Chiba University Leading Research Promotion Program(in English)
Online International Seminar"After the Pandemic: Towards a New Fair Society"
Date and Time： Wednesday 16 February 2022, 15:0017:30, Japan

Abstract: This is a research essay based on the transcript of the seminar "After the Pandemic: Towards a
New Fair Society." Section 1 Two speakers from Mahidol University International College introduce thesame topic " After the Pandemic: Towards a New Fair Society?” but from diffident perspective. Section 2
topic 3 Panelist from Chiba university will give their comment to the two-speaker, and give their own topic.
Section 3 is the discussion time.

Moderator
・Prof. Hikari Ishido (Chiba University)
Panelists
・Prof. Jiro Mizushima (Chiba University)
・Prof. Masaya Kobayashi (Chiba University)
・ Assoc. Prof. Takayuki Kawase (Chiba University)
Organizer: Chiba University Leading Research Promotion Program - Chiba Studies
on Global Fair Society: A Multidisciplinary Approach (Led by its Global and Regional
Research Group）

Page 1 of 41

Jiro Mizushima
Hello everybody. Thank you for joining our online symposium today about 'After Corona
Society.' My name is Jiro Mizushima, Director of this Chiba University program on Global
Care Society. Our program is based on an interdisciplinary study on fairness and unfairness in
the globalized world, such as widening disparity, regional segregation, and gender inequality.
Under the current situation of COVID-19, these unfair phenomena have become more apparent
and more serious. These complicated problems could not be tackled without the broadcooperation of multiple academic disciplines.
Today, the members of Chiba University or scholars in different fields such as philosophy,
international economics, public philosophy, and political science, and the distinguishedscholars from Mahidol, Dr. Moshammer, are philosophers, and Dr. Posrithong studies history
and international relations. For a fairer post-Corona society, we are responsible for cooperatingand establishing a framework or a blueprint for a new global fair society. I hope that we canhave a fruitful discussion today.
Section 1
Dr. Gerald Moshammer
The topic when I saw it, I thought it was rather broad as the interdisciplinary nature of ourworkshop also necessitates. So, my approach to all this is also somewhat general and broad atfirst. I call my presentation Modern Symptoms of Complexity and Uncertainty in theIntersection of Facts and Values.
What I would like to highlight maybe is that especially during the COVID situation or crisis,
as some call it, we can see that policymaking, of course, is very much kind of involved withboth values and facts(Figure 1). The intersection is rather delicate. There is a kind of a situation
here, especially in public health, that shows certain complexities I would like to address. Whenit comes to values, I would like to briefly remind everyone of these two major traditions in
ethical thinking, deontology, and utilitarianism, which are sort of hallmarks of rational, ethicalthinking.
When it comes to facts, I will focus a little bit on the issue of uncertainty and probability, notin the real mathematical technical outlook but as a philosophical and social problem. Two key
notions are here, and I think attached to that, which influence modern policymaking; namely
the notion of causality I think is very important, and the notion of proper categorization; andit's important for both, the value side of things and the factual side of things.
First, let me highlight the issue of fairness as it is often addressed in ethical thinking andphilosophy (Figure 2). One of the mark stones or pillars of rational ethics is these axioms thatshould guide us in making ethical judgments and decisions. One of the most pronounced axioms
is the universalizability axiom, which both utilitarianism and deontology put forward, although
they are quite different in their outlooks. When you read Figure 2, you can see that the major
point here is that we should treat relevantly similar situations with the same standard. It's a very
simple principle of fairness that is here demanded. Children show this kind of sense of fairness
already. There are even studies in the animal world that support these ideas. But, of course, ina more complex formation in modern societies, this demand of treating relevantly similar caseswith equal standards becomes very delicate, I think. The issue is simply because that criterion

Page 2 of 41

is based on facts. That's a very important thing to notice. It is very important to see that thereason why we can universalize is that we understand how the world works. It is a factual
understanding of how we should categorize, and how we should prove? For example, we would
say we should maybe, once we learn about sentient beings and animals, we should reconsider
animal rights because we understand the physiology of animals, and therefore we start to rethink
our approaches to animals in certain cultural contexts at least. That's very important to see thefactual basis of universalizability.
Figure 1 Policy & Decision–Making: Roots of Complexity

Figure 2 Universalizability/Fairness

Before moving on, let me briefly say that of course science and technology have been a
success story (Figure 3). It seems it has given humans control, security, and mastery. It has
empowered us. And it has allowed us to meet our needs and to raise what I call here the baseline
so to speak. Our expectations have been raised too because, for example, we do not simply
accept that we have to die of certain diseases, we demand almost from the medical sciences toprovide us with some remedy.
But there are two things to say. First, of course, science is complex. Science is by no means
straightforward. That control and security are kind of counterbalanced with this increasing
complexity and uncertainty and knowledge about uncertainty especially. Also, we shouldn't
forget that the pandemic has shown us again that we are still very fragile in our biologicalmakeup and basically, we can be quite easily threatened not only individually but as a species
by certain contingent events. All that, of course, links to very basic emotions like fear and anger
which we can see around the world playing out nowadays.

Page 3 of 41

Figure 3 Utility, Needs, and Perceived Baselines

So, let me just first address the surface of the kind of COVID issue, namely that it is a bit
puzzling maybe to some that the demand for vaccination has become a kind of series ofvaccinations (Figure 4). The status of 'V-' on the screen, right, and you don't have a vaccine andthen the first shot, the second shot, booster shots, and so forth. For each shot, we expect ofcourse that we increase our utility so that things get better. But it's maybe not always so clear.
And then there is of course the situation that people get COVID without vaccination. Then wecan ask the question of natural immunity. Then, there is the question of medication andtherapeutics.
There are all these kinds of questions that create a certain complex situation as to what theindividual should do, especially in light of 'R.' You see R is the risk. What kind of risk is
associated with for example the vaccination, not getting vaccinated when one has already had
COVID, and so forth? Of course, the question is who should do what? It's a question of
categorization simply which is often of course discussed. Should we vaccinate children? Should
pregnant women get vaccinated and so forth?
Figure 4 Particular Risk Management VS. Oversimplification?

Now just to see that the normal narrative is sometimes countered by science (Figure 5). That's
a relatively recent paper in the Lancet, a very famous medical journal, one of the best, theystudied a kind of literature review of studies about natural immunity. They conclude that naturalimmunity is extremely strong, especially in Delta and the older variant. I am not saying that toPage 4 of 41

make any medical claims, I am not in a position to do so. But to just say that science itself
sometimes creates complexity by giving some voices that are not always supported.
Figure 5 Natural Immunity > Vaccine?

What interests me a bit more as a philosopher here is the issue of causation and how it plays
a role in communicating science which is so important nowadays. Namely the role model ofscience, namely physics in the more classical form portrays causality as a one could say twoway street (Figure 6). It is not only that we expect that a particular state or event causes anotherone and determines actually the next one. But if we know what comes later, so to speak, weshould be able to reconstruct the conditions that led to that event. This is really a clear one-toone mapping.
Figure 6 The physical ideal? Reversible one-to-one causality

Physicists in the ideal form would say we should actually causally be able to read the universe
backward. We should go backward from now to the Big Bang or whatever started the whole
universe and that would be governed by the same laws of physics as reading it forward. That's
sort of the standard fair model. Of course, modern physics questions that on many fronts. I am
not going into these areas of quantum physics and so on as I don't know about it basically, only
very superficially. But that sort of the classical model that many people have still in mind ismaybe still a fair point in certain areas of physics and engineering.

Page 5 of 41

But when it comes to the more complex phenomenon and more complex sciences, complex
in the sense of dealing with more parameters, then we of course face many-to-many relations
like Figure 7 shows. We cannot just say that one particular event will certainly lead to anotherparticular event. What I mean by X, Y, W, and so on are just the different outcomes that canoccur. For example, when you roll a dice, you usually have six possible outcomes, and they add
up to one in the probable theory of course. But in the older days, there was ignorance in relation
to the possible outcomes of events. Nowadays, we try to measure them. That is what probability
theory is about. You want to measure uncertainty.
Measuring uncertainty, of course, can mean two things. It can mean that we measure our lackof knowledge because everything is basically determined. We just don't know enough about
nature that we can produce a solid science, or it can also mean that nature itself is undetermined.
That's of course, a philosophical question we don't need to answer here. But it is important to
see that uncertainty is simply part of solid science nowadays in terms of statistics, in terms ofmaking in medical sciences, clinical studies, and so forth in order to control uncertainty. But it
is still uncertain. That's important to notice.
Figure 7 Often the reality: Many-to-many uncertainty

Figure 8 only briefly explains what I will mean with plus and minus in Figure 9. When you
see a +, I just mean that things get better, or worse things are avoided. And when there is a -, I
mean the things of course declined or positive things are prevented from happening. That's justa clarification figure here.
Figure 8 Utility/Rights

Page 6 of 41

When it comes to the consequences of our actions, and especially complex policymaking as
is the case in COVID, what I think is of course noteworthy is that because of the uncertainty
we have to account for side effects. Also, we may end up, of course, with positive or negative
longer consequences of something that looks quite different at present. You may have strong
restrictions in society in order to stop COVID from spreading, but the restrictions themselves
may have a huge impact on the psychology of people, behavioral patterns, and so forth.
Especially in the social space, these kinds of utility distributions are not easily modeled. That's
very important.
Figure 9 Utility distribution over time

When it comes to COVID, we have always heard a very clear picture, namely, vaccination isgood individually and vaccination is good for the group. And therefore, there is no way to denythat vaccination is the right recipe. That, of course, makes a pointed sense. But recently fromscience, and I really want to always bring in science here and not other voices. I don't want to
get political or ideological unnecessarily. But there is this case of myocarditis especially heavily
discussed in science as far as I could see, which basically is heart inflammation. This kind ofproblem occurs especially in younger men after taking the Messenger RNA vaccine (Figure10).
Now the question is for the policymaker, should one be transparent about these kinds offindings, or is it a risk, so to speak, to bring in too many caveats, too many exceptions in orderto maybe make everyone worried about the vaccine. That's a difficult issue all the time. How
much do you need to stick to the facts?
I just showed here a brief paper that has been discussed, published in Clinical Infectious
Diseases that quite clearly talks about myocarditis in relation to aspiration, which is a specificmethod of giving an injection (Figure 11). Actually, that is a topic that has never been discussed
much and the World Health Organization has not really addressed that. Actually, they do notrecommend it. Aspiration means basically as far as I know that you just pull back the injection
briefly as a nurse. And then you look at whether you hit a blood vessel or a muscular tissue.
And then, if there is blood then you would not continue with the vaccination, you would startagain. Because when the serum somehow enters the bloodstream directly, there may be someproblems occurring of myocarditis. That's the kind of suspicion. This research kind of supportsthat suspicion. And also, that myocarditis is a case for young men especially is kind of claimed
with evidence of course by this paper where especially adolescent and young men are put in therisk group. That kind of knowledge shows you it's very hard to build a kind of clear messaging
around a complex topic like this.

Page 7 of 41

Figure 10 Example 1: Covid Vaccination

Figure 11 Myocarditis/Aspiration?

Figure 12

That leads me slowly now to the issue of trust which I think is really important in order tounderstand why this grand planning of affairs in complex societies leads maybe tocounterintuitive consequences often. I have mentioned that science was successful in tacklingproblems and fending off threats. That's indeed the case. But nowadays, science does not playout in a completely neutral space, especially when it comes to implementation, technology thatneeds policy, and so on. The question is are risk benefits calculations and mediated delayed

Page 8 of 41

effects, as I say in Figure 12, given enough voice? If not, what are the consequences of not
giving enough voice?
I think that has all to do with this discussion about misinformation and fake news and so forth,which seems to be quite a simple thing, namely that there are some people who don't understand'science, and then there are other people who do understand science. But I think it's not that
simple because science, as I tried to show, the science that is interesting here in this case deals
with uncertainty. It's not that easy to establish always a final picture of uncertainty. That's why
clinical trials in the medical sciences sometimes take a long, long time. And even then,sometimes the outcome may be revisited or revised. We have to acknowledge that it's just avery difficult thing to model biological systems.
So, when we make decisions we need to think about risk-benefit calculations for groups, butalso risk-benefit calculations for the individual, and then we need to, of course, balance both
(Figure 13). So, can we really demand a young man who reads this kind of research I justmentioned to take the vaccine just because he has to care for the group? If these questions are
not treated properly in the public discourse of the policymakers, then I think people lose trust.
If they lose trust then trust becomes part of the probability estimation of subjective probability,and people will retreat. For example, people will be not so open to utilitarian thinking, whichmeans the long-term kind of benefits for the group if they may materialize. But you may goback to a strict deontological standpoint and try to defend their freedom, their freedom of choice,and so on. That's when the complexity provides a kind of headache to politicians that they often
want to avoid too easily.
Figure 13 Decision-Making, Policy Implementation, and communication

In order to give some evidence that trust in science is shaken a little bit, I would like to giveas my first example the British Medical Journal that actually fought back and also mentioned
critical points in relation to research, namely for example Pfizer's issue with data integrity andthat led to issuing with Facebook, that Facebook saying that the British Medical Journal, again
a top journal in the medical field, would be spreading fake news (Figure 14). And then the
British Medical Journal was fighting back, and they defended themselves, of course.

Page 9 of 41

Figure 14 Trust in Science?

There are other issues that can be mentioned recently that Pfizer made a study about vaccinesthat didn't produce the expected effects for children because the dose was so low (Figure 14
CNN). They thought it was enough, but the children didn't build up antibodies. Normally, you
would expect that they go back and just do it again, a new clinical trial with a new kind of
dosage. But they decided to just give a third dose which is not really the right thing to do as far
as I know. One can see that some issues here when one goes into details are a little bit shady,
and one again as a rational being can only cast some doubts about certain practices in theseareas which are not good. Because if science can't be trusted, then we have a problem. It will
be better if science is more truthful with regards to what it can do and what it cannot do,
especially in complicated sciences like the medical sciences, biological sciences, and social
sciences.
As a positive and really impressive example, I would actually note something from Japan(Figure 15). Here I read on the website of the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare a very, I
would say, mature position, a very reasonable and, I would call it, a very highly civilized
position in terms of vaccination. Basically, what it says is that no one should be mandated tohave to take the vaccine and no one should lose a job if they don't take the vaccine, and so on.
But at the same time, of course, vaccination is encouraged. The side effects, especially the
myocarditis case is also mentioned here.
I find this quite curious and interesting because Japan is basically often seen as a morecollectivist culture while the western countries are more individualist. But the western cultures
seem to be much stricter sometimes unless you can say empathetic with different viewpoints orwith individual decisions than is the case here.
Having a little bit of question, a pure simplified utilitarian outlook. Of course, deontology,
and I hope you have basically grasped the idea of this concept, deontology, the idea that you
defend your own rights, rights of free speech, and to choose freely, and so forth. Deontology
has also problems when freedom causes harm and that was of course the argument all the time.

Page 10 of 41

If you are unvaccinated, you create a case of not only risk for yourself, but many people will
also get infected and hospitals get overstretched and then everything breaks down. And we need
restrictions and the restrictions have made a big impact again and so forth and the vaccinatedpeople lose freedom in the end which again shows a conflict here.
While this is fine, I think Figure 16 applies only to Delta, not to Omicron, and many countries
have noticed that already and changed their policies because Omicron is different. Also, one
can of course ask why not focus on the vulnerable and the risk groups more than we have done
Figure 15 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan

Figure 16 Rights: Freedom versus Harm

In order to round this up, in modern societies and the COVID crisis has shown this very much,
we have this kind of paradox of resources. One side says you must use a resource. And it's not
only vaccines, right, it is also education, a way of speaking, newspeak I mention in Figure 17.
There are certain actions to qualify socially some say China is attempting to implement. Thereis a kind of coercion, a kind of force. At the same time, some people cannot get the vaccine,right? Some must get it, and the others, don't have access to it. There is a kind of paradox here.
At the same time of course there exists still the layoff choice but the layoff choice is in a way
also ruled by market forces, we shouldn't forget that. This standardization idea is very strong
and that's why some critical voices speak about authoritarianism in relation to the COVID crisis,
which I think is a legitimate concern and needs to be discussed clearly.

Page 11 of 41

Figure 17 Usage of Resources: Supply and Compulsion

Here is a brief example of Africa trying to reverse engineer Messenger RNA vaccines because
they don't get access to those vaccines (Figure 18). They just don't have them. While in mycountry, Austria, there is a vaccine mandate. So, you can be fined if you are not vaccinated(Figure 19).
Figure 18 Vaccines for all?

Figure 19 Mandate or Blessing?

Page 12 of 41

So, at the end of all this, I think that we have here this kind of over-simplification and overextension of science and engineering sometimes in the public discourse. It's not only in relation
to COVID but other topics also. Also, of course, politicians often quite naturally try to directly
determine social facts with strict rules and with standardization, and so forth. That counters
pretty much certain details in relation to uncertainty probability, and system thinking. This
caused a loop diagram that you are maybe familiar with, which I think is a very good tool inorder to communicate complexity and decision making. Also, game theory would be aninteresting idea here that could highlight why people react to, for example, vaccine mandates
in a certain way, not by following them but by getting more stubborn (Figure 20).
Figure 20 Dialectic of Political Control and Complexity

Figure 21 Dialectic of Political Control and Complexity

There is this interesting case with the Omicron variant, to show the uncertainty sometimes inscience itself. England, the UK has done a pretty bad job in modeling the data. They
overestimated the hospitalization and the cases a lot. While Denmark did an extremely goodjob. I took this data from the website I am showing you in Figure 21. The woman you can see
in Figure 21 is actually the Chief Scientist of the advisory group to the Danish government.
What she said in this interview that I watched is basically that they accounted for the changes
in behavior in their models, in the sense that when people hear there are more cases of Omicron,Page 13 of 41

then they will automatically change their behavior. Because of that, the caseload is actually notrising up as fast as, for example, the UK models have done. One can see these are all experts,
but their models are really extremely divergent, extremely different projections as to what
Omicron would lead to.
Last We have here laws and regulations that we need to have in order to live in an organizedsociety. But we must always ask how much can you really predict or intentionally shape (Figure22)? In a complex society with a lot of technology, we don't always fully understand thepsychological and behavioral impact of these measures. And so, the idea that we can just, so to
speak, push a button and create fairness or a kind of substantial change in public health may be
an illusion. In order to have a fair society, I guess we need to be fair to complexity.
Figure 22 To which degree can social phenomena be intentionally shaped and predicted?

Page 14 of 41

Dr. Natanaree Posrithong
My presentation today, is to look into the social setbacks and gender inequalities during the
pandemic and maybe the post-pandemic period.
Basically, I just prepared some slides here, when we think about the new fair society,obviously the questions about inequality came up (Figure 23). last year we were raising many
important issues including definitely the poverty issue during the implementation of the strict
lockdowns, or the rights of minorities, especially as I am from Thailand, and I see what was
happening in the years 2020 and 2021. I mean there were a lot of issues regarding the rights of
migrant workers, refugees, the displaced people, and so on, especially regarding the access tovaccines. I think all of these would still be the problems that many, many countries are stillfighting, are still struggling, are still trying to solve these problems.
Figure 23 Towards The New Fair Society

But like I said, coming from a gender historian perspective, I think there is a lot that I can
expand into. I plan to continue a bit more today and emphasize gender issues during the
pandemic from two particular perspectives. In the middle column, this is what I put as the social
setbacks and gender inequalities that resulted from the pandemic (Figure 23). Of course, we
can't focus on the wrong things. There were also new opportunities, at least we can be happy
about. There were some opportunities and some positive consequences that resulted from thepandemic. So, I will talk about the new opportunities for women and LGBT empowerment thatemerged during the pandemic later. Maybe that could initiate an even bigger movement in the
post-pandemic period.
So, on gender setbacks, first, I will address the issue of employment losses because that's oneof the most common problems for women and LGBTQ+ communities. Then, I will raise thecase of the economic problem, especially regarding the growing dependencies on the careeconomy. How did we start to be more dependent on the care economy, so women switched

