著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

日本医学哲学・倫理学会

雑誌

医学哲学 医学倫理 (ISSN:02896427)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.39, pp.44-53, 2022 (Released:2022-08-12)

著者

玉手 慎太郎 Shintaro Tamate

出版者

学習院大学法学会

雑誌

学習院大学法学会雑誌 = Gakushuin review of law and politics (ISSN:13417444)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.57, no.2, pp.123-144, 2022-03-20

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

東北学院大学社会福祉研究所

雑誌

東北学院大学社会福祉研究所研究叢書 (ISSN:09191135)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.11, pp.95-127, 2017-03-15

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, no.3, pp.65-70, 2014-10-20

---

Japanese Marxian philosopher Satoshi Matsui has constructed the "normative theory of socialism" in contrast to the normative theories of liberalism by reading Marx faithfully and investigating controversies about Marx's normative aspects. This paper examines his arguments by comparing them with the views of John Rawls on normative theories and justice. Matsui's normative theory of socialism has centers on Marx's normative "principle" and the change in the role of such a principle in correspondence with the development of society. The latter is more important. According to the Marx's theory of the development of society, namely, "historical materialism," society will necessarily reach communism(the second stage of socialism) after capitalism and via socialism(the first stage of socialism). In the society of socialism, Matsui says, the normative theories of liberalism work well in improving people's lives, but in the society of communism, the normative theories of liberalism must be substituted by the normative principle of Marx. This two-level use of normative theory is the main point of Matsui's normative theory of socialism. Matsui's theory is problematic at two points. First, the justification of his theory is based entirely on historical materialism, so it is not persuasive for non-Marxians unless historical materialism is justified logically or empirically. Second, even if historical materialism is justified successfully, it breaks a condition of normative theories of liberalism ("circumstances of justice" in Rawls's terms), so that we can say nothing about the superiority of Marx's normative principles to those of liberalism because they do not share this condition in common. The "circumstances of justice" condition, however, inescapably introduces "alienation" in Marx's sense. The "circumstances of justice" is a common premise of normative theories of liberalism, and the concept of alienation points out a fundamental problem with normative theories of liberalism. Matsui's failure lies in his use of historical materialism as a ground of justification. The core of the normative theory of socialism, in contrast of normative theories of liberalism, is the concept of alienation, while historical materialism is just a device of Marx's for the abolition of alienation. All normative theorists(not only Marxian but also non-Marxian)must consider seriously the choice between the variety of lives under alienation and the uniformity of lives following the abolition of alienation.

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

日本医学哲学・倫理学会

雑誌

医学哲学 医学倫理 (ISSN:02896427)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, pp.42-51, 2018 (Released:2022-07-20)

著者

生澤 繁樹 室井 麗子 玉手 慎太郎 田畑 真一 Ichikawa Hideyuki 山本 圭 関根 宏朗

出版者

教育思想史学会

雑誌

近代教育フォーラム (ISSN:09196560)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.27, pp.136-144, 2018 (Released:2019-09-07)

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

南山大学社会倫理研究所

雑誌

社会と倫理 = Society and Ethics (ISSN:13440616)

巻号頁・発行日

no.36, pp.[155]-170, 2021-11-15

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

東北学院大学社会福祉研究所

雑誌

東北学院大学社会福祉研究所研究叢書 (ISSN:09191135)

巻号頁・発行日

no.11, pp.95-127, 2017-03-15

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.49, no.3, pp.68-78, 2012-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

