Meaning of life in the age of science, capitalism and globalization

I think one of the most exciting approaches in the area of bioethics is that of “philosophy,” particularly, that of “philosophy of life.” Hearing this term, you might imagine an individual’s personal perspective on life. However, I mean a broader view that can deal with humans’ life and death in contemporary society, our attitudes toward nature and creatures, and the meaning of life in the age of science, capitalism, and globalization. The criticism of painless civilization is also an important part of “philosophy of life.” Leon Kass, too, stresses that what is most needed in current bioethics is “philosophy” and a “proper anthropology.”(13) I am planning to develop the foundation of “philosophy of life” by communicating with scholars interested in this approach.(14) Philosophy of life deals with not only bioethical issues, but also such topics as environmental issues and the question of the meaning of life in contemporary society. I hope this paper will be of interest to the audience that is trying to tackle difficult and complicated problems around the world caused by contemporary society and civilization.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Emmanuel Levinas and bioethics

What would have happened if there had been advanced prenatal screening technologies? He would have had a “healthy” baby, but in exchange for this, he would have lost the chance to attain self-transformation and to know the “precious truths of life” described above. This is the crucial point. (I made a further analysis by using the terms “the desire of the body” and “the joy of life” in the book Painless Civilization.) The more we pursue the preventive reduction of pain, the more we lose the chance to transform the basic structure of our way of thinking and being, and the more we are deprived of opportunities to know precious truths indispensable to our meaningful life. Preventive reduction of pain means preventive reduction of the possibility of “the arrival of the other” (the words of Emmanuel Levinas). It leads us to a situation where all of us live in a state of the living dead; in other words, a situation in which we are able to reduce pain and suffering, and are able to gain more pleasure and comfort. But as a result of that, we gradually come to lose the opportunity of experiencing the joy of life that comes from encountering an unwanted situation and being forced to transform ourselves to find a new way of thinking and being we have never known. Remember the discussion about the disappearance of “conviction of love,” discussed in Section 4. It is closely connected to the current topic, because to love someone means to be forced to transform one’s self, and to feel this unexpected transformation as bliss.

The above is the most significant problem that accompanies preventive reduction of pain. One may think that even if there is such a danger in preventive reduction of pain, it does not necessarily mean that we have to stop the development of this kind of technology. This might be so, but please note that what I am primarily concerned about here is not social policymaking but the fate of our contemporary civilization; in other words, the question of what we have to bear as a fate if our current civilization continues to develop in this direction. To clarify the fate of contemporary civilization, and to show a way of escape from our dark future (which, of course, might include the abolishment of certain technologies and policies) is the main criticism of a painless civilization. I believe current bioethical issues must be discussed from this point of view.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Life of despair with an unwanted child

I have a number of things to say about the development of painless civilization, but anyway, let us go back to the concept of “preventive reduction of pain” here. The biggest problem that comes from the preventive reduction of pain is that it makes us lose sight of the possibility of transforming the basic structure of our ways of thinking and being. Let us imagine the case of a disabled fetus. By developing prenatal screening systems, the probability of having disabled babies will decrease. This may be good news for those who want healthy babies; however, we have to take a closer look at the other side of this issue.

A friend of mine once told me the following story. A man, a close friend of hers, wished to have a cute healthy baby, but when his baby was born, he found it severely disabled. He was shocked. He despaired of the future of his baby and himself. The master plan for his life collapsed. He cared for his child but lost any hope for his future. However, after going through some years of experience of rearing his disabled baby, he suddenly realized that he had escaped despair somewhere along the line. It was a very strange feeling for him. While caring for his child still remained a burden, it was no longer despair. The reason for this was that his basic framework, including his way of thinking, feeling, and being, had been profoundly transformed. This transformation came about because of his encounter with the “unwanted” child, and his continuing care for the child. After experiencing this transformation, he started to feel that his life was not one of despair; hence, he never wanted to go back to life before the birth of the child, because his child taught him many precious truths of life that he had never known before. He finally gained self-affirmation of his life living with his disabled child.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Problems of current human biotechnology

From this perspective, prenatal screening and other future technologies can be seen as examples of devices for preventive reduction of pain, and these devices constitute the dynamism of painless civilization. This means that the ethics of human biotechnology can be seen, or should be seen, from the broader perspective of painless civilization. One of the reasons I use the word “civilization” is that the preventive reduction of pain, which constitutes an important pillar of current human biotechnology, actually began in ancient times when civilizations developed several thousand years ago. People started agriculture and the maintenance of the rivers in order to preventively reduce pain and suffering caused by the unexpected effects of wild nature, for example, famine and flood. Since then, we have developed big cities, built houses that typhoons cannot destroy, and have established a stable supply of food through the mass production of agricultural goods. These facilities have contributed greatly to the preventive reduction of various kinds of pain. And in an extension of this line of development, today we have a variety of pain reduction methods in our society, including that of prenatal screening.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Preventive war and surveillance society

Let us examine why many people choose to abort when a congenital disability, such as Down syndrome, is found in the fetus. There are various reasons for that decision. Some would say that a severe disability will bring great suffering to the child itself in the future, and others would say that it is the duty of the parents to give birth to a baby without any special disabilities in cases where they can be screened. However, I believe that one of the strongest reasons for choosing selective abortion is be that parents tend to think that having a disabled baby may cause great pain and suffering to the parents themselves, both economically and psychologically. Many people believe that bringing up a disabled baby would take extra time, money, and hands—and more than anything else, it places a huge mental burden on them.

They try to avoid pain and suffering that may fall upon them in the future, and usually this avoidance is accomplished in a preventive way. I have called this kind of act “preventive reduction of pain” or “preventive elimination of pain.” Selective abortion and prenatal screening are good examples of preventive reduction of pain, because by using these technologies we can expect to reduce, in a preventive way, pain and suffering that would be brought about by having disabled babies. We can find a variety of acts of preventive reduction of pain in our society, from daily health care to “preventive war” carried on by the superpowers. A surveillance society that uses security cameras to prevent unforeseen crimes would be another good example. In contemporary society, we are surrounded by a number of devices to reduce pain. I call a “painless civilization” one in which the mechanism of preventive reduction of pain spreads throughout its society. Society in highly industrialized nations is now gradually turning into a “painless civilization.”

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Conditional love and unconditional love

This is another version of a philosophical dispute about “conditional love” and “unconditional love.” There have been many discussions about whether only unconditional love deserves the name of love (I discussed this topic elsewhere.)(11) Everyone knows that unconditional love is more beautiful and noble than conditional love, but we also know that it is nearly impossible to love someone unconditionally in real life. We have to look straight at our own egoism and desire. This does not mean that the justification of our egoism and desire is needed first and foremost, because simple justification frequently leads us in the wrong direction. What is really needed is a deliberate examination, rather than a hasty justification.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Is unconditional love impossible?

In this society, the primary sense, “I was allowed to be born to this world under certain conditions,” is going to be stored in the deep layer of people’s consciousness. This sense erases from people’s mind a certain emotion—the emotion of love. To be loved means to be given the conviction that one’s existence is affirmed by someone even if he/she does not satisfy certain conditions; in other words, to be given the conviction that one’s existence is affirmed and welcomed just as is now the case.

However, in the society described above, it is very hard for people to acquire this kind of conviction. People are born after being examined about their quality of life, and when they give birth they impose conditions upon their children. In that society, people talk about unconditional love; yet they know that they themselves were allowed to be born because they satisfied certain “explicit” conditions imposed by their parents. They perceive the mark of “conditional love” as just beneath their own existence. “Am I, in fact, not loved by anyone?” This is the sense shared by ordinary people in an unspoken way in that society. It is the society that systematically deprives people of “conviction of love.” As is now clear, the greatest problem of prenatal screening and the genetic manipulation of unborn children is that those technologies deprive people of “conviction of love” in a crucial way. This is, I believe, what lies at the heart of an uncomfortable feeling when hearing the justification for selective abortion. Probably this feeling exists even in the hearts of the people who justify selective abortion. This should become the basis for the criticism of human reproductive medicine. It is the “possibility of love” that lies under the ethics of reproductive technology.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Why our exsistence should be welcomed unconditionally

In the previous section, I used the words “the sense that our existence is welcomed unconditionally.” We can find similar expressions in the report of the President’s Council. The council says what is at risk is the idea that “each child is ours to love and care for, from the start, unconditionally, and regardless of any special merit of theirs or special wishes of ours.”(9) If prenatal diagnosis becomes prevalent, the report says, “the attitude of parents toward their child may be quietly shifted from unconditional acceptance to critical scrutiny.”(10) The report discusses this topic from the viewpoint of “unconditional acceptance,” and I think their insight is correct. In the book Painless Civilization, I, too, made a detailed discussion on the conditional acceptance of our children and its impact on our society.

Let us imagine a society where almost every adult accepts a set of prenatal screening tests. When a couple wants to have a baby, they make a number of fertilized eggs outside the female’s body, and scrutinize each fertilized egg one by one, using PGD techniques. After examining the characteristics of each egg, they choose a couple of eggs to be born, according to their wishes and plans about their children. What does this society look like? In such a society, people successfully come into the world after it has been confirmed that they satisfy some conditions their parents or society require. This is a society where almost everyone tacitly knows that if they had not satisfied the conditions required, they would have never been born. And when those people get married and have children, they naturally examine the genetic makeup of their fertilized eggs, and do the same thing that was once done to themselves by their parents. In this way, the act of conditional acceptance of babies is handed down from generation to generation.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

What I have learnt from disabled people

Bioethics to date has not had enough discussion about the fundamental sense of security; yet I believe that this is the most serious problem raised by selective abortion and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Of course, this is not the sole factor that erodes the fundamental sense of security. Our fundamental sense of security has been eroded by a number of technologies and social systems right to the present. However, it is at least certain that current and future prenatal screening technologies will contribute to enhance the level of erosion of the sense of fundamental security. This is what I have learnt from the literature of disabled people and from discussion with them. Philosophical discussions about contemporary bioethical issues in Japan, including mine, have been greatly influenced, from the beginning, by the thoughts and actions of disabled people. In this sense, Japanese discourse might differ slightly from that of Korea and China. (Another curious factor is “feminism.”(8))

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

What is the sense of security?

The second problem is that it systematically deprives them of a sense of security and the joy of existence that we feel when we can exist without being imposed upon by anyone regarding any particular conditions. They did not use the words “sense of security,” but I believe that one of the messages they tried to express in their fierce activity can be fully grasped by using this term. If this kind of prenatal screening becomes prevalent, disabled people would come to think, “I would not have been born if my parents had undergone current prenatal screening tests,” and come to feel that “my existence is not welcomed or blessed by my parents and other people who are accepting such technology in our society.” As a result, they would feel they are utterly deprived of a very important sense of security that ordinary healthy people enjoy. Disabled activists at that time accused ordinary people of possessing “inner eugenic thought,” and concluded that this was the main cause of discrimination.

I would like to label this feeling a “fundamental sense of security.” This is the feeling that one’s existence is welcomed unconditionally. This is a sense of trust in the world and society, a sense of trust that provides us with a solid foundation to survive in our society. This is a sense of security that allows me to strongly believe that even if I had been unintelligent, ugly, or disabled, at least my existence in the world would have been welcomed equally, and even if I succeed, fail, or become a doddering old man, my existence will continue to be welcomed. This is the sense of trust that our existence was welcomed when we were born, and will never be denied when we become old or sick. This is a sense of security with which we can believe that we will never be glanced at by anyone with unspoken words, “I wish you were not born” or “I wish you would disappear from the world.” This is the basis of our ability to keep sane in this society. Disabled activists tried to stress that prenatal screening is “wrong” because it systematically deprives us of this fundamental sense of security.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

What is wrong with prenatal diagnosis?

I wrote about it elsewhere in Japanese and English;(6) hence in this paper, I would like to skip the detailed analysis of their opinions, and try to show my interpretation of their thoughts on prenatal diagnosis and disability. They discussed two problems that lurk behind prenatal diagnosis with selective abortion.