Page 15 of 41

jobs to focus on the domestic duties, caring for other people during the pandemic more, andhow might that deprive the women's rights in various issues. All the issues here I believe you
all have heard of before. It existed – they existed before the pandemic. But somehow, whether
we are aware of it or not, they are becoming more serious.
I am going to touch just a little bit on the following issues such as this gender-based violence
that is increasing in percentage around the world. The statistics show that gender-based violenceis actually increasing a lot more. Child marriages also increased. Due to the lockdowns and theclosure of schools, access to education is becoming limited, which that led to more number ofchild marriages or even the reduced access to health services in general, the women talking not
only about the right to get vaccinated but also about the rights to just get healthcare and evencontraception, all the basic stuff that should be the right of all genders, not only just women but
all genders.
But at the same time, of course, I don't want you to get depressed with all the problems. I
would like to mention also some new opportunities. I have researched quite a bit into this period
and trying to find a different angle to this pandemic era.
As I said, when one door closes, another always opens. I think there are some significant
opportunities for women and LGBTQ communities such as, for example, the new online
channel that could now help foster a kind of social movement. There were some empowerment
movements through online and social media. One in particular that maybe I will focus on a bit
more because that's one of my recent projects is to do with FemTwit. The combination of theterm comes from 'feminist' and 'Twitter.' So, I would be looking into that phenomenon. It
actually was quite positive on the gender issues. That's how I plan on my brief presentation.
Figure 24 Gender and Social Setbacks: Women and LGBTQI vulnerability to job losses

The first point on the gender setback is about the vulnerability to job losses (Figure 24).
Actually, statistics show that women's jobs are 1.8 times more vulnerable to the crisis than
men's jobs. Given that women make up 39% of global employment but accounted for 54% ofPage 16 of 41

overall job losses during the start of the COVID itself, I got the statistics back in 2020. It's also
to do with the fact that the statistics of the women in the world, the global jobs of women,
women for the large majority work in the sectors that are worst affected by the crisis. You cansee it from the chart here. Women actually fell into the black circle. Accommodation and foodservices, wholesale, retail, and education. These are the common jobs for women. As we know,
these were also the sectors that were worst affected by the crisis. So, I guess this is probably
the biggest setback for the gender, social setback on women in particular. For LGBTQI
communities as well, it would be even worse for them, because even the job opportunities weare talking about, it's hard for the LGBTQI communities. But with the fact that now the job
losses are becoming such a big issue, so the burden would be placed on them as well.
So, what does it mean to all of us? It means that it's going to impact the whole economy(Figure 25). I am not an economist myself but because this is quite related to the global
economic system. The phenomenon in which, as you can see, there was a growing careeconomy. Just to define it quickly, the care economy is basically the reproduction of everyday
life through the tasks that women perform. This could include all the burdens that are unpaid.
If these burdens were paid before the pandemic, some of these were counted as paid jobs. But
now when the pandemic happened, these became unpaid care.
Figure 25 Gender and Social Setbacks: The growing "Care Economy"

The demands that have grown a lot during the pandemic, that women have now to cook. I
mean they were, of course, previously responsible for all this but their tasks have now increased
from before to doing the cooking, the childcare, or even taking care of children's education withthe home-based learning. Now everyone is studying at home doing online learning. And eventaking care of the sick people in the family. All of this could actually increase the burden on
the care economy and so it doesn't really contribute to the global market the way that it's
supposed to be.

Page 17 of 41

So, from the statistics here in the below chart, you can see (Figure 25). This is from the UN
policy brief on the impact of COVID-19 on women. It shows that it illustrates that basicallywomen spend during the pandemic, 4.1 hours per day on unpaid tasks, so they actually workwithout being paid. Some of them even had to step out of their paid jobs in order to fulfill thisbecause there are increasing tasks at home. Children can't go to school. So, they have to takecare of the children at home. Basically, they had to step out of the paid economy, from the paid
task to the unpaid task. Basically, this was estimated by the United Nations that it was probably
as high as the US $11 trillion, or the equivalent of how much money that is lost to the growingcare economy, to the unpaid jobs that the women are more and more involved in here.
Compared to the men, of course, the men would probably spend only about 1.7 hours per day
on these unpaid tasks. This is the big inequality that we see emerging. Obviously, you would
think women would anyway spend more time than men doing this care economy, but it's now
increased a lot more than before. As I said, it's going to impact the global scale, economic scale
as well as not just at the domestic level. Not at the micro level but I guess it also contributes tothe bigger problem in the global economy.
So, the impact of these increasing burdens on the care economy tasks could also lead to evenfurther problems that we see as the result of the pandemic. what are the three issues here that I
would a bit further elaborate on: the escalation in gender-based violence; the increased risk ofchild marriages; and also, the strict measures to control the pandemic which somehow reduced
access to essential health services. So basically, women and other vulnerable groups werebasically denied access to a different type of health service.
I am just going to go through these issues just briefly to give you an idea. So, starting with thefirst one here on gender-based violence (Figure 26). Gender-based violence, Oxfam, the NGOthat specialized in women and children, basically reports that there is an undeniable increase ingender-based violence during the COVID pandemic around the world. It was basically keeping
the data, recording the data of the number of calls made by survivors to domestic violence
hotlines in ten countries during the first months of the lockdown. During the lockdown, the data
reveals that the range is wide, between 25% to 111% surge in the increase of this number ofgender-based violence that is occurring around the world. Starting with Argentina at 25% thebiggest surge would be in Malaysia which increased by about 111%. Studies basically
documented significant risk factors for increased violence, being married, being unemployedof course, or having lost household income due to the pandemic. And another classic problem,the substance abuse tendencies. But out of these common factors, of course, unemployment andloss of income were probably the factors that were most related to the pandemic.
Basically, this is one of the problems that we have to admit that is just starting to rise, starting
to become more serious, to become bigger, like the problem is just getting bigger than before.
That's just like a quick outline on gender-based violence. Next, what else is the result of thisphenomenon that women had now to take all the burdens at home? What else can be theconsequence of that?

