文献一覧: 18826024 (ISSN) - Ceek.jp Altmetrics

38 0 0 0 OA 胎児を可視化する少子化社会 : 「生長の家」による胎児の生命尊重運動(プロ=ライフ運動)の軌跡(一九六〇年代 - 一九七〇年代)から

著者: 土屋敦
出版者: 東京大学グローバルCOEプログラム「死生学の展開と組織化」
雑誌: 死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.6, pp.88-110, 2005-10-25

2016-02-13 13:47:24
38 + 24 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/2261/20530

35 0 0 0 OA 科学・社会・倫理を関連づけて捉えること : 加藤尚武氏「臨床と予防 : 放射線障害の認識論」に応答する

著者: 島薗進
出版者: 東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科死生学・応用倫理センター
雑誌: 死生学・応用倫理研究 = Journal of Death and Life Studies and Practical Ethics (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.20, pp.178-190, 2015-03-15

第二五回日本生命倫理学会年次大会「死生学と生命倫理」特別対論企画「低線量被爆と生命倫理」

2017-02-14 16:33:29
35 + 17 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/2261/58597

29 0 0 0 OA 現代の看取りにおける<お迎え>体験の語り : 在宅ホスピス遺族アンケートから

著者: 諸岡了介相澤出田代志門岡部健
出版者: 東京大学グローバルCOEプログラム「死生学の展開と組織化」
雑誌: 死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.9, pp.205-223, 2008-03-15

http://hdl.handle.net/2261/20443

23 0 0 0 IR 基調講演生殖における身体の資源化とフェミニズム--日本とアメリカを中心に (シンポジウム生命の資源化の現在)

著者: 荻野美穂
出版者: 東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科グローバルCOEプログラム「死生学の展開と組織化」
雑誌: 死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: no.15, pp.336-312, 2011-03

シンポジウム「生命の資源化の現在」

https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120003087981

16 0 0 0 OA 死に至る断食 : 聖なる儀礼か自殺か?

著者: 堀田和義
出版者: 東京大学グローバルCOEプログラム「死生学の展開と組織化」
雑誌: 死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.10, pp.223(96)-243(76), 2008-09-30 (Released:2017-06-16)

講演

2023-05-27 02:41:59
16 + 44 Twitter

http://jairo.nii.ac.jp/0021/00016250

15 0 0 0 OA 自殺考 : 南条あやのために

著者: 末木文美士
出版者: 東京大学グローバルCOEプログラム「死生学の展開と組織化」
雑誌: 死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.2, pp.35-55, 2003-11-25

http://hdl.handle.net/2261/20469

14 0 0 0 OA 地震の神話と地震の記憶 : 奈良・平安時代の地震にふれて

著者: 保立道久
出版者: 東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科死生学・応用倫理センター
雑誌: 死生学・応用倫理研究 = Journal of Death and Life Studies and Practical Ethics (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.20, pp.19-30, 2015-03-15

国際シンポジウム「災害が遺したもの―語りつぐ記憶と備える文化」第一部災害の記憶

2015-10-24 10:37:08
14 + 11 Twitter

http://hdl.handle.net/2261/58586

9 0 0 0 IR 生-権力のたわみ : ホームレスの生の視点からみた死生学

著者: 仁平典宏
出版者: 東京大学グローバルCOEプログラム「死生学の展開と組織化」
雑誌: 死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.6, pp.111-141, 2005-10-25

2023-03-28 16:00:13
9 + 15 Twitter

https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120000863041

8 0 0 0 IR 「死者に鞭打つ」ことは可能か--死者に対する危害に関する一考察

著者: 福間聡
出版者: 東京大学大学院人文社会系研究科
雑誌: 死生学研究 (ISSN:18826024)
巻号頁・発行日: no.12, pp.149-129, 2009-10

There is a Japanese expression "whipping the dead." This derives from a historical event in China. Wu Zixu, whose father and brothers had been killed by King Ping of Chu, exhumed the dead body of the King from his tomb and whipped it three hundred times as a kind of revenge. In Japan, this expression became an idiom that refers to when we blame and attack the antemonem words and deeds of the deceased. We use this idiom to teach that we have to refrain from blaming the deceased if it diminishes his or her memory; for example, "Because the professor has already died, you should not blame his remarks in his later years. This is because you whip the dead if you blame him." Why should we care about the deceased in this way? Do we harm the dead by blaming them now? Can we harm a person who has already died? Ifwe can, what harm is it ?<改行> To begin with, in order that a person can receive profit or injury from an event, he or she must exist when it happens. That is, if "the Existence Condition" nothing bad can happen to a person unless he or she exists at that time - is valid, no harm will be caused to the dead. However, does not this conclusion contradict our intuition that even the dead can be subjected to the negative effects of our actions ? It seems that we generally think that we should avoid condemning the deceased's antemonem words, deeds, and achievements. Then, does the precept that we should not blame the dead imply that we should not blame a person (though he or she is living) who is presently absent? That is, do we think of it as proper etiquette that we should not blame a person who cannot argue against us? Or, do we think that we should not out of consideration for the bereaved family ?<改行> However, the reason that it is important for the absent living to argue against condemning him or her is that there are real interests that he or she wants to protect. But there are no such interests for the deceased because he or she now is not a subject who can have them. So the reason that it is impossible to rebut blame is begging the question in the case of the deceased if the Existence Condition is valid. Moreover, if the bereaved family and related parties are now non-existent, can we be permitted to deliver any blame on the deceased? If so, do we need not respect the wishes of the deceased who has no relatives at all ? <改行> In order to defend our intuition, there are two ways in which we can insist that people can receive harm and profit from events that happen posthumously. One way is that we can argue that some interests of the deceased can survive his or her death, and their fulfillment being obstmcted harms the antemortem person. The other is that we can argue that, because the will of the deceased does not continue to exist in the mode of interests, he or she cannot undergo "real change" by posthumous events-but can undergo a "Cambridge change (relational change)." <改行> In this article, through examining these two standpoints, I consider whether our (Japanese) intuition that we should not condemn the deceased and that we should respect the living will of the deceased is valid from the perspective of the philosophy of death. Then, in light of these considerations, I make a proposal on some of the issues surrounding organ transplantation in Japanese society. I insist that we cannot harm the deceased, but can wrong him or her.