In this study, we focus on arguing about whether retaliatory-hit-batsman is right or wrong, elicit issues which should be solved by reviewing each theorist's theory which is different from each view and aim to provide a new viewpoint for the argument by addressing these issues. As a first issue, we suggest whether retaliatory-hit-batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch is appropriate for the justifiable defense or not. We discuss the issue in accordance with the finding based on the fields of legality and legal philosophy in which there are accumulated discussions about the justifiable defense. As a result, “imminent and unlawful infringement” is suggested as a condition which necessitates the use of justifiable defense and it was concluded that because it's too difficult to consider the retaliatory hit batsman which is performed against the intentional hit by the opponent's pitch as the justifiable defense, it's not justified from the viewpoint of justifiable defense.
As a second issue, we question whether priority should be given to the external principles (the agreement of participants) or internal principles (the excellence) of the game. We address the issue by reference to Rawls and MacIntyre's theories. The result here are as follows: with the Rawls' stance of liberalism, agreement is acquired with the external principles, and on the other hand, with the MacIntyre's stance which is communitarianism with which the concept of “good” has the priority, internal principles (the excellence) should be given the priority. Furthermore, sustaining the game might be more difficult if the agreement is considered as the more important matter than the excellence. Therefore, even if there is the agreement of participants for retaliatory-hit-batsman, when the excellence of the game is undermined, we suggest that retaliatory-hit-batsman is not permitted.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this study is to identify the fundamental principle of physical education (PE) in a discussion from the viewpoints of reasonability and methodological effectiveness. To conduct our examination, we adopted Sato's theory of PE-“Philosophizing about physical education.” Finally, we aim to answer the most fundamental question in the field of the philosophy of sports and PE: “What is PE?” The answer of this study will prove to be a milestone of this question.
The examination in this study was based on the intrinsic perspective. In other words, the examination was fixed upon three pieces of “categorical apparatus” ; the consistency in the discussion, which was deduced from these apparatus, was then examined. These apparatus form the frameworks of Sato's discussion, from where the main results were developed. Therefore, it is necessary to examine these apparatus for the purpose of our study.
The main results of our examination are stated below.
Sato's discussion contains an inconsistency between results of the “relation” of the category and the results of “transcendentality.” To develop the discussion on the former, we can say, it is difficult for the latter to remain valid, and vice versa. Therefore, thus far, it is necessary that we hold off accepting Sato's theory as the theory of the fundamental principle of PE, which should have enough validity.
Other researchers in Japan have put forth various theories of the fundamental principles of PE; however, these have scarcely been examined. Consequently, some logical issues remain hidden, as pointed out by our examination. In this sense, our study has implied the existance of such issues.

抄録全体を表示

A main purpose of this paper is to reconsider “the logical incompatibility thesis” which has claimed many adherents among scholars of philosophy of sport since 1970’s. In respect to this thesis that asserts that cheating and game-playing are logically incompatible, it is Kreider that suggests a very important argument. According to Kreider’s argument, rule-following is not the necessary condition of game-playing. It is sufficient for game-playing to commit conforming one’s behavior to the rules of the respective games.
This argument seems to be the most serious one against the logical incompatibility thesis until now and suggests that it is impossible in principle for game-players to damage the identity of a particular game. In order to maintain the identity, it is required that not the identity of the player’s play but the institutional identity is retained.
But the commitment to rules in this sense does not always involve the commitment to winning. In other words, it is obviously possible for a player to commit rules and at the same time commit defeat (e.g. the player who “throws” a fixed game). Though, of course, even in such a game the institutional identity of the game is maintained, we may well think that something important has been lost. If so, what is it?
We should consider that the end of the game or contest in question has not been accomplished. That is, in such a game it has not been decided which player is superior even if a winner is determined, and it is indispensable for all players to commit winning substantially in order to accomplish that end of the game.
The logical incompatibility thesis, in fact, has not referred to that end of a game but we tend to misunderstand as if it would do. Although, as stated above, the thesis is literally wrong, its persuasiveness seems to stem from our natural misunderstanding about it.

抄録全体を表示