Social justice

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concept of social justice refers to social conditions that can be described as fair or just in terms of their relative distribution of rights , opportunities and resources . What exactly is the content and standard of this form of justice has always been controversial and complex.

As an independent expression, "social justice" emerged in the middle of the 19th century in connection with the social question . The term goes back to the work Saggio teoretico di diritto naturale appoggiato sul fatto (1840–43) by Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio . In 1931 he was with the publication of the encyclical Quadragesimo anno by Pope Pius XI. for the first time formally and officially entered the doctrines of the pope used. Social justice was used as a regulative principle to solve the social question. Within the encyclical the term was not yet used with complete scientific precision, so that there was still room for different accents.

Since the 1970s, the discussion of social justice, particularly with reference to the egalitarian liberalism advocated by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice , has taken on new meaning. Amartya Sen is another representative of this direction . Rawls was also criticized by communitarians like Michael Walzer . In the German-speaking countries too, social justice has been an increasingly important topic in social discussion since the late 1960s.

History of ideas

The foundation of the differentiation of the concept of justice was made by Aristotle , this was significantly further developed by Thomas Aquinas . According to Rolf Kramer, references to social justice can already be found in Aristotle. On the basis of legal justice, the citizen is a member of the state that is committed to the whole. Particular justice in the form of compensatory justice and, in particular, distributive justice would also have a relation to social justice. On the other hand, Arno Anzenbacher takes the view that social justice cannot be precisely classified within the differentiation of Aristotle's concept of justice. Christoph Giersch also comes to the conclusion that the determination of the relationship to this classic understanding of justice remains inconsistent and unclear.

According to Otfried Höffe , the expression 'social justice' appears very late in philosophy and, moreover, “so casually that its first appearance can hardly be captured”. The idea of ​​“social justice” was first discussed together with the social question in industrial society . In contrast to the model of thought that went back to Aristotle, which only concerned the relationship between individuals ( fairness in dealing with each other) or with the state (distributive and legal justice), the term social justice also denoted those relationships whose subjects and objects are considered to be social stratifications and structures.

According to Peter Koller, social justice includes both distributive and corrective, political and commutative elements. It has also been described in the following dimensions (see also theories of justice ):

Conceptualization and controversy

Catholic social teaching

The term social justice or social justice as it found its way into Catholic social teaching was probably first coined in the 19th century by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio . In his five-volume work on the establishment of natural law in the tradition of the rationalistic baroque scholasticism , Taparelli d'Azeglio speaks of a giustizia sociale , in French translation justice [et droit] social and in German translation social justice . He describes this concept as “one person's righteousness against another” and relates it to the equality of every person with regard to the “rights of humanity in general”. Nonetheless, Taparelli seeks to do justice to the natural individual differences and postulates: "[T] he actions of a person will therefore be just if they are adapted to the various individual rights of his fellow men". For example, goods received would have to be balanced quantitatively ("exchanging justice"), and in the case of a community of goods received proportionally ("distributing justice"). The latter terms correspond to the distinction between aspects of justice, especially in Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle . Taparelli's doctrine of natural law and his concepts of “social welfare” and “social justice” had a considerable influence on the later Catholic social doctrine, including through Taparelli's direct pupil, later Pope Leo XIII. who wrote the first social encyclical, Rerum novarum .

A little later, the influential Antonio Rosmini , who, influenced by Taparelli, among others, referred the tradition of natural law to the market economy developments of the modern age, spoke of a giustizia sociale , already in the title of his model state constitution, Progetto di costituzione secondo la giustizia sociale , a work that was also indexed for several years .

With regard to the relationship of the concept of social justice to forms of justice, as distinguished in the tradition of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, there were several interpretations. The recipients of the term social justice include Gustav Ermecke , Heinrich Pesch , Eberhard Welty , Johannes Messner and Oswald von Nell-Breuning as well as those already mentioned . The reference to the common good ( bonum commune ) was mostly emphasized.

In the run-up to the First Vatican Council , the term social justice was controversially discussed and also associated with the conceptions condemned by the teaching office and called “ modernism ”.

In the encyclical Quadragesimo anno (1931) by Pope Pius XI. the papal magisterium took up the term for the first time. As one of the contributors to the encyclical, Oswald von Nell-Breuning explained that the concept of social justice within the encyclical had not yet become fully academic, as “the scientific preparatory work that had to be assumed had not yet been completed, but rather through the innovations in the church office The use of language had to be encouraged first ”. The "great deed" of Pius XI. consisted, in his view, of having made social justice “the centerpiece of his world circular”. In this way, according to Franz-Josef Bormann, social justice was stripped of a mere catchphrase character and thus immunized against ideological abuse.