Page 18 of 41

Figure 26 Gender and Social Setbacks: Gender-based violence

Figure 27 Gender and Social Setbacks: Child marriage

The second one that I want to talk about is child marriage (Figure 27). The reason for childmarriage increases through various pathways that are related to the COVID crisis. Basically, it
ranged from economic shocks to school closure, interruptions in services as well as the deathof parents. How are these points related to child marriages? For example, somehow triggeredby the COVID-19, school closures pushed girls towards marriage in many places in the world.
Basically, since school is no longer an option, some of the families started to put their daughters
into child marriages, thinking that it might be related to obviously the economic shocks or lossof income in the family. It is sad but we have to admit as well that there are a lot of families

Page 19 of 41

who think that maybe the best way to maintain their income is to cut the expenses. Sometimes,
girls are seen as expenses. That's why this is one of the reasons why we see the prediction thatat least in the next 10 years, we are not going to see the number of child marriages go down.
We are only going to see it go up.
This is like the statistics from UNICEF here that predicted that at first before the pandemic,
we thought child marriages would not be anymore a big problem. But with the situation of thepandemic, it's just going to continue to increase a bit more even when we get into 2023, 2024,
and only just after that decline. So, we are going to see approximately additional 10 million
child brides during and even during the period of the post-pandemic time (Figure 28).
Figure 28 Pandemic & Child marriage

Another issue on the social setback is to do with the reduced access to health and services,
particularly in the LGBTQ community (Figure 29). For both women and LGBTQ communities,
especially maybe start first with the women. For the women related travel restrictions and social
distancing can make it difficult for girls and women to access healthcare. Denying healthcare
has become a big issue. Especially for LGBTQ+ people who are experiencing higher rates ofHIV, a lot of LGBTQ community who are people with HIV, so they basically would have
weakened immune systems and the COVID-19 would make them even more vulnerable.

Page 20 of 41

Figure 29 Gender and Social Setbacks: Reduced access to health and services

And, of course, we can't deny that there is still going to be the regular experience of
discrimination and lack of cultural competence when seeking healthcare. This is like anothersocial setback that we see from this change, from this transition that happened in our society,in our economy during the pandemic time. Nevertheless, despite the setbacks, there are somenew opportunities as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation today (Figure 30).
Figure 30 New Opportunities

There are some new opportunities. Observations here are some of the contributions from thepandemic to gender empowerment. So, first, it somehow also strengthened the sense ofcommunity through the online channel. So, you can see, for example, I have here the Pride

Page 21 of 41

Afrique or Pride Africa. This was the first time that the LGBT communities in Africa got
together online and they make a website and they actually celebrate the occasion of Pride Day.
This is quite significant for the African communities.
But the one that I would like to emphasize a bit in more detail because I've been actuallyworking on this as my current research. This is the phenomenon called FemTwit (Figure 30).
Like I said from the beginning, FemTwit is about the feminist movement that employs social
media like Twitter to be the means of communication, to be the channel of communication.
FemTwit basically in the context of Thailand, FemTwit basically criticizes all types of
discrimination against women including anything from rape scenes in the movies, in a TV series,
sexist jokes, or even pederasty. So, Thai scholars explained that this name first came up by antifeminists. It's kind of interesting because it began with the anti-feminists who framed FemTwit
to be bad feminists like to contrast with the good feminists whose voices are more polite andmore pleasant. So basically, that's how they condemned it at first.
These phenomena, surprisingly speaking, started to happen during the pandemic period. Of
course, this can't be applied to all groups of women, all groups of gender because this might be
only certain urban, the educated group who use the social media. But I think with what they are
doing here, using social media as the channel to convey their message and even empower the
movement is to a very great extent became quite successful.
In Figure 31 are some of the popular tweets that I want to translate for you. You can see herethat these were very recent like last week. It was already tweeted 54.2K like 54,000 retweets ofthis particular post alone. This was from the Twitter account that basically translated as theladyboys news. Basically, this account tweeted the comments, I am just going to focus on thetranslation, such as news about a teacher of a famous school punishing a female student who
wears an inappropriate uniform to school by having male students stare at her chest. This issomething that the public would be like really interested in and want to retweet in order to get
more and more public opinion on this. Or another one here, a young woman refused to take adrink from a man, then he poured the drink on her head. This is also a piece of very big news
from last week. A lot of FemTwits started to retweet more and more about these issues. Or last
but not least, a 12-year-old got raped twice while attending a funeral at a temple.
These kinds of messages were considered to be the way in which now women, LGBTQI
started to form the groups and try to make a move. Even though it's a baby step, I think thiswould be something. Because of the lockdown, everything has changed so much in our lives,and now social media is undeniably one of the most powerful media forms that we consume
every day, especially among the younger generation.
In the end, I just want to be hopeful. I want to mention that there are definitely problems ofinequalities that are predicted and are still prevailing and might be prevailing also into the postpandemic future. But we could take the action and turn over the struggles into new opportunities
like I think what you see with the social media examples that I gave. Figure 32 is a frameworkthat came up by the UNICEF that started to call for 5R: recognition; reduction; redistribution;
represent; and reward. This is what we have to be concerned with when we're dealing with thegender issues during and in the post-pandemic future that we are looking into.

Page 22 of 41

Figure 31 Popular tweets by FemTwit

Figure 32 5R

Page 23 of 41

1.

Section 2: Panelist session
Jiro Mizushima

First, about Professor Moshammer, you explained from a philosophical point of view that wehave to think from a philosophical viewpoint about the pandemic. You pointed out rightly that
we have to make a balance between risk for a group and risk for the individual. That's a very
important ethical question. My question is you mentioned freedom. How do you evaluate theanti-lockdown or anti-vaccination movement? They advocate freedom. But they are I think
harmful to society in general. However, do you think that these movements should be oppressed,or should they tolerate it? It means they can speak freely. What do you think about theirfreedom?
Professor Posrithong, thank you for your insightful explanation about the gender-biased
pandemic society. I agree fully with your argument, especially women were in the worst bad
position under the pandemic. You pointed out the Twitter movement, FemTwit, it is the firsttime that I know this term. It is quite interesting. Also, in Japan, we see some kind of Twitter
activism, Twitter demonstration we say. But on the other hand, traditional organized
movements, are weakening with the decrease of participants in the old movement. Do you thinkthat Twitter or SNS activism would be better or they take a better position also after the
pandemic or traditional movements will go to the forefront again? I would like to hear yourevaluation.
Next, My presentation is about the remarkable difference in responses to COVID-19 among
countries. If we compare the countries internationally, it seems that we have different national
regimes. Let me explain it. In order to prevent the spread of Coronavirus, it is consideredessential to bring about behavioral changes among people such as social distancing and wearing
masks. However, the policy measures taken to achieve this prevention of infection have varied
widely around the world.
We can distinguish two types of controls: administrative controls and social controls as ameasure to achieve this goal. First, administrative control refers to direct intervention andcontrol using administrative mechanisms based on laws and regulations, banning the operationof restaurants and businesses, prohibiting people from going out, requiring people to wear
masks, with violators being subject to administrative sanctions including fines.
In contrast, social controls refer to controls at the level of civil society based on social
awareness rather than administration. Individuals behave according to social norms. They feelthat they are required to wear masks or not go out. There are no explicit penalties, so non-mask
wearers will not be fined but the majority are likely to choose to wear masks.
Focusing on the two types of controls described here, we can classify them into four patterns
as Figure 33. The vertical axis is the strength of administrative controls, and the horizontal axis
shows the strength of social controls. Now, we can put the countries into these four patterns.
The first type on the upper left in Figure 33 is a pattern of strong administrative controls andweak social controls, typically European and American styles. Their strong lockdowns such as
business suspensions and curfews are used to cut off interpersonal contacts including a ban on
going out, group gatherings, and long-distance travel. In this pattern, social control is weak, andpeople don't like to wear masks. We see sometimes anti-lockdown movements there.

