"Justice What's the Right Thing to Do?"の訳
おもしろいです。「正義」を考えるための例がとてもいいです。
難しく重い話題が楽しく、あるいは身近なものとして感じられます。
全部読まないつもりが、引き込まれて一気に読んでしまいました。
「正義」「倫理」「道徳」「善」「快」などのキーワードがありますが、こんがらかってうまく整理できません。（笑）
著者と私の結論は違いますが、いい本だと思います。
私は、いま、ここにいる
ということは、日本語を話し、日本語で考える自分がいるわけです。
親がいて、子供がいて、地域社会や国があって、私たちはいます。
自由や平等を考えるときに、それらのことを抜きに考えることはできません。端的に言えば「日本語」がなければ考えることができないのです。
だから、自由や平等の基礎である「主観」を考える際に、その主観、意識はそれらのもとで成り立っています。「わたし」は独立して存在しているのではなく、いままでの長い歴史の中で出来上がったものです。
わたしは、歴史や環境に、親に「育てられた」のです。
プラトンやアリストテレスは確かに「個」や「意識」をとりあげました。しかし、その「個」は「全体に結びついた」個や意識だと思います。
でも、その後の哲学は「全体から分離された」個や意識、自我を考えてきたように思えます。その一つの結果がカントなのではないでしょうか。意識を意識だけを取り出し、考える。考え抜いたさきにたどり着くのはデカルトの「我思う、故に我あり」だと思います。ある意味で「諦め」ですよね。「我思う、故に我あり」は何も言っていないのと同じですから。それは結論ではなくて前提であったはずです。
著者は結論らしきものを書いていますが、それは明確とはいい難いです。自我を上記のような理由で相対化します。肯定も否定もしません。
そして、「正義」というものが「ある」という前提を崩しません。市場があるということも否定しません。国家があるということも。
プラトンやアリストテレスの国家は「都市国家」です。いまの地方自治体程度、あるいはそれ以下の人口です。それと現代の国家とは全く別のものです。
直接民主主義が可能な規模、ある意味で「ダンバー数」の拡張程度の国家です。それを基に現代の国家を考えることはとても難しいです。[1]
「価値」を明確に捉えないと、「市場」を考えることはできません。彼は英語圏の人ですから、「value」と「worth」という言葉は知っていると思います。「worth」が「(national) wealth」になるとき（アダム・スミス）何が起こったのか、彼なら理解できるはずなのです。
思春期
「主観」の認識は「客観」の発生です。「客観」に触れるとき、主観は発生します。
初めて客観に触れるとき、例えば「親」が「自分と違うもの」と認識するとき、「自分」が発生します。それは、「全体」「包まれている存在」「自然」から切り離される瞬間です。
そのことに対する抵抗が「思春期」や「反抗期」だと思うのです。やがてその抵抗がムダだということに気づきます。その諦めの一形態が「我思う、故に我あり」です。
でも、その「切り離し」は成功しません。なぜなら、「私」は独立して存在するものではないからです。だから、哲学は先祖返りを求めます。デカルトが諦めたあと、哲学者は「切り離された自己」と「育てられた自己」の「あいだ」の調整案、妥協案を探し続けます。「切り離された自己」を突き詰めたのがカントです。そして、「育てられた自己」は「他の人を目的として扱え」という言葉で折り合いをつけようとします。
ヘーゲルは「育てられた自己」を「意識の歴史」として位置づけます。歴史として相対化することで、主体を歴史と、つまり「自然」と同化させるのです。
でもそれも成功しません。結果としてそれは「力への意思」「ニヒリズム」（ニーチェ）となり「絶対矛盾的自己同一」（西田幾多郎）あるいは「存在忘却」（ハイデガー）とならざるを得ません。それらは仮想の「精神の喜悦」を観ながらの「現実的諦念」です。
「切り離された主観」を捨てないかぎり、思春期は永遠に続きます。政治も「正義とは何か」と問うときも同じです。自己と「客体としての他人」を考えざるを得ないからです。
恋愛
「恋愛は性欲の詩的表現」（芥川龍之介）ですが、それは異性（同性でもいいけど）との一体化の欲望です。それは自然との一体化、客体が客体でなくなること、「自我が消滅すること」への欲求です。でも、切り離された自己がそれを邪魔します。その結果、異性を「対象として」「ものとして」見てしまいます。「所有できるもの」「私の彼（彼女）」と見てしまうのです。それは「比較できるもの」、場合によっては「数量化」できるもの、となります。
数量化、デジタル化できることが「出会系アプリ」ができる所以です。
子供
子供に対する愛情も「一体化」の欲望であり、切り離されたものに対する「郷愁」です。[2]
それが切り離された自己からは「私のもの」と見えることになります。
自分の体も同様です。それは「私のもの」「私の所有物」に見えます。そうすることによって、子供や自己の体は「売買できるもの」「貨幣と交換できるもの」になります。代理母ということや臓器売買、賃労働も可能になります。
ブラック企業
自己は自己であり続けようとします。自分の体はいつまでも自己のものです。どんなに辛い労働（賃労働、サラリーマン）であっても、自己は自己で管理しなければなりません。逃げ出せないのです。仕事からも、冨からも、快からも。つまり、自分からも。
