Shifting conceptions of social justice were intricately entangled with changing conceptions of the market in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Understanding this interwoven history requires an analysis of the anthropological, moral, social, and political implications constructions of a market order. This observation is the starting point for a sketch of three distinctive periods in Western European history of entanglements between conceptions of social justice and understandings of the market. In the first period, defined by the social question, a notion of property as entitlements to social security created the social basis for the recognition of political agency and the empowerment of precarious workers. In a second period, notions of social justice centred on the creation and maintenance of a productive workforce, with sufficient spending power to contribute to the efficiency of markets and the growth of national wealth. The third period was characterised by an understanding of social justice as a disturbance of the price mechanism resulting from the capture of the state by self-interested professionals and interest groups. Social justice is not an alternative to a market morality; they together contribute to shifting entanglements of ‘socially’ informed markets and ‘market’ informed constellations of social justice.

This chapter sets the scene for the history of plan-making in the Western hemisphere before, during, and after the Second World War. It delves into four great ideational projects of this period: (1) human rights, (2) the invention of a Christian-inspired liberalism, (3) solving the ‘social question’, and (4) the why and how of ‘mixed economies’. During the period 1937-47, these projects were gradually taken on by the leading politicians, policymakers, and intellectuals of the ‘free world’, as they were considered key for the creation of a more stable and just order, both in the national and in the international sphere. These four projects, moreover, were not only interlinked, but they also shared the overarching outlook of anti-totalitarianism and aimed for what could be called ‘ideational reconciliation’: the merging of the universal and the personal in the UDHR, a transatlantic-inspired ecumene, a combination of the ideologies and economic theories of socialism and liberalism. This produced a myriad of plans and counterplans for institutional structures, (federal) organisations, and policies for post-war Europe.

The first section of this chapter explores Nietzsche’s attempt to explain the origins and continued prominence of metaphysical philosophy in terms of the utility it produces. It argues that Nietzsche takes seriously Schopenhauer’s diagnosis of ‘humanity’s metaphysical need’, but explains this more precisely as a form of narcissistic impulse. The second section of the chapter aims to address Nietzsche’s seeming ambivalence over whether ‘humanity’s metaphysical need’ is a fundamental and static feature of the human condition, or whether it is acquired and, therefore, in principle eradicable via a new naturalistic and ‘historical’ philosophy. The final section of the chapter situates Nietzsche’s views on science, suffering, and progress in the context of the ‘social question’, arguing that the Nietzsche of the late 1870s is closer to the likes of Marx and Dühring in taking suffering to be capable of being significantly reduced, thus ejecting the need for art and religion to endow it with meaning.

The aspirations to autonomy, independence, and equality that had so effectively boosted the discourse of modern dominium were never realized. The rationalization and expansion of the economy generated enormous wealth inequalities between the propertied classes and the large class of propertyless wage laborers. The latter experienced oppression rather than autonomy, material dependence rather than the independence, and exclusion instead of equality. The “social question” prompted social reformers of all stripes to interrogate the role of property law (in the emergent industrial world. The new political and intellectual climate ushered in by the “social question” transformed the ideological discourse about property, the concerns of the jurists, and, to an extent, the doctrines of law of property. Alternative conceptualizations of property focused on social relations, redistribution and cooperation, started appearing in the writings of philosophers, economists and pamphleteers. And a new generation of jurists, interested in functionalist and consequence-based approach to property, gained power in law faculties around Europe, Latin America and beyond.

The Third Republic is the Liberal Republic (1870-1924) that is created by a constitutional mutation from the Second Republic. This Republic is characterized by the expansion of the right to vote and by a new liberal political atmosphere. During this period of the Liberal Republic the supremacy of the legislative function is imposed even after the 1891 civil war. The new expressions of Chilean constitutional law in the works of Roldan and Letelier is explained. Also the relationship between the social question and liberal constitutional republicanism is explored. The new political actors such as new political parties and the coups d’etat that destroyed the Third Republic is also a part of this section.

Modern Catholic Social Teaching (CST) developed in an historical context that posed dramatic challenges to the institutional Church and lay faithful. The French Revolution (1789–1799), the Napoleonic era (1799–1815), and industrial revolution, and waves of succeeding uprisings in 1820, 1830, 1848, and 1870 represented radical challenges to existing political structures, such that Old Regime conceptions of the State and Church alliance of Throne and Altar were no longer tenable. The emergence of the modern secular state in traditionally Catholic lands often included the suppression of religious orders, charitable and educational institutions, and control over clergy and hierarchy. The Church struggled in this revolutionary age of ideology – torn between laissez-faire liberalism and revolutionary socialism. The Catholic movement, primarily of laity, grew in response to these challenges, under the rubrics of the “Religious Question” of freedom of religion, and Church–State relations generally, and of the “Social Question” or how to address the growing number of rootless and impoverished industrial workers in an increasingly secularized political and cultural environment. The revival of neoscholastic philosophy of society became the paradigm through which Pius IX and especially Leo XIII were able to engage modernity on evangelical and natural law foundations.

Aquinas did not speak of “social” teaching, but did synthesize the teaching of the prophets, the Lord, the Fathers, and sound philosophy concerning social matters and responsibilities. He would have regarded the principles of CST as part of the Church’s doctrine of faith and morality (de fide et moribus), insofar as morality – the living out of that faith which consists in true beliefs about the Creator – embodies the principles, precepts, and virtue(s) of justice. For among the cardinal virtues, justice is the one bearing on those of our choices that relate to or impact on other persons, especially persons with whom in one way or another we are associated. And Aquinas’s treatment of justice, mainly but not only in his Summa Theologiae, is very extensive and detailed. This chapter offers (1) an overview of his significance for CST, (2) a review of the appeals to his writings in Rerum novarum and some of its antecedents and successors, and (3) his contribution to some leading features of CST since then, including dignity and equality; private property and associations; “subsidiarity” and the service conception of authority and law; and “solidarity” (local and global).