This paper aims to reexamine the positions on the value judgment in economics, by using the classification of the "value judgment of the subject" and the "value judgment of the object". The former is the value judgment of the researcher of economics, while the latter is the value judgment of the object of research, namely the motivation of the actor in economic studies. This classification can clarify the point of the contrast between Amartya Sen and Lionel Robbins about economic methodology. It is well known that Robbins eliminated any value judgments from economics, and strictly separated economics from ethics. However, in fact, he eliminated value judgments only in the field of economic science, and he explicitly needed value judgments in his field of political economy. So, the contrast between Sen, who emphasizes the interaction between economics and ethics, and Robbins is not about whether economists should consider value judgments. (Both of them would say "yes" in response to this question.) It must be about whether economists can ignore value judgments in some fields of study in economics. (Only Sen would deny this possibility.) Robbins based his proposition about the objectivity of economics on that of Max Weber. Robbins regarded Weber's Wertfreiheit as an attitude that considered people's value judgments as matters of fact. Robbins believed that we can treat people's value judgments as fact without our own value judgment (namely the value judgment of the subject). This means that Robbins eliminated value judgments of the subject from economic science but took account of value judgments of the object as fact. However, Robbins's understanding is not correct. Surely, Weber insisted that we could treat value judgments of the object as fact. However, in addition, Weber also insisted that in social sciences we cannot eliminate value judgments of the subject; therefore, we must use some Idealtypus in studies. From the perspective of Weber, social science cannot be wertfrei by merely taking the value judgments of the object as fact. In contrast to Robbins, Sen regards both value judgments of the subject and of the object as being inescapable in economics. His proposition about the inescapability of value is based on the philosophy of Hilary Putnam. Putnam points out the collapse of the fact-value dichotomy. He insisted that not only normative analyses but also descriptions and prescriptions are entangled with values (Putnam calls it "the entanglement of fact and value".) All descriptions premise some epistemic values, for example "coherence". Moreover, some descriptions, for example "cruel", essentially involve ethical values. From the perspective of Putnam, Sen concludes that we cannot ignore value judgments in any fields of study in economics. Both welfare economics and descriptive economics need to consider value judgments, not only of the object but also of the subject. In economic studies, we must investigate the way in which description and normative analysis are studied at the same time.

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.60, no.1, pp.205-206, 2018 (Released:2019-11-05)

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

南山大学社会倫理研究所

雑誌

社会と倫理 (ISSN:13440616)

巻号頁・発行日

no.28, pp.178-182, 2013-11-20 (Released:2016-04-15)

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

数理社会学会

雑誌

理論と方法 (ISSN:09131442)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.26, no.2, pp.339-354, 2011 (Released:2012-09-01)

参考文献数

38

---

本稿はアマルティア・センが提唱した「基礎的ケイパビリティの平等」について論じるものである.センの規範理論はしばしばケイパビリティの平等と混同されており,われわれの間で明確な理解がなされているとは言えない.また「基礎的ケイパビリティの平等」は,厳密に考察するならば,自由をどの程度まで保障するのかについて明確でないという問題を抱えていることがわかる.本稿は,自由を二重の重要性を持つものとして捉えるセン自身の考え方に即して「基礎的ケイパビリティの平等」を定式化し,この理論をケイパビリティの平等と明確に区別して示すとともに,保障範囲に関して明示的に理論に取り入れる.保障範囲の問題はいま広く議論されている責任の概念につながるものであり,この点について,本稿の定式化の含意として,責任平等主義に対するエリザベス・アンダーソンからの批判に応答が可能となることを示したい.

著者

玉手 慎太郎

出版者

Japanese Association For Mathematical Sociology

雑誌

理論と方法 (ISSN:09131442)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.26, no.2, pp.339-354, 2011

---

本稿はアマルティア・センが提唱した「基礎的ケイパビリティの平等」について論じるものである.センの規範理論はしばしばケイパビリティの平等と混同されており,われわれの間で明確な理解がなされているとは言えない.また「基礎的ケイパビリティの平等」は,厳密に考察するならば,自由をどの程度まで保障するのかについて明確でないという問題を抱えていることがわかる.本稿は,自由を二重の重要性を持つものとして捉えるセン自身の考え方に即して「基礎的ケイパビリティの平等」を定式化し,この理論をケイパビリティの平等と明確に区別して示すとともに,保障範囲に関して明示的に理論に取り入れる.保障範囲の問題はいま広く議論されている責任の概念につながるものであり,この点について,本稿の定式化の含意として,責任平等主義に対するエリザベス・アンダーソンからの批判に応答が可能となることを示したい.