lose vitality, creativity, competitiveness, and sustained impetus, and there will be bad consequences as a result of this. Social injustice will make those who contribute more feel dissatisfied, and this will not be conducive to ensuring that society continues to run smoothly. Crucially, in a society without vitality and creativity, people will inevitably lose the enthusiasm for creating social wealth. Their ability to accumulate material and spiritual wealth—which is essential in any society—will be seriously hindered. When this happens, the material foundations for universal justice will become unstable. Society will not be able to sustain universal justice and it will soon be lost.

The Soviet Union is typical in this respect. It attached great importance to universal justice and established a comprehensive social welfare system. During the Soviet era, people not only enjoyed social security and compulsory education, but also enjoyed public health, housing, and other public services. However, the Soviet Union implemented a planned economic system, which, in essence, denied differential justice. This system monopolized the social and economic resources that people depended on for their survival and development. It also enforced the mandatory distribution of social and economic products; this was almost unilateral. The system placed a lot of emphasis on personal dependence and therefore meant that there was a severely restricted space for people to develop freely in. They had little diversity, their autonomous efforts were ignored, and they were denied a rational, diverse existence. The social structure of the former Soviet Union was increasingly homogeneous and rigid. As a result, people felt increasingly hopeless; they lost out on prospects and had little hope of developing. Society lost its vitality and creativity. Eventually, the foundations of universal justice became unsustainable and the Soviet Union collapsed. There are profound lessons worth learning from this.

4.3 The Problems When Placing an Excessive Emphasis on Differential Justice

There is also a common view that too much emphasis is placed on differential justice and universal justice is disregarded. Nozick, Hayek, and Satolli all hold this opinion. Nozick places a lot of emphasis on diversity, which he insists is the foundation of society. He argues that individuals have rights and that there are some things that no person/group should do as these would violate their rights. He also argues that the redistribution efforts of the state can be harmful, so he advocates abandoning the term “distribution.” Nozick says: “Hearing the term ‘distribution’, most people presume that some thing or mechanism uses some principle or criterion to give out a supply of things. Into this process of distributing shares some error may have crept.” So, it would be best to use a terminology that clearly is neutral. “We shall speak of people’s holdings; a principle of justice in holdings describes (part of) what justice tells us about holdings” (Nozick 1974). In line with this, the minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified. “The state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizens to aid others, or in order to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection” (Nozick 1974).

Although some positives can be drawn from Nozick’s views—public power is restricted and people’s potential is stimulated—his views are one-sided and not very solidified. “Nozick’s mistake was arbitrarily rationalizing human diversity for the sake of laissez-faire. He ignores some improper, pre-existing differences amongst human beings and examples of transferred behavior, and regards individuals and society members as essentially individualized” (Yi 2015). It is important that society protects individual differences and that there is differential justice. However, a community should factor in all of its members, and their basic dignity should be protected. Universal justice, like differential justice, is indispensable. There is little place for Nozick’s minimal state in institutions because without sufficient tax revenue, the state cannot guarantee the dignity or equal rights of its members, not to mention social justice, unity, or integration. Even the most basic differential justice cannot be maintained.

Within academic circles, this view can only lead to arguments. If it is extended into the real world and applied to institutions or introduced into policymaking, there will be many negative consequences.

First, this view will lead to injustices and, to some extent, give play to “the law of the jungle.” It is realistic to surmise that “the worth of liberty is not the same for everyone. Some have greater authority and wealth, and therefore greater means to achieve their aims.” However, “the lesser worth of liberty is compensated for, since the capacity of the less fortunate members of society to achieve their aims would be even less were they not to accept the existing inequalities whenever the difference principle is satisfied” (Rawls 1999). When too much emphasis is placed on differential justice and universal justice is neglected, the argument is that every member of society has reasonable differences and these cannot be changed; therefore, institutions should be based around this. Just imagine if the privileged and the rich took power and wealth as their starting point, while the disadvantaged and the poor begun their lives penniless and vulnerable. This would inevitably lead to a “law of the jungle” mentality. “When differences in nature are the sought principles, and people only follow the principle of seeking common ground, rather than challenging the status quo, society will become full of animals” (Yi 2015). Society would inevitably suffer from non-reciprocity and nobody would benefit. If the interests of some people were promoted, then it is reasonable to surmise that the interests of others would be damaged. Moreover, this kind of social injustice would become more severe as it is passed down through generations. In severe cases, it would lead to solid social barriers and a hierarchy of social injustice. There would be a phenomenon of “the rich remaining rich while the poor remain poor” and “the strong would remain strong while the weak would remain weak.” This unjust trend would continue and worsen over time.

