During the historical process, the fundamental content and rules of social justice are manifested as intergenerational justice. At the same time, intergenerational justice exerts a significant influence on the content and rules of social justice. If issues of intergenerational justice are not understood in sufficient depth, the overall study of social justice will not be comprehensive, it will lack necessary persuasive power, and its practical impact will be weakened. Obviously, issues of intergenerational justice ought to have always been an essential part of social justice research. However, within the field of social justice, the existing research on the issue is relatively weak. Only a few scholars such as Rawls have addressed it, but even these scholars have not treated the issue in a systematic and rigorous manner. In view of this, it is necessary to investigate intergenerational issues and thereby fill the gap within existing social justice research.

1 How Does Intergenerational Justice Come into Existence?

The “inter” in intergenerational refers to the relationship between generations, of which there are two types: The first is the synchronous relationship between neighboring generations within the same time period, characterized by direct interaction. The other is the asynchronous relationship between the current generation and both past and the future generations, characterized by indirect interaction. Rawls only addressed the asynchronous relationship between “previous” and “later generations.” But this is not comprehensive. Although the two types of relationship overlap somewhat, they are not identical. Moreover, the specific requirements for intergenerational justice differ between the two. The synchronous relationship requires not only an emphasis on the fundamental rules of social justice but also on its specific practices, including the concrete methods of “consultation” and “pragmatic accommodation,” which must be implemented according to direct and effective rules for social justice. The asynchronous relationship also requires an emphasis on the fundamental rules of social justice, which must be guaranteed via the relatively fixed responsibilities and duties that each generation holds toward the others and integrated via the institutionalization of social justice according to relatively fixed rules. When addressing issues of intergenerational justice, it is important that the asynchronous relationship not be ignored or overlooked just because the synchronous relationship is immediate and realistic. The asynchronous relationship is better able to embody both a specific type of historic social justice and the persistent need for social justice throughout human history.

As the historical continuation and embodiment of social justice, intergenerational justice is based on intergenerational equality, intergenerational liberty, and intergenerational cooperation—each of which is essential to social development.

1.1 The Idea of Intergenerational Equality

Intergenerational equality emphasizes the recognition of each generation’s basic contribution and the protection of its fundamental dignity. From a horizontal perspective, society is composed of countless equal individuals. The contribution of each individual is both indispensable and equal. At the same time, the form of dignity unique to societies of the human species means that, accordingly, people possess human dignity. From a vertical perspective, the perpetuation and development of the human species is achieved through the unremitting efforts and unbroken contributions of each generation—with these contributions composing the essential links in the chain of the sociohistorical process. As a result, each generation possesses the same dignity and equality as the species in its entirety.

It must be acknowledged that human beings have various levels of needs. The satisfaction of basic human needs is one of society’s fundamental goals, essential for the realization of people’s basic rights and, at the same time, a prerequisite for safeguarding the dignity of each generation. Therefore, to achieve intergenerational justice, the idea of intergenerational equality requires that each generation possess both fundamental rights and the means for basic subsistence. Only in this way can the elementary conditions for the survival and development of each generation be ensured.

1.2 Intergenerational Liberty

The concept of intergenerational liberty emphasizes respecting and protecting both the free agency of each generation and the differences between them. As Spinoza says, “It is impossible for one person’s mind to be absolutely under another’s control. For no one can transfer to another person his natural right, or ability, to think freely and make his own judgments about any matter whatsoever, and cannot be compelled to do so… For these things are within each person’s own right, which he cannot give up even were he to wish to do so” (de Spinoza 2007). Free agency is as crucial for generations as for individuals. Meanwhile, due to the distinct conditions of their survival and development, alongside other factors, there also exist certain differences between generations—especially those contemporary to one another. For example, there are numerous variations in the developmental prospects, behavior, perceptions, and the ability to create wealth between the young and the elderly. Accordingly, the social contribution of each generation in a given historical period cannot be exactly the same, and it follows that there should also be differences in the returns received by each generation, leading to an inevitable divergence in their concrete conditions of life and development. The concept of intergenerational liberty acknowledges these differences.