奴隷
自己は自我の奴隷となります。
近代の奴隷制度は、自我の奴隷制度の延長です。
アリストテレスの頃はまだ、自我が自己の中にいました。彼の自然学もそういう視点から自然を見たものです。奴隷に対する考えも同じです。戦争に対する考えも同じです。国家に対する見方も、政治に対する見方も同じです。
殺人に対する見方も、自殺に対する見方も今とは違っていたと思います。
宗教（神）
自我が捨てた「育てられた自己」はどうなるでしょうか。それは「自己を超えたもの」「人間を超えたもの」として神となります。
自我に基づく神は、それ以前の神とは全く異なります。キリスト教以降の宗教はそういう神を想定しています。それは自然をも超越したものです。
それは捨てた自己ですから、自己と対立します。それと折り合いをつけることはできません。折り合いをつけようとするのが「信仰」です。
本来自己そのものであるはずの「道徳」も自己と対立します。
それと折り合いをつけるかどうかが「政治と宗教」「政治と道徳」そして「政治と正義」の問題となります。
これからの「正義」の話をしよう
自我が自己から分離しているのなら、つまり他人と分離しているのなら、その自己は完結しません。
だから、「道徳をめぐる考察は孤独な作業ではなく、社会全体で取り組むべき試みなのである。」（P.41）
「話をしよう」。そうです。ソクラテスが始めた「対話」を続ける以外に方法はないように思います。
ただし、「育てられた自己」を念頭に。
（『ここは今から倫理です。』読みたいな。）
＜書き抜き＞
「好みを合計するためには、それを単一の尺度で測る必要がある。ベンサムの効用という概念はこうした一つの共通通貨を提供するものなのだ。」（P.57）
「ミルは質の高い快（FF）楽と低い快楽は区別できるーーつまり、欲求の量や大きさだけでなく、その質も評価できると信じている。されにミルは、効用以外のどんな道徳的概念にも頼らずに、この区別をつけられると考えている。」（P.72-73）
「一つは、自由市場でわれわれが下す選択はどこまで自由なのかという問題。もう一つは、市場では評価されなくても、金では買えない美徳やより高級なものは存在するのかという問題である。」（P.135）
「カントによれば、人間はみな尊敬に値する存在だ。それは自分自身を所有しているからではなく、合理的に推論できる理性的な存在だからだ。人間は自由に行動し、自由に選択する自律的な存在でもある。」（P.141）
「スプライト（もしくはペプシやコーク）の缶を手にするとき、私は自由に行動しているのではなく、服従している。自分が選んだのではない欲望に反応している。渇きに服従しているのだ。」（P.143）
「人格を単なる手段ではなく究極目的として取り扱うという道徳の要件は、みずからの肉体や自分自身を扱う方法も制限する。「人間は物ではないのでから、自分を意のままにすることはできない。人間は自分自身の所有物ではないのだ」」（P.170）
「チアリーディングの本質をめぐっては意見が分かれがちだ。」（P.240）――チアリーディングはスポーツではありません。今では国際大会もあるようだけど、その本質は女性差別であり、性的表現です。男子のチアリーディングが日の目を見ないのは当たり前です。
「近代科学の誕生とともに、自然を意味のある秩序と見る味方は影を潜めた。代わって、自然はメカニズムとして理解されるようになり、物理法則に支配されると見られるよになった。自然現象を目的、手段、最終結果と関連づけて解釈するのは無知ゆえの擬人化した見方とされるようになった。だが、そうした変化にもかかわらず、世界を目的論的秩序と目的を持つ総体と見たがる傾向は完全になくなったわけではない。そうした見方は、とりわけ、世界をそのように見ないよう教育されるべき子供たちに、根強く残っている。」（P.245）
（アリストテレス）「自然は無駄なものをつくらない。ほかの動物とは異なり、人間には言語能力が備わっている。他の動物も鳴くことによって快楽や苦痛を表せる。だが、人間に特有の能力である言語は、快楽や苦痛を表現するためだけにあるのではない。何が（FF）正義で何が不正かを断じ、正しいことと間違っていることを区別するためにあるのだ。人間はそうしたことを沈黙のうちに把握してから言葉を当てはめるのではない。言語は、それを通してわれわれが善を識別し、熟考するための媒介である。」（P.253-254）『政治学』
「前の世代が犯した歴史的不正の道徳的重荷」（P.276）ーー過去の人だけじゃなく、過去の自分が犯した罪も
「アリストテレスにとって、正義について判断することは問題となっている物の目的（テロス）あるいは性質に基づいて判断することだ。」（P.280）
（マッキンタイア）「そのようなものとして、私は自分の家族や、自分の都市や、自分の部（FF）族や、自分の国家の過去からさまざまな負債、遺産、正当な期待、責務を受け継いでいる。それらは私の人生に与えられたものであり、私の道徳的出発点となる。それが私自身の人生に道徳的特性を与えている部分もある。」（P.287-288）「私の人生の物語はつねに、私のアイデンティティの源であるコミュニティの物語のなかに埋め込まれているからだ。私は過去を持って生まれる。だから、個人主義の流儀で自己をその過去から切り離そうとするのは、自分の現在の関係をゆがめることだ。」（P.289）『美徳なき時代』ーー私は親に、その（この）社会に育てられた・・・アイデンティティについての考察が必要。小此木啓吾。祖国愛。
