Ethical and Religious Viewpoint Decides the “Good or Evil” National History
By Rakitarou
I. Introduction
Nowadays in the 21st century in the era of worldwide globalization, we Japanese are more necessitated to concern with the foreign countries even in a daily life. After Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) is concluded, we will irresistibly face with unrecognizable American and/or European way-of-thinking or commercial customs, even while we are in Japan, consequently we may become at a loss how to manage them as long as we only think problems following Japanese traditional thinking process (ethos). I suppose, the most different point of this “unrecognizable ethos” between Japanese and people of Western Christian countries is the way “how to decide ethically or religiously good or evil”. And I also suppose this difference is exactly reflected the diversity of “value of our own national modern history”, that is always controversial among the countries. In this essay, I will discuss this diversity of values between Japanese and Western countries on Japanese modern history, considering the people’s difference of the way “how to decide ethically or religiously good or evil”, given the analysis might be too simplified and rough.
II. Difference on how to decide “Ethically Good or Evil” between Japan and Christian countries
“Ethics” here I mention, means the sense of values we naturally have as a custom or habit, when we judge a thing to be right or wrong illogically. As we Japanese are not concerned with religiously “a single God” in daily life, in Japan, “ethically good matter” can be defined as “the matter that is beneficial for one’s belonging group”. “One’s belonging group” may be a family, a company to work for, a town, a prefecture, a country to live in, Asia, whole world, or may include future mankind, depending on the case and circumstances of the matter requiring decision, or personal faith. However, the basic principle “the matter is beneficial for one’s belonging group” does not change when deciding the judgment to be “ethically good”. And it is permitted even though the judgment is illogical or full of contradiction, as much as it is ethically good. In daily life, we sometimes say ” Although the conclusion is logically wrong, we decide this way considering this special (Japanese ethical) condition”. This special ethical condition may be linked to "the air" which Mr. Shichihei Yamamoto expressed when the mass of Japanese has the same mood for judgment of a matter. It might be one of the Japanese characteristic thought, possibly from Confucianism of Edo period, that one can become “a scape goat” voluntary for the sake of entire one’s belonging group. In addition, considering “just keep the every law” is indispensable factor to maintain the social order, Japanese people are apt to be extremely punctual in obeying a road signal, even when no traffic coming by. These thought may be an unique ethos for Japanese people.
On the other hand, in Christianity (Islam, the Judaism are also included) that is monotheism, the decision “whether the matter is ethically right or wrong”, is deeply related to the religious doctrine. “Right or wrong”, “good or evil” depends whether the matter is against a contract with God or not. In the interpretation of the law, "law of nature, the laws of God" (including the natural right that was given by God, the physical and chemical law those are created by God as well) is absolute and superior to “the law of King” (commercial, or tax and penalty law) that are made by human for the purpose of managing troubles among people. And when an interest is conflicting between the two people, fighting using the law, and pursuit the rationality is thought to be fair. In that occasion, they don’t have any ethical hesitation so long as they pursuit their benefit by competing rationality, because this is a completely different issue form their contract with God.
It is presumed that after the Renaissance, “competing rationality” became the mainstream method to coordinate the conflict of people’s interest, instead the era where a Church (law) had been the center of people’s daily life. Meanwhile, in the Islamic zone, although it depends on the level of secularity, there is an apparent trend that society should be strictly controlled under the religious Islamic law. And this non-secularity causes the opposition to the Christian and Judaism society. Mr. Takahiko Soejima, famous economist, told me by his personal letter, “In Judea or Christianity there originally had been a tendency to make much of “logic or ratio” in their doctrine even before Renaissance. And who dislike this tendency founded Islam.” I agree his opinion thinking that, in Greece or Roman philosophy, and also in theology, logical thought or rationality was attached actually a great importance. Consequently, I presume logical thought and rationality are originally accompanied by people living in current Christianity zone without a sense of incongruity.