The first problem is that it psychologically disempowers existing disabled people. If such technologies become prevalent in society, many ordinary people gradually come to think in front of them, “Why were congenitally disabled people like you born in the age of prenatal screening?” and “I wish you were not born.” Surrounded by this kind of unspoken words and glances, disabled people are gradually deprived of the power to affirm themselves and the courage to live. In such a society, the majority of people would choose to abort severely disabled fetuses; to existing disabled people, this means that the majority of people do not wish to live with them. Even if they don’t speak out, their unconscious attitudes and glances would naturally express their inner thoughts about disabled people. Looking at such attitudes many times, disabled people will come to fully realize that they are unwelcome guests to the whole society, and this consciousness deprives them of self-affirmation as people with disability.(7)

This is the essence of their view when they were faced with the possibility of selective abortion performed after amniocentesis in the early 1970s. Their idea can be fully applied to future ethical problems that will be caused by PGD and other screening technologies. We can find a similar discussion in the President Council’s report. I am surprised by disabled activists’ foresight on this point. I would like to talk about this topic later from a different angle.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Morality of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)

This report examines the morality of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and points out that “the goal of eliminating embryos and fetuses with genetic defects carries the unspoken implication that certain ‘inferior’ kinds of human beings—for example, those with Down syndrome—do not deserve to live.”(3) Of course the use of these technologies will remain voluntary, but “its growing use could have subtly coercive consequences for prospective parents and could increase discrimination against the ‘unfit’.”(4) The report says that there is the prospect of “diminished tolerance for the ‘imperfect,’ especially those born with genetic disorders that could have been screened out,” and as a result, disabled children and their parents might be gazed at with unspoken questions, “Why were you born?” and “Why did you let him live?” In the end, “it may become difficult for parents to resist the pressure, both social and economic, of the ‘consensus’ that children with sufficiently severe and detectable disabilities must not be born.”(5)

Their discussion reminds me of voices of Japanese disabled activists. In 1972, disabled people with cerebral palsy began a movement to fight against the government’s effort to introduce a special clause for selective abortion into the Eugenic Protection Law. They harshly criticized the government policy to annihilate disabled babies by way of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. They also criticized ordinary non-disabled people’s latent “egoism,” the egoism to think that disabled people do not deserve to live in our society. Disabled activists thought that our society was filled with this kind of discriminative consciousness, and that this hidden consciousness was the real problem of selective abortion.

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Leon Kass and Bill McKibben

One of the most debated topics today in the field of bioethics is the ethics of manipulating human fertilized eggs, especially for the purpose of selecting a better child or producing an enhanced child. For example, so-called post-humanists encourage progress in this kind of manipulation, saying that there are no serious ethical problems with these technologies. In contrast, Leon Kass and Bill McKibben doubt the progress of these technologies, and caution that they can never offer the happiness we are seeking. In Japan, too, a similar academic discussion has begun among philosophers, bioethicists, and sociologists. In 2003, I published the book Painless Civilization, and discussed this topic from the viewpoint of “preventive reduction of pain” and of its fundamental effects on our sense of “love.”(1) After the book’s publication, there appeared a number of comments and criticisms from within and outside the academy. In this paper, I would like to outline some of the points I discussed in the book, and correlate them with discussions in current bioethical debates surrounding this topic.

Before moving on to the discussion of painless civilization, I would like to examine the ethical analysis of prenatal diagnosis in the report, Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness, by the President’s Council on Bioethics published in 2003.(2) This report was written under the strong influence of the chairman, Leon Kass. Although I do not necessarily agree with Kass’s conservative ideas about abortion and the family, I believe this report is a masterpiece of recent American bioethics, particularly in that the discussion was made in terms of philosophical anthropology. (And as an Asian agnostic philosopher, I really enjoyed their Judeo-Christian flavor in their discussion about ethical issues.)

>> To read more please visit:

Painless Civilization and Fundamental Sense of Security
(2005)
(You can read the entire text)

Intellectual activity in the era of imagination

This suggests that we should pay attention to our everyday life, with all the power of our imagination, in order to grasp the shape of problems in their entirety. This means further that we will then come to an era in which we discover and solve a problem with the help of a combination of a variety of imaginative perceptions. In this sense the study of life should prove to be an intellectual activity in the era of imagination.

I have stated that the study of life must be a study by which all inochi beings can live a better life and die a better death (1988b). I believe this sentiment expresses the ultimate aim of the study of life. This paper is only a first step toward achieving such an aim.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Why imagination is needed today

The problems of life in a global age concern almost all subjects, and have considerable diversity. They contain micro-level problems such as the existence [111/112] of certain molecules in a DNA sequence, and macro-level problems such as the maintenance of the biosphere of the earth. They also contain such bioethical problems as the withdrawing of life support systems from a severely handicapped newborn; and such environmental problems as toxic and radioactive substances which will condense and settle in the biosphere at a slow pace.

These problems have two features. We can, on the one hand, grasp them by paying attention to facts and situations in our daily life, because all these problems have some relationship to everyday life. For example by paying attention to the situation of everyday water and food, we can discover environmental pollution in the local areas. Japan is also beginning to encounter more and more the problem of senile or terminally ill patients who must be cared for in the home.

On the other hand, it is only possible for us to grasp most of these problems in our imagination. For example we cannot look a the defects of genes of an embryo directly. Most of us have not directly seen a brain-dead person in an Intensive Care Unit, nor have we seen the actual destruction of a rain forest. We know of these things only through books, articles, and TVprograms. Through discussions we are continuously constructing these images in our imaginations. In a sense, global environmental issues and the problems of advanced medicine exist only in our imaginations, as we have no real experience of them.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Research on the relationship between humans and life

I have defined the study of life as a study which researches the present relationship between humans and life, and also the types of relationship we should form in the future, in the context of modern civilization with science and technology (1988a). In order to do this, we need to study the history of the relationships between humans and life (inochi beings) and clarify the historical meanings of these relationships. For example, we should study the history of agriculture, medicine, religion, and war from the viewpoint of the study of life. We also need to study present issues concerning life, by investigating gene technology, bioethics, global environmental problems, our attitudes toward nuclear weapons and nuclear energy plants, and so on. Then we should go on to propose what relationship we should form with life, scientific technology and civilization in the future. At the same time, there is also a need to study images and concepts of life from the past to the present. We can study the present images and ideas of life through sociological and ethical investigations from around the world. We should also examine the world history of ideas involving the concepts or understandings of life. Moreover, we are always faces with the subject of how to live and die on this limited earth in finite space and time. To address this we must reexamine our lifestyles in modern society as well as our ways of dying.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Why a comprehensive approach is needed

Today’s problems concerning life share a number of closely connected factors. Therefore we can neither solve nor even grasp these problems if we persist in just one academic specialty and restrict our attention to the subjects that are supposed to belong to it. Only a comprehensive approach will yield rewarding results (66).

In order to research such problems comprehensively, I have proposed that a number of researchers who are interested in this approach (this should include such people as academicians, journalists, specialists, and lay persons) form research networks and then exchange arguments and information. I have also proposed that these networks should work as non-governmental organizations, and not constitute a fixed academy or discipline.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Life, war, peace, and violence

Before closing, I would like to describe here a brief outline of ‘the study of life’ which I have advocated since 1988, and which provides the framework for this paper.

The study of life does not deal with restricted academic subjects that belong to any one traditional discipline. Instead, it deals with all subjects concerning ‘life’ comprehensively, from various points of view, with the help of knowledge from each academic discipline. Hence the study of life is open to various methods of research, such as philosophical analysis, religious contemplation, social fieldwork and clarification through scientific investigation. The study of life will deal with difficult [110/111] problems concerning bioethics, environmental issues, terminal care, health policy, the sociology of science, genetic engineering, the psychology of the environment (65), medical anthropology, the history of life, war an peace, violence, and many other subjects.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

What is the "touch model of perception"?

This metaphysical grasp of inochi (life) further implies that our recognition of inochi beings would be different from the standard subject-object congnition model. For example, when I perceive something, traditional philosophical theories teach us that this perception is achieved by sense-data or qualia traveling from the object to my sensory organs and finally arriving at my brain. This means that cognition is achieved in a one-way direction from the object to the subject, and that the subject and the object are completely different in essence. This is the basic idea of congnition models. [109/110] However, in the case of inochi, we should take account of another factor, that is to say, the fact that both the object and the subject are inochi (life) beings. In other words, this perception model must be such that an inochi being perceives another inochi being. This means that the perceiver and the perceived are equal in existence from the viewpoint of inochi. Therefore, in the perception model of inochi the cognition must be attained by some kind of combination of two inochi beings, the perceiver and the perceived.

The particle and stream model of inochi thus would be implemental in the construction of another model of perception. Let us once again consider the case of the flower. I am an inochi being in the form of a particle, and the flower takes the form of another. When two particles face each other, a stream forms a bridge between them, and the two particles are combined by a flowing stream penetrating them both. When two particles of inochi touch each other in the form of a stream, I call this the ‘touch model of perception’ (62). Toriyama used the word ‘touch’ in the title of her book Touching Inochi (1985) to indicate that inochi is not an object which can be looked at, but should be touched and felt. However, here it should be noted that in our model particles do not touch each other directly, but that they touch each other in the form of streams passing between them. Hopefully, in the future, this model will constitute a theory of cognition: one that confronts the philosophy and psychology of cognition which has thus far proved insufficiently comprehensive (63,64).

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

What is life as a particle and stream?

Inochi (life) as a particle and stream maintains a close relationship with inochi as the energy of breath, which we examined in the section on linguistic meanings. "On the one hand, breath makes an individual creature alive inside its body, but on the other hand, breath flows out of an individual and then slips into another individual’s body." The former stands for inochi as a particle, and the latter stands for inochi as a stream. The moving energy of breath changes into inochi as a stream, and the settling energy of breath changes into inochi as a particle (60, 61). When settling, inochi becomes a subject and acquires irreplaceability. When moving, inochi becomes the hidden environment and acquires interrelatedness. On accepting the above proposition, research into the subject-environment relationship from the viewpoint of inochi will be made possible. It will not doubt have a great influence on environmental ethics and the philosophy of science.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Two aspects of life, individuality and sphere

This analysis suggests that inochi (life) is structured in the universe through ‘individuality’ and ‘sphere’. The axes of individuality and sphere are independent, not reducible to each other. In stressing the characteristic of individuality, we are led to an atomistic or an individualistic approach to inochi. When we stress the characteristic of sphere, on the other hand, we are led to a holistic approach to inochi. The same is true in environmental ethics. When we stress the importance of the individuality of creatures, including humans, we are faced with so-called anthropocentric environmental ethics. (55) When we stress the importance of the sphere of ecological communities and ecosystems, we are led to so-called biocentric environmental ethics (56). I have previously insisted that we should stress both these sides of inochi, individuality and sphere, equally; and that it is necessary to solve the conflict between these two principles (57). The elucidation of conflict and harmony between individuality and sphere in the context of inochi, however, will have to be left to future discussions.

Rather, I would like here to interpret individuality and sphere in a visual or sensory way. One image of individuality is that of a particle which has a clear boundary. Recall the respondent who pictured inochi as a red ball just hovering in white space. This is an image of a particle which stands for a static subject that is destined to die (58). On the other hand, there was also an image of a stream flowing from [108/109] one inochi being to another. The web of inochi constitutes a dynamic and complicated stream, a stream which does not stop moving. It flows forever, slowly or rapidly, penetrating inochi beings, spreading over the universe (59).

Hence, in this interpretation, inochi is a particle at one time, a flowing stream at another. But inochi in the form of a particle and inochi in the form of a stream are the same thing, not different objects. A flowing stream becomes a particle. A flowing stream penetrates particles. A particle draws in and sends out streams incessantly. A particle changes into a stream. These are four types of relations that can be found in this inochi world in the particle-stream context. Figure 7, which we examined above, is a good example of visual images of inochi realized in the forms of particles and streams.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Life spreads infinitely throughout the universe

Almost all things in the universe can be seen as growing, aging, dying, irreplaceable, and interrelated in a certain sense. If a person regards everything in the universe [107/108] as being irreplaceable and interrelated, then he/she regards everything in the universe (and the universe itself) as an inochi (life) being. It should also be noted that something can be irreplaceable from one angle and replaceable from another angle. For example, a pig in a farm is irreplaceable as an individual inochi being, but replaceable as food for today’s lunch.

In the rest of this section I would like to suggest other possibilities of interpreting metaphysically the second requirement of the concept of inochi. To regard something as irreplaceable means to grasp it as an individual thing. We can grasp an individual thing by separating it from its various relationships with the environment, and by fixing the subject with a modifier ‘this’ or ‘that’. For example, we used the words ‘this flower’ when referring to the individual inochi being of a particular flower. Using these words we distinguish it from its environment and other flowers. In this way we can clarify the individuality of things, and thus, the subject of dying. I call this feature of inochi ‘individuality’.

On the other hand, to regard something as interrelated means to grasp it as a web or network which spreads infinitely throughout the universe. Each individual inochi being melts into the web, becoming nothing but a tentative knot in this complicated network. I call this feature of inochi ‘sphere’. Sphere has no boundaries because the network of inochi spreads infinitely throughout the universe.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

What is metaphysical interpretation of life?

Inochi (life) becomes irreplaceable when an inochi being is interrelated to others; that is to say, it is interwoven in the infinite networks of inochi in space and time, supporting and killing each other. Inochi becomes interrelated when an inochi being is irreplaceable; that is to say, it lives and dies its own life only once in the universe, not as parts which can be replaced with another being. In other words, the irreplaceability of inochi comes into existence because all inochi beings are interrelated in the universe. The interrelatedness of inochi comes into existence because each individual inochi being is irreplaceable. What these sentences suggest is that the two basic properties of inochi are metaphysically grounded in each other, and that there is no other factor upon which these properties are transcendentally grounded. Inochi is irreplaceable because it is interrelated. Inochi is interrelated because it is irreplaceable. This is a circular argument. However the ultimate metaphysical grounds of a conceptual framework should be either transcendent a priori or circulative. The metaphysical interpretation I select is the latter. I shall consider these propositions to be the metaphysical structure of inochi. The definition of this structure is as follows.