「したがって、愛国心に道徳的根拠があると考え、同胞の福利に特別の責任があると考えるなら、第三のカテゴリーの責務を受け入れなければならない。すなわち、合意という行為に帰することのできない連帯あるいは成員の責務である。」（P.302）ーー自己の延長としての他者。 自然が作った自然の一部としての人間＜−＞自我から始まる自然観
「帰属には責任が伴う。もしも、自国の物語を現在まで引き継ぎ、それに伴う道徳的重荷を取り除く責任を認める気がないならば、国とその過去に本当に誇りを持つことはできない。」（P.304）ーードイツを出たドイツ人は？
P.313アリストテレスーー全体に結びついた個と全体から分離された個
（ケネディ）「物質的欠乏をなくすため行動するにしても、より大きな課題があるそれは、満足の欠乏との闘いだ・・・（ママ）われわれはみな、そのために苦しんでいる」（P.337）
（P.340）代理出産、テスト、刑務所の民営、公民権の売買ーー空気や水に価値はない（なかった）。価値は一元化の代表
（P.342）公立施設から富裕層が離れ、寂れていくーー私は広場で（公園で）育った。＜ー＞私はテレビで育った
グィン『風の十二方位』「オメラスから歩み去る人びと」
⟨impressions⟩
Translation of "Justice What & apos; s the Right Thing to Do?"
It's funny. The example for thinking about "justice" is very good.
Difficult and heavy topics can be felt as fun or familiar.
I didn't intend to read them all, but I was drawn in and read them all at once.
There are keywords such as "justice," "ethics," "morality," "goodness," and "pleasure," but I can't organize them well because I'm afraid. (Lol)
The author and I have different conclusions, but I think it's a good book.
I'm here now
That means that I have myself who speaks Japanese and thinks in Japanese.
We have parents, we have children, we have communities and countries.
When we think about freedom and equality, we cannot think without them. Simply put, you can't think without "Japanese".
Therefore, when considering the "subjectivity" that is the basis of freedom and equality, that subjectivity and consciousness are based on them. "I" does not exist independently, but is a product of a long history.
I am " raised " by my parents in history and the environment.
Plato and Aristotle certainly took up "individuality" and "consciousness." However, I think that "individual" is an individual or consciousness that is "connected to the whole."
However, the philosophy that followed seems to have considered the individual, consciousness, and ego that were "separated from the whole." Isn't that one result Kant? Take out consciousness only consciousness and think. I think it is Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" that arrives at the point where I thought through it. In a sense, it's "giving up." "I think, therefore I am" is the same as saying nothing. It must have been a premise, not a conclusion.
