A New View of Intergenerational Justice

This essay proposes to view justice across generations as a trust instead of as a type of social contract.Despite popular notions of a "generational contract", the concept, once examined, raises vexing questions about the meanings of terms we may have thought we could take for granted.The issue of intergenerational justice is a challenge even to frame, because it forces us to consider the utility of describing rights and duties across generations as a "contract."Discussion here is confined primarily to the topics of state-mandated pensions for the aged and secondarily to what is owed to people not yet born.The essay argues that a trust fund is a better instrument for securing justice across generations than is social contract doctrine.This paper will proceed as follows.First, it will draw on the work of Peter Laslett to examine whether and how we may conceive of justice across generations.As per Laslett's argument, the essay will suggest that the notion of an intergenerational contract be replaced with that of a trust.Next, the paper will review the topic of justice across generations as discussed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.Finally, it will review arguments of Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia as well as of Richard A. Epstein and demonstrate that, in James S. Fishkin's words, "The limits of intergenerational justice" reveal that social contract docrtine "is a form of intuitionism."( 1 ) ( 1 ) James Fishkin, "The Limits of Intergenerational Justice," in James Fishkin (ed.) and Peter Laslett (ed.) ,