著者
樫 則章
出版者
日本哲学会
雑誌
哲学 (ISSN:03873358)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2006, no.57, pp.43-58,3, 2006-04-01 (Released:2009-07-23)
参考文献数
26

In this article, Peter Singer's animal liberation and criticism agaist it is discussed. Singer's animal liberation is based on the principle of equal consideration of interests. However, the basis for this principle is derived from the logical requirement of universalizability of moral judgment. Thus, on the part of people who deny any consideration of animal interests or who think animal interests weigh less than those of humans, there is a responsibility to prove the validity of their views. Though some think animal interests are not the immediate object of moral consideration, they in fact are. Those who feel that more consideration should be placed on human interests compared to animals, in order to justify this inequality, point out the relevant moral differences between the two such as rationality, autonomy, moral agency, and so on. These people must come face to face with the so called, the problem of "marginal cases" in which it is stated that the interests of people lacking these qualities or capacities need not be considered. Though many solutions have been proposed, not one has been satisfactory. Thus, Singer's view that it is an unjustifiable discrimination not to consider animal interests as strongly just because they are for animals, can be indeed labeled as "speciesism." However, there are views stating that no interests worthy of consideration exist for animals because they do not have any sense of self and not even any consciousness. This problem can not be simply solved by physiology or cognitive ethology. Since it contains philosophical aspects such as "what is consciousness"or"what is belief, " its resolution is not at all easy. Though the principle of equal consideration of interests has sufficient ground, there still is room for debate on whether animals possess any interests to be considered. Therefore, animal liberation calls for discussion as well.
著者
浜渦 辰二 中村 剛 山本 大誠 福井 栄二郎 中河 豊 前野 竜太郎 高橋 照子 備酒 伸彦 竹之内 裕文 竹内 さをり
出版者
大阪大学
雑誌
基盤研究(B)
巻号頁・発行日
2010

医療,看護,リハビリ,介護,福祉,保育,教育まで広がる「北欧ケア」を,哲学・死生学・文化人類学といったこれまでこの分野にあまり関わって来なかった研究者も参加して学際的に,しかも,実地・現場の調査により現場の人たちと研究者の人たちとの議論も踏まえて研究を行い,医療と福祉をつなぐ「ケア学」の広まり,生活中心の「在宅ケア」の広まり,「連帯/共生」の思想が根づいていること,などが浮かび上がってきた。
著者
山本 栄美子
出版者
東京大学文学部宗教学研究室
雑誌
東京大学宗教学年報 (ISSN:2896400)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.25, pp.49-66, 2008-03-31

It is commonly held that philosophers have contributed little to bioethics which had already developed to a great degree in the United States by the early 1990s. Peter Singer is one of the leaders of the practical ethics movement, and one of the most famous and influential philosophers alive. He has considered not only philosophy and ethics, which are his areas of specialisation, but also politics, economy, medical care, environment, international aid and sociobiology from his own philosophical framework following a strand of utilitarianism, and devoted himself to produce his own practical and philosophical solution about today's various problems. He also served as the first president of the Institute of International Bioethics, the chair of the Great Ape Project and an animal rights organization. Before holding many important posts, he had already inspired philosophers to participate in Bioethics in the early 1970s. The primary purpose of this article is to consider the relationship between Singer and Bioethics from the perspective of religious studies.
著者
重松 大
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.31, no.1, pp.27-44, 2009 (Released:2012-12-17)
参考文献数
19

