著者

大峰 光博 友添 秀則 長島 和幸

出版者

日本体育・スポーツ哲学会

雑誌

体育・スポーツ哲学研究 (ISSN:09155104)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, no.1, pp.7-19, 2013

被引用文献数

1

---

In this study, we focus on arguing about whether retaliatory-hit-batsman is right or wrong, elicit issues which should be solved by reviewing each theorist's theory which is different from each view and aim to provide a new viewpoint for the argument by addressing these issues. As a first issue, we suggest whether retaliatory-hit-batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch is appropriate for the justifiable defense or not. We discuss the issue in accordance with the finding based on the fields of legality and legal philosophy in which there are accumulated discussions about the justifiable defense. As a result, "imminent and unlawful infringement" is suggested as a condition which necessitates the use of justifiable defense and it was concluded that because it's too difficult to consider the retaliatory hit batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch as the justifiable defense, it's not justified from the viewpoint of justifiable defense.<br>As a second issue, we question whether priority should be given to the external principles (the agreement of participants) or internal principles (the excellence) of the game. We address the issue by reference to Rawls and MacIntyre's theories. The result here are as follows: with the Rawls' stance of liberalism, agreement is acquired with the external principles, and on the other hand, with the MacIntyre's stance which is communitarianism with which the concept of "good" has the priority, internal principles (the excellence) should be given the priority. Furthermore, sustaining the game might be more difficult if the agreement is considered as the more important matter than the excellence. Therefore, even if there is the agreement of participants for retaliatory-hit-batsman, when the excellence of the game is undermined, we suggest that retaliatory-hit-batsman is not permitted.