Inochi (life) is irreplaceable because it is interrelated. Inochi is interrelated because it is irreplaceable.

I hope that this proposed structure will become a source for a way of thinking which lets a dying person, who does not have any particular religion, die peacefully. However, this will be a future challenge in the study of life (54).

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

To live and die once in the universe

Take another case, that of a terminally ill patient in a hospital. He is conscious but his days are short. His inochi is irreplaceable because he has lived a life full of ups and downs, is dying here at the hospital alone, and after his death he will never live again the same life in this world. He is sometimes seized with a strong fear of death, and attempts to give some meaning to his whole life in order to reconcile himself to it. His inochi is interrelated in that he remains alive with the help of medical equipment and the medical staff, and in the sense that his spirit is healed by the smile of a nurse, or that his condition makes his family happy or sad. He will die an irreplaceable and interrelated death.

To live and die is to lead one’s own life only once in space and time. To live and die is to lead one’s own life in the midst of infinite networks of inochi in the universe.

Here arise the following metaphysical questions. What is it that makes inochi irreplaceable? What is it that makes inochi interrelated?

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Irreplaceability and interrelatedness

All inochi beings are on the one hand irreplaceable, and on the other hand interrelated. Expressions such as ‘the period between birth and death’ and ‘the most essential part of an object’ are corollaries of, or ideas related to, ‘irreplaceability’. Expressions such as ’mysterious power or energy’ and ‘eternal life’ are corollaries of, or ideas related to, ‘interrelatedness’. Also recall the properties of inochi found in the books issued by the Ministry of Education. They expressly state the ‘irreplaceability’ of inochi. The properties of ‘beyond the power of humans’ and ‘personality’ are also directly related to this idea, and ‘living together in mutual support expresses interrelatedness (53).

To regard an inochi being from the viewpoints of irreplaceability and interrelatedness is to consider it always against the background of the universe. This leads us to a metaphysical or religious view of inochi, because it makes us realize the position inochi possesses in the universe.

The inochi of the flower is irreplaceable in that it lives and dies only once in this universe. Its inochi is interrelated in that it cannot exist without its ancestors, and it cannot live without an environment full of water, air, light, and other inochi beings such as microbes; and in that even after its death its inochi allows other inochi beings, [106/107] such as animals or microbes, to live. A flower appears and disappears only at a particular place in the universe. And it can only exist by being interwoven in the infinite web of inochi that spreads throughout the universe.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Philosophy of finiteness and infiniteness

In this section I interpret the dialectic of finiteness and infiniteness of the concept of inochi metaphysically, and elucidate its inner structure.

Inochi must possess the characteristics of both finiteness and infiniteness. This seems to suggest that A is B and not B. Hence the necessity of making clear the logical relationship between ‘finiteness’ and ‘infiniteness’ in relation to the concept of inochi. [105/106]

Let us take the example of a flower. There is a flower before me. The word ‘a flower’ suggests that I should understand it as an individual inochi being. This flower will shrivel and die someday. When it dies, nothing else will be able to die for it. The flower must die its own death, only once, and never live again the same existence in this world. This means that the whole life and death of this flower is irreplaceable. This suggests further that every moment of its life is irreplaceable because no other flower will be able to live again the same course of life as this flower. Inevitable death makes every moment of life irreplaceable for an inochi being. Therefore, irreplaceability, derived from the finiteness of time and space, must be considered to be one of the most basic features of inochi. This was, in fact, supported by many of the questionnaire responses and found often in the publications.

Now let us regard this flower from another angle. This flower is living now because a part of its life was passed down from its ancestors in the form of a seed. Without its ancestors and their seeds, this flower would not exist at all. This flower will also distribute its own seeds before dying, and some of them will grow to be flowers somewhere on this earth. Even if it doesn’t distribute seeds, the influences of its photosynthesis and metabolic functions will have irreversible effects on the environment, and these effects will cause other small effects in succession, forever, throughout the universe. Moreover, in order to live, this flower has to exchange air, minerals, and other chemical matters with the environment and other creatures. Without the web of inochi beings surrounding it this flower cannot live. We consider interrelatedness of this kind, derived from the infiniteness of time and space, to be another most basic feature of inochi.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Born, grow, give birth, age, and die

Hence, we can propose the two requirements for the concept of inochi as follows.

(1) Inochi must be a phase in which things are born, grow, give birth, age, and die.
(2) Inochi must possess the characteristics of both finiteness and infiniteness.

All things in the universe which satisfy both these requirements should then be identified as inochi beings. This formula can thus be understood as a proposed definition of inochi. However, it should be noted that this concept or definition of inochi does not cover all usages of the word ‘inochi’ to be found in the questionnaire responses and publications. It is impossible to discover a simple set of formulae which covers all usages of inochi. Rather I suggest that this proposed definition be regarded as a basic guideline for the use of the term in research and discussions on the topic (52). Since this definition is open to free criticism, it may be altered in the future.

We should keep in mind that this formula, determined by the above requirements, stands for only the necessary conditions of the concept of inochi. Hence I will now turn to the topic of the essence of the concept of inochi.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Succession of life spreads over the whole universe

On the other hand, inochi is also infinite. First, it is infinite in time. In the responses and publications it is evident that inochi is seen as being handed down from one generation to another, with the succession of inochi going on forever. This succession consists of physical inheritance, the succession of power and energy, spiritual influence, a way of life, reminders, culture, and so on. Inochi is infinite in space too. A web of inochi spreads to include all individual inochi beings in the form of food [104/105] chains and exchanges of chemical substances. The extension of this web can be considered to spread over the whole universe.

For something to be recognized as inochi, it should have both these characteristics at once. Recall the assertion of the qi-gong group, that "all inochis are connected and formed into one while each individual inochi is voluntary and independent", and the words of one of the respondents: "Inochi is, on the one hand, each individual being, unique and irreplaceable. On the other hand, however, it is one large inochi of the whole human race". These sentences clearly illustrate the second requirement for the concept of inochi, the dialectic of finiteness and infiniteness.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

We must die sooner or later

The second requirement is that inochi must possess the characteristics of both finiteness and infiniteness. Finiteness means the discontinuity and limitation of the individual inochi being. Infiniteness means the succession of and inter-relationships between the many networks of inochi beings. Throughout the responses to the questionnaires and the publications cited, the co-existence of these two characteristics is repeatedly emphasized.

Let us consider the finiteness of inochi first. Inochi is finite in time in that all inochi beings must die sooner or later. In the linguistic examination of inochi, we came acrosss one connotation of the state of being alive, during the period between birth and death. This was reinforced by many responses which stated the same. Inochi is finite in space as well. In this sense, a rabbit’s inochi is not the same as mine or yours. You may die while I still live. Our inochis are divided in space, and in this regard we are alone (51).

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

What is "life," what is the definition of life?

Let us turn to some philosophical examinations. Two requirements must be fulfilled for something to be called inochi (life). First, inochi must be a ‘phase’, not an object nor an entity. Inochi is not an object such as a book, a flower, or a rabbit, but a phase which a flower and a rabbit enjoy. In the responses to my questionnaire, most respondents use the word ‘inochi being’, rather than ‘inochi’, when they explicitly indicate an object that has inochi. This suggests that inochi is considered to be a kind of phase or aspect which inochi beings must possess. Then, we have to go on to ask, in turn, what are ‘inochi beings’?

‘Inochi being’ is a concept which includes humans and other creatures as its core, and also includes the sea, air, the ecosystem, the earth and the universe at its fringe. What features stand out prominently when we put humans and other creatures at the core, and others at the fringe? The most moderate answer would be: a phase in which they are born, grow, give birth, age, and die. Of course, even the earth and stars are born, age, and die, but we can grasp this phase more vividly in humans and other creatures than we can in the stars. Hence, the first requirement is: inochi must be a phase in which things are born, grow, give birth, age, and die. Inochi beings are those [103/104] things in the universe that are viewed in this phase (49). For example, if we regard a rabbit jumping in front of us as an animal in a growing stage, we have grasped it as an inochi being. Similarly, if we regard a star as a being which was born a long time ago, grows, gives birth to planets, ages to become a neutron star, and dies, we have grasped it as an inochi being. If you believe that all creatures were born through intercourse between the North Pole liquid and the South Pole liquid of the earth, as Fourier did (50), then you regard the earth as an inochi being.

This means that an inochi being is not necessarily equal to a creature as perceived by most people. A creature can be a non-inochi being when we do not regard it as being part of this phase. For example, even a living rabbit can be a non-inochi being to a biochemist in a laboratory, who regards it only as an aggregate of biochemical substances. We should pay attention to the phrase ‘to a biochemist’, because the concept of ‘inochi being’ is an observer-relative concept. A thing becomes an inochi being for the observer only if it is viewed within the phase of inochi. Hence, a thing can be an inochi being for one person, but not for another. If inochi being is an observer-relative concept, the extent of inochi beings cannot be defined objectively and unanimously, independently of the observer. Therefore we have the case where some think of all living things as inochi beings, while others restrict the extent to humans. Both are correct. No contradiction exists in this usage.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Life is irreplaceable, important and beyond our power

We have discovered various concepts of inochi in contemporary Japan, some of which contradict each other. I think it impossible and dangerous to attempt to summarize this vast set of images and classify them in patterns at this stage, because it may lead us to discard a number of subtle features which may also prove valuable.

Instead, I present in this section some philosophical interpretations of the concept of inochi. These interpretations are based on the conceptual understanding I have acquired through my research on the images of inochi.

However, it may be helpful here to briefly summarize some of the main characteristics noted so far. First, there are many people who think that inochi equally given to humans, animals, plants —to all creatures— and that inochi beings live by both supporting and killing each other. Inochi is energy which keeps creatures alive, and at the same time it means the state of being alive itself. Images of inochi have close relationships to birth, growth, aging, and death. One’s inochi is irreplaceable, important, and beyond our power. It is finite, but at the same time it is connected to others in space and time forever.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

These are the fundamental illnesses of our society

In this case, the detrimental facts are as follows: (1) We usually waste the inochi of animals, fish, and vegetables, and the functioning of our highly industrialized society depends on these wastes of inochi and energy. We treasure our own inochi and take care of that of our community, but we don’t care basically about human inochi in other nations. It is obvious that few people in the advanced nations care about human inochi in the so-called Third World. (2) Our modern civilization has dominated nature and destroyed innumerable inochis, instead of supporting them. We have been using a great deal of fossil energy for our own sake and live an affluent life without regard for future generations. In Japan, we have shut away senile aged people and handicapped people into shisetsu (nursing homes). (3) In Japan, many workers are forced to work with all their power, only to die of hard work. Large numbers of teenagers study so hard night and day to pass entrance examinations that they can only hope for a few hours of good sleep. On the other hand, college students sleep in class, spend money extravagantly and go out seven days a week, not devoting themselves to anything in particular.

These are the facts that the moral paradigm of our society would want to conceal behind a curtain of poetic inochi discourses, in case it fails to put them right. Surely these three inochi norms are worthy, almost sacred, norms which warn today’s society of its wrongful and destructive ways. However, preaching and teaching those norms no longer influences society, because the inclinations of modern civilization described above have become rooted too deeply to be changed by sermons. It is we who have created modern civilization and today’s North-South problems. Under the level of morality there lies a bottomless collective unconscious which has created the good and evil of modern civilization. Our investigation must penetrate this level.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

These are the fundamental illnesses of our society

In this case, the detrimental facts are as follows: (1) We usually waste the inochi of animals, fish, and vegetables, and the functioning of our highly industrialized society depends on these wastes of inochi and energy. We treasure our own inochi and take care of that of our community, but we don’t care basically about human inochi in other nations. It is obvious that few people in the advanced nations care about human inochi in the so-called Third World. (2) Our modern civilization has dominated nature and destroyed innumerable inochis, instead of supporting them. We have been using a great deal of fossil energy for our own sake and live an affluent life without regard for future generations. In Japan, we have shut away senile aged people and handicapped people into shisetsu (nursing homes). (3) In Japan, many workers are forced to work with all their power, only to die of hard work. Large numbers of teenagers study so hard night and day to pass entrance examinations that they can only hope for a few hours of good sleep. On the other hand, college students sleep in class, spend money extravagantly and go out seven days a week, not devoting themselves to anything in particular.

These are the facts that the moral paradigm of our society would want to conceal behind a curtain of poetic inochi discourses, in case it fails to put them right. Surely these three inochi norms are worthy, almost sacred, norms which warn today’s society of its wrongful and destructive ways. However, preaching and teaching those norms no longer influences society, because the inclinations of modern civilization described above have become rooted too deeply to be changed by sermons. It is we who have created modern civilization and today’s North-South problems. Under the level of morality there lies a bottomless collective unconscious which has created the good and evil of modern civilization. Our investigation must penetrate this level.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

What are moral rules functioning in Japan?

These three norms accurately represent the moral aspect of the inochi paradigm. Most Japanese have experienced being repeatedly taught these norms by their parents and school teachers when they were young, and consequently these three norms still provoke strong moral standards in today’s society. These norms are so strong that few people deny them officially, and those who deny them are considered by society to be either egoists or nihilists, and are subsequently scorned.