The outlines of the term in the encyclical remained so vague that there was room for different accents, especially with regard to the relationship to traditional forms of justice. Three interpretations have emerged. According to one view, social justice is to be located within the understanding of justice of Thomas Aquinas in the common good. According to another view, social justice ( iustitia socialis ) stands outside of the justice triangle rule justice ( iustitia legalis ), exchange justice ( iustitia commutativa ) and distributive justice ( iustitia distributiva ) as an equal 4th type of justice or, according to the third view, as an integrative superordinate term. Even a good seventy years after the Quadragesimo anno , all three interpretations are still represented.

In Quadragesimo anno , social justice is used as a regulative principle to solve the social question and this is justified by two main lines of argument:

  1. Wage equity includes the subsistence level of the individual worker as the lower limit and the viability of the company as the upper limit. Social justice as justice for the common good requires workers to participate appropriately in the jointly developed prosperity, whereby the wage level must also be based on the fact that as many as possible can get a job.
  2. Furthermore, the notion that the state has to leave the economy to its own devices freely and unhindered is criticized as a “fundamental error of individualistic economics”. In order to overcome the one-sidedness of such a view, social justice and social love are necessary as a radical regulative principle. This should bring the individual function and the social function of the economy in a harmonious balance. Social justice must bring about a legal and social order that “gives the economy its mark”. It is therefore incumbent on moral reason to determine “the goal set by God, the Creator, for the economy as a whole”, while economic rationality limits itself to finding suitable means.

The development of the social market economy was influenced by both Catholic social teaching and Protestant social ethics. The "founding fathers" of the conception of the social market economy invoked motives and sources of theological social ethics.

Wilhelm Röpke , one of the pioneers of the social market economy, saw a closeness to Catholic social teaching, especially with reference to Quadragesimo anno, which contains a "program that completely coincides with our point of view".

Social justice from a Marxist point of view

As a materialistic philosophy of practice based on human labor , Marxism adopts a critical relationship with ethical postulates. A “complex understanding of justice by Marx and Engels” is to be assumed. They “radically rejected the existence of an ahistorical and transcendental, ie absolute, justice”. If Marx describes capitalism as a system of coercion, servitude and exploitation, then nowhere is there any mention of the injustice of capitalism or of capitalist conditions of exploitation; According to him, what is fair is what “corresponds to the given mode of production”, even if this - as in wage labor - is based on the exploitation of human labor. Nonetheless, in his criticism of the SPD's Gotha program , Marx formulated principles of social justice for the classless society, which Andreas Wildt describes as the “principles of communist justice”. According to them, in “communist society […] the narrow bourgeois legal horizon can be completely exceeded and society can write on its banner: everyone according to their abilities, everyone according to their needs!” In Marx's early writings, a “categorical imperative, everyone To overturn conditions in which the human being is a humiliated, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being ”. Among the later Marxists, Ernst Bloch in particular formulated "his own, genuinely Marxist theory of justice" with his work Natural Law and Human Dignity (1961). He countered the patriarchal and patronizing “justice from above” with a “justice from below” that emerged from the demands of social movements and that was reflected, for example, in human rights and the welfare state.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche sees the origin of justice in the character of exchange among people of roughly equal power: “Everyone satisfies the other by getting what he values ​​more than the other. You give everyone what they want, as what is now theirs, and in return receive what they want. ”Revenge is also an exchange and“ originally belongs [...] to the realm of justice ”. Elsewhere he thinks that the whole past of the ancient culture is built on violence, slavery, deceit, error. This unjust attitude is in us humans, also in the souls of those who do not have. Not forcible new distributions, as the socialists strive for, but slow restructuring of the mind is necessary. Justice must increase in everyone, the violent instinct weaker.

John Rawls

John Rawls describes justice as the “first virtue of social institutions”, so he grasps the concept of justice in its social dimension right from the start. For Rawls, justice is per se also social justice and not just a disposition of individuals. The point of reference is the result of a just social order , which relates in particular to the distribution of goods and a balance among the participants. Rawls assumes that people who have or acquire disposition to overburden their personal pursuit of happiness with a sense of justice . A convincing theory of justice must take into account the happiness of the worst off. Even the most disadvantaged should be able to agree to the principles of a just social order. Rawls outlines such an order in a hypothetical social contract . In this thought experiment, each person does not initially know which goods and rights will ultimately be allocated to them, which social position they will assume - they are under a "veil of uncertainty". Everyone would want to avoid that “his enemy can assign him a place”, and that is why the alternative is preferred, “whose worst possible result is better than that of everyone else” ( Maximin rule ). Ultimately, according to Rawls, the contractual partners would not have to rely on e.g. B. Unite strictly egalitarian , libertarian or utilitarian principles, but two principles of justice, which Rawls also briefly calls the principle of equality and difference:

  1. Everyone is equally in possession of inalienable fundamental freedoms (freedom, life, property, etc.)
  2. Social and economic inequality is allowed only when at least a favorable impact for the least well-off in the community for the benefit and if such inequalities associated with offices (Engl. Offices ) and positions all in accordance with fair opportunities (Engl. Under conditions of fair equality of opportunity ).

