ワタスゲ の山 4 月 2 週
◆▲をクリックすると長文だけを表示します。ルビ付き表示

○自由な題名
○ライバルの大切さ

○A speaks(感) 英文のみのページ(翻訳用)
A speaks against the proposal.
"Look here, the question of whether states can behave morally toward one another is not one that has been neglected, nor is it an open question. Many great thinkers have worked on it and have concluded that for various compelling reasons, the concept of morality or ethics simply does not enter into behavior between states. If every nation were willing to be Mr. Nice Guy, and if all nations had comparable values and a similar stage of advancement, then there might be a way for them to get together and work out laws, to which all would agree to be bound. But that clearly is not possible now. Note that it was tried, even in our century, with the League of Nations, but that proved a hopeless failure -- a real joke.
"You have to realize that nations are by definition selfish. Sometimes their actions seem justifiable: they may need to get at the resources of other nations as a matter of survival. Or, they may just be expansionist for expansion's sake. This seems to be a human trait, perhaps based on the search for glory. In order to guard against the inevitable rise of Napoleonic types, nations have traditionally formed balances of power, in which one powerful nation may gather several smaller nations around itself in an alliance against the dominant rival.
"It also has to be admitted that a strong nation can more or less do what it wants to, to a weak nation. Many times in history strong nations have exploited or even destroyed weak nations. This is a fact of life, having to do both with human selfishness and with the structure of the world. Because of it, by the way, a leader who takes a pacifist stance wiI1 not win any praise for this moral gesture. If he doesn't keep his nation prepared militarily he is actively tempting aggressors to attack.
"Besides the points I've made so far, which are more or less morally neutral, there are also reasons why it is positively a good thing that nations do not have a moral relationship with one another. The first reason is the importance of national or cultural independence. Only when all the sovereign nations agree that the prime rule is for each to mind its own business, can each one set about performing its functions as it wishes. If you allowed anyone who thinks he knows best to interfere in the affairs of other countries there would be chaos. You'd also hear plenty of goodwill rhetoric being used to cover up the selfish motivations of the intervening power.
"So, it's reasonable policy for all statesmen to form a binding agreement that they won't criticize each other's domestic affairs. At times this may mean that a people suffering from brutality or even genocide will not be saved by the outside world. But apparently people don't want to save their fellow men if it is inconvenient. Experience shows that an individual who sees an individual suffering feels compelled to help, but not so a nation. Groups are simply less moral than individuals, even if they are composed of individuals. Why this should be so is a mystery, but there you are.
"A second good reason for keeping "morals" out of international affairs is that some nations would get so morally worked up about erasing evil that they would never stop fighting. Or they may insist on the unconditional surrender of an enemy. Nations are also notorious for thinking that their culture is better than any other. It's obvious that each of the two superpowers thinks its ideology is pure and right, and the other's is sinful. If the superpowers had gone to war over this, the whole human race might have been wiped out. Note that in fact leaders in both the United States and the Soviet Union react according to events rather than act according to ideology, on the world stage. Leaders know how the game must be played and ideals are not part of this game. If you were in office, you'd learn it quickly, too, and you'd stop thinking about the morality of international relations.
"In short, people's natural instinct may tell them that something wrong or unfair is going on, internationally, but there's really not much that can be done about it. Whereas when a member of domestic society engages in criminal behavior his neighbors can call the police, in the international arena there is no authority to resort to -- each nation must look after itself. Nations and their relative strengths are the final determinant of who gets away with. what. I assure you, this is reality."
B speaks for the proposal.
"Rubbish! You say it's not appropriate to apply the concept of morality to international activities, but I ask you how it is possibIe that any such activity -- which may affect the welfare of millions of people -- could be exempt from moral concern. If you and I were two cave men standing here talking I could see how it might be possible for us to treat morality as some curiosity that could be dispensed with. But we are both products of Western civilization, so we tend to think of all human affairs as subject to moral judgment. Moreover, we are products of the modern world wherein the behavior of a government is thought to be subject to the wishes and approval of the people. Indeed we look upon the defining of the rights of the individual -- human rights -- as our own major cultural achievement.
"At least partly, our belief in human rights comes from a belief in human equality. All members of the human race have some things in common. True, there is much cultural variation in behavior, but basically people like and dislike the same things. For instance, people like to bring up their children in good health, and they don't like to have their property stolen. All of this similarity gives rise to fairly universal laws. For this reason it seems to me that a general law prevails, and that nations are subject to it as well as individuals. An example would be that it is wrong for one nation to steal from another, just as it is wrong for one individual to steal from another.
"Of course I recognize that people act not only as individuals, but as members of groups. Group life is an important reality and I'll allow that groups have some rights, such as to try to survive and to practice their culture. But since there are many groups, and their interests may conflict, they should make efforts to compromise. The golden rule seems to be the conclusion that reason leads to. Groups can recognize other groups as having similar human wants and needs, and even "rights"- as themselves. This is not such an unrealistic proposal. Consider the Geneva Conventions. Here each nation has recognized, for example, that all wounded soldiers are in the same boat. So, mechanisms have been established to protect medical stations on the battlefield -- something that a skeptic may have said could never happen.
"I think we need to admit that there is a direction to history. The whys and wherefores of international morality are not a function of a static structure of the world, nor of a fixed human nature. We should look at what is actually happening. On the one hand, interests are able to become more organized over time, as we see in the concentration of wealth and technological knowhow. At the same time values are able to become more organized and more "rationalized." Note how ecologists have made the public aware, in the last generation, of the priority of clean air and water -- something that could have been ignored if interests were the only factor that commanded power. I think that much of the argument that goes on, pretending to deal with the national interest as against that of the individual, or humanity as a whole, has instead to do simply with interest against value.
"In short, I do not buy your story that international morality is a nonsubject. It simply does not ring true to me. There cannot be a category of human affairs which defies moral consideration."