I believe these three norms constitute the basis of the moral paradigm on inochi in contemporary Japan, and it forms the ‘ground of certainty’(48) of Japanese culture. We researchers must question the ‘ground of certainty’ itself at least once by examining accepted but unquestioned sets of moral rules that are functioning in a society. For where a paradigm works it can effectively suppress facts which would be detrimental to the paradigm itself.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

What is respect for life?

There are three norms of inochi.

The first norm is to treasure inochi (43). We should treasure all inochi on the earth as well as our own inochi because each of them is irreplaceable and valuable. Our attitude of treasuring inochi will then change into a spirit of respect for inochi, and in the end will lead us toward reverence for the great existence that supports inochi and nature. This norm is similar to references such as ‘respect for life’ or ‘dignity of life’ we encounter in materials on bioethics.

The second norm is to support each other (44). As inochi beings, we should support and help each other in the community and in the ecosystem because we can live only in the midst of the web of all living things. The authors of the two school texts say that one’s inochi not only belongs to him/herself but also belongs to the family and society, and therefore that it is important to live for others (45). They also insist that we should recognize the significance of living together with animals and plants in the wilderness.

The third norm is to do the utmost in one’s power (46). Our inochi is finite. Inochi beings must die sooner or later, and hence we should do our best at every moment of our life. The following sentences show a sophisticated example of this norm. [101/102]

As a cicada lives its short life and gives birth to a new inochi with all its power, so should I live with all my power in order to hand over my inochi to the next generation. I think of treasuring my irreplaceable inochi. I think of living, always concentrating on this moment in time. Then will I be able to be content with my inochi, and hand it over to the next inochi. I want to live at this moment with all my power, and give my inochi radiant light (47).

The assertion here is that we should concentrate on this moment and do the utmost in our power in order to participate in the continuity of inochi. In these sentences we find a logical tension between the continuity of inochi on a large scale and a bright inochi condensed into this moment in time (see also Kakehashi (1989) and Yamamoto (1988)).

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Concepts of "living together" in mutual support

Living together in mutual support constitutes the fourth property. Inochi beings cannot live without the mutual support networks of inochi which spread all over the earth. These networks mean, on the one hand, synchronic mutual support such as human relationships in the family and food chains in the ecosystem. On the other hand, they mean diachronic mutual support found in the passing of generations from parents to their children. From a synchronic point of view, the concepts of ‘living together’ and ‘symbiosis’ are stressed. From a diachronic point of view, the concepts of ‘succession’ and ‘taking over’ of inochi are stressed.

The fifth property is personality. Every inochi being has its own personality because there is no creature with completely the same figure and appearance as another. Therefore, the writers conclude, every inochi is irreplaceable.

The sixth property is warmth and breath. The authors of these texts insist that the Japanese have a strong sympathy for warm breathing beings, and refer to the relationship of the concept of breath to the ancient meaning of inochi.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Why sex education was omitted

Before examining these texts in detail, we should pay attention to the following points that appear in these texts. First, in a sense, these books succeeded in producing an excellent summary of today’s inochi discourses; at the same time, however, some subjects and discourses are intentionally omitted for the purpose of strongly supervising the students (kanri kyoiku). For example, we cannot find any inochi discourses concerning sex education, environmental pollution from factories, and the safety of nuclear power plants. I suppose the last two subjcets were omitted because of the government policy to push forward with industrialization and nuclear power generation, but why sex education was omitted is a mystery. Okuchi (1984) and Toriyama (1985) deal with sex education as one of the most important subjects related to inochi. The Ministry of Education’s textbooks seem to completely ignore this important topic and should be openly criticized for this omission.

Second, these books have been widely used since 1988 in almost all Japanese primary schools and junior high schools. This means that the replies to our questionnaires from primary and junior high school students may have been deeply influenced by these books. In fact, there are a number of replies that mimic expressions that are to be found in these books. It is difficult to clarify the relation of cause and effect between them, but, nevertheless, we must necessarily take this point into account.

These books do discuss inochi, but unfortunately not in a well ordered manner. Hence, I have put in order and classified these discussions into two major categories: (a) properties of inochi, and (b) norms of inochi.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Guidebooks for studying life and death

Let us turn to the books and articles which deal with inochi as their main subject. There are a great many such books written in Japanese. The authors include teachers, physicians, priests, novelists, nonfiction writers, journalists, and housewives. For example, Okuchi (1982), Okuchi (1984), Toriyama (1985), Morisaki (1989), Kansha (1987), Kakehashi (1989), Yamamoto (1988), Mizukami (1988), Ueda (1989), and Nakamura (1987) have all published excellent inochi books. All these are well worth [99/100] examining. However, I shall leave such an examination for another time. Instead, I shall examine here the most noteworthy inochi books I have yet encountered: the Ministry of Education’s Guidelines for Developiing a Spirit of Respect for Inochi: for Primary School Students (1988) and Guidelines for Dveloping a Spirit of Respect for Inochi: for Junior High School Students (1988).

These are guidebooks for school teachers in moral education classes, written by school teachers, professors, and officials of the Ministry of Education. These are excellent inochi publications in that the authors have prepared well studied discourses on inochi, and have made such discussions simple and practical enough for children to understand.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

All living things are our friends

The following is part of a written opinion (1989) by a Buddhist monk, Wasei Futamata, for a trial concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant in Ishikawa Prefecture.

The Jodo-shinshu sect of Buddhism preaches living and walking with all inochis. The words "all inochi" mean not only humans’ inochis, but also all the inochis living on this earth. And they also mean not only the present inochis, but also those of the future, in thirty, fifty, a hundred, and a thousand years. These inochis are our friends whom we have met, are meeting, and are sure to meet in the future, at the bottom of the identical inochi. We love and treasure our own inochi before anything else. Therefore we must love and treasure all the inochis, and must live, praying to be able to walk together.

These sentences show a clear logic for the need to love inochi. Inochi spreads from humans to all creatures, from the past to the future, and all these inochis are our friends. Hence, just as we love our own inochi, we must love all the inochis.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

What is human attitude toward nature

To begin with, let us examine some leaflets from citizens'4 movements. First, there is a typical understanding of inochi in the leaflet entitled "A view of qi, No. 2" (1990), issued by a qi-gong (41) group, the Green and Healing Circle. In this leaflet, the anonymous secretariat write as follows:

We have realized that all inochis are connected and formed into one while each individual inochi is voluntary and independent; that all inochis are equal in value; that every inochi exists in its adequate position giving life to every other; that the human attitude toward nature is the same as the human attitude toward humans themselves; and that our inochis get sick and die when greenery gets sick and dies.

Here we see expressed the dialectic of the independence and connectedness of inochi, the dynamics of giving life to each other, the inner relationships between our attitude toward nature and ourselves, and the relationship between inochi and greenery. The sentences in the leaflet provide simple and clear ideas concerning these subjects which tend to be very popular in inochi publications.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

Education, sex, religion and ecology

In libraries, bookstores, newspapers, and magazines, we can easily find a number of books and articles which deal with inochi and/or matters concerning inochi. I have called these ‘inochi publications’. They include books or articles concerning, for example, death, euthanasia, abortion, handicapped people, education, sex, religion, ecology, the global environmental crisis, and the anti-nuclear power movement. They also include pamphlets and word-processor leaflets handed out at meetings. It must be stressed that much literature, and many poms, songs, and advertisements are also to be counted as inochi publications.

I have classified these publications into two categories: primary inochi publications and secondary inochi publications. The former are publications which contain the word inochi as a key concept in the title, the table of contents or the text. The latter are publications that deal with subjects and events which could be described by using the word inochi as a key word, but actually use another word for it. In this section we examine some of the primary inochi publications, and leave the secondary materials to future investigations.

>> To read more please visit:

The Concept of Inochi, Part 2
(1991)
(You can read the entire text)

How to protect the value of human embryo

My personal view is that a stronger argument is needed for protecting the value of the human embryo, including a cloned human embryo, especially in Japan where the “language of religion” has little clout in the discussion. Instead of religious language, we need “philosophical language” to affirm the value of a human embryo or “the sprout of human life.”

What is it we wish to protect when we use the word “the sprout of human life”? The answer would be “a vigorous energy to develop and transform itself” that we once were, that we came from, and that we still have at the basis of our existence. This is what we have to protect, even if its destruction would be beneficial to the progress of medicine. Why then should we protect it? The answer would be that its destruction means the destruction of something very important which we actually “share” at the basis of our lives; hence, its destruction might lead to the destruction of ourselves. The ultimate danger of research on human embryo is that in the long run it might erode something very important inside us in the name of social welfare and the progress of medicine. We need “philosophical language” to explain the core meaning of the words “something very important” in a way that can be easily understood by the general public. In this sense, we need a new “philosophy of life,” or “life studies,”(15) which will give us the wisdom to protect “something very important” from our own selfish desire to live a long and healthy life.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Why religion remains silent

It is striking that we encounter no important comments or opinions on this topic in the religious sector. In its Interim Report, the Commission reported that they could find no important opinions in Japanese Buddhism, Shinto, or Japanese Christianity. My own impression is similar. To my knowledge, they have published no reports on human cloning or other related topics. I can offer no explanation for their silence on human cloning research.

Interestingly, both supporters and opponents use the words “human rights” and “human dignity.” They do not debate these concepts because they accept their importance. Instead, the debate is between the “language of utilitarianism” and the “language of scepticism.” And the “language of religion” remains silent. Even disabled people seem to be torn between support and opposition. We should be aware of the fact that many Japanese disabled people have been critical of the “progress” of [14/15] medical technology and of “eugenic ideas” (see my paper “Disability Movement and Inner Eugenic Thought.” (14)) At the same time, however, there are disabled people’s groups that look forward to the development of new technology (e.g., Japan Spinal Cord Foundation). This is the rough sketch of the Japanese discourse on research on human cloning.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Skepticism on the progress of science

Now let us turn our attention to “language” or “discourse.” People who wish to maintain the ban on therapeutic human cloning are journalists, feminists, and researchers critical of the “progress” of scientific technology. Their “language” is based on the “language of scepticism”: scepticism about the propaganda that the progress of science and medicine brings us “health and happiness.” They do not believe this kind of optimism. And they try to keep away from “religion” as much as possible, because in Japan “religious language” has not worked as an instrument of criticism. But precisely because of this, their arguments have not been as persuasive as they had anticipated.

By contrast, the “language of utilitarianism” used by the advocates of advanced medicine seems very powerful. Supporters of regenerative medicine emphasise the benefit of research to the general public, particularly patients with intractable diseases. Not only researchers but also patients themselves talk about their expectations from medical progress. Their language is simple, direct, and forceful. We see an echo of this utilitarianism in the Commission’s Interim Report.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Shizuka Shirakawa and Masao Maruyama

It is also interesting that the locus of human dignity is expressed as “sprout,” because this word means the bud of a “plant,” not an animal. However, Shizuka Shirakawa, a prominent linguist, insists that the Chinese character meaning “sprout” contains that of “fang”, and this means the sprout of a plant has a wild, animal-like energy (12). I presume that the [13/14] energy in the sprout of human life is probably something that is shared by plants, animals and humans. Hence, many Japanese feel that it should be respected as much as possible. This concept is reminiscent of Masao Maruyama’s well-known words, “tsugi tsugi ni nariyuku ikihohi” (flowing energy that transforms and develops itself one after another) to be found in the ancient layer of Japanese consciousness of history (13). Maruyama came upon this concept in Kojiki. In this sense, ancient Japanese writings and contemporary bioethics literature might share similar ideas on life and death.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Beginning of human life, and cloning

One of the most interesting terms in the Japanese discussion on human cloning is “the sprout of human life” which appears in the Japanese law and many other materials. Not only people who object to human cloning, but also many of those who seek to promote research on human cloning admit that a human embryo is the sprout of human life and, hence, it should be highly respected.

The government translated the term as “the beginning of human life,” but this translation loses an important nuance. When they hear the words “the sprout of human life”, many Japanese feel some kind of vigorous energy moving inside the embryo. It might be biological energy, or it might be spiritual. This energy does not mean the mere “future possibility” of becoming a person. It is something that actually exists inside the embryo.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Human cloning should not be completely prohibited

On December 26, 2003, the Commission published Fundamental Principles on the Handling of Human Embryos, an Interim Report. This report concluded that the production and use of cloned human embryos should not be completely prohibited, but the Commission members failed to reach consensus about whether a moratorium should be placed on research until further scientific knowledge is acquired. For more information about the Interim Report, see the chapter Cloning in Japan by Robert Horres, Hans Dieter Ölschleger, and Christian Steineck in this book. [*Important note: On Jun 23, 2004, the Commision decided to approve the production of cloned human embryos, however, at the same time, a moratorium was placed until sufficient conditions, such as the safety control of the embryos and the protection of female egg donors, are fulfilled. -- Added on April, 2006]

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Susumu Shimazono's view on human cloning

In 2001, the Council for Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Office, was established in the government, and the Expert Research Commission on Bioethics was established in the Council. Its mission was to comprehensively discuss the ethical issues concerning human cloning, ES cells, and other reproductive technologies. In November 2003, a member of the Commission, Susumu Shimazono, professor of religious studies at the University of Tokyo, published a paper in a popular magazine in which he severely criticised the discussion in the Commission (10).

