Intergenerational justice

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kids Want Climate Justice (34168280266) .jpg

The term intergenerational equity (also known as intergenerational equity referred to) is a form of justice in the scientific, political and social field in which the interactions of action between different social generations is questioned their justice in a variety of discussions. These include the problem areas of environmental protection and national debt , the demand for pension reform or even a possible population policy , as well as the fact of age discrimination in Western societies, e.g. B. when looking for a job, as well as the high youth unemployment .

Definition of terms

The term intergenerational justice is made up of the individual words justice and generation. Of these two components, 'justice' is certainly more difficult to define, but the term 'generation' is also used in different contexts and is ambiguous.

Concept of justice

The concept of justice generally describes an ideal state of social coexistence in which there is an appropriate, impartial and claimable balance of interests and the distribution of goods and opportunities between the people or groups involved.

Term generation

Four different ways of using the term can be distinguished:

  1. Chronological (temporal) generation, narrow term
    According to this definition, several generations always live at the same time. The basis of the assignment is the current age and thus a certain year of birth. In Germany today, women on average give birth to their first child at just under 30 years of age. From this, the cohorts that are under thirty at a certain point in time are referred to as the young, the 30 to 60 year olds as the middle and those over sixty as the old or older generation. In population science (demography) , a distinction is also made between smaller sections (years, five years, decades).
  2. Chronological (intertemporal) generation, broad term
    Second, the word 'generation' is used to denote all of the people living today. In this sense, only one generation lives at a time.
  3. Social generation
    In addition to its two chronological meanings, the term 'generation' thirdly describes a group of people whose attitudes , orientations and behaviors are largely homogeneous. They have often been socialized through similar key experiences and / or put the stamp on a time period. So there are z. B. the designations '68 generation , 89 generation and generation Golf .
  4. Family generation
    Finally, at the micro level, there is the familial or 'familial' meaning of the generation term (e.g. generational order ). Family generations refer to the members of the lineage. In the context of family relationships, fathers belong to a different generation than their sons. One speaks of the family generation conflict when there is e.g. B. is about the problems of separating children from their parents.

Although the social generation concept is very widespread in common parlance, it can not be used in the context of studies on 'intergenerational justice' because its classifications are too vague and too controversial. For comparisons between generations in the context of justice studies, one needs a generation concept that does not overlap and is based on an unchangeable, uncontroversial characteristic. Birth cohorts are suitable as such features, coinage not. It is also clear that “justice for future generations” is certainly not a meaningful concept if one has social generations in mind. After all, you don't know at all whether a future social generation will be dubbed 2010s or 2020s . The family concept of generations is also hardly relevant for studies on intergenerational justice at the social level. If, for example, a 28-year-old complains that it is unjust to his generation that the incumbent politicians fail to protect the environment and nature, it is irrelevant whether he is already a father himself or not.

Generational equity in the sustainability discourse

In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development ("Brundtland Commission") published the so-called Brundtland Report . The report is known for its definition of sustainable development :

"... is development that satisfies the needs of the present without risking that future generations will not be able to meet their own needs."
"... is essentially a process of change in which the use of resources, the goal of investments, the direction of technological development and institutional change harmonize with one another and increase the current and future potential to meet human needs and wishes."

The second aspect calls for a holistic change in behavior, which is also referred to as strong sustainability . Recently, the adjective grandchildren has developed for it .

Two types of generation comparison

In the concept of intergenerational justice, comparisons are made between generations. A basic distinction must be made between direct and indirect comparisons. In direct comparison, today's 'young' and 'old' are compared, e.g. B. by comparing the percentage of members of the second generation (31 to 60 year olds) and the third generation (0 to 30 year olds) who receive social assistance , based on time (e.g. in 2005). In an indirect comparison, on the other hand, age is compared with age (or youth with youth). One examines z. B. the share of youth in all social assistance recipients in 2005 and 1975.

In the debate about intergenerational justice, the chronological meanings 1.) and 2.) are particularly relevant. In order to be able to distinguish between these two meanings in the discussion about intergenerational justice, it is necessary to formulate two different terms for the two meanings of generation and thus two different terms for intergenerational justice. So far, however, there has been no clear definition of terms for this distinction in the scientific discussion.

One possibility of differentiation used by Peter Laslett (1915–2001) is to use the term “intergenerational” for the relationship between present and future generations and the term “intragenerational” for the relationship between different generations living at the same time. Laslett refers to the broader generation term. However, the term 'intragenerational' is misleading due to the widespread use of the narrower generation term, since the prefix 'intra' means 'within' and, with reference to the narrower generation term, one could assume that this term denotes the relationship within an age group, for example the Justice within the under 30 group.

It seems more sensible to use the terms 'intertemporal' and 'temporal' generation and intergenerational justice. Temporal intergenerational justice is the justice between young, middle-aged and older people living today. Intertemporal intergenerational justice is defined as the justice between people who lived before, who live today and who will live in the future.

The principle of intertemporal intergenerational equity can be formulated as follows:

"Generational justice is achieved when the chances of future generations to meet their own needs are at least as great as those of the present generation."

In the definition of “temporal intergenerational justice”, “future generations” have to be replaced by “succeeding generations” and “current generation” by previous generations (which means today's middle and older generation):

"Generational justice is achieved when the chances of future generations to meet their own needs are at least as great as those of the generations preceding them "

The distinction between direct and indirect comparisons is only possible with the temporal concept of generation. Intertemporal is not differentiated between age groups within the groups of those living today, so no comparisons can be made in this regard.

Theories of Intergenerational Justice in Literature

Sufficiencyism judges justice according to an absolute standard: a later generation will be treated fairly if their well-being is at least at the sufficiency level. Whether she is better or worse off than other generations is irrelevant.

The vast majority of all philosophers do not represent an absolute standard of human welfare with regard to intergenerational justice, but a comparative one, that is, one that defines the desirable level of welfare in comparison with other generations. In the context of such comparative standards, strictly egalitarian principles ('as good as') are almost never postulated. You can find them, for example, at Scherbel: “Intergenerational justice specifically means that today's young and future generations should have equal opportunities to shape their lives as the current socially and politically responsible generation.” Andrea Heubach writes: “Generational justice is achieved when no one is part of one This means, conversely, that preferring earlier and later generations is incompatible with intergenerational equity.

As a third possibility, comparative standards are used in the literature on intergenerational justice together with the phrase 'at least as good', but also - fourthly - the word 'better than' is used. Some examples: Similar to John Locke around 300 years earlier (“at least as much and as good”), the philosopher Otfried Höffe writes : “Responsible parents leave their children with a legacy that is as bigger as possible than they inherited from their parents. "Rakowski puts it this way:" Everyone who is born into a society has a minimum right to the same amount of resources as everyone who participated in the original division of the goods and the land of the community. " Dieter Birnbacher argues similarly: "What he has inherited, he should pass on to the future unimpaired ('preserve') and possibly increased ('cultivate'), both as a private individual and as a representative of a collective." Kavka takes the same line: "[ ...] I interpret it to mean that in this context the generation in question positions its successor generation 'at least' as well in terms of usable resources as they do with their processes James Woodward's intuition is also not far from this: "Each generation should leave behind a range of resources and opportunities for future generations that is 'at least as large' as the range of their own resources and opportunities."

The principle of non-diminishing welfare is popular among the economists' guild. According to this, intergenerational equity is achieved when a level of prosperity once achieved is no longer undercut in the future. The economist Robert Solow explains : "The duty that sustainability imposes on us is to provide [... posterity] with everything that is necessary so that they have a standard of living that is at least as high as our own." But also the view that intergenerational justice includes an obligation (not restricted by 'perhaps' or 'possibly') to increase the welfare of future generations has its supporters across all parties and political directions. The economist Richard Hauser put it: “Each generation should make a positive net transfer to the next generation that is higher than that which it received from its previous generation .” Karl Marx put down a very similar thought in the third volume of Capital: “Even one whole society, a nation, indeed all simultaneous societies taken together, do not own the earth. They are only their owners, their beneficiaries, and as boni patres familias they have to leave them to the following generations in an improved way. ”The most comprehensive theory of a better position for future generations comes from Jörg Tremmel , who writes:“ Generational equity is achieved when the chances of the relatives of the next generation to be able to meet their needs are on average better than those of the members of their previous generation. ”According to Tremmel, three important questions arise for theories of intergenerational justice: 1.) Do we owe anything to future generations ?, 2. ) If so, what is the scope of our duties? Is it enough if we leave as much behind for future generations as we have ourselves? Or should we enable our children to have a better life ?, 3.) Which resources or goods do our intergenerational duties relate to? What is a "better life"?