Page 24 of 41

The second type on the upper right in Figure 33 is a pattern in which administrative controls
and social controls are strong, which is often seen in East and Southeast Asia, excluding Japan.
China, Taiwan, and South Korea fall into this type. In these countries and regions,administrative powers actively intervened in the lives of citizens even by tracking theirindividual activities. Moreover, in these countries, social awareness is also strong. This East
Asian pattern of co-existence of administrative and social controls has one merit. It resulted in
the lowest level of death per capita internationally. This shows the cumulative number of deaths
per million population due to COVID-19. The East Asian countries are the lowest and theEuropean countries and the United States are the highest (Figure 34).
Figure 33 International comparisons about responses to COVID-19 based on two types ofcontrols 1

Figure 34 Cumulative number of deaths per million population due to COVID-19

The third type, shown below right in Figure 33, is a pattern typical of Japan whereadministrative controls are weak but social controls are strong. In Japan, the government only
asked people to wear masks and not to go out, but without sanctions. However, self-restraint at
the citizen level has spread widely and activities such as gatherings and events have been
drastically reduced. Wearing masks became extremely common. It is sometimes pointed outthat the peer pressure in Japanese society lies behind this behavior. The final type is the fourthon the lower left. This is Sweden. There, both administrative controls and social controls are
weak. In Sweden, compulsory measures such as curfews, suspension of business, and closure

Page 25 of 41

of restaurants were not basically adopted, and citizens' lives were generally similar to prepandemic times. Controls at the civil society level were also weak. It was an adult response tocontrol according to the Prime Minister of Sweden. However, one of the results of this Swedish
policy is a high number of deaths due to infections compared to neighboring countries. Basedon this international comparison, we can summarize the characteristics of each regime (Figure
35).
Figure 35 International comparisons about responses to COVID-19 based on two types ofcontrols 2

The keyword of this first type is the lockdown. The second is intervention. The third is selfrestraint. The last one is autonomy. We have to take these unique regime characteristics into
consideration if we are to design the international society after the pandemic. Probably, thisconsideration offers us an important clue for thinking about post-pandemic society.
2.

Masaya Kobayashi
As for the first presentation of Dr. Moshammer, I am very interested in philosophy andpsychology. From that angle, your argument is very helpful for me. So, I would like to ask onequestion about your presentation. I am very interested in your argument and the relation
between the problem of complexity and philosophy. I wonder which philosophy or politicalphilosophy is in tune with your idea that the balance between freedom and complexity or control,
I wonder whether, for example, utilitarianism, Kantian, or other philosophy is quite in tune withsolving the issue. That's my question to you. My question to Dr. Posrithong, actually I was very
impressed by your presentation and your own question, but I would like to offer some evidence
supporting your argument in Japan's case.
Next, Let me share my topic, 'Wellbeing and New Fair Society after Corona Calamity:
Investigation from Positive Political Psychology'.
The first is with the philosophical question, this is really to Dr. Moshammer. Recently, in our
research, positive psychology from a philosophical angle, this new psychology focuses on thepositive side of the human mind while the past psychology focuses on negative human disease
and mental affairs. Our question is a philosophical question for positive psychology because as
Dr. Moshammer argued that there is or should be some distinction between fact and value inPage 26 of 41

our human sciences. But the point is that positive psychology deals with the issue of happinessor wellbeing. The basic purpose is how to make people more better conditions? Is this empiricalscience or normative inquiry? So, classical philosophical and ethics philosophy deals with anormative inquiry. This is why this question appears.
I think this modern science, obviously there is a strict difference between description andprescription (Figure 36)
Figure 36 Modern sciences

But the recent development of positive psychology asked questions about the strict distinction
between these. Because positive psychology made it clear that, for example, the virtue of humancharacter has some strong relation with well-being (Figure 37).
Figure 37 Recent Development} Hedonia-Eudaimonia Debate} Exploration of the scientific research on

Aristotelian eudaimonia} PP=Aristotelian

practical and empirical science
authentic
happiness

Hedonia –eudaimonia
Debatewell-being
theorytheoryThis reminds us of classical Aristotle's idea of philosophy in Figure 38. He obviously has
contemplation, but he has some empirical research in his time. So, in Aristotle's philosophy,
there is less distinction between empirical research and normative philosophy.

Page 27 of 41

Figure 38 Aristotle's philosophy

In my view, there can be some possibility of intersection between empirical science andnormative philosophy (Figure 39). I call this philosophical science and Aristotle's Classificationof the Science especially practical sciences have some ideas on this new modern program(Figure 40).
Figure 39 Philosophical Science: Another interpretation of PP

Figure 40 Aristotle's Classification of the Science

Practical
Sciences:

Theoreticalrough outlines:precision

Sciences:

Page 28 of 41

Productive
SciencesPositive philosophy obviously is based on empirical science or empirical evaluation of facts.
But it deals with cultural differences and various exceptions and variances. This is a kind ofpractical science in the modern academic setting (Figure 41). I think this kind of new
psychology is in tune with liberal communitarianism in political philosophy which is a bit
different from utilitarianism and Kantian. That's the background of my question to Dr.
Moshammer.
Figure 41 PP as a practical empirical science

From that angle, I think in considering a new fair society, it is better to see if these various
viewpoints of philosophy, that is a Kantian viewpoint, utilitarian viewpoint, and communitarian
viewpoint (Figure 42) The communitarian viewpoint includes an ethical element. This is mybasic viewpoint of the thinking of fairness.
Figure 42 The Four Criteria of Fairness

The second topic is wellbeing and social indicators. I can see the introduction of various
indicators of well-being, we can survey the change in well-being in the age of Corona disease.
I have conducted three surveys from 2020 to 2021. Figure 43 shows the general well-being ofpeople decreased in the first survey, the second survey, and the third survey. This is quite aserious situation for people.

Page 29 of 41

Figure 43 Subjective Well-being

survey 1
2020May
N5000

survey 22021 March
N6885

survey 32021 October
N2658

The number has decreased in the survey 2 , more decreased in the survey3(The world's most standard WB scale by Ed. Diener).