Shimazono first pointed out that “A Draft for Fundamental Thoughts on the Handling of Human Embryos (11) , circulated in the Commission on August 23, 2003, sought to compare two values, namely, “the value of a human embryo on which human dignity is reflected” and “the value created by scientific technology.” Two proposals, for and against promotion, were formulated in the draft. In the case of both ES cells and therapeutic human cloning, the proposal says that the value created by scientific technology clearly surpasses that of a human embryo.

Shimazono insisted that the Commission had never discussed whether or not research on a human embryo and ES cells violates “human [12/13] dignity”, and it had never discussed what “the sprout of human life” is and how it is different from “human life.” He argued that the artificial creation of an “animal-human chimeric embryo” might violate “human dignity,” but they had never discussed the ethical aspect of this handling. The draft uses the words “the sprout of human life” and “human dignity” many times, but the Commission had never considered the ethical and philosophical meaning of these terms in any depth. He laments the fact that the country, which seriously discussed the issue of brain death and organ transplantation, has not discussed this topic earnestly. He suspects that the consideration of economic aspects might have influenced the discussion in the Commission.


>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Eugenics and therapeutic human cloning

Junji Kayukawa pointed out in his book that there are at least three fundamental ethical problems surrounding research on “therapeutic human cloning.”(9) The first of these is that it may support, or sometimes promote, “eugenic ideas” that we all harbour deep down. By this, Kayukawa means our inclination to think that some people (e.g., healthy, talented, smart. etc.) are superior or preferable to others (e.g., disabled, mediocre, rude, etc.). He quoted the words of an American couple who wanted to have a cloned baby. In an interview, the wife said she did not wish to adopt a child whose parent might be a killer, and that her own parents had a strong gene, but if her baby was to be born disabled, she would abort it. Kayukawa detects “eugenic ideas” in her words. He also detects them in the opinion that human cloning should not be allowed because a cloned baby is going to have a severe “disability.” Kayukawa’s conclusion is that “eugenic ideas” shape our attitudes toward human cloning, or even therapeutic human cloning, and hence, these techniques are problematic in terms of ethics. [11/12]

The second problem is that there has not been enough discussion about how we obtain human eggs for therapeutic human cloning. The extraction of eggs puts extreme physical and psychological pressure on the female donor. And while therapeutic human cloning imposes a severe burden on females, the leaders in regenerative medicine appear to be unaware of this kind of gender imbalance. For example, a research questionnaire by a self-help group for infertile women shows that fertility drugs produce various side-effects in more than half of the drug users. In this sense, therapeutic human cloning is considered to be a heavily gender-biased medicine. As Kayukawa and Ogoshi pointed out, this has not been sufficiently discussed.

The third problem is that research on therapeutic human cloning (and research on human embryos in general) is inevitably going to regard a woman’s body as a mere “resource” to be exploited for scientific technology, and a woman’s body is going to be treated as “material” to produce a profit, even if money is paid to her as donor. Kayukawa presents two different opinions: one is from a researcher who said “an ES cell is a mere cell,” and the other is from an infertile woman who said “if we donate our surplus eggs for research, our eggs will become a mere ‘instrument’ for people.” Kayukawa urges us to discuss the gap between these two opinions, or in other words, the gap between these two worldviews concerning human life.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Feminist view on human cloning

Kumiko Ogoshi, research associate at NaraMedicalUniversity, calls the current law “Human Cloning Techniques Promotion Law” because it will result in encouraging research on therapeutic human cloning and ES cells, which may violate “human dignity” and “human rights.” (7) She thinks that the most problematic point in this law is that it was established without sufficient discussion about the value of human life, and without hearing the voices of women, disabled people, and the general public. She laments that if the government had heard their voices, such an “inhumane” law would never have passed the Diet. The government, she stresses, should have discussed the problems arising from research on human female eggs, especially the problem of extracting eggs from a female body. She also says that the two-layered system consisting of the law and the guidelines was a “shrewd” way of regulating, because the government can mitigate the ban whenever it wishes, without revising the law itself (8).

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Regenerative medicine as a big project

Junji Kayukawa, a journalist specialising in human reproductive technology, urges us to pay attention to the fact that “regenerative medicine” was included as one of the major topics of the Japanese government’s “Millennium Project,” announced in 1999, together with other advanced technologies in the field of information science, medicine, and environmental science. This Millennium Project was launched to facilitate technological innovation for a new industry, and the government spent 250 billion yen on research in these technologies in the fiscal year 2000 (5). This implies that research on regenerative medicine is strongly supported by the Japanese government, medical researchers, and the industry sector (San, Kan, Gaku, in Japanese).

The first meeting of the Japanese Society for Regenerative Medicine was held in 2002. The news media reported that members of the [10/11] Society objected strongly to the ban on “therapeutic human cloning” (6). In the second meeting held in 2003, Makoto Oohama, chairperson of the board of directors, Japan Spinal Cord Foundation, stressed that research on therapeutic human cloning should be allowed because it may lead to the regeneration of an injured spinal cord.

On the other hand, journalists and researchers who are sceptical about therapeutic human cloning and human ES cell research have published papers and books criticising the argument that aimed to promote these technologies.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

What are the main reasons to prohibit cloning

The words “human dignity,” “means,” “intentional determination,” “preference of excellent characteristics” were used as reasons to prohibit the creation of a cloned individual. These ideas were reflected in the report of the Sub-committee on cloning.

More than 90% of the respondents were against the creation of a cloned individual, an attitude shared by the government. This is the main reason why a heated public debate on human cloning has not occurred up hitherto. Of course, there were a series of discussions in the Diet, but a compromise was soon reached between the government and the Democratic Party of Japan; the discussion has never grown into a public debate.

However, after the establishment of the law and the guidelines, the topic has been fiercely debated between scientists who wish to promote “regenerative medicine” and specialists who want to put the brakes on the rapid advance of scientific technology. The central point of the debate is whether to remove the ban on “therapeutic human cloning” to acquire ES cells from a human clone embryo.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Opinion survey on cloning

There was not much “public” discussion of human cloning after the establishment of the law. The public response was indifferent, reflecting general disinterest in the legal regulation of human cloning. People believed that the government would support their conviction that the creation of a cloned human individual should be prohibited.

The Prime Minister’s Office conducted an opinion survey on cloning in 1998, the year in which the Sub-committee on cloning was established within the Council for Science and Technology. Respondents were scholars, journalists, physicians, researchers and so on (N = 2,114). The result was considered to reflect the general Japanese attitude toward human cloning. 92.3% had an interest in cloning, and more than 93.5% thought that the creation of a cloned individual was questionable in terms of bioethics. The reasons were:

- Human cloning should not be allowed in terms of human dignity, because humans should be conceived by the involvement of both sexes. 67.7%

- The cloned individual will be regarded as a means for attaining a predefined goal, not as a free individual. 43.6% [9/10]

- It should not be allowed to intentionally determine the characteristics of a human being in advance. 29.8%

- The creation of an individual endowed with specific excellent characteristics might be preferred in the future society. 26.1%

- A cloned individual may be exposed to social discrimination. 14.9%

- It is not guaranteed that the cloned individual can grow up in safety. 10%

(* Emphases added by Morioka)

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

How to revise the guidelines

The most striking feature of the Japanese regulation is that it is governed by a two-layered system, consisting of the law and the guidelines. One of the implications is that the guidelines can be “swiftly” altered when the circumstances surrounding human cloning technologies greatly change. For example, if a company in a foreign country begins to make tremendous profits from data acquired from research using human somatic clone embryos in a laboratory, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology may revise the guidelines and lift the ban on research on human somatic clone embryos without a long drawn-out debate in the Diet. The extraction of ES cells from a human somatic clone embryo is currently prohibited, but if many countries begin to do research on therapeutic cloning of this kind, the Ministry may revise the guidelines “swiftly” and allow researchers to study ES cells acquired from a human somatic clone embryo. It is also possible for the Ministry to lift the ban on the transfer of a human-human chimeric embryo into a uterus, leading to the creation of a human individual made of two (or more than two) different human embryos.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Insert human ES cells into an animal embryo

The controversy over the legal regulation of human cloning was settled by the establishment of the law and the guidelines. However, the content of the regulation is very complicated and hard to understand, even for specialists. Below is a table showing the variation of regulations.

The only approved way of handling Specified Embryos is, at present, research on animal-human chimeric embryos, that is to say, research on an embryo produced by unification as a result of 1) inserting human somatic cells into an animal embryo, 2) inserting embryonic cells of a human fertilised embryo into an animal embryo, or 3) inserting embryonic cells of other Specified Embryos into an animal embryo. This means that the insertion of human ES cells into an animal embryo (in order to create transplantable organs) is considered to be approved in Japan. [8/9]

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Guidelines for handling embryos

After a series of debates in the Diet, the government’s bill was slightly revised and passed the Diet on November 30, 2000. The Democratic Party of Japan finally agreed to the government’s revised bill. The phrase “within five years” from Supplementary Provisions Article 2 was revised to “within three years,” and the new words “the sprout of human life” (hito no seimei no hōga), which the Democratic Party had stressed in their bill, were inserted.

Accordingly, the revised article was as follows:

Supplementary Provisions

Article2 (Study and Examination) The Government shall, within three years of enforcement of this Law, take necessary measures in accordance with the results of its study and examination of the provisions under this law, on the basis of the results of the study and examination by the Council for Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Office concerning the method of handling of a human fertilised embryo as the sprout of human life with consideration to the circumstances in which this Law is enforced or to any change of the situation surrounding the cloning techniques and other similar techniques.

(*The translation of the words “hito no seimei no hōga” by the government was “the beginning of a human life,” but I believe this translation loses subtle nuances that are present in the literal translation “the sprout of human life.” In the above translation I have used the latter.) [6/7]

Article 4 of this law stipulated that the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology shall prescribe guidelines in relation to the handling of Specified Embryos. In response to this article, the Ministry began to establish guidelines concerning specific embryos. After a heated debate in a committee, the Ministry announced The Guidelines for the Handling of a Specific Embryo (4) on December 5, 2001. Important parts of the guidelines are as follows.

The Guidelines for Handling of a Specific Embryo (December 5, 2001)

Article 1 Production of a Specified Embryo shall be allowed only when the following requirements are satisfied:

1) Scientific knowledge, which cannot be acquired from research with only animal embryos or other research without Specific Embryos, is acquired from production of such a Specified Embryo

2) omitted.

Article 2

1) Regardless of the provision in Article 1 above, only an animal-human chimeric embryo shall be allowed to be produced among nine categories of Specified Embryos, and the purpose of its production shall be limited to the research concerning production of human cell-derived organs translatable to a human being.

2) A Producer shall not use any human fertilised embryos or human unfertilised eggs in order to produce an animal-human chimeric embryo. [7/8]

Article 9

Specified Embryos, except for ones prescribed in Article 3 of ‘the Law Concerning Regulation Relating Human Cloning Techniques and Other Similar Techniques (Law No. 146, 2000)’ (hereinafter referred to as “the law”), shall not be transferred into the uterus of a human or animal for the present.

(*Translation by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)

List of Specified Embryos	Transfer prohibited by the law	Transfer prohibited by the guidelines	Research prohibited by the law	Research prohibited by the guidelines
Human somatic clone embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human-animal amphimictic embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human-animal chimeric embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human-animal hybrid embryo	prohibited			prohibited
Human split embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Human embryonic clone embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Human-human chimeric embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Animal-human hybrid embryo		prohibited		prohibited
Animal-human chimeric embryo		prohibited		approved

Table 1



>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Human dignity and human embryo

The bill presented by the Democratic Party of Japan, The Bill Concerning Regulation Relating to the Production and the Use of a Human Clone Embryo and other Embryos (3) , showed some important differences, especially in the following articles. Article 1-1 declares that the bill deals with the regulation of a “human embryo” and an “embryo that has [4/5] characteristics specific to humans.” This stipulation covers larger areas than the government’s bill, which only deals with Specified Embryos. Article 1-1 refers to “preservation of human dignity” and “safety for human life and body,” but does not mention “maintenance of social order.” Article 1-3, Article 2-1-1, Article 3-1, Article 7-1 are as follows.

Article 1-3 (Basic Ideas)

1) A human embryo is a “sprout of human life” (hito no seimei no hōga). No person shall produce or use it without permission.

2) When handling a human embryo, a person must handle it honestly and carefully so as not to violate human dignity.

3) The production and use of an embryo that has characteristics specific to humans must not lead to the production of an individual.

Article 2-1 (Prohibited Acts on a Human Embryo)

1) No person shall produce a human embryo outside a human uterus. However, the production for the purpose of assisted reproductive medicine or medical research on assisted reproductive medicine (hereinafter referred to as “research on assisted reproductive medicine”) can be an exception.

2),3),4),5) omitted.