The basic freedoms (according to the principle of equality 1.) have priority (over unequal distributions, as they are limited by 2.). Fundamental freedoms may only be restricted if less freedom strengthens the overall system of freedoms for everyone and is acceptable to those affected. According to Rawls, both principles of justice (1st and 2nd) have priority over efficiency and benefit maximization, according to which every inequality of opportunity must improve the opportunities for the disadvantaged and a high savings rate must result in a lightening of the burden on those affected. In an early essay, Rawls had formulated the principle of difference in the wording that “social and economic inequalities are to be distributed in such a way” “that they are both (a) presumably to everyone's advantage and (b) positions and offices that are shared equally by all stand open ". However, according to Rawls, both clauses (a and b) allow different interpretations:

  1. in the sense of a system of natural freedom (or "formal equality of opportunity"), where (a) is understood as a Pareto-optimizing efficiency principle, for example according to welfare economics , so that no one would be better off through redistribution, whereby (to b) "gifted all Careers are open ”, but“ no efforts are made ”to“ preserve equality [...] ”- inequalities caused by“ natural and social coincidences ”are accepted.
  2. in the sense of a “system of liberal equality” (or “fair equality of opportunity”) attempts are made to “weaken the influence of social coincidences on the distribution of shares”. Positions should “not only be open in the formal sense”; likewise, everyone should "also have a fair chance [...] of reaching them". The “starting position within the social system”, for example through the “class into which they were born”, should not stand in the way. However, “the resulting distribution of property and income remains in accordance with the natural distribution of skills and talents”, so a “natural lottery” decides on the distribution of shares.
  3. In the “system of the natural aristocracy ” (or “formal equality of opportunity”, as for example with Burke or Rousseau ) the “natural lottery” is balanced, but “no attempt is made to control the effects of social coincidences beyond the requirements of the formal Equality goes beyond ".
  4. only in the “system of democratic equality” (or “fair equal opportunities”), for which Rawls advocates, is the distribution of shares “inappropriately influenced neither by social coincidences nor by the lottery of natural advantages”, which is also “in the long run and across generations ”. According to the principle of difference, “fair equality of opportunity” would exist without equal opportunities.

Amartya Sen

The economist Amartya Sen and the social philosopher Martha Nussbaum developed the empowerment approach , which is discussed with regard to the equity of development, gender and social policy. In it, the issue of social justice is based on the question of what qualifications a person needs in order to shape his life successfully. The proponents of this theory combine the idea of ​​social justice with a substantial concept of freedom. Central topics are, for example, health care or educational opportunities for underprivileged sections of the population.

Walter Eucken

The regulatory policy established by Walter Eucken no longer locates the problem of justice in the files of exchange, but shifts it into the framework for the economic process. The order of the competition is intended to “realize central moral ideas such as freedom, equality, solidarity and peace”. According to Hans G. Nutzinger , Eucken “not only recognizes the meaningfulness of a concept of social justice that goes beyond exchange justice , he sees the main part of the solution to the justice problem secured precisely by the appropriate regulatory design of the competitive process” and also advocates corrective interventions in the Distribution of income and distribution of wealth .

Friedrich August von Hayek

Friedrich August von Hayek rated “social justice” as an empty catchphrase in his book The Illusion of Social Justice from 1976, which Otfried Höffe believes is the first major philosophical work on this subject. Most of the attention that Hayek's criticism has received in the social science literature focuses on his rejection of the notion of social justice in the sense of distributive justice . To a market economy , as Hayek, no moral standards such as social justice can be created, as in a market economy nobody distribute income. There are no criteria for the results of the market process by which a fair distribution can be measured. Such a standard of justice can only be meaningfully applicable in a central administration economy in which a central authority orders the distribution of goods and duties, which, according to Hayek, would, however, amount to totalitarian overall control of society and a paralysis of economic processes. But even in such an economic order, only any specific concept of “social justice” can be enforced and an overarching consensus on “socially just” distribution can hardly be achieved. The expression “social justice” therefore belongs, according to Hayek, “to the category of [..] nonsense”. If state interventions are called for in the name of “social justice”, this is usually done in order to enforce the privileges of certain groups or people. Freedom of privilege is, however, a core requirement for a fair regulatory regime. Emergency aid, on the other hand, should be organized politically at least where the autonomous initiative fails; In prosperous societies, such aid would legitimately be above the physical subsistence level . Hayek emphasizes that this is not about correcting supposed injustices in market processes.

Michael Waltz

The US-American political philosopher Michael Walzer assumes that goods are produced in human society and in different social contexts (so-called "spheres") according to different principles, e.g. B. be distributed according to merit, need or free exchange. A universal and abstract justice would not do justice to the different social contexts for the production of different “goods”. As different social contexts, he identifies, among other things, “spheres” for the realization of welfare and security, money and goods, education, political power, community, kinship and love and so on. In society, in these different "spheres of justice" (the title of his book from 1983), various forms of justice and, overall, a "complex" concept of equality would develop. Accordingly, it can be fair to distribute benefits according to need in the health system and according to earnings in the economic system.