The purpose of this paper is to understand “seeing” sports by interpreting Hasumi's “criticism on sports” through Wittgenstein's arguments on “aspect”. In arguing on “aspect”, Wittgenstein showed some figures such as “duck-rabbit”, “double cross” and a “triangle” which we can see as two or more different things. In this paper we pointed out three important features of such arguments as follows:1) If you want to tell someone what aspect you see, you should say “I see it as...” rather than “I see this” pointing at it with your finger.2) Seeing an aspect is not a “perception of a property of a thing” but “perception of a thing”, so it is a matter of “what it is”.3) When you see a thing, it is in a context of familiarity that you know what that thing is. This is called “context-ladenness of perception”.From such viewpoints, we can interpret Hasumi's words “see movement as movement” as “see an aspect of movement” or “see movement in its nature”. When we see a movement or a play in fascination, we see it in this way. This is distinguished from seeing just the result of the movement, which is external to the movement.However, Hasumi's word “movement” seems to be vague and to have multiple meanings. It can be aptly and consistently understood as “movement seen in its nature” or, in Wittgenstein's terminology, in its “inner relation”. This is a kind of circular argument but it is the essential nature of the structure of our perception i.e. “context-ladenness of perception”.We can also point out that although Hasumi is a “nonprofessional”, not an athlete or a coach or even a professional sport critic, he sees movement. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a professional and nonprofessional in what they see. A professional sees an event in the sport with more knowledge compare to a nonprofessional. Knowledge here is the context of the event, and we can understand this as that they see different things from the viewpoint of “context-ladenness of perception”. Through acquiring more knowledge and practice with using it, we can see sports in the same way as a professional.In short, of our perception is there a structure of “context-ladenness” and thus we can say as follows.1) Seeing sports is seeing sports itself in its inner relation to the context.2) A nonprofessional can see sports as well as a professional but in a sense they see different things because their knowledge, which are parts of the context, are different.
著者
サンワル マーク R
出版者
兵庫県立大学
雑誌
兵庫県立大学看護学部・地域ケア開発研究所紀要 (ISSN:18816592)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.14, pp.17-35, 2007-03-15

アルバート・J・ノック(1870?-1944)は、20世紀初めのリバタリアンの思想と主張の際立った代表者であった。ルードビッヒ・フォン・ミーゼス、マレー・N・ロートバード、アイン・ランドなどの後続の思想に影響を与えたリバタリアンの運動は、今日においてさえ、先駆的な自由の唱道者と評論家としてノックに懐古的な賛辞を送っている。本論文は、ノックがまさに輝かしい作家・ジャーナリストなのか、それ以上の者なのか、またどの程度までそう考えられるかを探求するものである。ノックはどの程度まで社会科学者と考えられるか?この問いは恐らく、少なくともノック自身を困らせることはかったかも知れないが、しかし、現代リバタリアン理論の光りに照らしてこれを浮かび上がらせることは重要である。リバタリアニズムは、自由で公正な社会がいかなる形の強制と両立できないものであることを主張する政治哲学である。ほとんどすべての政治思想家は私的な強制(例えば殺人、窃盗)は犯罪であると見なすけれども、リバタリアンは、公の(とくに国家の)機関への強制力の行使にもまた禁止すべきものと拡張しようとした。現代のリバタリアニズムには、過激主義とプラグマティズム、左翼と右翼、アナーキズムとミナーキズムなどという、ある程度の混乱があり、ある論者たちはその混乱を純粋な形では力の浪費と考えた。ノックは、現代の理論家たちが主張しなければならないことよりも優れた、主張しなければならない何かを今なおもっているか?もしもヒューマニズムが、アービング・バビットによって広い意味で定義されたものと考えられるとすれば、確かに、ノックが今なおリバタリアンのうち最もヒューマニスティックであるということは、安全な主張である。しかしながら、このヒューマニズムゆえにこそ、しばしば社会科学のうち最も厳格であると見なされる経済学者は言うまでもなく、ノックを社会科学者と考えることから排除するように見えるであろう。ノックを経済学者と見るためには、われわれは、経済学が人間科学の一分科になるようなやり方で人間の知識を再組織しなければならないであろう。これは、経済学派のうち最も実証的でないと知られるオーストリー学派のほとんどでさえ妨げるようなステップである。この問題は、オーストリー学派が、実証主義を妨げる一方、論理的カテゴリーを注意深く構築することを進行するのに注意深いということではない。というのは、確かにノックと一致する手続きであるから。むしろ、ノックの討論法とオーストリー学派の演繹法との違いの要点が、後者(オーストリー学派)が心理学と人間行動理論から厳密に離れたことにある。「反心理主義」という基準で考える場合、ノックの論文は非科学的であるかのように見える。しかしながら、まさにこの反心理主義は、人間行動の純粋理論における市場過程に基づくことと同様に重要であるが、一般的な社会学の基礎として経済学を悪くするのである。もしもリバタリアン理論に必要なものが、「市場が機能する」という陳腐な言葉をくどくど言うことよりもむしろ、一般的な社会学であるとするならば、アルバート・J・ノックの大きなスタイルの社会理論への復帰こそが、理にかなうものものであろう。
著者
木庭 康樹 田井 健太郎 上田 丈晴 沖原 謙
出版者
Japan Society for the Philosophy of Sport and Physical Education
雑誌
体育・スポーツ哲学研究 (ISSN:09155104)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.31, no.1, pp.1-26, 2009