Article 3-1 (Prohibited Acts on an Embryo that has Characteristics Specific to Humans)

1) No person shall transfer an embryo that has characteristics specific to humans into the uterus of a human or an animal.

2), 3) omitted.

(*Translation and Emphases by Morioka)

The Democratic Party’s bill had some important characteristics. First, it places “basic ideas” in Article 1, and in this provision it is stressed that a human embryo is a “sprout of human life.” The bill sought to put a special value on a human embryo, which was not found in the government’s bill. (The words “sprout of human life” first appeared in the report of the sub-committee on cloning in 1999, mentioned in section 2 of this [5/6] paper, and reappeared in the government report on human embryo research in March 2000.) Second, the bill prohibits the “production” of a human embryo except for the purpose of assisted reproductive medicine ormedical research on assisted reproductive medicine. This means that the production of a human clone embryo for assisted reproductive medicine can be allowed, but the production of cloned ES cells or cloned organs for transplantation is prohibited. Anyway, the basic idea was that a human embryo is a valuable and precious sprout of human life, hence it should be exploited as little as possible. Third, the bill prohibits the transfer of an embryo that has characteristics specific to humans into the uterus of a human or an animal. This means that the transfer of the animal embryo in which human genes or cells are inserted is prohibited and, consequently, that xenotransplantation without the rejection of an organ transplant becomes impossible.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Human cloning law

The government presented the bill The Law Concerning Regulation Relating to Human Cloning Techniques and Other Similar Techniques (2) to the Diet on April 4, 2000. It was discussed in the Commission for Science and Technology but failed to pass during that session. On November 7, 2000, two different bills were presented to the Diet, one by the government, which was similar to the first one, and the other by the Democratic Party of Japan, which was fundamentally different on some points. The most important parts of the government’s bill are presented below.

The Law Concerning Regulation Relating to Human Cloning Techniques and Other Similar Techniques (Original Version, November 7, 2000)

Article 1 (Purpose of the law) The cloning techniques and other similar techniques ….. could have a severe influence on preservation of human dignity, safety for human life and body, and maintenance of social order. Based upon these understandings, the purpose of this law is to prevent and restrain creation of a human clone individual and an amphimictic individual, and to regulate artificial creation of individuals similar to such individuals set forth herein, by means of prohibiting transfer of embryos produced by the cloning techniques or the Specific Fusion/Aggregation Techniques into a human or an animal uterus, by means of regulating production, assignment and import of such embryos, and by means of taking [3/4] other necessary measures to secure appropriate handling of such embryos.

Article 3 (Prohibited Acts) No person shall transfer a human somatic clone embryo, a human-animal amphimictic embryo, a human-animal hybrid embryo or a human-animal chimeric embryo into a uterus of a human or an animal.

Article 4.....the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology shall prescribe guidelines in relation to handling of Specified Embryos (*See Table 1 p.7).

Supplementary Provisions

Article 2 (Study and Examination) The Government shall, within five years of enforcement of this Law, take necessary measures in accordance with the results of its study and examination of the system of handling Specified Embryos with consideration to the circumstances in which this Law is enforced or to any change of the situation surrounding the cloning techniques and other similar techniques.
* (Translation by the government, except Supplementary Provisions Article 2. Emphases added by Morioka)

The main characteristic of this bill was that it prohibited only the “transfer” of four types of Specified Embryos, including a human somatic clone embryo, into the uterus of a human or an animal. The reason for this prohibition was that the transfer of these embryos leads to the production of an individual with the same genetic structure as another specific individual (in the case of a human somatic clone embryo) or an embryo belonging to a subspecies of humans (in the case of the other three embryos). The bill put the consideration of the “production” of these embryos into future guidelines. It is also worth noting that the bill imposed the penalty of “imprisonment” for violation.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Is human cloning safe?

With regard to the “safety problem,” the report concluded that present cloning techniques cannot guarantee the safe production of a human clone individual.

In the light of these problems, the report concluded that the production of a human clone individual must be legally prohibited. Concerning research on human somatic clone embryos, the report stated that this should be permissible within certain limitations if a justifiable ground is to be found, because it may bring great benefit to humans in the field of medicine. But at the same time, the report stressed that a human somatic clone embryo has significance as the “sprout of human life” (hito no seimei no hōga), like a human embryo, and should therefore be handled with the utmost care. [2/3]

Based on this report, the Bioethics Committee of the Council for Science and Technology announced that the production of a clone individual, together with chimeric/hybrid human individuals, must be legally penalised, and that research on human somatic clone embryos should be regulated in some way (December 21, 1999). This announcement signalised the government’s decision to legally regulate the production of a clone human individual and other chimeric/hybrid human individuals but not “therapeutic cloning” and other research. In other words, the government had abandoned the idea of establishing a comprehensive law dealing with assisted reproductive technology and research on human germline cells.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Cloning is the violation of human dignity

In 1998, a sub-committee on cloning was established within the Bioethics Committee. The sub-committee published its report Fundamental Thoughts on the Production of a Human Being by Cloning Technology (1) on November 17, 1999. This was the first report to deal with human cloning and its regulation.

The report highlighted two problems, namely, the “violation of human dignity” and the “safety problem.” With regard to the “violation of human dignity”, it makes two points: 1) Human cloning techniques may open the floodgates for the creation of people with a particular ability in order to attain a particular goal (“breeding of human beings”) and for regarding people as a means or a tool with which to attain a particular goal (“human beings as means or tools”). 2) While a cloned individual has a separate personhood from the donor of a somatic cell, he or she is constantly forced to be aware of his/her relationship to that donor. This is a violation of human rights, both for the cloned individual and for the donor. This problem, together with the “breeding of human beings” and “human beings as means or tools,” leads to a violation of respect for an individual’s free will and existence. It is totally against constitutional principles (“violation of respect for an individual”). 3) Human cloning is asexual reproduction. It deviates altogether from our basic understanding of human reproduction, and it is expected to cause confusion of the familial order, such as, e.g., the parent-child relationship.

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Is human cloning acceptable?

The birth of Dolly, the first mammal cloned from a somatic sell, attracted wide public attention in Japan, and the words “cloned human being” became a popular notion. However, the “public debate” on the ethics of human cloning was considerably less heated than that relating to brain death and organ transplantation. Scientists and commentators repeatedly stated that while the cloning of a sheep was acceptable, human cloning should be prohibited. A well-known female scientist said that she could not imagine a scientist who would try to clone a human being.

In 1998, the Council for Science and Technology established the Bioethics Committee and asked its members to examine the ethical and legal aspects of human cloning. The Committee concluded, in 1999, that human cloning should be prohibited, and, based on the report, the government presented a bill for the regulation of human cloning in 2000. After a debate in the Diet, the original bill was slightly modified and issued on December 6, 2000. [1/2]

In the following chapters, I take a closer look at this process and discuss some of the ethical problems that were debated. Also, I make a brief analysis of the concept “the sprout of human life.”

>> To read more please visit:

The Ethics of Human Cloning and the Sprout of Human Life (2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Diversity is important

The idea of life studies can be discovered in all periods or areas. What I am doing is to mould the idea to suit contemporary society. Unfortunately, “American” academic bioethics in the 1980s seemed to lack the insights of life studies; I had to find them in other traditions, that is, feminism and the disability movement in Japan in the early 1970s. But this does not mean that some traditions are superior to other traditions in terms of life studies. Each tradition contains a number of valuable lessons that we should learn with a humble attitude.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Project to connect thinking and living

Life studies include both thoughts and actions, thinking and living. As mentioned above, one of the ultimate goals of life studies is to live and die our limited life “without regret.” In this sense, living our own life is an essential part of life studies. Thedichotomy of theory and practice does not work here. “Thinking” is a form of action, and we cannot act without a cognitive framework influenced by language. What is needed is wisdom that does not let our eyes turn away from oneself and one’s own life. In this sense, life studies on a personal level should be a lonely act. This is the reason why “support from a distance” is required. It is important to keep in mind that people joining life studies as a project must apply life studies on a personal level. We cannot separate the two.

I have written a number of works on life studies in Japanese, but this is only one of the possible variations of life studies. Everyone [195/196] can develop his/her own life studies. In science, the words “her science” or “my science” are senseless. However, in life studies, the words “her life studies” or “my life studies” are meaningful descriptions of the concept. Morioka’s approach is apt to be biased towards philosophy. There will be many more approaches to life studies on a personal level. Hence, Morioka’s life studies never fully represent “life studies as a project.”

The interrelated development of these three categories will be required for life studies and I would like to invite interested people throughout the world to contribute their thoughts on this topic (See Table 1).

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

How to live without regret

The ultimate goals of life studies would be: 1) to live and die our limited life “without regret,” and 2) to create a society in which [194/195] everyone can live and die his/her limited life “without regret.” In order to come closer to these goals, we have to think about the meaning of life and the essence of our civilization seriously, and we have to communicate with each other to learn different ideas.

Looking from this perspectives, one of the big problems is, of course, the gulf between economically wealthy countries and economically poor countries. In the lattercountries, for example, many people are suffering from HIV/AIDS, but do not have access to medication. Behind this lies the “structural exploitation” of developing countries by developed countries. But on the other hand, people in developed countries also suffer from acts of violence such as domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and stalking. They are not necessarily happy. Life studies have to tackle with these complicated structural problems in and between the North and South.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Deeper understanding of meaning of life and wisdom

Life studies as a project

Life studies as a project has a more limited scope. It aims at developing our knowledge about the meaning of life, death, and nature in relationship to modern civilization, and it tries to find a way to live our own lives. We seek to attain a deeper understanding of the meaning of life, death, and our relationship with the natural environment. We also seek to attain the deep understanding of the essence of modern civilization based on scientific technology and capitalism. And beyond that, we want to discover a way to resolve contemporary issues concerning life, death, nature, and bioethics without using religious language. Of course, both people of faith and people without religion are welcome, but this project must not have any special relationship with religious groups.

I wrote “The Declaration of Life Studies: Six Proposals” in 2000. This shows thebasic characteristics of life studies as a project. The outline of the six proposals is as follows:

1) Study as wisdom. Life studies is a kind of vigorous development of our wisdom in which we contemplate the reality of life and death, struggle against our inner desires, and try to find a way of resolving contemporary issues concerning life. [193/194]

2) Criticism of modern civilization. Life studies connects the criticism of modern civilization with issues concerning life, death, and nature. Life studies throws light on the essence of modern civilization, and tries to show a way of overcoming the negative effects of scientific technology and capitalism.

3) Meaning of life. One of life studies’ aim is to think about how we should live in modern society without regret. Questions such as “How should I live?” “What I the meaning of life?” “How should we change ourselves and social systems in order to attainthe meaning of life?” are among the main questions of life studies.

4) Relationship and irreplaceability. Life studies looks at every phenomenon and issue from the perspective of correlation between “relationship and irreplaceability.”

5) Reconsideration of desires, violence, freedom and spirituality. We try to find a way of overcoming our own desires and violence. We distinguish “superficial freedom” that supports modern civilization from “rich freedom” that leads us to the real pleasure of life. We seek for “post-religious spirituality” that is not based on a particular religion.

6) Support from a distance. Life studies means a network in which everyone who is seeking the meaning of life supports others from a distance. We do not join a closed community where everyone has the same standards and values. (Morioka 2000)

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Forum for biologists, anthropologists, and historians

I would like to present “life studies” as a forum or project in which people who are frustrated with bioethics and other disciplines get together to discuss life, death, nature, scientific technology, and contemporary civilization, although life studies itself is still in an early stage of development. The field of life studies consists of three categories: life studies as a forum, life studies as a project, and life studies on a personal level.

Life studies as a forum

First, we need a forum in which people with different backgrounds get together and discuss the issues of life interdisciplinary. Of course, many conferences on bioethics plan to have interdisciplinary discussions, but the bio-“ethics” makes people from some disciplines hesitant to join because it sounds like as if “ethics” is the central theme. Life studies as a forum will take many forms, for example, conferences, small meetings, collections of essays, discussion groups, or a new research field such as cultural studies and disability studies. Even biologists, [192/193] anthropologists, sociologists, and historian will be able to join more freely. The College of Applied Life Studies (CALS) at the University of Illinois, USA, which contains departments for community health, human sciences, and disability studies, is a good example of this forum (CALS homepage). In this category, the words “life studies” are interpreted broadly.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Harmony and conflict between humans and nature

Life studies also deals with human relationships with the environment. I wrote a series of essays from 1995-1998, and published them as a digital book, Life Torn Apart, in 2001 (Morioka 2001b). In these writings, I insisted that humans are imprinted with three natures, “the nature of connectedness (to all living things),” “the nature of self-interest,” and “the nature of mutual support,” These natures are sometimes in harmony, but at other times they conflict with each other. In the latter case, mediation is impossible. In this sense, human life is torn apart and moves in two opposite directions, the direction of isolation and the direction of connectedness. Under this scheme, the problem of “preservation” and “conservation” in environmental ethics is clearly analyzed, but we cannot expect simple answers to this heavy question. Contribution of life studies to environmental ethics and environmental philosophy will be enormous. This is a future challenge for us.

In the same year, I published another book, Life Studies Approaches to Bioethics: A New Perspective on Brain Death, Feminism, and Disability (Morioka 2001c). In this book, I demonstrated that incorporating feminist and disability studies would change bioethics into a more attractive field; like life studies, it would be filled with diverse ideas and focus on the process of empowerment. As I mentioned before, Japanese bioethics started in the early 1970s as “feminist bioethics” and “disabled people bioethics.” Their approach was closer to our “life studies” in that [191/192] they were seeking the “meaning of life” and “self-affirmation” in our discriminative society, and in that they severely criticized contemporary civilization, scientific technology, and capitalism (Morioka 2002). I examined “men’s sexuality,” which sometimes indirectly forces women to abort a fetus when men are not willing to have a baby. This kind of “symbolic violence,” which is lurking in our society, should be emphasized in the field of life studies. I discussed the idea of “the fundamental sense of security” as a key term for thinking about the negative psychological impact of new eugenics. I am currently writing a fundamental criticism of modern civilization, which will be published as a book in the next year.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Aum Shinrikyo and post-religious age

In 1995, an unbelievable event occurred. Members of the Japanese cult, Aum Shinrikyo, launched a sarin gas attack in crowded subways in Tokyo, killing 12 people and injuring more than 5,000 people. At first, they were members of a small religious group seriously seeking the “meaning of life.” However, they began to consider our society to be evil place, and planned to destroy the whole world in order to reconstruct a clean one. I was shocked by their action because I felt I shared many of their aims. This event made think again the relationship between life studies and religion, and I published the book How to Live in a Post-religious Age in 1996. In this book, I confessed that I am a man who cannot believe in any religions, nor believe in scientific materialism. I want to seek “spirituality” and the “meaning of life” outside of religion. I called this “the third way between religion and science.”

Does this attitude lead to the denial of religion? No. My position is an agnostic one. I do not affirm or deny religions. I have had discussions with various religious people, and I found that we can talk about spirituality and the meaning of life without using religious language. If we respect each other’s worldview and do not force one’s own presuppositions on the others, we are able to have a deep discussion with each other concerning the issues of life, death and nature. [190/191]

Life studies should be a project where people of faith and people without religion get together to communicate with and learn from each other. I conceive of life studies as a project where people with religion seek to think about life without using dogmatic words, and people without religion seek to think about spirituality and the meaning of life using ordinary language. I think this should be the basis of life studies.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Meaning of life, spirit and nature

For these reasons, I coined the term “life studies” instead of “bioethics” in 1988. The idea of life studies has gradually developed since then. In 1989, I published Brain Dead Person in which I discussed the topic from the viewpoint of life studies. I distinguished three concepts, namely, “my brain death,” “brain death of intimate others,” and “brain death of strangers.” I made clear the differences of the meaning of death in these threecases, and demonstrated that these differences might be the cause of ordinary people’s inconsistent attitudes towards brain dead persons in various settings. I also criticized the essence of modern medicine and scientific technology, and developed key ideas like “partism of modern medicine” and “efficiency and irreplaceability.” This book was the real first product of life studies.

Through research on brain death, I realized that there have been no empirical studies on the idea of life among ordinary people. Scholars sometimes talked about the Japanese idea of life and death, but their arguments were based on traditional Buddhist or Confucian literatures. It is not certain that today’s ordinary people share these traditional ideas. I performed research using open questionnaires and gathered nearly thousand responses from ordinary people. I published part of the results in the paper “The Concept of Inochi,” in 1991 (Morioka 1991) and made various interesting discoveries. Many Japanese grasp the idea of “human life” in relationship with that of “nature.” The images of “life,” “spirit,” and “nature” overlap with one another in their worldview. For many of them, environmental issues are conceived as problems of life. And here, too, their images of life vary. There is no such [189/190] thing as “the” Japanese idea of life. Interestingly, however, several patterns of grasping images of life were discovered. For example, there were many responses that suggested that life is interrelated on the one hand, and irreplaceable on the other. People seem to feel some dynamism between interrelatedness and irresplaceability. This research is still continuing and is one of the most important contributions to the field of life studies.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

What is the meaning of life?

Second, “American” bioethics did not ask questions such as “What is the meaning of life?,” “How can we live in this society without regret?,” and “What is human?” Whenever we think deeply about difficult bioethical problems like selective abortion, euthanasia, manipulation of human genes, and organ transplantation, we come to the above philosophical questions in the end. In addition, psychological and sociological approaches should be introduced to research on these issues, but the word bio-“ethics” seemed to exclude these disciplines. I thought it would be more fruitful to discuss bioethics in an interdisciplinary forum.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Never separate medical ethics from environmental ethics

As I mentioned before, when I first studied “American” bioethics in the 1980s, I was very frustrated because it seemed to me a somewhat narrow and shallow approach to the issues of life. Some of my friends had similar impressions. First, it discussed only medical issues. It did not deal with environmental issues. It is ironical that V.R. Potter who coined the word “bioethics” in 1970 regarded this word as a kind of “environmental ethics” rather than a medical ethics. For me, separating medical ethics from environmental ethics seems senseless because humans live on this planet surrounded by nature and our health and happiness cannot be separated from the environment. My first impression was that medical ethics should not be separated from environmental ethics.


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Balance between autonomy and relationship

Daniel Fu-Chang Tsai writes in his recent paper that Confucius’ concept of person has two dimensions, namely, “the vertical dimension,” which is the autonomous, self-cultivating one, and “the horizontal dimension,” which is the relational, altruistic one (11). He says that “some may argue that there is no vertical dimension at all in the Confucian personhood. This is incorrect.” He concludes as follows:

When a person exercises autonomy, he is no choosing in a context-free, conceptual vacuum but considers himself a person-in-relation, with many roles to play and responsibilities to take, in accordance with different relationships (…). The tension might be difficult to resolve, but the traditional tendency of social orientation should surely be balanced by, and reconciled with, respecting the individual’s rights and autonomy (Tsai 2001: 48,49).

Here we can see a well-balanced perspective on “autonomy” and “relationships.” This kind of mature thinking can be found everywhere on this planet and is not the patent of Confucius or East Asia.

We sometimes use the words “Japanese bioethics,” “American bioethics,” and “Asian bioethics,” but these wordings are apt to make us think that there is “the” Japanese bioethics, “the” American bioethics, and so on. This is not true. There are various bioethical ideas and actions in each region. Of course there are clear cultural differences between distant countries, but if we take a closer look at one area, we can find considerable gender differences, religious differences, economic differences, etc., and at the same time it is also true that we actually share many things across borders. Hence, we should say “bioethics in Japan” instead of “Japanese bioethics,” “Genomics in Asia” instead of “Asian Genomics,” and so on. Anyway, we have to abandon the East/West dichotomy and its variations. [187/188]


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Family, education and friendship in US and Japan

Even in the USA, so-called “communitarian bioethics” has been discussed by Ezekiel J. Emanuel (1991) and Daniel Callahan (1996) in the 1990s. American feminist bioethics has put a special emphasis on caring and relationships. It seems that current bioethics throughout the world seeks balanced development between “individual freedom” and “the value of community and relationships.”

Scholars at the City College of New York conducted a comparative study of US/Japan values in 1988. In their research, students in both countries responded to “the values that they believed best characterize people in their country.” The results were interesting. The top 3 for the USA were “Family,” “Education,” and “Friendship,” and the top 3 for Japanese were “Friendship,” “Peace/Getting Along,” and “Respect.” Both sets of responses look similar and sound communitarian (CCNY 1998). [186/187]


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Freedom and People's Rights Movement

After opening the country to the world in 1868, the Japanese were very eager to absorb European ideas, such as “human rights,” “freedom,” and “democracy.” Japanese history of the last 100 years could be illustrated as that of a harsh struggle between people who wanted to maintain hierarchical and paternalistic systems, on the one hand, and people who wanted to replace them with more individualistic ones based on human rights and freedom, on the other. In 1874, Taisuke Itagaki began a nation-wide political movement, “the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement (Jiyuu Minken Undo).” Many thinkers and activists joined Itagaki and were put in jail and killed, but this movement prepared the basis for Japanese democracy. (When Itagaki was stabbed, he is said to have shouted, “Even if itagaki dies, freedom never dies!”) When a group of severely discriminated people (Hisabetsu Buraku Min) demanded their civil rights in 1922, the words they uttered were “freedom,” “liberation,” and “equality.”

The contemporary Japanese bioethics movement began in the early 1970s when disabled people claimed their “right to live” and “disabled children’s right not to be killed by their parents,” and when feminists claimed that their “right” and “freedom” to abortion must be maintained. It is striking that contemporary Japanese bioethics began with voices of minority groups demanding “rights” [185/186] and “freedom.” Since I examined this topic elsewhere (Morioka, 2002), I will not write about it further here.

My point is that voices for “freedom” and “human rights” have already been integral parts of Japanese history and culture. They are part of the Japanese tradition. Here, Sakamoto’s argument that in Asia “the sense of ‘human rights’ is very weak and foreign, and that they have no traditional background for the concept of human rights” cannot be applied to Japan. His claim that “Eventually, there is no room for the idea of fundamental human rights” is unfounded. Most of the younger Japanese philosophers and sociologists who are interested in bioethics take “fundamental human rights” for granted, and then they are trying to fit bioethical ideas into contemporary Japanese culture and relate them to Japanese people’s emotions. They stress the importance of “human relationships” together with “human rights.”


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Myth of the Asian ethos

One of the biggest problems with this kind of dichotomy is that it ignores a variety of values, ideas, and movements inside a culture or an area. For example, Sakamoto uses the words “Asian ethos” even though there is no such thing as “the” Asian ethos. He writes in his paper: “The Japanese rejection of heart transplantation from the brain dead body was quite odd for Euro-American minds,” but concerning this topic, Japan was the exception among East Asian countries. Other East Asian countries, such as Taiwan, Korea, and the Philippines, performed organ transplants from brain dead donors in the 1980s. Sex selection and surrogate motherhood are becoming popular in Korea, but are still prohibited in Japan. With regard to reproductive technologies, Korea and the USA seem to share the same ethos.

The same is true in the “Western” countries. For example, Denmark and Germany went through a nation-wide debate on brain death in the late 1980s and 1990s. In Denmark, the ethics committee concluded in 1989 that brain death should not be human death. However, the report was rejected in the Diet in 1990. In Germany, a pregnant woman became brain dead in 1992, sparking a hot debate about whether she was dead or alive. In 1997, about 30 per cent of the Diet members supported a bill that did not define brain death as human death, but it was rejected. This outcome is very similar to the Japanese situation (Morioka 2001a). In Japan, 20-40 per cent of the Japanese constantly reject brain death. Siminoff and Bloch (1999) reported that even in the USA, 20-40 per cent of ordinary people felt hesitant to regard brain death as human death. In Europe and the USA, the number of donated organs has not [184/185] increased much in recent years. This shows that many family members may refuse to give consent to organ donation from brain dead persons.

As is evident here, there are a variety of values and ideas in a culture or an area, and in addition, it becomes clear that “Asia” and “the West” share lots of ideas and values on life and death. The East/West dichotomy oversimplifies this internal variation and neglects the common cultural heritage that many people share in various areas around the world.


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Why East/West dichotomy is wrong

In the bioethics literature, there are many examples of this East/West dichotomy and its variations, but this is the trap we sometimes falls into when discussing the cultural dimensions of bioethics. Let us take a typical example: Hyakudai Sakamoto’s paper, entitled “Toward a New Global Bioethics,” presented at TRT 7, Tsukuba, Japan, in 2002 (Sakamoto 2002: 31-34). Sakamoto has published similar papers, and this is the latest version. Sakamoto distinguishes “Asian proper bioethics” from “Western bioethics.” He writes as follows:

Something is fundamentally different. First of all, in many countries in East and South East Asia, the sense of “human rights” is very weak and foreign, and they have no traditional background for the concept of human rights. (…) Asian people put higher value on the holistic happiness and welfare of the total group or community to which they belong rather than their individual interests (Sakamoto 2002: 32)

Then he goes on to say that Asian bioethics should be built on Asia’s own “ethos.” Its characteristics are as follows:

1) They put higher estimation on total and social well-orderedness than on the individual interests or individual rights and dignity.

2) There is no unique and absolute God, no categorical imperative, no free will, no autonomy to deduce justice and precepts to control people’s behavior except to pursue social peace. (…) Eventually, there is no room for the idea of “fundamental human rights (…).”

3) There is no antagonism between nature and human being in the depth of Asian way of thinking, and way of living.

4) This idea of invariance is somewhat foreign to traditional Asian ethos. (Sakamoto 2002: 32-33) [183/184]

Sakamoto concludes that new global bioethics should be “holistic” in contrast to European “individualistic” bioethics, and that it requires “some sort of communitarian way of thinking of a non-western or Asian type.” And finally, he stresses the importance of harmonizing the Asian ethos and the Western one.