Political discussion

The term “intergenerational equity” has been used in the literature on the future of the welfare state, particularly old-age provision, since around the 1970s.

From the mid-1990s onwards, the relationship between old and young and generation conflicts were often described. With the beginning of the sustainability discourse, the term “intergenerational equity” also assumed a central role in this. Intergenerational justice has now conquered the political agenda. For example, it was a target for several debt brakes (Switzerland, EU, Germany).

Present preference

Institutional anchoring of intergenerational equity remains - also in view of the euro crisis - in the political discussion. Some predominantly younger MPs were planning 2008/2009, an application for constitutional anchoring of intergenerational justice in the German Bundestag bring (see intergenerational equity law ). The demand for such an institutional anchoring can be justified with one of the weak points inherent in democracy , namely the structural present preference:

Politicians are most likely to be re-elected if they consider the interests of today's generations. This creates a problematic incentive for a policy of “glorifying the present and neglecting the future” ( Richard von Weizsäcker ). Individuals who do not yet have the right to vote (children or unborn children) cannot participate in obtaining today's majorities. Election periods cannot be too long without reducing the influence of the voter too far and thereby endangering the very essence of democracy. However, the effects of current actions sometimes extend far into the future and can have a profoundly negative impact on the quality of life of many future generations who were not involved in the decision-making process.

If future generations could assert their interests in the political decision-making process, the majority ratios for important political decisions would be different. Examples:

  • Energy policy : The current form of energy generation with the focus on fossil fuels currently enables a uniquely high standard of living, but accepts serious disadvantages in the medium-term future.
  • Financial policy : The financing of today's consumption through debts shifts burdens into the future and reduces the freedom of future generations to shape their own politics.

Legal enforcement options

The Federal German Basic Law does not yet offer any explicit responsibility for intergenerational justice. The German legal system primarily protects the rights of current individuals ( legal subjects ). For these reasons, the advocates of an ecologically sustainable or generational society strive to anchor the demands of the future institutionally.

In order to achieve this, they consider a change in the Basic Law or the working methods of the parliaments necessary in order to install representatives for the coming generations (for example, by establishing intergenerational justice parliaments or municipal councils for the future, as in Switzerland and Austria). Similar initiatives have already been implemented , for example, in Israel, Switzerland ( The Association of Active Seniors and Self-Help Organizations in Switzerland ) or in Hungary or are in the parliamentary decision-making process. In Germany, such a generational justice law was debated in the first reading in the Bundestag in October 2007 , but received little attention.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Brundtland report, p. 51; Section 49
  2. ↑ Brundtland Report, p. 49
  3. ↑ Andreas Scherbel (2003): The justification of generational justice in the belief in creation of the monotheistic revelation religions. In: Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (ed.): Handbook Generational Justice. Munich: Oekom-Verlag, pp. 175–197, 178.
  4. ↑ Andrea Heubach (2008): Intergenerational Justice - Challenge for Contemporary Ethics. Göttingen: V&R unipress. P. 44.
  5. ^ Otfried Höffe (2007): Justice between the generations . In: Journal for Intergenerational Justice , Vol. 7 (4). Pp. 4-6. Here: p. 6
  6. ↑ Eric Rakowski (1991): Equal Justice . Oxford: Clarendon Press. P. 150
  7. ↑ Dieter Birnbacher (1988): Responsibility for future generations. Stuttgart: Reclam. P. 220
  8. ^ Gregory S. Kavka (1978): The Futurity Problem. In: Richard Sikora and Brian Barry (Eds.): Obligations to Future Generations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 186-203. Here: p. 200.
  9. ↑ James Woodward (1986): The Non-Identity Problem . In: Ethics , vol. 96 (4). Pp. 804-831. Here p. 819.
  10. ^ Robert M. Solow (1992): Growth with Equity through Investment. In: Human Capital . Minnesota: George Seltzer Distinguished Lecture Series. P. 15.
  11. ↑ Richard Hauser (2004): Generational Justice, National Wealth and Inheritance. In:, Björn Böhning and Kai Burmeister (eds.): Generations & Justice . Hamburg: VSA-Verlag, 29-44. Here p. 36.
  12. ^ Karl Marx (1975): Das Kapital. Critique of Political Economy. Volume 3. In: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Works. Volume 25. Berlin: Dietz. (First published in 1894). P. 784.
  13. ↑ Jörg Tremmel (2012): A theory of intergenerational justice. Muenster. P. 290.
  14. ↑ See Jörg Tremmel (2012): A theory of intergenerational justice. Münster: mentis.
  15. ↑ Christian Christen, p. 154ff.
  16. ↑ www.generationenrechte.de