This study aims to clarify the structure of sports games in order to analyze soccer games. In this paper, we paid our attention to "gymnos agon (bodily movement competitions)" of ancient Greece that are the origin of sports, and particularly considered "agon (competition)" which is the basis of the meaning of this word.<br>We focused on the structure of "competition" as "play" to clarify the concept of "competition" that is the basis for the meaning of "bodily movement competition". By doing so we were able to formulate the function of this structure by the following comparative function.<br>On a condition of r, AG = cf(a,b) = a›b, a=b, a‹b<br>(where, r : rule, AG : agon, cf : comparative function, a : contestant, b : opponent, › : win, = : draw, ‹ : loss)<br>In this paper, we put various functions that convert all bodily movement of contestants into the numerical formula in the above function of competition, using the concept of "nested functions (to put a function in another function)", for the consideration of "bodily movement related to competition" that is our future topic of this study. We were able to connect the function of competition with "bodily elements" of sport structure that Tomihiko Sato had presented.<br>Since the bodily movement of sport is prescribed by the above function of competition, it is not very effective to consider the bodily movement regardless of the "competition" by taking out the bodily movement from the sport. Our future topic is to consider the concept of "bodily movement" that is an attribute of "bodily movement competitions", and the last aim of this study is to clarify the entirety of "bodily movement competitions (sports)" on the basis of the results considered in this paper.
著者
坂本 邦暢
出版者
日本哲学会
雑誌
哲学 (ISSN:03873358)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.2009, no.60, pp.185-200_L11, 2009 (Released:2010-11-09)
参考文献数
97

The Flemish humanist Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) is well-known for his restoration of Stoicism in early modern Europe. His main works, Introduction to Stoic Philosophy and Natural Philosophy of the Stoics, both published in Antwerp in 1604, prompted the reception of Stoicism in the seventeenth century and laid the foundation for its modern reconstruction.Lipsius tried to reconcile Stoic philosophy with Christian theology. Although the importance of his Christianized interpretation was recognized, scholars have paid little attention to the real motivation that led him to write the Introduction and Natural Philosophy. The preface to Introduction shows clearly that his primary aim was the exposition of Seneca's philosophy. Indeed, Lipsius's heavy reliance on the Roman philosopher and other Latin authors has been criticized since the publication of his works. According to this criticism, Lipsius ignored so many Greek sources that his reconstruction of Stoicism is invalid from a philological point of view. However, can his partial selection of sources not be viewed from different angles? Is it not his reading of Seneca's work that enabled him to harmonize Stoicism with Christian doctrines?To answer these questions I shall focus on Lipsius's theory of evil and the cosmic cycle, expounded in Natural Philosophy. My analysis will show that Seneca's eclecticism played an important role in the Lipsian reconstruction of Stoicism.
著者
田鍋 良臣
出版者
日本宗教学会
雑誌
宗教研究 (ISSN:03873293)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.83, no.1, pp.25-45, 2009-06-30

あまり知られていないことだが、ハイデッガーは『存在と時間』(一九二七)公刊直後に神話に関する言及をくりかえしおこなっている。『存在と時間』が未完であったことを考えると、ハイデッガーにとって神話は『存在と時間』全体の仕上げにかかわる重要な問題であったと考えられる。しかしながら従来のハイデッガー研究において、神話問題をこの観点から論じたものはない。そこで本稿は、カッシーラーの『神話的思惟』(一九二五)についての書評(一九二八)やこの時期の諸講義の中で展開された「神話的現存在分析」をあとづけることによって『存在と時間』構想における神話問題の意義を明らかにし、それを通じて、一般に「無宗教の書」と思われている『存在と時間』の問題圏のうちに、宗教と哲学の根源的な関係を問いうるような新たな地平を開拓したい。