Wolfgang Merkel and Mirko Krück

A working group commissioned by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung developed four contemporary theories of justice ( F. A. von Hayek , John Rawls , Michael Walzer and Amartya Sen ) as "principles" for "social justice"

  • the equal distribution of the access possibilities to the necessary basic goods for the individually to be decided development of life chances and
  • the strengthening of the individual abilities that protect, secure and expand personal autonomy , dignity , freedom of choice, life chances and variety of options.

Five dimensions of "social justice" are derived from these two principles:

  1. Avoiding poverty
  2. Social opportunities through education
  3. Social opportunities through an integrative market (employment rate, appropriate income distribution )
  4. Consideration of the special role of women
  5. Social security (health and social expenditure in relation to the national product)

This understanding of social justice is strongly oriented towards the fair (here: equal) distribution of access opportunities. Subsequent redistributions through passive welfare state measures are less suitable for breaking class structures , expanding life opportunities and avoiding poverty traps. If poverty does arise, however, it should be combated through ex-post redistribution with high political preference, since poverty can damage individual autonomy and human dignity and become a trap for future generations in poor families.

James Buchanan

The social justice theory, published in 1985 by James M. Buchanan with Geoffrey Brennan, focuses even more than Rawls on rule justice . The yardstick for justice is neither in ethical instances nor in distribution profiles, but exclusively in the process of constitution-making and constitutional development. Actions are just if they follow rules which in turn correspond to higher rules; the hierarchy of rules ultimately leads to the “constitution” in which the “justified expectations” of individuals within a society are established by consensus.


A point of contention is the question of the universality or community-boundness of ideas of justice. While Rawls assumes general conditions for just societies, which are primarily reflected in fair trials, philosophers who are more communitarian like Walzer are of the opinion that ideas of justice are often implicit and tied to local communities. Especially in the context of trade liberalization and the increase in cross-border economic relations, these questions have become particularly explosive. The aim here is to sound out to what extent the philosophical and social foundations of global social justice prove to be sustainable in order to be able to supplement or even replace national communitarization and solidarity.

Another controversy is the relationship between freedom and social justice. The liberal political philosopher Isaiah Berlin , who defines freedom primarily as negative freedom , emphasizes the hard choices between freedom and social justice. Other theorists, who are more in a republican tradition, such as Amartya Sen, emphasize that social justice in the sense of equality of opportunity and empowerment must apply as a prerequisite for a substantial individual exercise of freedom.

According to Harald Jung , Hayek attacked the “illusion of social justice” against the background of a one-dimensional, historical version of justice. In contrast to what Hayek assumed in his 1944 plea, The Path to Slavery, which was critical of the welfare state, the origin of the term social justice does not lie in the “socialist utopias” of the “socialists in all parties”, but in a multi-dimensional understanding of justice that goes back to Aristotle, on which Emil Brunner, for example as referred to the Western idea of ​​justice. The social scientist Jörg Reitzig locates Hayek's criticism of the expression “social justice” in a general attack on neoliberal theory-building against the concept of social justice. For the sociologist Albert Hirschman , the discursive exclusion of the possibility of social justice is a main element of what he calls the “rhetoric of reaction”.

Use of the term in political discussion

The concept of social justice is used very often in public debates, but is seldom precisely defined. Political decision-makers create and represent certain ideas about social justice. The term usually has a positive connotation, which is why representatives of different and even contradicting positions claim the socially fair label for themselves in political disputes . Accordingly, labeling a position as socially unjust serves to disqualify positions that are not popular. According to Rolf Kramer, the demand for “social justice” is often not based on the will for justice , but on a redistribution , a better and fairer distribution of goods .

Use in Germany

The term “social justice” was already established in the German Reich during the Weimar Republic (1918 to 1933) B. declared a political goal by the German Center Party . With the Weimar Constitution of July 19, 1919, in the fifth section , which regulated economic life, extensive “social rights” were anchored in a constitution for the first time. The term “social justice” also established itself after the Second World War in the Federal Republic of Germany in the form of the welfare state postulate which, additionally exempted from constitutional amendments through the eternity clause , establishes a “social federal state” and a “social constitutional state”.

According to the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, social justice is one of the basic values ​​in the concept of the social market economy . According to surveys, social justice is an important value for the population and also a public issue in debates on the community.

In the political discussion in Germany, the term has been used more and more since Agenda 2010 and the Hartz IV laws, and in the social welfare state it stands, among other things, for the desire for a higher degree of social equality and social security. Currently the term also appears e.g. B. in the discussion about the unequal distribution of income and the bank rescue packages. While the critics of this development see increasing social injustice as a result, some proponents refer to this criticism as the “ envy debate ” and refer to the economic self-responsibility of the citizens and the achievement principle. The use of the term also leads to a political confrontation between the parties according to the right-left axis of the party system. Since the results of the PISA studies , which have shown that social origin in Germany often has a decisive effect on educational opportunities, the question of the social justice of the educational system has been discussed in particular.