The author writes what seems to be a conclusion, but it is hard to say clearly. Relativize the ego for the reasons mentioned above. I do not affirm or deny.
And it does not break the premise that "justice" exists. I do not deny that there is a market. There is also a nation.
The nations of Plato and Aristotle are "city-states." The population is about the current local government or less. It is completely different from the modern nation.
It is a nation where direct democracy is possible, and in a sense, it is an expansion of the "Dunbar's number". It is very difficult to think of a modern nation based on it. [1]
You cannot think of a "market" without a clear understanding of "value." He is an English-speaking person, so I think he knows the words "value" and "worth". He should be able to understand what happened when "worth" became "(national) wealth" (Adam Smith).
Adolescent
The recognition of "subjective" is the occurrence of "objective". Subjectivity arises when we touch "objective".
When you first come into contact with the objective, for example, when the "parent" recognizes that you are "different from yourself," you occur. It is the moment when we are separated from the "whole," "wrapped existence," and "nature."
I think the resistance to that is "puberty" or "rebellion." Eventually I realize that the resistance is wasteful. One form of that resignation is "I think, therefore I am."
But that "separation" does not succeed. Because "I" does not exist independently. So philosophy seeks throwback. After Descartes gives up, philosophers continue to look for adjustments and compromises between the "separated self" and the "bred self." It is Kant who pursued the "separated self". And the "bred self" tries to come to terms with the words "treat for the purpose of others".
Hegel positions the "bred self" as the "history of consciousness." By relativizing it as history, we assimilate the subject with history, that is, "nature."
But that doesn't work either. As a result, it becomes "will to power" and "nihilism" (Nietzsche), and must become "absolutely contradictory self-identity" (Kitaro Nishida) or "forgetting existence" (Heidegger). They are "realistic resignations" while watching the virtual "spiritual pleasure".
Puberty lasts forever, unless you abandon the "separated subjectivity." The same is true of politics when asking "what is justice". This is because I have no choice but to think about myself and " others as objects ".
Love
"Love is a poetic expression of libido" (Ryunosuke Akutagawa), but it is a desire to be united with the opposite sex (although it can be of the same sex). It is a desire for unity with nature, for the object to cease to be an object, and for "the ego to disappear." But the separated self interferes with it. As a result, we see the opposite sex "as an object" and "as a thing". You see it as "what you can own" and " he (she) of me ". It can be "comparable" and, in some cases, "quantified".
Being able to quantify and digitize is the reason why "encounter apps" can be created.
Children
Affection for children is also a desire for "unification" and "nostalgia" for what is separated. [2]
From the separated self, it will look like "my ** thing".
The same is true for my body. It looks like "mine" and "my property". By doing so, the child or one's body becomes "things that can be bought and sold" and "things that can be exchanged for money." You can also be a surrogate mother, buy and sell organs, and wage labor.
Black companies
The self tries to remain the self. Your body is yours forever. No matter how hard the labor (wage labor, office workers), you have to manage yourself. You can't run away. From work, tomi, and pleasure. In other words, from myself.
Slave
The self becomes a slave of the ego.
Modern slavery is an extension of ego slavery.
At the time of Aristotle, the ego was still in the self. His natural science also looks at nature from that perspective. The idea for slaves is the same. The idea of war is the same. The view of the nation is the same as the view of politics.
I think my view of murder and my view of suicide were different.
Religion (God)
What happens to the "raised self" that the ego has abandoned? It becomes God as "beyond the self" and "beyond humans."
The ego-based god is completely different from the gods before it. Religions after Christianity assume such a god. It transcends nature.
Since it is the abandoned self, it conflicts with the self. You can't come to terms with it. It is "faith" that tries to come to terms with each other.
The "morality" that is supposed to be the self is also in conflict with the self.
Whether or not to come to terms with it is a matter of "politics and religion," "politics and morality," and "politics and justice."
Let's talk about "justice" in the future
If the ego is separated from the self, that is, if it is separated from others, the self is not complete.
Therefore, "Consideration of morality is not a lonely task, but an attempt that society as a whole should tackle." (P.41)
"Let's talk." That's right. I think there is no other way but to continue the "dialogue" that Socrates started.
However, keep in mind the "bred self".
(I want to read "This is ethics from now on.")
