I have responsibility for planning long range infrastructure at a state level. The subject continuously comes up of equity and fairness in the setting of priorities. If the most equitable and sustainable solution for the future of all citizens requires some citizens currently to have less equity or do with less now: is this temporal inequity justified or fair, for the superior sustainable equity for all in the future? On the other hand, if we are fair to all now, the future will definitely be unfair for all and worse for some.

As you might expect, the answer to your question depends on what conception of justice you hold. One sort of utilitarian maintains, for example, that the right distribution will be the one that maximizes the greatest amount of welfare over the long run. So it will be permissible to have short-term inequalities if they promote welfare overall. If equity is a factor in welfare, then on this view it is OK to have short-term inequities in order to gain long-term equity. It is unclear, however, to what extent equity is important to maximize welfare. Another approach, then, would be to accept a consequentialist view that does not focus entirely on welfare, but recommends maximizing other goods, such as equity. However, one complaint about utilitarianism, and consequentialism generally, is that it ignores the rights of individuals. So it is important to consider the sorts of things being distributed. For example, would it be permissible to deny voting rights to some people now if doing so would...