Figure 44 is a bit related to Dr. Posrithong and her presentation. Figure 44 shows that thedecrease is far greater in women than men. In the first survey, the women's well-being is higher
than men's well-being. But in the third survey, the well-being of females is now lesser than men.
It means that the decrease in women is more significant than the decrease in men. Perhaps, thisis quite related to your viewpoint, I think.
Figure 44 Changes in SWLS between men and women (Surveys 1-3)
指標調査1（男性）調査1（女性）調査2（男性）調査2（女性）調査3（男性）調査3（女性）S W LS

25.02125.28624.63323.65123.59022.970Figure 45 indicates various other indicators. This is before and after 2020. There is a decrease
in well-being. Figure 46 is a comparison between two surveys and changes in wellbeing. We
can see that the second survey shows a decrease from our first survey.
Figure 45 WB changes between before and after corona

Page 30 of 41

WB changes between before and after corona(subjective recognition: May 2020, Survey 1,
N5000)As expected, every item shows a bad change.
WB drops after corona. In E, H (happiness)and R. The degree of decrease of R is a little
small. Thinking about online exchanges andfamily, understandable. M (meaning) also
decreased as well as others. N (negative
emotion) and L (loneliness) rise.
before = PERMA5, after = PERMAc
loneliness, S is satisfaction

First H (health), last H (happiness), L is

Figure 46 Changes in WB (comparison between 2 surveys)
Comparison between survey1 and survey2(PERMA indicators)

Comparison between survey1 and survey2(PERMA indicators)

6.200

6.000

6.200

6.000

5.800

6.000

5.800

5.600

5.600

5.400

5.400

5.200

5.200

5.200

5.000

5.000

5.800
5.600

A

A
Ac

R
Rc
M
M
c

Vi
rtu
e

W
B

Survey2

H
Po
s it
Hc
ive
em Po
NNe
ot s iti
io ve
ga
n
tiv
e Nc
e e N (a fte mo m eg a r c tio
ot ti o n
io ve ron( e na
af m )
te ot
r c io
or n
on
PE a)
R
PE MA
RM
PE Ac
P E RM
RM A5
AH
N
W
B
Vi
tu
e

Survey1(after corona)

PE
RM

Po
s it
Nive
em
Ne
ot
ga
io
tiv
n
ee
m
ot
io
n
PE
RM
A5
PE
RM
AH
N

A

Survey1

H

M

E

R

P

5.000

E
Ec

P
Pc

5.400

Survey2

In Survey 1,the values are lower at the post-corona period.
The results of surveys 1 and 2 are pretty close, but
the numerical value of survey 2 is somewhat lower
than survey1.

Survey1

The numerical values of survey 2 are lower
in almost all areas.

Figure 47 is the comparison between the average and values of PERMA indicators(). This is
one of the indicators of wellbeing. We can see the first, second, and third: blue, orange, andgreen, this is decreased.
Figure 47 Comparison among three surveys

Comparison among three surveys（PERMA indicator）

The numerical values of survey 3 are lower
than the survey 2 in all areas.

Also, Figure 48 is another indicator called 'I COPPE'. This is indicating overall well-being,interpersonal well-being, community well-being, organizational well-being, physical well-

Page 31 of 41

being, psychological well-being, community well-being, and political well-being. Actually, I
am very astonished to see the first result. All indicators showed a decrease.
Figure 48 Multi- dimensional WB
All numbers are lower in the survey2 than the survey1:
in the survey 3 than the survey2.

survey 1
survey 2
survey 3

overall , interpersonal, community, organization, physical, psychological, economic, political, average WB(I COOPE scale by I. Prilleltensky)

We can see from Figure 49 and Figure 50 surveys results, that there is a serious situation for
the Japanese people that is the growth of life anxiety. Anxiety covers obviously infectious
diseases such as the new Coronavirus but also other various subjects of anxiety.
Figure 49 About anxiety

H7_3 Life Happiness6（Don't know）

1.1%

5（Not happy at all）

7.7%

4（not very happy）

16.8%

3（Neither）

26.7%

2（happy）

40.7%

1（very happy）

6.9%
0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

survey1: Positive people in satisfaction, hope, and happiness are generally more than negative people,
and the same tendency appears in this study. However, there are a lot of anxiety here than usual cases.
It can be imagined as a result of the corona calamity.

Page 32 of 41

Figure 50 Contents of anxiety
Contents of anxiety

survey1: Increased brightness: correlated with only 5 (emergency), 6 (disaster), and 10 (crime)
Increased darkness, anxiety, and depression: correlated with everything except 9 (independence of children) and
N=5000, multiple answers
16 (no anxiety).The coronavirus may also amplify general anxiety(green).

Figure 51 shows the deterioration of mental state and bipolarization. Bipolarization signifies
that obviously there are many people whose mental state was more depressed than usual. But
there are some people whose states are often brighter than usual. Obviously, there is a strong
tendency towards the bad direction. But there is some direction towards the bright direction insome percent of people. This also confirms my explanation. Obviously, this bad direction is
influenced by the anxiety about income.
Figure 51 Deterioration of mental state and bipolarization (survey 1-3)

My mental state was more depressing than usual.
My mental state was more anxious than usual.
My mental state was often darker than usual.
My mental state was often brighter than usual.

Both positive(yellow) and negative(green) people increased in survey 2 in comparison with survey1.
There are people who had become more negative than usual, but there are also people who had
become more positive in both surveys: bipolarization. The number of the former is more than thelatter. The second survey indicated this trend clearer.
The trend changed in the survey3. This reflects perhaps the temporal improvement of the number ofcorona infections.

Page 33 of 41

“Worse" is a little more than "improved". In particular, the number of "slightly worse“ is conspicuous in income change.

Changesmental change

physical change

worsenimproved
survey 1・3

survey 1・3

employment change

income change

survey 1・3

survey 1・3

Figure 52 shows the bonds with family and friends. It is interesting that for some people bonds
with family and friends are better than the situation before the Corona disease.
Figure 52 Bonds with family and friends (survey 1-3)
bond with friend

bond with family
worsenimproved

People whose bonds with family and friends have become"somewhat stronger“ are a little more than people
whose bonds “have become weaker".
I can conclude that there is bipolarization, basically a bad direction of well-being (Figure 53).
But some people feel more bright feelings than before. The value chain shows there are somepeople who think that mental problem is more important.