Intergenerational liberty requires that the reasonable differences between generations be protected and respected rather than artificially restricted. To this end, the principle of equal intergenerational opportunity ought to be fully realized and, since this can only occur through a historical process, each generation should be continually building the social environment necessary to achieve equal intergenerational opportunity.

1.3 Intergenerational Cooperation

Since intergenerational cooperation is where questions of intergenerational justice take on a concrete form, the concept of intergenerational cooperation is the ultimate foundation for intergenerational justice. Social development is achieved through the effort of each generation and the entire history of humankind is driven forward by cooperation between generations. Collaboration between generations is obviously necessary and, in this sense, all generations bear their own responsibility. “Persons in different generations have duties and obligations to one another just as contemporaries do. The present generation cannot do as it pleases but is bound by the principles that would be chosen in the original position to define justice between persons at different moments of time. In addition, men have a natural duty to uphold and to further just institutions and for this the improvement of civilization up to a certain level is required” (Rawls 1999).

Intergeneration cooperation is an important dimension of social cooperation overall. First, whether speaking in the synchronous or asynchronous sense, previous generations have provided the most fundamental basis for the survival and development of future generations. People always begin their lives and reinvent themselves on the foundation left by their predecessors. “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past” (Marx and Engels 1995).

Second, in the synchronous sense, the cooperation of several generations is often required for society’s everyday operation and further development. For example, previous generations bear natural responsibility for the growth of subsequent generations, who are their descendants. This entails nurturing, education, and other forms of care. Meanwhile, the offspring are also responsible for supporting and caring for the elderly after they have lost their ability to work. Rawls’ assessment of social and intergenerational cooperation is meticulous: “it is through social union founded upon the needs and potentialities of its members that each person can participate in the total sum of the realized natural assets of the others… This community may also be imagined to extend over time, and therefore in the history of a society the joint contributions of successive generations can be similarly conceived. Our predecessors in achieving certain things leave it up to us to pursue them further; their accomplishments affect our choice of endeavors and define a wider background against which our aims can be understood. To say that man is a historical being is to say that the realizations of the powers of human individuals living at any one time takes the cooperation of many generations (or even societies) over a long period of time.” This kind of cooperation is unique to human society. “By contrast with humankind… the range of realized abilities of a single individual of the species is not in general materially less than the potentialities of others similar to it” (Rawls 1999).

Intergenerational cooperation requires that necessary social adjustments be used to make up for deficiencies in intergenerational justice—in accord with the principles of intergenerational equality and liberty. In this fashion, the relationships between generations can be better integrated and the potential of individuals in each generation can be developed to the fullest.

It is worth noting that intergenerational justice only has real significance within modern society. In traditional society, productivity was backwards and material wealth was scarce, it was impossible to consider the survival and development of future generations given the most basic material conditions. In traditional society, the deep-rooted character of the social hierarchy naturally rejected issues of intergenerational justice. Moreover, since the rationality of this society was low, it was difficult to compose a long-term plan for future generations. The attitude was instead to let “nature” take its course. Thus, at that time, people could only attend to “immediate” matters. For example, under a tribal aristocracy, “social life is determined by social and religious taboos; everybody has his assigned place within the whole of the social structure; everyone feels that his place is the proper, the ‘natural’ place, assigned to him by the forces which rule the world; everyone ‘knows his place’” (Popper 1994). Even though traditional Chinese society placed emphasis on the ethics of human relations, these considerations were limited to synchronous relationships, and it proved difficult to make any long-term institutional arrangements for future generations. Meanwhile, the existing hierarchy made it hard to even achieve justice between different generations in the same time period. Obviously, it is only within modern society that this sort of synchronous intergenerational justice becomes possible and takes on any real significance. Only within modern society can the concepts of equality, liberty, and social cooperation emerge in their true sense, allowing these ideas to penetrate deep into the social organism and draw out the question of intergenerational justice. For example, the process of modernization and the growth of the market economy have resulted in a high degree of social integration, which in turn has facilitated the emergence of the concept of social cooperation in its true sense—and society’s concern for intergenerational justice and cooperation is the logical extension of this concept.

