Does ethics exist in this cruel world?
I conduct research on how ethical values such as good/evil or just/unjust exist and operate in our ethical judgement, primarily drawing on French philosophy and ethics. Some of you may be skeptical about research in ethics.
Indeed, when we encounter information such as hate speech against foreigners in Japan, the war between Ukraine and Russia, Israel’s attack on Gaza, the brutality is almost indescribable. Faced with such situations, some people may feel a sense of despair. They may wonder, “Does ethics really exist in human beings when such brutalities are happening in the world and in Japan?”
Still, I believe that ethics does exist. I think ethics is at work when we judge that it is wrong for such cruelties to occur.
In most of our daily lives, whether something is good or evil rarely becomes a serious issue. As a result, the presence of ethics is often unnoticed.
For instance, Kant presents “lying” as a typical example of moral wrongdoing. Yet in reality, perhaps for many people, lying solely for one’s own benefit may not even be considered an option. In other words, in daily life, we are not even conscious about whether something is good or evil (though sometimes we ask ourselves, “Is it better not to tell her the truth so that it may not hurt her, but…”).
However, in reality, when we encounter someone who clearly lies just for their own benefit, we feel a sense of discomfort, thinking “Why would they lie like that?” Similarly, when we witness or hear hate speech, we are likely to feel, “Why would anyone do something so terrible?”
In such situations, humans are consciously making judgements of good or evil. In other words, ethics comes to the surface in these moments.
Thus, ethics exists as a latent order in daily life and emerges when triggered by certain events. Therefore, even if something terrible is happening at home and abroad, it does not necessarily mean that ethics does not exist.
So, how does latent ethics come to the surface? What I consider important is to question. Asking “Why do they do that?” brings out the latent ethical order.
What becomes clear through reflection
When I think about issues related to ethics, I often draw on the ideas of French philosophers such as Jean Nabert, Emmanuel Levinas, and Paul Ricoeur.
Perhaps the most widely known among them is Levinas. Levinas, famous for his philosophy of the Other, believed that the responsibility that arises in relation to facing the Other is the foundation of ethics.
The approach of grounding ethics in individual relationships with “the Other with a face” or in personal experience is shared not only by Levinas but also by Nabert. I myself value such individual relationships when considering ethics.
Characteristics of Nabert’s ideas and Ricoeur’s ones lie in the act of reflection, which reexamines the meaning of one’s own experiences, and in considering self-understanding in connection with this reflection.
The word “Hansei (reflection)” in Japanese carries a nuance of “repenting one’s words and actions.” However, the French term “réflexion” means “to contemplate” or “to reconsider” and originally does not have an ethical connotation. However, Nabert found moral implications in the individual act to reconsider one’s own past behavior or experiences, and called such act “reflection.”
Through this reflection, by reconsidering “That was not good,” we start, in turn, to see “what I now believe I ought to do.” In other words, it becomes clear what one truly hopes for.
Nabert presents negative experiences, such as mistakes and loneliness, as objects of reflection. By reviewing such experiences, individuals first become aware of what kind of acts troubles their conscience, and what kind of personal relationships leave them feeling stuck. Then, they accept the fact that they are people who act like that, or become accustomed to such personal relationships, while understanding themselves as ones who, at least now, do not think that it is a good thing and are hoping to do otherwise. This is the “self-understanding through reflection.” Identity of oneself is recreated each time by integrating the past and the present.
Moreover, Ricoeur’s “hermeneutics of the self” teaches us a lot about the dynamism of such self-understanding.
First of all, when we ask ourselves, “Was this good?” about a behavior, we can say that this is already a moment when the world ceases to appear self-evident.
In a world where everything is clear, such a question would not arise. A question arises when we encounter the Other and what we take for granted becomes shaky. In short, it is the Other that activates reflection.
Factual recognition alone is not enough for ethical judgement
When we move away from the context of self-understanding and question ethics as a judgement of good or bad of a matter, objectivity and practicality become important. “Do ethical values such as good and evil really exist?” or “What exactly are we doing when we make ethical judgements?” Such philosophical inquiry that questions the premise of ethics from the root is called meta-ethics. Meta-ethics offers us various hints when we think about objectivity and practicality of ethical judgements.
For instance, when we judge that “X is bad and morally wrong,” it is not convincing to say simply, “Because I think so.” Rather, it is necessary to have a premise that it is true as a matter of fact, and therefore ought to be also true for others. This assumption constitutes what we call objectivity.
