<討論>「人と人以外との倫理」をめぐって: ポストモダニズムの文脈における「テクノアニミズム論」とその超克を目指すふたつの試論について

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to clarify Takahashi's position, Kureha's position, and the so-called techno-animistic theorists' position. Readers of Kureha's paper (2023) might misunderstand Takahashi's ideas, so they must be clarified. I will argue about two major points, one is the issue of methodology in ethics, Sein (to be) and Sollen (ought to be), and the other is the issue of different methodologies between physics and metaphysics, that is, what “scientific” or “evidence-based” is for academic works of ethics. These issues are actually interrelated and hard to discern, but I will try to paint a clearer picture on these issues. First, “techno-animistic theorists” in Kureha's terminology do not distinguish Sein from Sollen in their argument to advocate their biased affinity on animism including techno-animism. In other words, techno-animistic theorists see animism is in Japanese culture and argue that it should be seen as the basis of ethics. In their argument, there is no distance between Sein and Sollen. Kureha criticizes this position and suggests that they too easily praise animism and techno-animism without enough research. Although this is appropriate criticism for most cases, he himself often confuses Sein and Sollen which is problematic in research of ethics. While Takahashi clearly divides Sein and Sollen, she observes animistic mentality is in Japan (Sein), and suggests that we should begin from Sein to search for appropriate ethics between humans and non-humans (Sollen) as “relative relativism” in her terminology. Second, although Kureha's way of writing is not certain about the definition of “scientific” or “evidence-based, ” however, he repetitively insists that his works are scientific and others' including Takahashi's works are not. Nevertheless, he fails to evaluate works fairly. The main fields of research of ethics are the realm of Sollen, and it cannot be “evidence-based” which is the realm of Sein.