2018 Fiscal Year Final Research Report
Ethics and "Strength": Exploring Foundations of Social Ethics for the Concept of Resilience
| Project/Area Number |
16K13153
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Research Field |
Philosophy/Ethics
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Nanzan University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
OKUDA Taro 南山大学, 人文学部, 教授 (20367725)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
森山 花鈴 南山大学, 法学部, 准教授 (40635702)
篭橋 一輝 南山大学, 国際教養学部, 准教授 (60645927)
|
|---|
| Research Collaborator |
Seigel Michael T.
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2016-04-01 – 2019-03-31
|
| Keywords | レジリエンス / 生態学的レジリエンス / 心理的レジリエンス / 社会的レジリエンス / 自殺対策 / 持続可能性 / ランドケア / 補完性原理 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
What "Resilience" means has ambiguity and tends to be used in various contexts simply as the state to be aimed at. It may be the case that someone will be forced to be resilient for the sake of national interests. Then it is necessary for us to examine the ethical validity of applications of this concept. In this research, we have investigated various practical activies that seem to be related to the concept of resilience, such as urban improvement, suicide prevention, landcare, etc. Then we have explored the conditions under which different people can live well in different circumstances and contexts within a society. As a result, we concluded that
the key principle to make us grasp the factors that justify the concept of resilience ethically is not only the principle of sustainability but also the "Principle of Subsidiarity," which defines the appropriate relationship between individuals and groups that could bring both autonomy and solidarity.
|
| Free Research Field |
哲学、倫理学、応用倫理学
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
レジリエンスの倫理的妥当性の条件を探究するなかで、別の問題として扱われがちな自然環境の問題（ランドケア等）と社会環境の問題（自殺対策等）とを緩やかな統一的視点から捉え、「補完性原理」という足がかり的な理論的枠組みを得たことで、そこに通底する問題構造を剔抉することが可能になった。このことは、学術的には、レジリエンス概念の記述的側面と規範的側面の腑分けに大きな示唆を与える点で意義があり、他方、社会的には、それぞれの現場での実践を理解する概念枠を提供することによって、より大きな文脈のなかで現行の実践を問い直し、従来不可視化されていた諸々の実践の連携可能性に光を当てる契機を与える点で意義がある。
|