"In order to sum the tastes, we need to measure them on a single scale. The concept of Bentham's utility provides one of these common currencies." (P.57)
"Mill can distinguish between high-quality pleasure (FF) pleasure and low-quality pleasure-that is, he believes that he can evaluate not only the quantity and size of desire, but also its quality. I think we can make this distinction without relying on moral concepts. ”(P.72-73)
"One is the question of how free the choices we make in the free market. The other is the question of whether there are virtues and higher quality that cannot be bought with gold, even if they are not evaluated in the market. There is. ”(P.135)
"According to Kant, all human beings are worthy of respect, not because they own themselves, but because they are rational beings who can reasonably reason. Humans are free to act and choose. It is also an autonomous existence. ”(P.141)
"When I get a can of sprites (or pepsi or cork), I'm not free to act, I'm submissive. I'm reacting to desires that I didn't choose. I'm doing it. "(P.143)
"The moral requirement to treat personality as an ultimate goal, not just a means, also limits the way we treat our bodies and ourselves." Because humans are not things, we cannot control ourselves. Humans are not their own property "(P.170)
“There is a tendency to disagree about the essence of cheerleading.” (P.240) ――Cheerleading is not a sport. There seems to be an international competition now, but the essence is discrimination against women and sexual expression. It's no wonder that men's cheerleading doesn't see the light of day.
"With the birth of modern science, allies who see nature as a meaningful order have disappeared. Instead, nature has come to be understood as a mechanism and to be seen as governed by the laws of physics. Interpreting natural phenomena in relation to purpose, means, and end result has come to be regarded as an anthropomorphic view because of ignorance, but despite such changes, the world has a purposeful order and purpose. The tendency to see the whole as a whole has not completely disappeared, and that view persists, especially among children who should be educated not to see the world that way. ”(P.245)
(Aristotle) "Nature does not create waste. Unlike other animals, humans have linguistic ability. Other animals can express pleasure and pain by crying. However, human-specific abilities The language is not just to express pleasure and pain, but to determine what is (FF) justice and what is wrong, and to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Humans do not silently grasp such things and then apply words. Language is the medium through which we identify and ponder goodness. "(P.253-254)" Politics Gaku ”
"The moral burden of historical injustice committed by the previous generation" (P.276) --- Not only the past people, but also the sins committed by oneself in the past
"For Aristoteles, making a judgment about justice is based on the purpose (telos) or nature of the thing in question." (P.280)
(McIntyre) "As such, I have various debts, heritage, legitimate expectations and responsibilities from the past of my family, my city, my department (FF) tribe, and my nation. It is inherited. They are given to my life and are my moral starting point. There are some parts that give my own life moral traits. ”(P.287- 288) "Because the story of my life is always embedded in the story of the community that is the source of my identity. I am born with a past. So, in an individualistic way, self from that past What I try to separate is to distort my current relationship. "(P.289)" An era without morals "-I was brought up by my parents in that (this) society ... about identity Needs consideration. Keigo Okonogi. Homeland love.
"Therefore, if we consider patriotism to be morally grounded and to have a special responsibility for the well-being of our compatriots, we must accept a third category of responsibility: solidarity that cannot be attributed to the act of agreement. Or it is the responsibility of the members. "(P.302) --- Your own Others as an extension. Human as a part of nature created by nature <-> A view of nature that begins with the ego
"Attribution comes with responsibility. If we are not willing to accept the responsibility to carry on the story of our country to the present and remove the moral burden that accompanies it, we cannot really be proud of our country and its past." (P. .304) --Who is the German who left Germany?
P.313 Aristo Teresu-Individuals connected to the whole and pieces separated from the whole
(Kennedy) "Even if we act to eliminate material deficiency, there is a bigger challenge. It is the fight against deficiency of satisfaction ... (Mom) We are all suffering from it" (P.337). )
(P.340) Surrogacy, testing, prison privatization, civil rights buying and selling-air and water have no value (was not). Value is a representative of unification
(P.342) The wealthy people leave the public facilities and become lonely-I grew up in the open space (in the park). <-> I grew up on TV
Guin "The Wind's Twelve Direction" "People walking away from Omeras"
Translation of "Justice What & apos; s the Right Thing to Do?"
It's funny. The example for thinking about "justice" is very good.
Difficult and heavy topics can be felt as fun or familiar.
I didn't intend to read them all, but I was drawn in and read them all at once.
There are keywords such as "justice," "ethics," "morality," "goodness," and "pleasure," but I can't organize them well because I'm afraid. (Lol)
The author and I have different conclusions, but I think it's a good book.