Second, it could lead to social unrest or even riots. On the one hand, if there was massive social injustice, or the law of the jungle manifested in society, some members of that society would have their interests harmed. “If everyone is able to live a decent life, yet in reality, a considerable number of people are not living decent lives, then these people will find themselves in difficult circumstances. Inequality hurts vulnerable groups the most, and makes them feel inferior” (Yao 2011). On the other hand, in modern society, people have developed an awareness of equality and how to safeguard their rights, so they will not tolerate acts that damage their status or dignity. As a result, conflicts often emerge among various groups. In serious cases, these could lead to severe social unrest. And when this happens, safe operations cannot be ensured, and people lack the necessary conditions for their healthy development. When there is a big problem with social security, there are no winners and only losers.

5 Promote the Balanced Development of Universal Justice and Differential Justice

5.1 The Balanced Development of Universal Justice and Differential Justice Is of Vital Importance

Although a society cannot exist without social justice, our understanding of it should not stop there. Even if social justice is valued, there are still questions about whether it can be properly implemented. As discussed earlier, universal justice and differential justice serve different functions, and they ensure that there can be healthy development in society and that society can operate safely. Universal justice and differential justice are the core principles behind social justice. If one is missing or overemphasized/undervalued, there will be a warped social justice phenomenon. Society will plunge into “unbalanced” situation, and there will be harmful, negative consequences.

Therefore, it is important to ensure that there are practical ways of achieving a balance between universal justice and differential justice. They should promote and develop one other so that society can realize real social justice.

5.2 Promoting the Balanced Development of Universal Justice and Differential Justice in China

As China undergoes a period of transition, this issue is particularly important. After 40 years of reform and opening up, China has undergone tremendous changes. There have been two “unexpected” phenomena. China’s economy has achieved universally recognized results, and major changes have taken place in various aspects of people’s social lives. However, there have been unbalanced and uncoordinated developments in China, and social construction has lagged behind, so social injustice has become increasingly prominent. Currently, there is a deficiency of both universal justice and differential justice in China, and this is how social injustice has manifested. At this stage, we cannot rely on relevant systems/policies based on Rawls’, Nozick’s, or Hayek’s theories, as these place too much emphasis on either universal justice or differential justice. If arrangements are made according to a one-sided theory, then social injustice will be aggravated in China.

As China transitions, it is important that universal justice and differential justice are promoted at the same time. This method will help China achieve more social justice. We should not only attach importance to one over the other. It is important to maintain balance and there should be mutual promotion of both concepts. “Promoting” does not mean “marching in unison”; we should promote universal justice and differential justice step by step and with oversight of both China’s historical and modern conditions. It is necessary for us to “moderately prioritize” and focus on the two concepts at a basic level so that we can lay solid foundations for their overall improvement.

5.2.1 We Should Moderately Prioritize the Promotion of Universal Justice at a Basic Level

Promoting universal justice at a basic level does not mean realizing universal justice in a comprehensive, all-round, integrated way, nor does it involve promoting a high welfare system. It means protecting people’s basic living conditions, that is, protecting people’s basic, equal rights.

When differential justice is damaged and egalitarianism becomes such a serious issue that society loses its vitality, we should naturally prioritize differential justice. Only then can we effectively break down egalitarianism and re-stimulate social vitality. There were some practices that demonstrated the effectiveness of this during the early days of China’s reform and opening-up era. “Farm output quotas were fixed by household” and “investment was invited.” But now, after decades of reform and opening up, a market economy has been established, and there are structures in place that ensure the free allocation of some production commodities. There is much more vitality in society. At the same time, however, there are lots of social injustices in China, including a rich/poor divide, problems among poor and low-income populations, and unemployment issues. Some laborers enjoy little protection, and some people lack basic social security. In recent years, China’s Gini coefficient has remained high. According to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics, China’s Gini coefficients from 2003 to 2016 were: 0.479, 0.473, 0.485, 0.487, 0.484, 0.491, 0.490, 0.481, 0.477, 0.474, 0.473, 0.469, 0.462, and 0.465 (Yang 2013; National Bureau of Statistics 2017). Another survey shows that, as of August 2011, the households with the 10% most assets own 84.6% of all household assets. The financial assets of China’s richest accounted for 61.01% of all financial assets, and their non-financial assets account for 88.7% of all non-financial assets (accessed September 1, 2022). Differential justice is extremely important, but going beyond the limit is as bad as falling short. As Adler said, “there are libertarians, who not only place the highest value on liberty but also seek to maximize it at the expense of equality. They not only want an unlimited amount of freedom, but they are also willing to try to achieve it even if achieving it results in an irremediable inequality of conditions, under which some portion of a society, usually a majority, suffer serious deprivations” (Adler 1984). Social injustice has meant that some groups/individuals have been unable to enjoy due reform and development achievements, and some have even struggled to obtain basic necessities that ensure their survival. There have been social exclusion, conflicts, and disputes, which pose an increasingly obvious threat to the safe operations of society. They also threaten society’s healthy development. In view of this, China needs to ensure people’s “basic survival” and provide the necessary conditions for differential justice. We should promote universal justice at a basic level as a matter of priority.