2 Specifications for Intergenerational Justice

The specific requirements for intergenerational justice are as follows:

2.1 The Determination of a Suitable and Socially Just “Savings Rate”

The “savings rate” refers to the ratio of the social resources that each generation should consume and the amount that it should accumulate and preserve for future generations.

Intergenerational equality and cooperation require that every generation have access to the fundamental means for survival and development. Accordingly, Rawls proposed a “just savings principle.” He argues: “Each generation must not only preserve the gains of culture and civilization, and maintain intact those just institutions that have been established, but it must also put aside in each period of time a suitable amount of real capital accumulation. This saving may take various forms from net investment in machinery and other means of production to investment in learning and education.” This kind of just savings is of great significance. “Every generation, except possibly the first, gains when a reasonable rate of saving is maintained. The process of accumulation, once it is begun and carried through, is to the good of all subsequent generations. Each passes on to the next a fair equivalent in real capital as defined by a just savings principle. (It should be kept in mind here that capital is not only factories and machines, and so on, but also the knowledge and culture, as well as the techniques and skills, that make possible just institutions and the fair value of liberty.) This equivalent is in return for what is received from previous generations that enables the later ones to enjoy a better life in a more just society” (Rawls 1999).

There are two different types of socially just saving. First, there are stockpiles of renewable social resources. This mainly refers to the social wealth created by each generation. In modern society, the extent of the growth of social wealth within a generation is apparent. Moreover, as one constituent part of the overall historical process, each generation is obligated to ensure society’s continuous growth, otherwise intergenerational cooperation will lose its meaning. Each generation should therefore be continually increasing its contribution to social growth and, thereby, increasing the stockpile of renewable social resources. The resources set aside by the present generation should, accordingly, be higher than those of the previous generation.

Second, there are stockpiles of non-renewable resources. These resources are the drivers of modernization and are shared by human society across multiple generations. But they are not inexhaustible. Excessive consumption of non-renewable resources by previous generations means that future generations will possess less of them. Over-exploitation will directly damage the biosphere on which human beings depend, break the ecological balance, and cause the corrosion and contamination of the human habitat, thus harming the vital interests of future generations. In view of this, the preservation of non-renewable resources and the establishment of a sustainable development model ought to be emphasized. In other words, we should ensure that sustainable development “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987).

As for how to determine a socially just savings rate, two principles should be considered simultaneously. The first is to do what one can. The social wealth created by any given generation is always limited. In general, a reasonable order of expenditure is for the generation that possesses the social wealth to consider saving for future generations only after meeting its own basic needs for survival and development. It goes without saying that the exact quantity that needs to be set aside depends on the “surplus” left after the aforementioned expenses. Simply saving without considering necessary expenses in the present will have an adverse effect on the survival and development of the current generation. The second principle is to determine the “social minimum.” Rawls offers a reasonable analysis: “Suppose for simplicity that the minimum is adjusted by transfers paid for by proportional expenditure (or income) taxes. In this case raising the minimum entails increasing the proportion by which consumption (or income) is taxed. Presumably as this fraction becomes larger there comes a point beyond which one of two things happens. Either the appropriate savings cannot be made or the greater taxes interfere so much with economic efficiency that the prospects of the least advantaged in the present generation are no longer improved but begin to decline. In either event the correct minimum has been reached. The difference principle is satisfied and no further increase is called for” (Rawls 1999).