ethics 倫理
the League of Nations (国際連合の前身である)国際連盟
genocide 集団殺害
superpowers 超大国(この討論は冷戦終結前に行われた)
the Geneva Conventions 傷病兵の保護や捕虜の待遇等に関するジュネーブ諸条約

★ふつう死は、心臓が(感)
 【1】ふつう死は、心臓が停止して血流がとだえ、それに続く全身の生命活動の停止として起こる。ところが脳が先に機能停止におちいることがある。この場合、中枢神経をまとめる脳の死によって全身もやがて死ぬことになるが、人工呼吸器の力でしばらくの間は(そして現在ではかなり長期にわたって)脳死状態の身体を「生かして」おくことができる。【2】つまり死を抑止するテクノロジーの介入によって、生を手放しながらなお死を中断された、ある種の中間的身体が作り出されるのである。
 【3】脳死が心臓死と決定的に違うのは、死が全身に及ぶプロセスやそのタイムラグのためでなく、このきわめて現代的な上に述べた「中間的身体」を生み出すからである。脳の機能を失ったこの身体は、もはや人格としての発現をいっさい欠いて、いわば誰でもない身体として横たわっている。(中略)
 【4】脳死をめぐる現在の論議の中で問われているのは、実は脳死と心臓死といずれが厳密な意味で「人の死」かということではない。それは向こうから訪れる死を「みなしの死」と置き換えるということなのだ。
 【5】移植治療にとっては、訪れる死を確認していたのでは遅いのだ。そこで脳死を人の死とみなし、その段階で身体を人格性の拘束から解放することにする。それでなければせっかく死を抑止しても、いずれ死にすべてを引き渡すことになってしまう。【6】だが、この「みなしの死」(「みなし法人」というときのように)によって、「誰でもない身体」はもはや「人ではない身体」となり、脳死身体の「資材」化への道が開けることになる。言ってみればそれは、役立たない自明の死を、人間の利益にそくして人間が規定する「役立つ死」へと転化することである。
 【7】人間は、これまでありのままの世界を否定し、それを人間にとっての世界へと転化して、自己の可能性の領域を拡張してきた。その人間にとっても、死だけは最近まで、無意味な喪失であり続けてきた。【8】だがテクノロジーは死を壁際まで追いつめ、ついにその領分から生に回収しうる部分を取り戻すにいたった。この「みなしの死」によって、今や死は新しい「資材」を分泌する生産的な死、人∵間自身の規定する「人間的な死」となった……文明の武勲詩はこの死の征服をそんなふうに語るのかもしれない。
 【9】だが、この論理は事態の「不気味さ」に目をつむっている。医療のテクノロジーがもたらしたのは、「人ではない身体」とか、人体の「資材」化とかいう、人間のまったく「非人間的」な可能性なのだ。核兵器や遺伝子工学が象徴するように、現代のテクノロジーはもはや人間の道具におさまる範囲を超えて進んでいる。【0】そこでは人間に「役立つ」はずのことが、人間を「非人間化」するようにさえ働くことになる。人間はテクノロジーの主人ではなく、テクノロジーが変えてゆく世界の中で、いつのまにか自分もいっしょに変えられているのだ。だから、人間はこの「不気味」な状況を欺瞞なしに受けとめ、そこに身を開きながらありうべき関係を探ってゆくほかはない。それが「非人間化」する世界の中で、唯一保ちうる「人間的」態度だと言えるだろう。
 あの身体には、もはやそれを「私だ」と主張する人はいない。では、それは「人」ではないのか? ここで本当に問われているのはそのことである。実はその種の問いを人間はすでに発したことがある。世界戦争に象徴される今世紀の人間の、栄光と同じように悲惨だった体験は、征服のテクノロジーの中で非人格化した身体的存在を、「それでも人だ」と言うことから出発する実存の思想を鍛えてきた。それがこの問題に大きな示唆を与えている。
 移植治療によって人が生きられるのは、人間が身体的存在だからである。それに、移植される臓器は「生きて」いなければ役に立たない。その「生きている」身体から、それでも臓器の摘出が許されるのは、なかば死に委ねられたこの臓器も、他者の身体に引き取られてしか生きえないからである。つまり死ぬべき臓器は他者において復活するのだ。一方それを引き受けた他者も、委ねられた臓器をけっして自分のものとして同化するわけではない。その人の身体は免疫抑制剤によって自己の固有性を弱めながら、他者の臓器を受け入れているのだ。そのようなリレーのうちに身体的生命はそれ自身の論理を貫いており、部分身体の受容と復活をとおして、不老長寿とは別の「不死性」のきらめきさえのぞかせている。