Based on people’s general demand for universal justice and the country’s public financial resources, we should make improving people’s basic livelihoods a matter of priority. Improvements should be made to people’s social security, compulsory education, public healthcare, employment prospects, and housing conditions. There should be an equal primary and mid-range livelihood security system that covers all members of society regardless of identities. We should also continue to improve the conditions that ensure people’s basic survival at a reasonable rate and ensure that people’s basic income increases at a moderate rate. Public investment should be prioritized to ensure people’s basic livelihoods. We should prevent public funds being overused on luxury cities, vanity projects, buildings/halls, or administrations. We should also prevent public funds from being overused on universal justice regarding “higher welfare,” as public funds that are earmarked for people’s basic livelihoods might be diverted or misused.

5.2.2 We Should Moderately Prioritize the Promotion of Differential Justice at a Basic Level

It is feasible and practical to promote social justice, and it is a very important issue that we should face. From an operational point of view, it is necessary to moderately prioritize the promotion of differential justice because of China’s specific national conditions and because there are important variables unique to Chinese society. There are two reasons we should make this a matter of priority.

First, egalitarianism has deep roots in the country. Essentially, egalitarianism emphasizes that people have similar living conditions. The concept negates differential justice. “Traditional and historical factors mean that egalitarianism is important to the Chinese people and part of their collective memory; it cannot be completely eradicated” (Wu 2015). For thousands of years, Chinese people have followed egalitarian principles. Thirty years before the reform and opening-up era, egalitarianism was implemented in Chinese society in line with the planned economic system. Consequently, it is unfeasible to think that egalitarianism will disappear quickly. However, egalitarian concepts and ideologies have had little space to grow since the market economy was established in China. Nevertheless, equalitarianism may rise in a certain way and to a certain extent, because the market economy has not yet been solidified and become standardized. People have not yet developed a strong individual consciousness, nor an awareness over how they might protect their property rights. If equalitarianism continues to rise, this will hinder differential justice and could potentially harm society. Things are different in many developed European countries, where the market economy is mature. Even if people there sometimes have excessive “egalitarian” welfare demands, these are unlikely to result in subversive, negative consequences. China has different national conditions and can effectively eliminate egalitarianism and prevent its possible rise. However, it can only do this by moderately prioritizing the promotion of differential justice at a basic level.

Second, people tend to have higher expectations. Objectively speaking, people’s expectations of universal justice don’t necessarily align with their efforts to secure it. They often have social and psychological expectations, and these are somewhat disconnected from “economic production.” People at the same economic level often have “idealistic” expectations, and their “idealistic” goals sometimes become realistically attainable. However, people’s expectations sometimes go beyond what the country’s economic strength and fiscal revenue can provide, which is the basis for universal justice. For example, in terms of public health, “if the government wants to solve the problem of public health insurance by providing free healthcare to all, regardless of actual public financial resources, then society will spend more and more on it, and ultimately will not be able to afford it” (Wu 2015). Even in developed European and American countries, the growth of public services has resulted in intractable social problems. “In 1980, the total public social expenditure [in Europe] accounted for 15.6% of GDP. It increased to 19.2% in 2007, and has increased on average 1% every 10 years” (Zheng 2011). During this era of public spending, the economic growth of European countries was generally far lower. The phenomenon of people’s expectations rising sharply will not only lead to a distorted form of social justice, but a degree of social inertia. People will generally become apathetic toward labor. Ultimately, society will lose its vitality and potential for social development. China should prevent a situation like this and stimulate people’s vitality and creativity. To this end, it should moderately prioritize promoting differential justice at a basic level and emphasize that people’s incomes should be directly linked to their own efforts/contributions.

We should moderately prioritize the promotion of differential justice at a basic level from the following aspects. First, a standardized market economy should be established to effectively allocate various means of production and it should seek to make economic activities more efficient. “Both theories and practical approaches have shown that resources are most efficiently allocated by the market” (Xi 2013). Second, people’s personal property rights should also be fully protected. These are the cornerstones of the market economy and they are necessary in order to enable people to develop in different ways. Third, there should also be smooth social mobility. The threshold should be lowered in China so that people can start a business. If the household registration system is canceled, and people are made exempt from taxes, or given reduced taxes, this would enable many to set up a business and develop freely. It would stimulate people to pursue their own wealth and to accumulate wealth within their society. Fourth, there should also be distributions according to contributions so that people can realize their own interests according to what they contribute. This would give impetus to society and enable it to develop. It should be noted that although there are some overlaps in terms of how universal justice and differential justice should be prioritized at a basic level (e.g., by protecting people’s personal property rights), each approach has a markedly different focus.

By contrast, our first priority should be given to promoting universal justice at a basic level. Although the vitality of society is a prerequisite and social unity is indispensable, it is much more important that there is social cohesion. Universal justice should be pursued at a reasonable rate alongside economic development. Economic development does not necessarily need to happen quickly, but it should be sustained, and in the long run, it should develop at a slightly quicker rate than the social welfare system. Otherwise, it will be difficult to sustain universal justice as the necessary supporting foundations won’t be in place.