就总体情况来说 ,一个社会所拥有的贫困现象的规模与程度同这个社会的公正程度具有一种负相关性。绝对贫困显然有悖于公正的保证原则和调剂原则。当一个社会有能力解决绝对贫困问题但仍存有大量绝对贫困现象 ,应当说这是不公正的。对于绝对贫困者来说 ,社会有责任提供最起码的社会救援亦即生活底线的保证 ,有责任从全社会发展的总成果中切出一部分予以调剂。平均主义式的绝对贫困则损伤了公正的机会平等的原则 (事前的原则 )和按照贡献分配的原则 (事后的原则 )。相对贫困更是从多个方面违背了公正的原则。问题的复杂性在于 ,虽然贫困大多属于“不公正”的贫困 ,但也有少数的贫困属于“公正”的贫困。“公正的贫困”现象只是相对贫困范围内的事情。由此 ,可以形成这样一种看法 ,贫困者并不一定就无可置疑地拥有着公正。贫困与公正问题在中国的社会转型时期往往表现得十分突出和复杂 As a general rule, the scale and extent of the poverty that a society possesses has a negative correlation with the fairness of the society. Absolute poverty is clearly contrary to the principle of impartial assurance and adjustment. When a society has the ability to solve the problem of absolute poverty but still has a great deal of absolute poverty, it should be said that this is unfair. For the absolute poor, it is the responsibility of society to provide the minimum guarantee for social assistance, that is, the bottom line of life. It is the responsibility of the community to cut a portion of the total result of the development of the entire society and adjust it. Absolute egalitarian poverty undermines the principle of fair equality of opportunity (ex ante principle) and the principle of allocation according to contribution (ex post facto). Relative poverty is in many aspects a violation of the principle of fairness. The complexity of the problem lies in the fact that while the majority of poverty belongs to “unjust” poverty, a small minority also belongs to “just” poverty. The phenomenon of “just poverty” is only about relative poverty. From this it is possible to develop the view that the poor do not necessarily have unquestionable justice. The issue of poverty and equity often shows prominence and complexity during the period of social transformation in China