Two one-sided approaches need to be guarded against. The first is the short-sighed view that only considers the interests of the current generation, pays no attention to the accumulation necessary for future generations, and even goes so far as to over-consume the non-renewable resources that should be shared with future generations, polluting the environment and destroying ecosystems—thereby cashing out the benefits due future generations in advance, to its own favor. The other is the overly idealistic and self-sacrificing view, which can also be described as “suicidal” in its extreme methods. In this case, everything is done for the sake of future generations and the life of the current generation is only maintained within the limits of simple reproduction—thereby overdrawing from the pool of benefits due the present generation in favor of its descendants. Although these two approaches are opposites, they share a few common defects. They both deviate from the ideas of intergenerational equality, liberty (since every generation has the right to pursue happiness), and cooperation, while also abandoning the principle of universal benefit that acts as the fundamental objective of social development. They are therefore lacking in intergenerational justice and will have an entirely detrimental impact on long-term social development, possibly unbalancing the equilibrium of the overall process. In this regard, the lessons accumulated in the course of China’s social development during the past seven decades are extremely profound.

2.2 Ensuring Equal Opportunity

The principle of equal opportunity between generations is directly determined by intergenerational equality, liberty, and cooperation. Intergenerational equality requires that each generation should possess the means for its basic survival and development. Intergenerational liberty requires that the autonomy and free choice of each generation not be infringed upon. Intergenerational cooperation requires that the previous generation should be continuously creating the social environment necessary for future generations to enjoy equal opportunity.

In concrete terms, equal opportunity between generations implies, first, that each generation should have an equal starting point (i.e., “equal initial material conditions for equal access to opportunities”) (Sartori 1987). And second, that there must be equality in the process of realizing this opportunity. In other words, it is necessary to eliminate any anomalous factors that might perturb the process. Only equal starting points and an equitable process throughout can guarantee just results.

A gap clearly exists between an equality of opportunity that is pure, ideal, and goal-oriented and one that is both realistic and achievable in the present. Viewed from the perspective of historical development, this gap has been constantly narrowing. In terms of intergenerational justice, an important task of each generation is to continue to contribute to the narrowing of this gap. To this end, society should set itself two tasks:

First, the privileged “hereditary advantages” that exist between generations must be gradually eliminated. Family background exerts an enormous influence on the specific circumstances of each member of society and their individual growth. For example, the offspring of a very wealthy family are often better off than those of poorer families. This is because the former are able to provide their offspring with advantages that are inaccessible to the latter, such as the social resources necessary for survival and development or the inheritance of property. This constitutes an extremely unfair “hereditary advantage” that directly undermines the principle of equal opportunity between generations. In such a situation, if society does not intervene as necessary, then certain families will continue to enjoy the privilege of such “hereditary advantages.” It is therefore imperative that society make use of income and inheritance taxes to gradually eliminate or at least weaken this “hereditary advantage” that stands in the way of intergenerational justice. The goal should be, as far as possible, to ensure that the wealth or poverty of a single member of society is not perpetuated beyond a single generation, thereby allowing members of the same generation to cast off the inequities of previous generations and truly obtain an equal starting point for survival and development.

Second, society must directly create the “equal conditions” necessary for the principle of equal opportunity between generations to be implemented. Due to the limitations imposed by practical and historical conditions, it is difficult for the potential of individual members of society to be fully developed between generations and thereby difficult for them to enter into a state of equal competition. The government of each generation therefore has the responsibility to develop individual potential equally, giving “everyone an adequate initial power (material conditions) to acquire the same ability and rank as everyone else” (Sartori 1987). For example, by making certain adjustments, society can obtain a given sum of funds that can then be used to develop the potential of the relatively disadvantaged individuals in each generation—in terms of both innate and acquired factors—such that their potential can be shaped into a real ability to seize and realize opportunity. Empowering this segment of society and providing them with opportunities for development can also prevent them from passing on their disadvantages to the next generation. In the long term, this approach is extremely helpful for realizing the principle of equal opportunity between generations. Rawls pays special attention to this problem: “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. In pursuit of this principle greater resources might be spent on the education of the less rather than the more intelligent, at least over a certain time of life, say the earlier years of school” (Rawls 1999). It is important to note that this should be an ongoing activity spanning many generations.