I'm here now
That means that I have myself who speaks Japanese and thinks in Japanese.
We have parents, we have children, we have communities and countries.
When we think about freedom and equality, we cannot think without them. Simply put, you can't think without "Japanese".
Therefore, when considering the "subjectivity" that is the basis of freedom and equality, that subjectivity and consciousness are based on them. "I" does not exist independently, but is a product of a long history.
I am " raised " by my parents in history and the environment.
Plato and Aristotle certainly took up "individuality" and "consciousness." However, I think that "individual" is an individual or consciousness that is "connected to the whole."
However, the philosophy that followed seems to have considered the individual, consciousness, and ego that were "separated from the whole." Isn't that one result Kant? Take out consciousness only consciousness and think. I think it is Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" that arrives at the point where I thought through it. In a sense, it's "giving up." "I think, therefore I am" is the same as saying nothing. It must have been a premise, not a conclusion.
The author writes what seems to be a conclusion, but it is hard to say clearly. Relativize the ego for the reasons mentioned above. I do not affirm or deny.
And it does not break the premise that "justice" exists. I do not deny that there is a market. There is also a nation.
The nations of Plato and Aristotle are "city-states." The population is about the current local government or less. It is completely different from the modern nation.
It is a nation where direct democracy is possible, and in a sense, it is an expansion of the "Dunbar's number". It is very difficult to think of a modern nation based on it. [1]
You cannot think of a "market" without a clear understanding of "value." He is an English-speaking person, so I think he knows the words "value" and "worth". He should be able to understand what happened when "worth" became "(national) wealth" (Adam Smith).
Adolescent
The recognition of "subjective" is the occurrence of "objective". Subjectivity arises when we touch "objective".
When you first come into contact with the objective, for example, when the "parent" recognizes that you are "different from yourself," you occur. It is the moment when we are separated from the "whole," "wrapped existence," and "nature."
I think the resistance to that is "puberty" or "rebellion." Eventually I realize that the resistance is wasteful. One form of that resignation is "I think, therefore I am."
But that "separation" does not succeed. Because "I" does not exist independently. So philosophy seeks throwback. After Descartes gives up, philosophers continue to look for adjustments and compromises between the "separated self" and the "bred self." It is Kant who pursued the "separated self". And the "bred self" tries to come to terms with the words "treat for the purpose of others".
Hegel positions the "bred self" as the "history of consciousness." By relativizing it as history, we assimilate the subject with history, that is, "nature."
But that doesn't work either. As a result, it becomes "will to power" and "nihilism" (Nietzsche), and must become "absolutely contradictory self-identity" (Kitaro Nishida) or "forgetting existence" (Heidegger). They are "realistic resignations" while watching the virtual "spiritual pleasure".
Puberty lasts forever, unless you abandon the "separated subjectivity." The same is true of politics when asking "what is justice". This is because I have no choice but to think about myself and " others as objects ".
Love
"Love is a poetic expression of libido" (Ryunosuke Akutagawa), but it is a desire to be united with the opposite sex (although it can be of the same sex). It is a desire for unity with nature, for the object to cease to be an object, and for "the ego to disappear." But the separated self interferes with it. As a result, we see the opposite sex "as an object" and "as a thing". You see it as "what you can own" and " he (she) of me ". It can be "comparable" and, in some cases, "quantified".
Being able to quantify and digitize is the reason why "encounter apps" can be created.
Children
Affection for children is also a desire for "unification" and "nostalgia" for what is separated. [2]
From the separated self, it will look like "my ** thing".
The same is true for my body. It looks like "mine" and "my property". By doing so, the child or one's body becomes "things that can be bought and sold" and "things that can be exchanged for money." You can also be a surrogate mother, buy and sell organs, and wage labor.
Black companies
The self tries to remain the self. Your body is yours forever. No matter how hard the labor (wage labor, office workers), you have to manage yourself. You can't run away. From work, tomi, and pleasure. In other words, from myself.
Slave
The self becomes a slave of the ego.
Modern slavery is an extension of ego slavery.
At the time of Aristotle, the ego was still in the self. His natural science also looks at nature from that perspective. The idea for slaves is the same. The idea of war is the same. The view of the nation is the same as the view of politics.
I think my view of murder and my view of suicide were different.
Religion (God)
What happens to the "raised self" that the ego has abandoned? It becomes God as "beyond the self" and "beyond humans."
The ego-based god is completely different from the gods before it. Religions after Christianity assume such a god. It transcends nature.