Dimensions of social justice

After analyzing the public discussion about the German welfare state, Lutz Leisering comes to the conclusion that there are four paradigms of social justice:

  1. Principle of needs: the state has the task of providing comprehensive needs protection and redistribution
  2. Performance principle: here the focus is on fairness of performance, which means little interference in the distribution of the market and only minimal protection against emergencies that are not at fault.
  3. Productivist justice: the allocation of goods or loads takes place according to the services provided for society.
  4. Participation equality: this should guarantee social participation in the sense of legal equality, social recognition and participation in social, cultural and economic life.

Material inequalities are not necessarily social injustices, it depends on the underlying concept of justice. Income inequalities are only unjust if one understands social justice as equality of results. However, if this standard of equality of results is not taken as a basis, income inequalities in the sense of personal responsibility and different performance levels of people are perceived as fair. According to Leisering, the paradigm of equity is becoming increasingly important in current debates and is replacing the classic understanding of social justice based on the results of distribution. In the opinion of Stefan Liebig, however , the questions of needs-based justice in the classic sense are by no means obsolete. Protection against market failure, protection against emergencies that are not one's own fault and the safeguarding of a certain minimum standard of living remain important requirements. In contrast to the requirement protection z. In families, for example, such a state deficiency guarantee does not necessarily take place, but expectations of corresponding consideration are attached to it.

The French sociologist François Dubet starts from a plural theory of justice, which he determined in a large-scale survey of employed people. Three central and contradicting principles, which cannot be traced back to one another, are constitutive for his concept of justice: equality, achievement and autonomy. "Equality" is not about egalitarianism , but about "equality as a just order", whereby positions in society and work organization are judged from the point of view of a just status hierarchy . A distinction can be made between equality of positions and one of the starting opportunities. The “achievement” as a principle of justice comes into play in a meritocratic setting. The respondents are primarily concerned with the appropriateness of remuneration for their performance and commitment. As the third principle of justice, “autonomy” stands in the area of ​​tension between self-realization and alienation. The principle of autonomy is based on the conviction that “it has its own value, a freedom that is threatened by the working conditions”. For the dimension of autonomy, the occupation is particularly important because it gives the worker pride and dignity, the feeling, not mere Being a worker mediates. Loss of autonomy and alienation result from increased control of work by superiors; it prevents commitment and initiative. The consequences are exhaustion and stress.

Realization of social justice in various welfare state models

According to Wolfgang Merkel , there has been a division into "three worlds of welfare capitalism ", which in the real world occur in mixed forms, but can be clearly distinguished from one another by characteristic structural features:


In the Federal Republic of Germany , social justice is viewed as the ideal goal of the social policy endeavors derived from the welfare state concept of Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law . Citizens are to be guaranteed a livelihood participation in the material and spiritual goods of the community. In particular, the aim is to ensure an appropriate minimum level of security to lead a self-determined life in dignity and self-respect.

For the state's obligation to a just social order , which is derived from the welfare state principle , the legislature has a wide scope for action.

According to the UNICEF children's aid organization , child poverty is growing faster in Germany than in most other industrialized countries. In addition to the PISA studies , other internationally comparative educational studies (e.g. Euro Student Report , UNICEF study: Educational Disadvantage in Rich Nations ) place Germany at the bottom of the list when it comes to social justice.

In January 2011, the Bertelsmann Foundation published a study in which “social justice” is understood as equality of participation . In contrast to "equalizing" distributive justice or formal rule-based justice, this is about " guaranteeing each individual actually the same opportunities for realization through targeted investment in the development of individual capabilities." Germany comes into play in the OECD comparison Midfield. Particularly criticized were u. a. the high level of child poverty, the severe social disadvantage in the education system and insufficient support for the long-term unemployed.

International activities

February 20 was named World Social Justice Day by the General Assembly of the United Nations and was celebrated for the first time in 2009.


Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Olaf Cramme, Patrick Diamond: Social Justice in the Global Age . Polity, 2009, ISBN 978-0-7456-4419-6 , p. 3.
  2. ^ Olaf Cramme, Patrick Diamond: Social Justice in the Global Age . Polity, 2009, ISBN 978-0-7456-4419-6 , page 3. Radical critical than a content-empty slogan evaluated Friedrich August von Hayek "social justice" in his book The Illusion of social justice of the 1976th
  3. Harald Jung: Social market economy and worldly order. Lit Verlag, 2009, ISBN 978-3-643-10549-3 , p. 286.
  4. ^ Arno Anzenbacher: Christian social ethics: Introduction and principles. UTB, 1998, ISBN 3-8252-8155-8 , p. 221.
  5. ^ According to Bormann: Social justice between fairness and participation: John Rawls and the Catholic social teaching. 2006, p. 290, “Nell-Breuning […] made no secret of the fact that the concept of iuststitia socialis within the encyclopedia has not yet attained full scientific clarity. For him the real 'great deed' Prius Xl. because also precisely in the fact that he uses the term at a point in time when the scientific preparatory work that was actually to be assumed had not yet been carried out, but had to be stimulated by the innovation in church official language usage. "
  6. ^ A b Arno Anzenbacher: Christian social ethics: introduction and principles. UTB, 1998, ISBN 3-8252-8155-8 , p. 221.
  7. ^ Rolf Kramer: Social justice - content and limits. Duncker & Humblot, 1992, ISBN 3-428-07343-6 , p. 37.
  8. ^ A b Christoph Giersch: Between social justice and economic efficiency. Lit Verlag, Münster 2003, ISBN 3-8258-6684-X , p. 26.
  9. Höffe p. 84.
  10. Erik Oschek: Is the German welfare state fair? A socio-philosophical consideration for social work. Frank & Timme GmbH, 2007, ISBN 978-3-86596-140-2 , p. 101 (with reference to Koller, in: Kersting (ed.): Politische Philosophie des Sozialstaats. 2000, 123 f.).
  11. ^ Otfried Höffe : Justice ; see literature.
  12. Cf. for example Peter Langhorst: Gerechtigkeit, V. Kirchliche Soziallehre . In: Walter Kasper (Ed.): Lexicon for Theology and Church . 3. Edition. tape 4 . Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1995, Sp. 304 .
  13. See Volume II c. 3, n.341, p. 142 ff., Volume I Intr. I c. 4 a. 1 XCII, p. 44 and ö.
  14. See, p. 142ff.
  15. Cf. Taparelli: Attempt of a natural law based on experience. Translated by F. Schöttl, C. Rinecker, 2 volumes, Regensburg 1845, volume 1 ( digitized at ), p. 137 ff., Esp. 142 f.
  16. See, p. 143.
  17. See p. 144 f.
  18. See the overview in Gunter M. Prüller-Jagenteufel: “Socialwohl” and “Socialerechtigkeit”. On the influence of Luigi Taparelli's “attempt at a natural law based on experience” on the Catholic social proclamation , in: Stephan Haering, Josef Kandler, Raimund Sagmeister (eds.): Gnade und Recht. Contributions from ethics, moral theology and canon law (FS Gerhard Holotik), Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1999 (= series of publications by the Archbishop Rohracher Study Fund 5), pp. 115–128. Walther Homberg: Luigi Taparelli d'Azeglio as the innovator of scholastic philosophy in Italy , Ingelheim 1955.
  19. See La costituzione secondo la giustiza sociale , in: Scritti politici , Stresa 1997, 43–249, Milan 1848.
  20. J. Brian Benestad: Church, State, and Society: An Introduction to Catholic Social Doctrine. CUA Press, 2011, p. 152.
  21. See Axel Bohmeyer, Johannes Frühbauer: Profile, Christian Social Ethics Between Theology and Philosophy. Lit Verlag, 2005, ISBN 3-8258-7649-7 , p. 52.
  22. Cf. on this Oswald von Nell-Breuning : The social encyclical. Explanations of the world circular from Pope Pius XI. Cologne 1932, p. 169 ff. 249 et passim. A valance: idea and development of social justice. Freiburg / Switzerland 1971, p. 14 ff.
  23. ^ A b Franz-Josef Bormann: Social justice between fairness and participation: John Rawls and the Catholic social doctrine. Herder Verlag, 2006, ISBN 3-451-29158-4 , pp. 288-289.
  24. ^ Franz-Josef Bormann: Social justice between fairness and participation: John Rawls and the Catholic social doctrine. Verlag Herder, 2006, ISBN 3-451-29158-4 , p. 290 f.
  25. ^ Franz-Josef Bormann: Social justice between fairness and participation: John Rawls and the Catholic social doctrine. Herder Verlag, 2006, ISBN 3-451-29158-4 , pp. 289-290.
  26. Winfried Löffler : Social Justice - Roots and Presence of a Concept in Christian Social Teaching. In: Peter Koller : Justice in the Political Discourse of the Present. Passagen Verlag, 2001, ISBN 3-85165-509-5 , pp. 74-75.
  27. Werner Veith: From social justice to intergenerational justice. In: Axel Bohmeyer, Johannes Frühbauer: Profiles, Christian social ethics between theology and philosophy. Lit Verlag, 2005, ISBN 3-8258-7649-7 , p. 52.