When I read “The spirit of laws” by Montesquieu and “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes, I was strongly impressed “the spirit of the absolute freedom” which was given by the God as one of the natural right of human. It is believed to be rational that the law was established to control the conflict of interest of the people described as “the war of all against all”. And also it is believed to be absolutely right that the social laws (made by human for the convenience of social life) were considered to be inferior to the natural law that was established by God. However, law-abiding (compliance) should be kept even though the law or the contract was made under the threat with a gun, and one should fight the rationality with other law if he or she disagree the contract. This concept feels a sense of incongruity from a Japanese. In Japan, “compliance” means “a blind obedience to established law”, that is not the same as the concept of compliance of Europe or US that “fight the rationality first and once the decision was made, obey the contract even if you are not satisfied with the conclusion”. By this difference, we Japanese who has ethical sense for compliance will have a handicap from the beginning when Japan was rolled up in the full of trial society of Europe and America in future.
Meanwhile, though the maximum rationality is emphasized in daily life in the Judea and Christianity society, they are not willing to readily accept a criticism based on efficiency or rationality for the “decision and evaluation” based on the religious ethic. The Japanese can’t understand the mentality that some Christian people, who emphasize the rationality in daily life, should not accept abortion or homosexuality, or the theory of evolution based on the science. Law yields the superiority of religious ethic to rationality when some Christian refused blood transfusion by their religious belief even how blood transfusion was justified by scientific rationality.
III. Definition of “The Value of War” Based on The Ethical Sense
The war was carried out from ancient times for the purpose of the expansion of the territory, the acquisition of resources including human resources as slave, that is "one of the exclusive step in pursuit of national interest". The war is positioned as a method of settlement of the international dispute for obtaining a colony or natural resources that could not be managed by diplomatic negotiations in the era of the one-country-one-nation in modern times. Historically “the value of war” was determined not based on “ethically good or evil” but on “rational or irrational” for the interest of the country. Meanwhile, in modern Japanese history (after Edo-period), most wars were performed “to protect a race from colonization by the Great Powers”, purely for self-defense or self-existence at least in the Japanese recognition. It is clear that these wars were recognized as "an act defined ethically good" and the war was forced to fight to protect our communities. It is true that there was the historically inconspicuous war such as "attending World War I" or "the Siberian intervention" that were performed that would be thought to rational, and contribute to national interest of Japan. In general, when we discuss “the war” in Japan, the war means serious self-defense war such as the Sino-Japanese, Japan and Russia, or the Pacific War. I suppose, from the European viewpoint, Japan fought these war as means to solve an international dispute for national interest under a rational decision, because Japan did not be invaded their own territory yet. Although during Manchurian Incident or Chino-Japanese incident, slogans such as “Five tribes Kyowa” or “the Greater Eastern Asia co-prosperity sphere” were advocated, and these slogans resembled mutual benefit, consistent with the Japanese ethics, there was not such an item in European or American ethic, and it was impossible for them to understand these spirits.
After the World War II, we Japanese instantly recognized when we saw our new constitution of Article 9 that “War is prohibited even though it might be for Self Defense” without hesitation. This is because for us Japanese, war was recognized as always for “self defense” after Meiji period. For European and American people, “War for self defense” is recognized as one of the natural and supreme rights that should never be denied, so to have the Self Defense Force newly in Japan, any countries except for Japan claimed that it is illegal. For European people, “War renunciation” means “we abandon the right of war as an exclusive step settling an international dispute”, not “an absolute nonresistance against invasion”. In this point, I can clearly say “it was a tragedy that Japan Self Defense Force has been treated as a fugitive despite they had worked following “the strictly defensive-only national security policy”.
I mentioned that European countries and the United States also, have historically considered that war had been performed under the judgment as “rational” to obtain the national interest. However in World War II, the United States solely won tremendously among the allies, and when constructing the post-war world order, US defined the war as unprecedented concept, that is “War of ethically justified to exterminate fascism and spread freedom and democracy to all over the world”.
There was a contradiction against a pledge for the third election of F. D. Roosevelt that the US would never attend WW II, consequently many American young people were sacrificed. And moreover, even though they belonged to enemy country, allied slaughtered too many citizens indiscriminately during the war. A kind of ethical justification should be needed as a vindication for US. However, the definition “WW II was a duty given by God and ethically absolutely good” for the United States, established the situation of US in post-war world order unexpectedly successful, and people of the US also approved the reputation of the country with pleasure. And this is inherited as a glorious successful experience.
The later Korean War and Vietnam War did not bring a good result for the United States. Another feature of these wars are they were not based on “ethical justice” but on “rational decision” for the United States. At Korean War, US was forced to fight against the invasion of North Korea as a member of United Nations Forces. At Vietnam War, US decided to fight to prevent Domino-like consecutive Communization of Asia as a part of Cold War. Although these wars were based on the national interest and a usual method to settle an international dispute, they were not consequently beneficial for US, and moreover US was criticized that “it was a mistake ethically” from US citizens at Vietnam War. And this became a terrible result, even it may be said to become an America’s trauma.
Whereas after 911, when starting “war against terrorism” or "Afghanistan and/or Iraq War" President G. W. Bush strongly advocated the definition that the war was based on ethical justice. The term “Axis of Evil” President Bush used, means the countries that betrayed “teaching of God” must be severely punished disregarded the national interest of US just like the countries of Axis at WW II. In addition, giving an ethical justice to the war gave US indulgence to think rational justice to the war. Therefore, non-democratic patriot act was established and if a man being suspected as terrorist, “torture interrogation” is permitted even in a modern democracy society, and there is no problem in executing a suspect by a missile from a drone aircraft without a trial. For the suspect of “the Bomb case of Boston” who was defined a member of terrorist, was not adapted the Miranda act which should be guaranteed for all suspect under US constitution. It is terrible and selfish dogma that Heaven’s vengeance does not require rational or logic justice. It is the same way of thinking that there were no hesitation to use an atomic bomb on Japan where defeat was apparent, and any reviews on it are not allowed after the war.
When Korean media “Joon Ang Ilbo” reported that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a result of Heaven’s vengeance, Japanese media criticized it all at once, however, there were no such criticism from Europe or America, which means unexpectedly for Japanese people, Korean report might not yielded a sense of incongruity in European and American society. In conclusion, to keep the definition that “the war after 911” is based on ethical justice, the premise that World War II was a fight of the justice, must not be overturned. I think the United States won’t (can not) hand over to alter this premise in any condition.
IV. How We Japanese should Manage these Divergence in the Future
Based upon the previous discussions, people of the Judea Christianity zone have different standard in deciding ethically right and wrong from we Japanese, and moreover, they are presumed to be good at justify their behavior selecting ethical justice and logical justice conveniently to suit the occasion. General MacArthur (General Headquarters, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers) mentioned at US congress contemptuously that the Japanese democracy was like a level of elementary school. I suppose he misunderstood Japanese illogical way of thinking in daily social life as “non-democratic”, and despite his reputation, this does not mean that Japanese society is not inferior or immature than society in Europe or US. In the United States also, the social decision based on the religious ethic is not at all rational nor democratic. The sense of inferiority that Gen. MacArthur felt for Japanese society was simply attribute to a difference of social and cultural background between Japan and US. And it follows that when the established national history or meaning of war contains this unassailable ethical justice, we have to continue arguing timelessly in reviewing these matters by ratio or logic.
I think it should be allowed that every nations, every country have their unique standard on how to decide ethical justice. And also they can decide their value of national history based on their ethical justice, which sometimes could not be overturned by logic or discussion based on ratio. However, when different countries try to evaluate the same historical phenomena, every country must dismiss all their established evaluation based on their ethical standard once, and re-evaluate it scientifically based on confirmed truth. It is not so difficult when we evaluate the historical phenomenon scientifically before medieval times. However, when evaluating modern history, it is mostly complex and become controversial to discuss scientifically because every nation give some irrational ethical meaning on it. Japan, Korea, and China are always struggling to have common historical recognition (values to historical phenomena). I suppose Korean and Chinese people independently have different standard on deciding ethical justice from Japanese and/or European people as well.
Mr. Hashimoto, Mayor of Osaka, gave an opinion based on logic that “Comfort women were needed to maintain mental stability of the soldiers in the wartime”. However, the argument that came back was a criticism based on the ethics. It is unfair technique to replace the argument from logic issue to ethic issue. Actually this technique is frequently used when discussing issues on World War II. Including the issue of pogrom, there are a lot of matters that should not accept scientific or logic re-evaluation concerning World War II. In order not to have baffled by people of the Judea and Christianity zone, who are good at selecting use of logic justice and ethic justice by occasion, we Japanese recognize again the difference how to decide ethically good or evil between Japan and other countries. Ethical and religious viewpoint reflects the value of national history.
Fin.
アクセス
トータル
ランキング