Since it is the abandoned self, it conflicts with the self. You can't come to terms with it. It is "faith" that tries to come to terms with each other.
The "morality" that is supposed to be the self is also in conflict with the self.
Whether or not to come to terms with it is a matter of "politics and religion," "politics and morality," and "politics and justice."
Let's talk about "justice" in the future
If the ego is separated from the self, that is, if it is separated from others, the self is not complete.
Therefore, "Consideration of morality is not a lonely task, but an attempt that society as a whole should tackle." (P.41)
"Let's talk." That's right. I think there is no other way but to continue the "dialogue" that Socrates started.
However, keep in mind the "bred self".
(I want to read "This is ethics from now on.")
"In order to sum the tastes, we need to measure them on a single scale. The concept of Bentham's utility provides one of these common currencies." (P.57)
"Mill can distinguish between high-quality pleasure (FF) pleasure and low-quality pleasure-that is, he believes that he can evaluate not only the quantity and size of desire, but also its quality. I think we can make this distinction without relying on moral concepts. ”(P.72-73)
"One is the question of how free the choices we make in the free market. The other is the question of whether there are virtues and higher quality that cannot be bought with gold, even if they are not evaluated in the market. There is. ”(P.135)
"According to Kant, all human beings are worthy of respect, not because they own themselves, but because they are rational beings who can reasonably reason. Humans are free to act and choose. It is also an autonomous existence. ”(P.141)
"When I get a can of sprites (or pepsi or cork), I'm not free to act, I'm submissive. I'm reacting to desires that I didn't choose. I'm doing it. "(P.143)
"The moral requirement to treat personality as an ultimate goal, not just a means, also limits the way we treat our bodies and ourselves." Because humans are not things, we cannot control ourselves. Humans are not their own property "(P.170)
“There is a tendency to disagree about the essence of cheerleading.” (P.240) ――Cheerleading is not a sport. There seems to be an international competition now, but the essence is discrimination against women and sexual expression. It's no wonder that men's cheerleading doesn't see the light of day.
"With the birth of modern science, allies who see nature as a meaningful order have disappeared. Instead, nature has come to be understood as a mechanism and to be seen as governed by the laws of physics. Interpreting natural phenomena in relation to purpose, means, and end result has come to be regarded as an anthropomorphic view because of ignorance, but despite such changes, the world has a purposeful order and purpose. The tendency to see the whole as a whole has not completely disappeared, and that view persists, especially among children who should be educated not to see the world that way. ”(P.245)
(Aristotle) "Nature does not create waste. Unlike other animals, humans have linguistic ability. Other animals can express pleasure and pain by crying. However, human-specific abilities The language is not just to express pleasure and pain, but to determine what is (FF) justice and what is wrong, and to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. Humans do not silently grasp such things and then apply words. Language is the medium through which we identify and ponder goodness. "(P.253-254)" Politics Gaku ”
"The moral burden of historical injustice committed by the previous generation" (P.276) --- Not only the past people, but also the sins committed by oneself in the past
"For Aristoteles, making a judgment about justice is based on the purpose (telos) or nature of the thing in question." (P.280)
(McIntyre) "As such, I have various debts, heritage, legitimate expectations and responsibilities from the past of my family, my city, my department (FF) tribe, and my nation. It is inherited. They are given to my life and are my moral starting point. There are some parts that give my own life moral traits. ”(P.287- 288) "Because the story of my life is always embedded in the story of the community that is the source of my identity. I am born with a past. So, in an individualistic way, self from that past What I try to separate is to distort my current relationship. "(P.289)" An era without morals "-I was brought up by my parents in that (this) society ... about identity Needs consideration. Keigo Okonogi. Homeland love.
"Therefore, if we consider patriotism to be morally grounded and to have a special responsibility for the well-being of our compatriots, we must accept a third category of responsibility: solidarity that cannot be attributed to the act of agreement. Or it is the responsibility of the members. "(P.302) --- Your own Others as an extension. Human as a part of nature created by nature <-> A view of nature that begins with the ego
"Attribution comes with responsibility. If we are not willing to accept the responsibility to carry on the story of our country to the present and remove the moral burden that accompanies it, we cannot really be proud of our country and its past." (P. .304) --Who is the German who left Germany?
