?
Отцы и дети, потомки и пращуры. Эволюционное измерение справедливости
This article provides an overview of the theoretical foundations of intergenerational justice. It is shown that the theory of intergenerational justice has two foundations: a symmetric and an asymmetric approach. It also includes the positions of John Rawls and his symmetric concept of justice; Terence Ball and his idea of radical asymmetry; and Ken Binmore and his idea of the evolutionary foundations of Rawls's idea of justice. This article shows how
evolutionary game theory answers the question of the origin of norms, cooperation, and justice in
the works of Robert Axelrod and Robert Trivers, the eye-for-an-eye strategy is most effective for
group survival, identifies the limitations of this strategy, and how punishment in altruistic groups
is a factor in the reproduction of justice. Theodore Seto's attempt to apply evolutionary theory to
intergenerational justice is examined. Naturalistic bases for justice are presented. In particular,
evidence for the correlation of normative behavior and punishment for violation of norms with
human brain activity is presented. Examples of brain activity associated with (non)conformal
behavior in humans and other primates are presented in a study by Klyucharev, Zubarev, and
Shestakova. Experiments and observations by Frans de Waal and Sarah Brosnan from the field of
primatology are presented. Where primates show a collective intolerance to unjust aggression,
which is demonstrated through sympathy and support for individuals who have been subjected to
«unjust» aggression. Evolutionary theory offers a descriptive, symmetrical basis for human
justice. At the same time, evolutionism does not accept these bases as normative, but argues for
the consistent construction of intergenerational justice by appealing to naturalistic bases.