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Takeshi Umehara's argument is wrong

I didn’t emphasize cultural differences in bioethics in the above books, but Takeshi Umehara, a well-known critic, criticized the Western way of thinking lurking behind the concept of brain death in his provocative article, “Opposition to the Idea of Brain Death: A Philosopher’s Point of View,” published in 1990. Umehara stated that the idea of brain death and transplantation goes back to Rene Descartes’ dualism of mind and body, and that Japanese culture is [181/182] based on a kind of animism which tells us that all beings in the world, including animals, trees, and mountains, have souls. He writes as follows:

My view, based upon the studies of the council and upon my own disposition as a philosopher, is that the haughty “brain death theory” of Western science that derives from Descartes’ separation of mind and matter ignores the awe of life and must be rejected. (…) Those who have no doubts about defining death as “brain death” have simply succumbed to the power of science and technology that has enabled the human race to build upon modern civilization and dominate all other life (Umehara 1994: 190).

Umehara’s argument is based on the Japan/West dichotomy, a modified version of the East/West dichotomy, which is prevalent among ordinary people and scholars in Japan. This dichotomy tells us that Japan (or the East) is essentially different from (or sometimes even superior to) the West. For instance, Umehara concluded in the above paper that Japanese Buddhism influenced by animism is superior in nature to the Western Cartesian philosophy that created modern science and technology.

There had already been some articles and essays that contained this dichotomy in the 1980s. Umehara summed up this line of thought in his paper. I have thoroughly criticized his argument elsewhere (Morioka 1994); hence, I would like to point out just one thing here. According to opinion surveys 40-50 per cent of Japanese think of brain death as human death. Opposition to brain death is 20-40 per cent, lower than those who agree to the idea. Umehara fails to explain why the majority of the Japanese, being deeply influenced by animistic Buddhism, are in favor of brain death. From this perspective alone, Umehara’s dichotomy seems to be very problematic. [182/183]


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Why is human relationship important?

It is worth noticing that just before we introduced bioethics from the USA, we had a nation-wide debate on brain death. Not only specialists but also journalists and lay people actively joined the debate. Japan was one of the few countries where a serious discussion on brain death lasted for a long period of time, more [180/181] than 15 years. More than a hundred books on brain death appeared. There has been no such public discussion on brain death in North America up until the present. As a result, many Japanese scholars realized that American bioethics did not solve difficult problems they had encountered in the debate on brain death. In 1989, I published my second book, Brain Dead Person, in Japanese, stating that brain death should be interpreted as a form of “human relationships” (Morioka 1989). I paid special attention to the emotions and relationships within the family members at the bedside, touching the warm body of the patient, express the feeling that the brain-dead person still continues to exist as a human being. My conclusion was as follows:

“Brain death is not found in the brain of a “person whose brain ceased functioning,” but in the realm of human relationships surrounding this person. What we should consider is “the realm of brain death,” or “brain death as a field.” In other words, the essence of “brain death” can be found in the relationships between people (idem:9).

This book marked the beginning of the “human relationship oriented analysis” of brain death. Readers welcomed my perspective. This shows that Japanese academic bioethics attached great importance to “human relationships” from the start and that modern individualism and human relationships were particularly important topics for Japanese bioethics in the 1980s (Morioka 1995).


>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Potter and American biothics

The word “bioethics” come to Japan in 1974 when V.R. Potter’s book, Bioethics, was translated into Japanese. However, this word was no very popular until the late 1980s. In the 1980s, we had a severe debate on brain death and transplantation. Many people talked about the definition of human death and the meaning of life during this period. American-style bioethics was introduced in the late 1980s, and the Japanese Association for Bioethics was established in 1988. At that time, I was a graduate student majoring in philosophy. I read many bioethics papers, and translated some of them. My first impression was that it didn’t seem to fit into my way of thinking about life. Many people around me were saying that they didn’t agree with the idea that “autonomy” and “rights” must be the basis of bioethics. I was frustrated by the fact that American bioethics did not discuss environmental issues and nursing because I believed that these were also important subjects related to our attitudes towards life.

I published my first book, An Introduction to the Study of Life: Beyond Bioethics, in Japanese. In 1988. This was the first academic book that thoroughly criticized bioethics and environmental ethics. I insisted that contemporary medical issues and environmental issues should be discussed simultaneously in the same field because our attitude towards the environment must have some close connections to our attitude towards our own bodies and minds. I criticized the personhood argument and the narrow-mindedness of American bioethics.

>> To read more please visit:

Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

The third way between religion and science

2) Research on images of life among ordinary people.
The results were found in the paper "The Concept of Inochi(life)" (1991). Many Japanese (and probably people around the world) grasp the idea of "human life" in relationship with that of "nature." The images of "life," "spirit," and "nature" are overlapping with one another in their worldview. The keyword is "interrelatedness and irreplaceability." I discussed cultural differences in ethics of life in the paper "Bioethics and Japanese Bulture" (1995) and "Cross-cultural Approaches to the Philosophy of Life in the Contemporary World" (2003).

3) The third way between religion and science.
In the book How to Live in a Post-religious Age (1996) ,written as a reaction against the 1995 Sarin nerve gas attack by the Aum Shinrikyo cult on the Tokyo subways, I examined ways to seek "spirituality" and "meaning of life" outside religion.

4) Three natures of human life. See guiding concepts 7.

>> To read more please visit:

What is Life Studies
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

I am not satisfied with applied ethics

What is the aim of life studies?

Our ultimate aim is to live in this society without regret. In order to do that, we have to reconsider the meaning of our own life and death seriously. In this materialistic, capitalistic society deeply influenced by scientific technology, we are apt to forget the meaning of life and the value of our existence. We have to fundamentally criticize the negative aspects of contemporary civilization, scientific technology, and capitalism. Gender, sexuality, violence, war, and ecology are also important topics of life studies. We need wisdom and mutual support on the intelectual level. This is why life studies is needed.

But, we have already had bioethics and environmental ethics.

At first I studied bioethics and environmental ethics, but soon I realized that they had a fatal flaw. 1) Bio-medical ethics was separated from environmental ethics. 2) Bioethics did not pose questions about "the meaning of life" and "the nature of contemporary civilization." 3) They concentrated on "ethics," and seemed to make light of other approaches. Hence, I concluded that we need another approach to this topic. I am not satisfied with applied ethics.

>> To read more please visit:

What is Life Studies
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Endless tendency to eliminate pain and suffering

Life studies urges us to rethink the whole system of contemporary civilization because it doesn't seem to provide us with sufficient opportunity to live a life without regret both in developed countries and developing countries. The critique of contemporary civilization should be included in life studies.

In the book, Painless Civilization: A Philosophical Critique of Desire (2003), I fundamentally criticized the negative aspects of contemporary civilization in terms of life studies, especially that of the USA and Japan. The endless tendency in our civilization to eliminate pain and suffering makes us totally lose sight of the meaning of life that is indispensable to human beings. I examined our desire, and divided it into two categories, "the desire of the body" and "the desire of life." I will translate this book into English and upload to this site. Many bookreviews and commentary have appeared since publication in Japan. I would like to know your response to the concept of "painless civilization."

>> For more details please visit a special page of Painless Civilization.

>> To read more please visit:

What is Life Studies
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Relationship and irreplaceability: Philosophy of life

4. Relationship and irreplaceability
All beings in the universe, especially all living things on the earth, are incorporated into the fundamental “relationships.” They can not exist without these relationships. At the same time, every being in these relationships is fundamentally “irreplaceable” to each other. In life studies we view everything from the perspective of correlation between "relationship" and "irreplaceability."Environmental issues and philosophy of life & death should be considered from this perspective.


>> To read more please visit:

What is Life Studies
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Meaning of the word "life"

I first used the words "life studies" in my book An Invitation to the Study of Life (1988). Strictly speaking, this book was written in Japanese, hence, corresponding words were "Seimeigaku." I started using the English words "life studies" probably in the early 1990s. "Seimeigaku" is now becoming popular now in Japan, but "life studies" are still unfamiliar to an English audience.

The word "life" has various meanings. We might be bewildered because we come up with so many implications. Let us take a look at some examples on the web.

The words seem to have at least five meanings.

1. The study of one's personal history. See The Aphra Behn Society.

2. The study of issues of everyday life, for example, food, health, leisure, gender, race, discrimination, etc. See College of Applied Life Studies at University of Illinois.

3. The study of religious, spiritual and ethical aspects of human life. See Center for Life Studies, Sunbridge College, NY.

4. The education about wildlife and ecology, for example, Sea Life Studies,Inc., Life Studies' Homepage.

5. Curriculum of high school courses. See Buffalo Grove High School, and Stockport Grammar School. This categorizing at high schools is very interesting to me.

6. Robert Lowell, well known poet, published the book "Life Studies" in 1959, which received the National Book Award.

I propose to add new meaning to the English words "life studies," and give the words new life.

>> To read more please visit:

What is Life Studies
(2004)
(You can read the entire text)

Disabled people bioethics

Japanese bioethics began in the early 1970s. Most Japanese scholars still think that Japanese bioethics began in 1980s, but it is questionable. My recent book, Life Studies Approaches to Bioethics: A New Perspective on Brain Death, Feminism, and Disability, 2001, demonstrated that.

Women’s liberation groups and a disability group brought a new type of thinking into our philosophy and ethics. It should be noted that “minorities” in our society, that is, women and disabled people, founded Japanese bioethics. In this sense, it started as “feminist bioethics” and “disabled people bioethics.” This made Japanese bioethics somewhat different from “American” bioethics. Feminists and disabled people were mainly grass-root activists; they did not write academic papers or books. Instead they wrote a great deal of leaflets and handwritten documents. We can read them today because their publication finally began in recent years. Japanese “academic” bioethics began in 1988 when Japanese Association for Bioethics was founded. I wrote about Japanese feminist bioethics elsewhere, hence, I want to concentrate myself on the Japanese disability movement and its impact on bioethics.

>> To read more please visit:

Disability Movement and Inner Eugenic Thought
(2002)
(You can read the entire text)

Cerebral Palcy and independent living, Hiroshi Yokota

In the late 1960s, some disabled people with Cerebral Palsy joined “Blue Grass Group (Aoi Shiba no Kai),” a friendship society for people with CP, and started “independent living” in Kanagawa Prefecture. Among them were Koichi Yokotsuka and Hiroshi Yokota, both were the philosophical leaders of the independent living activities at that time. As soon as they joined the group, they began protesting against our society full of discrimination toward disabled people. In 1970, a mother killed her CP child, but the general public sympathized with the mother, not with the killed child. Blue Grass Group accused our way of thinking, and stated that non-disabled people had a strong egoism, that is, our “inner consciousness of discrimination.” They believed that this egoism held by non-disabled people was the main source of discrimination. However, interestingly, they thought that not only non-disabled people, but also disabled people themselves shared this consciousness; hence, all of us have to fight against our “inner consciousness of discrimination.” Of course, their main focus was a discriminative society created by non-disabled people, but they did not turn their eyes away from their own consciousness of discrimination.

>> To read more please visit:

Disability Movement and Inner Eugenic Thought
(2002)
(You can read the entire text)

Selective abortion and economic reasons

In 1974, the Eugenic Protection Law Revision Bill finally failed to pass the Diet. The clause for selective abortion did not added to the law. A group of physicians in abortion clinics have continuously demanded a clause for selective abortion, but every time they insisted it women and disabled people acted against them. Hence, the Japanese law has not had such a clause up to the present. However, we should understand that when a woman has a disabled fetus she is allowed to abort it if she claims “economic reasons.” The debated issue was whether the clause should be added to the law; in other words, it was a debate over the symbolic meaning of the clause when added to the law. (Eugenic Protection Law was revised in 1996, and its name was changed to Maternal Protection Law.)

>> To read more please visit:

Disability Movement and Inner Eugenic Thought
(2002)
(You can read the entire text)

New eugenics and selective abortion

Thirdly, they were trying to protect “the fundamental sense of security.” They did not use these words, but what they really had in mind was this. They thought that technology of selective abortion was dangerous because it systematically deprives us of the sense that our existence is being accepted unconditionally. It is a kind of trust in the world and society, and this trust provides us with the foundation upon which we can survive in our society. This is a sense of security with which I can strongly believe that even if I had been less intelligent, ugly, or disabled, at least my existence would have been accepted equally to the world, and if I should succeed, fail, or become a doddering old man, my existence Thirdly, they were trying to protect “the fundamental sense of security.” They did not use these words, but what they really had in mind was this. They thought that technology of selective abortion was dangerous because it systematically deprives us of the sense that our existence is being accepted unconditionally. It is a kind of trust in the world and society, and this trust provides us with the foundation upon which we can survive in our society. This is a sense of security with which I can strongly believe that even if I had been less intelligent, ugly, or disabled, at least my existence would have been accepted equally to the world, and if I should succeed, fail, or become a doddering old man, my existence will continue to be accepted equally to the world. This is the basis of our life upon which we keep sane in this society. I want to call it “the fundamental sense of security.” Selective abortion and some new reproductive technologies are problematic because they systematically erode “the fundamental sense of security” we have to keep protecting. Here lies the most important problem of “new eugenics” in the 21st century.

>> To read more please visit:

Disability Movement and Inner Eugenic Thought
(2002)
(You can read the entire text)