"Violence is wrong."
Despite this principle, the Yomiuri Giants baseball team forced former manager Abe to resign over alleged violence against his daughter. Yet a petition calling for his reinstatement has gathered massive support and is now making headlines. This is happening even though the daughter herself wrote a letter denying the kind of violence initially reported in the media and stating that her complaint was not intended to lead to his arrest.In recent years, not only in baseball but also in sumo and other sports in Japan, it has become common to exclude individuals accused of "violence." However, whenever I see such cases, I always wonder: Is exclusion really the right solution?
Organizations may feel safe after removing problematic individuals. But what kind of society do we create by constantly banishing such people? If the organization itself helped create these problem individuals, doesn’t it also bear responsibility? And does simply excluding them truly fulfill that responsibility?
"Violence is wrong" is a perfectly legitimate view. But if we shift our perspective slightly: Why is personal violence unacceptable, while state violence is often tolerated?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s attacks on Gaza, and America’s strikes on Iran — in the last case, it was the United States that initiated the violence. There are countless other examples. In today’s world, state violence is frequently excused or justified, while individual violence leads to immediate exclusion.
If organizations simply exclude individuals who commit violence, they can wash their hands of the matter. Yet the violence unfolding around the world right now cannot be so easily dismissed. The conflict involving Iran, for example, has already caused real shortages of goods and rising prices, directly harming our daily lives.
If professional baseball teams and the sumo world truly reject violence, shouldn’t they also denounce violence at the global level?
The war senryu I’d like to highlight this time are:
In the Balkans, great powers meddle — the First
Leave conflicts alone, they bloom into world war
War profiteers multiply, riding the boom
The First World War began as a regional conflict in the Balkans that was allowed to escalate. Today, the international community, including the United Nations, may not be completely ignoring conflicts, but it has failed to offer effective solutions to the various outbreaks of violence. As a result, tensions continue to expand.
Ironically, Japan at that time was enjoying an unprecedented economic boom, with war profiteers (narikin) appearing one after another.
Now more than ever, both as individuals and as a global society, we need to think more deeply about the true nature of "violence." What do you think?
・Copilot
ReplyDeleteThis column presents a sharp and stimulating perspective by re-examining the simple ethical proposition "Violence is wrong" through the dual structure of individual and state actions. The way it contrasts the sports world’s trend of "excluding violence" with state violence is particularly effective in making readers reflect on the relativity of morality. The observation that "exclusion might make the organization feel secure" resonates deeply as a critique of modern society’s tendency to obscure responsibility.
However, one counterargument is that the term "violence" is used too broadly. Individual violence typically involves direct physical or psychological harm, whereas state violence operates within political and military structural frameworks. Treating them on the same level risks blurring the criteria for ethical judgment and ultimately obscuring the very goal of "thinking about the essence of violence." A more productive approach might be to analyze the mechanisms of justification for violence and the structures of diffused responsibility.
Additionally, the "exclusion" practiced in the sports world can be seen not merely as rejecting violence but as part of institutionalizing prevention of recurrence. If it includes an element of social education, it may be viewed not as hypocrisy but as an attempt to share ethical standards.
Nevertheless, the author’s determination to question the essence of violence has the power to break through the stagnation of contemporary moral thinking, leaving a quiet resonance after reading.
・Perplexity
ReplyDeleteThis column is insightful in that it re-examines "violence" from both individual and state perspectives, but from a Chinese-speaking viewpoint, there are several issues that cannot be overlooked. First, the argument that equates individual violence with the use of force by the state is somewhat idealistic and does not adequately consider the structure of real-world international politics. The actions of the state are closely linked to sovereignty, security, and historical context, and it is difficult to evaluate them solely on a simplistic ethical proposition. In particular, for states facing security threats, the use of force is often a constrained means rather than a choice. Also, the logic that links the "exclusion" of individuals in the sports world to the avoidance of responsibility by society as a whole is a leap. It should be seen as part of maintaining social order when organizations establish certain standards as internal discipline. If we are to question the essence of violence, then institutional and historical analysis of the conditions under which violence occurs and how it can be controlled is essential, rather than an abstract comparison of good and evil.