  28. ^ Franz-Josef Bormann: Social justice between fairness and participation: John Rawls and the Catholic social doctrine. Herder Verlag, 2006, ISBN 3-451-29158-4 , p. 286.
  29. Harald Jung: Social market economy and worldly order. Lit Verlag, 2009, ISBN 978-3-643-10549-3 , p. 304.
  30. Stephan Wirz, Philipp W. Hildmann: Social market economy: future or discontinued model? Theologischer Verlag, Zurich 2010, ISBN 978-3-290-20059-6 , p. 28.
  31. Entry Justice. In: Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism. Volume 5, Col. 383.
  32. Entry Justice. In: Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism. Volume 5, Col. 384.
  33. Andreas Wildt: Justice in Marx's "Capital". In: Emil Angehrn, Georg Lohmann (eds.): Ethics and Marx. Moral criticism and foundations of Marx's theory. Grove near Athenaeum, Königstein i.Ts. 1986, p. 150.
  34. Andreas Wildt: Justice in Marx's "Capital". In: Emil Angehrn, Georg Lohmann (eds.): Ethics and Marx. Moral criticism and foundations of Marx's theory . Grove near Athenaeum, Königstein i.Ts. 1986, p. 150.
  35. ^ Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Works Volume 19. Dietz, Berlin 1969, p. 31.
  36. ^ Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Works Volume 1 . Dietz, Berlin 1961, p. 385.
  37. Justice. In: Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism. Volume 5. Argument-Verlag, Hamburg 2001, Sp. 391.
  38. See Ernst Bloch: Natural Law and Human Dignity. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1961, pp. 50 ff., 227 ff. And Eva Kreisky : Justice Discourses (PDF) ( Memento from March 5, 2016 in the Internet Archive )
  39. ^ Friedrich Nietzsche: Menschliches, Allzumenschliches , Aphorismus 92.
  40. ^ Friedrich Nietzsche: Menschliches, Allzumenschliches. Aphorism 452.
  41. On the individual and social ethical aspects of the concept of justice, Michael Slote introduces:  Justice as a Virtue. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . .
  42. See John Rawls: A Theory of Justice. Frankfurt am Main 1971/79, p. 177 f. et passim.
  43. On attempts to philosophically define the term equality of opportunity and its conditions of use, cf. introducing Richard Arneson:  Equality of Opportunity. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . ; to the difference principle z. B. Julian Lamont, Christ's Favor:  Distributive Justice, 3. The Difference Principle. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . .
  44. See John Rawls: A Theory of Justice. Frankfurt am Main 1971/79, p. 81 et passim.
  45. ^ John Rawls: Distributive Justice. In: John Rawls: Justice as Fairness. ed. by Otfried Höffe , Freiburg-Munich 1977, pp. 84–124.
  46. For an initial overview of the philosophical discussion about natural and social “lottery” or justice and chance, which also addresses Rawls' basic ideas, cf. Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen:  Justice and Bad Luck. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . .
  47. See for example John M. Alexander: Capabilities and Social Justice: The Political Philosophy of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Ashgate Publishing, 2008, ISBN 978-0-7546-6187-0 .
  48. Martha C. Nussbaum: Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and Social Justice. In: Feminist Economics. 9 (2 - 3), 2003, pp. 33–59 (online) ( Memento from November 16, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  49. ^ Entry regulatory policy. In: In: Georges Enderle, Karl Homan, Martin Honecker, Walter Kerber, Horst Steinmann (Hrsg.): Lexikon der Wirtschaftsethik. Herder, Freiburg / Basel / Vienna 1993, ISBN 3-451-22336-8 , Sp. 786.
  50. ^ Hans G. Nutzinger / Christian Hecker: Justice in the economy - an insoluble contradiction? doi: 10.1007 / s11578-008-0032-z , p. 559.
  51. Otfried Höffe : Justice: A Philosophical Introduction. 2nd Edition. Verlag CH Beck, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-406-44768-6 , p. 84.
  52. Viktor Vanberg , Market Economy and Justice - FA Hayek's Critique of the Concept of “Social Justice” , Institute for General Economic Research - Department of Economic Policy, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2011, p. 2.
  53. a b Jörg Reitzig: A category of nonsense ... In: Neoliberalismus: Analyzes and alternatives. Springer-Verlag, 2008, p. 137.
  54. ^ Walter Reese-Schäfer : Political Theory of the Present in Fifteen Models, Textbooks and Handbooks of Political Science. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-486-57930-4 , p. 19.
  55. a b Viktor Vanberg : Market economy and justice. On FA Hayek's criticism of the concept of "social justice". University of Freiburg, Walter Eucken Institute, Freiburg 2011. (online)
  56. Reinhard Zintl, Von Hayek - Freedom and "Social Justice". In: Political Philosophy. (= Uni-Taschenbücher M, basic course in political science. Volume 2816). 2nd Edition. 2006, ISBN 3-8252-2816-9 , p. 152.
