Conflicting Arguments over the Dignity of Human's life between US and Europe, and Methodological Studies in Overcoming These Issues

在我最近的生命伦理学领域的研究过程中，我试图提供关于胚胎研究的相反问题的概述。目前的现状是：人的理论家支持胚胎研究，而人类理论家反对胚胎研究。一些延伸战略和学院派主张人类和胚胎研究是不相容的。图蒂奥里主义可以作为以约翰·罗尔斯为基础的理论。这是一种“对公正机构构成风险”的理论。另一方面，同样以罗尔斯为基础的“值域性质”和“高阶位势”理论则批判了学院主义。进而介绍了将人的尊严分为“个人尊严”和“人的尊严”的争论，认为前者是强概念，后者是弱概念。我还介绍了内涵战略。内涵战略认为“人的尊严”和“人权”是不对等的，胚胎研究和人是相容的。2007年12月26日，我们在京都女子大学举办了一次“旨在克服分歧”的研讨会。在这篇报道中，我发表了在这次研讨会上发表公开演讲的文章。正如我的同事Kutsuna教授在他的文章中提到的那样，我似乎几乎不可能克服分歧。如果分歧不禁让人联想到分歧，那么我们试图从多方面解释分歧的原因，比我们试图找到克服分歧的捷径更重要。为了克服分歧，我们现在能做的最好的事情就是试图解决分歧的原因。我未来的研究将集中在这一点上。此外，我还在2007年和2008年发表了研究成果。

Throughout the course of my study in the field of recent bioethics, I have attempted to provide overviews of opposed issues with regard to embryo research. Present situation is as follows: Person Theorists favor embryo research, while Human Being Theorists oppose to embryo research. Some of Extensional strategy and tutiorism urge that human being and embryo research are incompatible. Tutiorism could stand up as theory based on John Rawls. It is theory of "a risk to just institutions". On the other hand, theory of "range property" and of "higher order potential", which also based on Rawls, criticize tutiorism. Further, I introduced argument which divides human dignity into "dignity of individual" and "dignity of mankind", and it regards former as strong concept and latter as weak concept. I also introduced intensional strategy too. Intensional strategy considers that "human dignity" and "human rights" are unequivalent and that embryo research and human being are compatible.On December 26 2007 we held a symposium "for the purpose of overcoming disagreement" at Kyoto Women's University. In this report I published articles of whom held public speaking at this symposium. As my colleague Mr. Prof. Kutsuna mentions in his article, it seems me rather impossible to overcome disagreement. If disagreement cannot help reminding as disagreement, it is more important that we try to explain the cause of disagreement in many-sided way than that we try to find facile way of overcoming disagreement. For the purpose of overcoming disagreement, the best thing we could do now is to attempt to resolve the cause of disagreement. My future studies will focus on this point.In addition, in 2007 and 2008, I published materials as result of the study.