The Politics of Justice: The Question of Deontological Ethics in Political Culture of Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on L. Boltanski, and L. Thévenot’s “domestic order” described in “orders of worth”, the article deals with the deontological ethics that lays the groundwork for Japanese political culture. Towards this end, I analyze conceptual issues of “orders of worth” in trying to reduce the theory to Japanese political reality. The most ancient constituent act known as the Seventeen-article constitution is described as an example of Japanese political thought. In consistently applying the principles stated by Boltanski and Thévenot, I conclude that the Constitution meets all of the conditions to be considered as a fundamental work, which lays a solid cornerstone of Japanese traditional political and social order. Among all of the “orders of worth” offered by Boltanski and Thévenot, I chose the “domestic order” as the most acceptable to focus on the characteristics of the phenomenon of domination in the Japanese ruling elite, which contrasts with the domination of the European type. In analyzing the listed differences, the author concludes that the root of the Japanese understanding of justice correlates with the understanding of righteousness. As a result, I conclude that the Japanese way of political conceptualization focuses around ideal forms of state rule and ideal order, and is, in a certain sense, typical for the classical political thought of ancient times. In such a type of thought, conceptions of righteousness, justice, truth, sincerity, and harmony are the points of departure for any political consideration. In this context, I can call the Japanese traditional political culture as a deontologically and axiologically-oriented culture focused on political ideals and public weal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".