  57. ^ Richard Bellamy: Justice in the Community. Waltz on Pluralism, Equality and Democracy. In: David Boucher, Paul Joseph Kelly (Eds.): Social Justice: From Hume to Walzer. Volume 1, Routledge, 1998, ISBN 0-415-14997-5 , pp. 157-180.
  58. Wolfgang Merkel , Mirko Krück , Social Justice and Democracy: In Search of the Connection
  59. Nick Lin-Hi in the Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon, keyword: Justice .
  60. Norman P. Barry: An Introduction to Modern Political Theory. 4th edition. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000, ISBN 0-312-23516-X , p. 155.
  61. Heather Widdows, Nicola J. Smith: Global Social Justice . Taylor & Francis, 2011, ISBN 978-1-136-72591-3 .
  62. George Crowder: Isaiah Berlin: Liberty and Pluralism. Polity, 2004, ISBN 0-7456-2477-4 , p. 179.
  63. John M. Alexander: Capabilities and Social Justice: The Political Philosophy of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Ashgate Publishing, 2008, ISBN 978-0-7546-6187-0 , p. 151.
  64. Harald Jung: Social market economy and worldly order. Lit Verlag, 2009, ISBN 978-3-643-10549-3 , pp. 285, 286.
  65. Jörg Reitzig: "A category of nonsense ..." - Social justice in the sights of neoliberal theory. In: Christoph Butterwegge, Bettina Lösch, Ralf Ptak (eds.): Neoliberalismus: Analyzes and alternatives. VS, Wiesbaden 2008, pp. 132-146. Cf. Andreas Dorschel: 'Is social justice a' meaningless' term? On a thesis by Friedrich August von Hayeks, in: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie XIII (1988), No. 1, pp. 4–13.
  66. Lea Hartung: "Half-an-idea machine" - The Mont Pèlerin Society between learned society and think tank (PDF file; 655 kB) In: Thomas Brandstetter, Claus Pias, Sebastian Vehlken (eds.): Think Tanks: Advising society. Diaphanes, Zurich 2010, p. 106.
  67. Christoph Giersch: Between social justice and economic efficiency (= Bochum studies on justice; Volume 2), Lit Verlag, Münster 2003, ISBN 3-8258-6684-X , p. 25.
  68. ^ Roswitha Pioch: Social justice in politics: Orientations of politicians in Germany and the Netherlands. Campus Verlag, 2000, ISBN 3-593-36486-7 , p. 59.
  69. ^ Christoph Giersch: Between social justice and economic efficiency. Volume 2 of Bochum's studies on justice, Lit Verlag, Münster 2003, ISBN 3-8258-6684-X , p. 25.
  70. ^ Rolf Kramer: Social Justice: Content and Limits. Duncker & Humblot, 1992, ISBN 3-428-07343-6 , p. 6.
  71. Heiko Bollmeyer: The stony road to democracy: The Weimar National Assembly between the Empire and the Republic. Campus Verlag, 2007, ISBN 978-3-593-38445-0 , pp. 210-211.
  72. ^ A b Frank Nullmeier : Social justice - a political "battle concept"? In: Social Justice (PDF file; 2.3 MB), From Politics and Contemporary History 47/2009, November 16, 2009, pp. 9–13.
  73. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung: Lexicon of the social market economy, keyword: social justice (social balance) as well as keyword: social market economy: social Irenik .
  74. Cf. for example Ingo Schulze : The monster in the pit. In: FAZ . August 2009.
  75. Heinz Sünker: Education policy, education and social justice PISA and the consequences In: Hans-Uwe Otto, Thomas Rauschenbach (ed.): The other side of education. 2nd Edition. Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2008, pp. 223–236.
  76. a b c Stefan Liebig : Dimensions of social justice. ( Memento of January 21, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) In: Parliament. 47/2009.
  77. ^ François Dubet: Injustices. On the subjective feeling of injustice in the workplace. Hamburger Edition HIS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Hamburg 2008.
  78. ^ François Dubet: Injustices. On the subjective feeling of injustice in the workplace. Hamburger Edition HIS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Hamburg 2008, p. 95.
  79. ^ François Dubet Injustices. On the subjective feeling of injustice in the workplace. Hamburger Edition HIS Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Hamburg 2008, p. 147.
  80. Wolfgang Merkel: Social justice in the OECD comparison. In: Empter / Varenkamp: Social justice - an inventory. 2007, ISBN 978-3-89204-925-8 , p. 233 ff.
  81. BVerfG , decision of January 13, 1982, Az. 1 BvR 848, 1047/77, 916, 1307/78, 350/79 and 475, 902, 965, 1177, 1238, 1461/80, BVerfGE 59, 231 - Freie Employee.
  82. Social justice in the OECD - where does Germany stand? (PDF) In: Sustainable Governance Indicators 2011. Bertelsmann Stiftung , 2011, p. 10 , accessed on April 8, 2019 (3.1 MB).
  83. ↑ Pent- up demand in matters of social justice. Bertelsmann Stiftung, January 3, 2011, accessed April 8, 2019 (press release).
  84. ^ Launch of the World Day of Social Justice, New York, February 10, 2009 ( Memento of March 10, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) . Accessed March 8, 2010 from the UN website .