2.3 Distribution According to Contribution

Each generation’s contribution to society is different. Under the conditions of modern society, future generations will make greater contributions in absolute terms. From the perspective of intergenerational equality, the relatively independent status of each generation should be recognized. In accord with the concept of intergenerational freedom, these different contributions should also be recognized and respected. Therefore, the question of how to allocate resources between generations should be based on the principle of distribution according to contribution. Otherwise, egalitarian ideas and behaviors might arise that go against the ideals of intergenerational equality and liberty.

In terms of the asynchronous relationship between generations, even though the intensity of labor decreases for future generations, their contribution to society is constantly increasing. This is because the historical starting point of each generation rises over time, the factors of production are being continually updated, science and technology are rapidly developing, and social management improves. Based on this, the distribution of income for future generations should naturally be higher than that of previous generations.

In terms of the synchronous relationship, since differences of potential exist between the older and the younger generations, their specific contribution to society cannot be the same. Because it has a different energy level and possesses superior knowledge—and since the older generation is mostly retired—the younger generation’s contribution to the current society is higher than that of the older generation. Accordingly, the younger generation should be paid more than the older generation, at least in terms of income. Such a situation ought to be equitable. If the actual situation in a given society is exactly the opposite, then the society is inequitable.

For elderly retirees, society should provide necessary assistance according to the principle of adjustment. This should include things such as the provision of pensions and necessary assistance, as well as the establishment of systems for social security and healthcare. The experience of many other countries demonstrates that relying solely on a fixed pension payment is insufficient. As living standards improve across society and inflation follows, elderly retirees are caught in a predicament. In such a situation, they can easily become a vulnerable social group or even sink into poverty. Society therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the living standard of these retirees can be adjusted by various means until it rises to the social average. Only in this way can society genuinely recognize and repay those who have already expended their labor and made their contribution—thereby embodying intergenerational justice.

Another situation is worth noting. In a synchronous sense, although the older generation does not make as much contribution to present society as that of the current generation, they also made enormous sacrifice and contributions when they were young. However, the previous generation didn’t receive certain benefits that it deserved. Society should make special regulations and compensate them for their contributions.

2.4 Creating the Equal Conditions Necessary for the Development of Younger Generations

The creation of necessary and equal conditions for the development of younger generations must also be specifically addressed since this problem is of great practical significance in countries with an extensive history such as China, Japan, and many others. Under the influence of tradition and habit, the younger generations of these countries remain relatively more oppressed to this day. Thus, this dimension of social justice is more prominent.

In traditional society, elders had supreme authority and decisive authority over the young. To take traditional Chinese society as an example, the development of individuals was often restricted by seniority, and seniority was often linked to age. In this sense, old age was a species of “hierarchical” privilege. Older people therefore often played a certain role in suppressing and hindering the development of the young. “Children and youths had no say. In China, the young faced excessive hardship within feudal society and the feudal family” (Mao 1993). In short, the basic attitude of traditional society toward the younger generation was, first, to monopolize certain social resources according to age and seniority, and then to restrict and suppress the development of the younger generation. This practice was not only detrimental to the development of human resources, but also inequitable and unjust.

Obviously, a society that restricts and suppresses the younger generation is not only inefficient, but also unjust.

In sharp contrast to traditional society, modern society emphasizes intergenerational justice, equality, freedom, and cooperation. Since young people are members of society, they should possess equal status with their elders and should not be discriminated against in any way. In fact, society should adopt a more positive and encouraging attitude toward the younger generation, since it has more potential for development. Accordingly, society’s approach should be as follows: First, emphasis must be placed on cultivating the ability of the younger generation. Possessing the necessary ability is a prerequisite for members of society to better their circumstances. Meanwhile, the acquisition of ability is inseparable from education. Society should therefore attach importance to public education, enabling the young to receive the maximum benefit from the educational system and thereby improve the ability of the generation overall. Second, emphasis must be placed on providing as many opportunities as possible for the development of the younger generation. For this reason, modern society bases access to opportunities on factors such as performance and practical ability and opposes restrictions based on inequitable factors such as rank and seniority, which constrain all members of society, including the young. Only in this fashion can intergenerational justice be realized and the potential of the younger generation cultivated to the greatest extent possible.

