Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:01:07.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of ‘Previous Generations’ in the Just Savings Principle of John Rawls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2019

Ben Pontin
Ben Pontin*
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the shift in Rawls’ just savings principle away from an initial iteration that was indifferent to previous generational savings, to one in which past historical savings are the cornerstone of the motivation to save for future generations. Attention is given to the practical application of the revised principle in the field of the environment. The revised principle is argued to be an improvement on the initial one, because previous generations have an existence and identity that is more tangible than yet-to-be future ones.

Keywords

just savings principleprevious generationsRawlsintergenerational justicefuturity
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 24 , Special Issue 4: Special Issue on Kant & Law , December 2019 , pp. 555 - 571
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barry, Brian (1999) ‘Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice’. In Dobson, Andrew (ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, Ted (1999) ‘Sustainable Development and the Accumulation of Capital: Reconciling the Irreconcilable?’ In Dobson, Andrew (ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Justice and Sustainability (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnie, Patricia, Boyle, Alan and Redgwell, Catherine (2009) International Law and the Environment, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
BrownWeiss, Edith (1989) In Fairness to Future Generations. New York: Dobbs Ferry.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund (1965) Reflections on the Revolution in France. New York: Arlington Press.Google Scholar
Carnwath, Robert (2014) ‘Judges and the Common Laws of the Environment: At Home and Abroad’. Journal of Environmental Law, 26, 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2011) Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s Wildlife and Ecosystem Services. London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Dobson, Andrew (ed.) (1999) Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Justice and Sustainability. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, Jane (1977) ‘Justice Between Generations’. Philosophical Studies, 31, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamminga, Menno (2014) ‘Rawls and the European Union’. Philica, 425–37.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1970) ‘Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose’. Political Writings. Ed. Reiss, H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1991) Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Alexander (2012) ‘Rawls and Kantian Constructivism’. Kantian Review, 17, 227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Maria (2017) Environmental Accountability After Brexit. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Helen (2017) ‘In Search of Post-Brexit England and Swans’. New York Times, January 5.Google Scholar
Ogden, Chris (2019) ‘UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Lower Levels Since 1890s’. Air Quality News, 28 March, 1–2.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek (1984) Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pontin, Ben (2014) ‘Environmental Law-Making Public Opinion in Victorian Britain: The Cross-Currents of Bentham’s and Coleridge’s Ideas’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 759–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontin, Ben (2019) The Environmental Case for Brexit: A Socio-Legal Perspective. Oxford: Hart Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, Arthur (1967) Past, Present Future. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1978) ‘The Basic Structure as Subject’. In Goldman, Alvin and Jaegwan, Kim (eds), Values and Morals (Dordrecht: Springer), pp. 45–71.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1990) ‘Justice as Reciprocity’. In Freeman, Samuel (ed), Collected Papers – John Rawls (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), pp. 47–72.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (1999) Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Leslie (2014) Rivers Pollution Dilemma in Victorian England. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2013) 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity: A Strategy for the Conservation and Enhancement of Biodiversity in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Simmonds, John (2010) ‘Ideal and Nonideal Theory’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 38, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, Elen (2019) ‘Wanted: Professors of Foresight in Environmental Law’. Journal of Environmental Law, 31, 175–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, Burns H. and Bollier, David (2013) Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights and the Law of the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, Martin (1981) English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit 1850–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Howard (1983) Kant’s Political Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
World Commission for Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar