Two Faces of Intergenerational Justice: Survival and Distributive Justice across Cultures

Implementing a sustainable society within Earth system boundaries requires not only normatively sound principles but also reasons that citizens find persuasive. This study examines the public acceptance of intergenerational ethics and their persuasiveness in policy contexts across cultures, using twelve moral principles that integrate Western political philosophy and moral psychology. Drawing on survey data from 3,619 respondents in the United States, France, Japan, China, India, the United Arab Emirates, and South Africa, we analyze the structure of intergenerational ethics using factor analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS). We show that intergenerational ethics are better organized into two themes—Survival Justice and Distributive Justice—than along the individualizing/binding distinction of Moral Foundations Theory. Survival Justice, oriented toward harm avoidance and environmental preservation, constitutes a cross-culturally robust core, whereas Distributive Justice, concerning intergenerational fairness and its institutional foundations, forms a context-dependent periphery. While both themes are strongly endorsed in emerging economies, mature societies—most notably Japan—exhibit a pronounced specialization toward Survival Justice alongside a relative decline in Distributive Justice. In policy contexts, Survival Justice proves persuasive not only for climate change and advanced technologies but also for fiscal issues; however, support for moral principles does not automatically translate into acceptance of concrete policy instruments, underscoring the need for a two-step strategy that combines a shared civic perspective with transitional measures and explicit arrangements for burden sharing.