P.313 Aristo Teresu-Individuals connected to the whole and pieces separated from the whole
(Kennedy) "Even if we act to eliminate material deficiency, there is a bigger challenge. It is the fight against deficiency of satisfaction ... (Mom) We are all suffering from it" (P.337). )
(P.340) Surrogacy, testing, prison privatization, civil rights buying and selling-air and water have no value (was not). Value is a representative of unification
(P.342) The wealthy people leave the public facilities and become lonely-I grew up in the open space (in the park). <-> I grew up on TV
Guin "The Wind's Twelve Direction" "People walking away from Omeras"
[著者等(プロフィール)]
マイケル・サンデル Michael J. Sandel
1953年生まれ。ハーバード大学教授。ブランダイス大学を卒業後、オックスフォード大学にて博士号取得。専門は政治哲学。2002年から2005年にかけて大統領生命倫理評議会委員。
1980年代のリベラル=コミュニタリアン論争で脚光を浴びて以来、コミュニタリアニズムの代表的論者として知られる。主要著作に『リベラリズムと正義の限界』、"Democracy's Discontent"、"Public Philosophy"など。
類まれなる講義の名手としても著名で、中でもハーバード大学の学部科目「Justice(正義)」は、延べ14,000人を超す履修者数を記録。あまりの人気ぶりに、同大は建学以来初めて講義を一般公開することを決定、その模様はPBSで放送された。この番組は日本では2010年、NHK教育テレビで『ハーバード白熱教室』(全12回)として放送されている。
鬼澤/忍
翻訳家。1963年生まれ。成城大学経済学部経営学科卒。埼玉大学大学院文化科学研究科修士課程修了
『ハーバード白熱教室』NHK教育テレビにて放送中(2010年4月4日~6月20日、毎週日曜18:00~19:00、全12回)!
ハーバード大学史上最多の履修生数をほこる超人気哲学講義、待望の書籍化!
推薦:宮台真司氏
1人を殺せば5人が助かる状況があったとしたら、あなたはその1人を殺すべきか? 金持ちに高い税金を課し、貧しい人びとに再分配するのは公正なことだろうか? 前の世代が犯した過ちについて、私たちに償いの義務はあるのだろうか――。
つまるところこれらは、「正義」をめぐる哲学の問題なのだ。社会に生きるうえで私たちが直面する、正解のない、にもかかわらず決断をせまられる問題である。
哲学は、机上の空論では断じてない。金融危機、経済格差、テロ、戦後補償といった、現代世界を覆う無数の困難の奥には、つねにこうした哲学・倫理の問題が潜んでいる。この問題に向き合うことなしには、よい社会をつくり、そこで生きることはできない。
アリストテレス、ロック、カント、ベンサム、ミル、ロールズ、そしてノージックといった古今の哲学者たちは、これらにどう取り組んだのだろう。彼らの考えを吟味することで、見えてくるものがきっとあるはずだ。
ハーバード大学史上空前の履修者数を記録しつづける、超人気講義「Justice(正義)」をもとにした全米ベストセラー"Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?"、待望の邦訳。
ハーバード大学史上最多の履修生数をほこる超人気哲学講義、待望の書籍化!
推薦:宮台真司氏
1人を殺せば5人が助かる状況があったとしたら、あなたはその1人を殺すべきか? 金持ちに高い税金を課し、貧しい人びとに再分配するのは公正なことだろうか? 前の世代が犯した過ちについて、私たちに償いの義務はあるのだろうか――。
つまるところこれらは、「正義」をめぐる哲学の問題なのだ。社会に生きるうえで私たちが直面する、正解のない、にもかかわらず決断をせまられる問題である。
哲学は、机上の空論では断じてない。金融危機、経済格差、テロ、戦後補償といった、現代世界を覆う無数の困難の奥には、つねにこうした哲学・倫理の問題が潜んでいる。この問題に向き合うことなしには、よい社会をつくり、そこで生きることはできない。
アリストテレス、ロック、カント、ベンサム、ミル、ロールズ、そしてノージックといった古今の哲学者たちは、これらにどう取り組んだのだろう。彼らの考えを吟味することで、見えてくるものがきっとあるはずだ。
ハーバード大学史上空前の履修者数を記録しつづける、超人気講義「Justice(正義)」をもとにした全米ベストセラー"Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?"、待望の邦訳。
[1] 間接民主主義や多数決は民主主義ではありません。それを基にした選挙制度で出来上がっている国家は民主主義国家ではありません。
[2] 父母に対する愛情も同じです。
[拡大] 
[拡大] 