3 Positive Impacts on Social Development

Research on intergenerational justice enriches and deepens social justice research overall, extending the vision and scope of the field to encompass the historical process—ensuring, for example, that research not only pays attention to “horizontal” issues of social justice but also “vertical” ones. From a dynamic point of view, it also adds depth to some of the key issues that social justice is concerned with. In this sense, research on intergenerational justice is an indispensable part of the broader field.

Intergenerational justice plays an important and positive role in ensuring the healthy sustainability of social development and improving its quality.

First, intergenerational justice helps to perpetuate social justice through history. It therefore plays an objectively important role, overcoming certain “horizontal” hindrances to social justice by intervening in the “vertical” process of history—not only enhancing the social vitality between generations, but also gradually realizing social justice in the process of historical development. For example, in the case of wealth inequality, intergenerational justice requires that the excessive income or property possessed by certain members of society gradually flow back into society overall via income taxes, inheritance taxes, and other methods of adjustment. Gradually, this wealth becomes accessible to all, allowing both present and future generations to benefit. Although some members of society clearly wield enormous social wealth at present, with the passage of time, the majority of this wealth will become the common wealth of society. The elimination of various inequitable “hereditary advantages” and the creation of equal opportunity between generations—both advocated by the principle of intergenerational justice—are conducive to the formation of equal competition between generations and the equal conditions necessary to ensure this competition, thus contributing to the gradual realization of the socially just principle of equal opportunity. Meanwhile, the establishment of the intergenerational “savings rate” can lay the material and institutional foundation necessary for future generations, contributing to the implementation of social justice, at least to a certain extent. Based on the above, it is easy to see how the principle of intergenerational justice can create a beneficial “mindset” for social justice that possesses significance within the historical process. Under the “inertial force” of social justice that this sort of “mindset” exerts across history, it becomes possible to actively strive toward achieving justice for each generation.

Second, intergenerational justice encourages social integration between generations. In terms of their synchronous relationship, intergenerational justice stresses coordination, emphasizing the equal status and free rights of the older and younger generations, as well as the necessity of their mutual cooperation—while also rendering each of these principles into concrete responsibilities and obligations. If the theory is enacted through the necessary social institutions and policies, intergenerational justice can reduce the various types of misunderstanding, friction, tension, and conflicts that arise between contemporaneous generations, whether rooted in the allocation of benefits or differences in ideas. This will reduce the centrifugal forces that push generations apart and, thereby, help to integrate their synchronous relationships with one another, which will also contribute to greater social integration overall. In terms of the asynchronous relationship between generations, intergenerational justice suggests that the previous generation establish a reasonable “rate of savings” for the benefit of future generations. If this practice is generally recognized by society and effectively implemented, it will promote social integration for “many generations,” or, in other words, throughout society’s developmental process over the long term. Similarly, if the principle of equal opportunity between generations can also be recognized at the level of the entire social system, it will undoubtedly contribute to increased social order and thereby improve social integration both in the present and throughout the historical process.

Third, intergenerational justice is conducive to the development of human resources. Every generation possesses a vast, untapped potential. The full cultivation of this potential depends on three basic conditions: socially just rules and regulations, a socially just environment, and the necessary ability of individuals. Intergenerational justice is precisely attuned to the formation of each of these three conditions. One important purpose of intergenerational justice is the full development of each generation’s potential. It directly stipulates the socially just guidelines that should be followed in relationships between generations, while also laying the foundation on which the social policies necessary for social justice can be formulated. Meanwhile, the principle of equal opportunity between generations prepares an extremely favorable and socially just environment for the development of individual potential within each generation. Intergenerational justice advocates for the elimination of all unfavorable factors that hinder the construction of a fair environment, such as asynchronous “hereditary advantages,” and synchronous issues of rank and seniority. This is also a prerequisite for the full development of human resources. Finally, the cultivation of individual ability promoted by intergenerational justice directly develops the potential of each generation. It is necessary to view intergenerational justice as a continuous process for the development of human resources, which also means that it provides continuous impetus for social development overall.