Moreover, if we judge that X, as it is occurring, is bad, we hope to stop or prevent it. In other words, judgement is connected to actions to change the world. This connection between judgement and action is practicality.
So, how is ethical judgement formed? I think that two factors are involved: ‘factual recognition’ and ‘emotions and desires’.
For instance, in the case of the hate speech problem, knowing about the current status or what lies in the background, as well as what kind of logic is used to attack foreigners, constitutes factual recognition as a premise for the judgement. We cannot expect objectivity for a judgement which lacks this recognition.
However, ethical judgement is not formed by facts alone. When we feel that “this cannot be tolerated” or “something must be done,” emotions and desires are always at work in the background. Because value judgements are inseparable from emotions and desires, judgements carry practicality.
Only when emotions and desires are linked to accurate factual recognition does ethical judgement become plausible.
Such analysis is useful in discerning the source of differences when encountering someone with an opinion different from one’s own. Is the difference due to factual recognition? Or is it motivated by emotions or desires of which we are unaware? From there, we can start thinking.
Of course, one does not need to accept all the emotions and desires of others. It is also possible to evaluate that “it does not make sense.” Moreover, in such cases, it also becomes necessary to ask further: On what grounds is the judgement that “it does not make sense” based?
For instance, a person who makes discriminatory remarks may have some reason for doing so. “Why do you say such things?” If you ask this question, some may answer, while others may say “There is no reason.” Even so, in many cases, they must respond with some sort of explanation.
On the other hand, those who oppose hate speech also have reasons to believe it is wrong. If that is the case, they should be able to question each other about their reasons. I consider this mutual questioning itself to be the social practice of ethics.
In pursuit of ethics which is not merely to each their own
From this perspective, in order to deal with hate speech, first of all, I think it is necessary to analyze what kind of conflict is involved there. Just by sorting out whether it stems from differences in factual recognition or from a clash of emotions, we can deepen our understanding of the event. Furthermore, wouldn’t this understanding of the event serve as a pathway to control and eventually eliminate discrimination?
Of course, there is a stance that there is no value in listening to the words of discriminatory people. This stance itself has a certain degree of persuasiveness. For instance, if we understand this issue from a certain perspective of political correctness, it is natural to regard protest activities (counters) against the hate speakers as the right course of action.
However, if we understand hate speech as an ethical problem, or as an important event related to ethics, I think we will need another perspective with respect to practicality.
Even if people think that discrimination is wrong, not everyone can participate in impactful activities like what is known as “counter.” Nevertheless, that does not mean that claims lack corresponding practice. The practicality of judgement could be diverse.
For example, discussing a discrimination issue in conversation with people close to you or expressing your opinions via social media is itself a way of acting upon the world. If the role of politics is to gather voiceless voices into a larger force, for individuals to express their voices in their own sphere can be considered an act of ethics. Exchanging words like “after all, discrimination is wrong” carries significant meaning.
However, as a major premise, we need to accept hate speech as a social problem that is not irrelevant to ourselves.
Yet human beings have a tendency to navigate themselves toward indifference to those who are harmed. Nabert argued that the work of each individual’s consciousness to distance oneself from victims by being led by such tendency constitutes a “radical evil.” This indifference to the suffering of others is itself inextirpable evil. Doesn’t this idea shock us?
In our time, it seems that many people think that ethics does not exist in the first place or everybody is different anyway.
As a result, the atmosphere to avoid asserting what is good and bad seems to be prevalent, and some people even use the word “excessive justice.”
However, as I have reiterated, ethics in fact exists, and it is not merely a matter of to each their own.
Certainly, we are always in danger of falling into dogmatism. However, as long as we keep in mind that we may be overlooking an important fact, we can sensitively respond to criticism from others and prevent ourselves from being excessive.
It is important to maintain a half-standing position: supporting our own ethical judgement as a top priority without ruling out the possibility of a different and more just judgement.
With the faith that ethics is objective and can be shared among a sufficiently large number of people, I wish to continue exploring the question, “What is ethics?”
* The information contained herein is current as of April 2025.
* The contents of articles on Meiji.net are based on the personal ideas and opinions of the author and do not indicate the official opinion of Meiji University.
* I work to achieve SDGs related to the educational and research themes that I am currently engaged in.
Information noted in the articles and videos, such as positions and affiliations, are current at the time of production.