literature

  • Birnbacher, Dieter: Responsibility for Future Generations. Stuttgart 1988.
  • Börsch-Supan, Axel : On the concept of intergenerational justice. In: Journal for Economic Policy (2003), Volume 2 2003, SS 221–226. Full text: PDF
  • Gründinger, Wolfgang : uprising of the young. How we can avoid the war of generations. Munich, CH Beck Verlag, 2009
  • Hauser, Richard: Generational Justice, National Wealth and Inheritance. In: Böhning, Björn / Burmeister, Kai (eds.): Generations & Justice. Hamburg 2004: VSA-Verlag, 29–44.
  • Heubach, Andrea: Generational Justice - Challenge for Contemporary Ethics. Göttingen 2008: V&R unipress
  • Höffe, Otfried: Justice between the generations. In: Journal for Intergenerational Justice, 2007, Volume 7 (4). Pp. 4-6
  • Jonas, Hans: The principle of responsibility. Frankfurt 1979.
  • Thomas Ebert : Social Justice . Ideas, history, controversies (= publication series of the Federal Agency for Civic Education, Volume 1571), Federal Agency for Civic Education, 2nd edition, Bonn 2015, ISBN 978-3-8389-0088-9 . FAZ review of the 1st edition .
  • Kavka, Gregory S .: The Futurity Problem. In: Sikora, Richard / Barry, Brian (eds.): Obligations to Future Generations. Philadelphia 1978: Temple University Press, 186-203
  • Kirchgraber, Stefan: What can community-oriented social work contribute to the generation issue ?. Rubigen 2007 (www.soziothek.ch).
  • Laslett, Peter / Fishkin, James (eds.): Justice between Age Groups and Generations. New Haven 1992.
  • Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (Ed.): Handbook Generational Justice. Munich 2003.
  • Unnerstall, Herwig: Rights of Future Generations. Würzburg 1999.
  • Michael S. Aßländer , Andreas Suchanek , Gotlind Ulshöfer: Generational justice as a task of economy, politics and society , Hampp-Mering 2007, ISBN 3-86618-127-2
  • Marx, Karl: Capital. Critique of Political Economy. Volume 3. In: Marx, Karl / Engels, Friedrich: Works. Volume 25. Berlin: Dietz. (1975 edition; first published 1894).
  • Merk, Kurt-Peter, The Third Generation, Aachen 2002, ISBN 978-3-8322-0575-1
  • Christen, Christian: Political economy of old age security - criticism of the reform debate about intergenerational justice, demography and funded financing. Marburg 2011, ISBN 978-3-89518-872-5 ; Chapter 4 "Intergenerational equity and old-age security".
  • Rakowski, Eric: Equal Justice. Oxford 1991: Clarendon Press
  • Scherbel, Andreas: The justification of generational justice in the belief in creation of the monotheistic revelation religions. In: Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations (ed.): Handbook Generational Justice. Munich 2003: Oekom-Verlag
  • Solow, Robert M. (1992): Growth with Equity through Investment in Human Capital. Minnesota: George Seltzer Distinguished Lecture Series
  • Tremmel, Jörg: A theory of intergenerational justice, Münster 2012, ISBN 978-3-89785-706-3
  • Woodward, James: The Non-Identity Problem. In: Ethics, 1986, vol. 96 (4). Pp. 804-831

Web links