Page 34 of 41

Figure 53 Value Changes in the survey 1 and 3
Value Changes in the survey 1 and 3

7（Values and worldviews have changed to value affiliation, perspectives and evaluations of oneself）
8（Values and worldview have changed to value self-actualization）
6（Values and worldviews have changed to value the economy and the affluence of goods）
9（Values and worldview have changed to value spirituality and richness of mind）
4（My values and worldview have changed）
3（I felt like rethinking my way of thinking and life）
5（Values and worldview have changed to value safety and security）
2（Even after the new coronavirus problem has settled, I still feel uneasy about my income）
1（I feel uneasy about my income until the problem of the new coronavirus is resolved）

red: Maslow’s hierarchy of need“values change→ post-material values(self-transcendence need or spirituality)”and “income anxiety→materialistic values(safety need such as economy) ”：
increase in both poles (in comparison with theother two needs of belonging andself-realization need)

What are the factors that influenced these differences or these changes in wellbeing? Analysis
in Table 1 shows that obviously economy, community, and culture, various factors influenced
the change in well-being. But politics, especially fairness and justice, influenced the change ofbrightness, darkness, anxiety, and depression. This conclusion can be seen in the three surveys:
the first, second, and third surveys. These are quite similar conclusions there.
Table 1 Analysis results
Increasedbrightness
WB

Increased
darkness

0．167

Politics (Fairness andJustice)
Economy (Income)

0.086

Community (General Trust)
Culture (richness of life)

Increased
anxiety-0.114

Increase inruins-0.144ｰ0.100-0.138-0.168-0.076-0.104-0.079-0.0400.109

Logistic
regression
analysis of WB
and 4 systems(Survey 1):
4 items
Corresponding
to 4 systems.

0.061
Mental change

R2

0.031

red：5％significance: black 10％.
Multiple-regression※「improved greatly 5，
Worsen greatly1」.

WB

0.086

Politics (Fairness andJustice)

0.077

Economy (Income)

0.054 WB has correlations with the changeof feeling. Moreover, politics(fairness) and economics (income)are negatively correlated withnegative direction.

Community (General Trust)
Culture (Richness of Life)

Page 35 of 41

So, I can find out that – I can see that justice and fairness influence increased well-being(Figure 54 Structural Equation Modeling). This is the general finding which is not necessarily
related to Corona disease.
Figure 54 Structural Equation Modeling
Structural Equation Modeling

Survey 1

Survey 2

Generally, justice/fairness
And citizenship increase WB.

manifest variables, 3-dimensional justice,2-dimensional citizenship

But this result shows the correlation between justice and fairness and the change in mood
(Figure 55 Correlations between justice/fairness or citizenship and change of mood (brightness
and darkness)). Justice and fairness positively correlated with brightness increase andnegatively correlated with the increase in darkness, anxiety, and depression. The result of thethird survey confirms this finding.
Figure 55 Correlations between justice/fairness or citizenship and change of mood(brightness and darkness)

0.005

0.037

brightness
increase-0.156

Correlations
between justice/fairness
or citizenshipand change of mood(brightness and darkness)-0.167

darknessincrease-0.176-0.161

0.060-0.130-0.091brightness
increasedarknessincrease-0.167anxietyincrease-0.212

0.060

Justice/fairness positively
correlated with brightness increase;negatively correlated with the increaseof darkness, anxiety, and depression.
red, blue: coefficient>0.2, 0.1-0.200depression
increase-0.167

0.789

citizenship

0.443

0.514

subejective
WB

blue: coefficient> 0.1

0.168

0.135

brightness
increase-0.117-0.068-0.144-0.080-0.197-0.163

darknessincreaseanxietyincrease

depression
increase

Page 36 of 41-0.136depression
increasesurvey3justice・fairness-0.079anxietyincrease

The conclusion is that well-being generally declines due to Corona calamity. In terms of
attributes, women and elderly people are more related to increased darkness than men andyounger people. In particular, overall anxiety has increased. Deterioration of mental state andbipolarization is an unexpected and new finding for me. The bond between family and friends
has improved slightly. The importance of home is noteworthy in this situation. Changes in value
have occurred. The number of poles of materialistic orientation and post-materialisticorientation tends to increase. This is noteworthy.
Justice and citizenship are related to high well-being and also to the increase of positive moodand the constraint of negative mood. In some, justice and fairness may contribute to a positiveor less negative change of mood. Justice and fairness and citizenship are related to the increaseof well-being, and also to the constraint of negative change of feeling increased in Corona
calamity. The effects of citizenship and the sense that fairness and justice exist in politics andsociety may curb despair and depression due to Corona's calamity and increase the positive
feelings.
Therefore, fairness and justice are important in society both in normal times and in times ofcrisis. Accordingly, it is desirable for us to realize a new fair society in and after the Corona
calamity. Figure 56 New Fair Society after Post- Corona Age is a temporary conclusion to meon the theme of the post-Corona age.
Figure 56 New Fair Society after Post- Corona Age
Therefore, fairness/justice is important in society both in normal time and in the timeof crisis. Accordingly, it is desirable for us to realize a new fair society in and after
the Colona calamity.
principle

scienceandtechnology

pastInterests,
marketeconomysmokestackindustry

futurelife and health,
digitalizatio
moralneconomyorganization

verticaluniformit
yvaluespublicphilosophy

society ・community

pleasure(hedonic wellbeing)utilitarianism
libertarianism

closed, repressive

ethical element
Loosening(eudaimonic
horizonta
communitariani boundaries,
well-being)
l・varietysmautonomy andfairness/justic
cooperatione

3.
Takayuki Kawase
The first point of mine is about risk assessment. I think this topic is closely related to Dr.
Moshammer's argument of today. In the last two years, we have had so many controversies
about the risks of the virus or bad things of COVID-19. In my opinion, not only risk assessment
but also all human behaviors of assessments are plural kinds of things. By plurality, I meanhuman actions of assessments are not objective but subjective or inter-subjective. It isindividuals or groups that assess some risks. There is no objective risk that transcends or isindependent of any individuals or any groups. There are different correct opinions about risks.
There are different kinds of correct answers to risk questions.
This is quite natural in liberal societies. It is quite natural for society and the freedom of
conscience. But on the other hand, such plurality brings about social divisions or social
segmentations. In such cases, people do not listen to others' opinions. For example, the vaccine

Page 37 of 41

conspiracy theory is one good example. Then, what is the reason for this tendency? I think one
reason might be that people exchanged their opinions only inside the same-minded closed
society, or closed groups and make their opinions more and more radical.
In short, I think there are many different correct answers or right answers to the questions
about pandemics. We should not claim any single, only one answer about any kind of issue inmy opinion.
My second topic is the rule of law. Actually, I am a legal philosopher. I want to talk about therule of law. In the last two years, so many Japanese people criticized the Japanese government
why not our government takes strong measures and regulations to regulate people's actions.
Many of these claimants did not understand that governments cannot take any actions without
legal permission. Some better arguments claim that government should take extrajudicial
measures in an emergency despite understanding the importance of rule of law.
The second argument is rejecting formidable arguments in my opinion, in an emergency it isnatural that people want consequentialist or utilitarian ideas rather than deontologist ideas.
Because in many cases, not all but in many cases, consequentialism is more flexible thandeontology. I agree with this opinion. However, in an emergency, people tend to seek very
short-sighted consequences. I consider we should think from a long-term perspective, a longterm perspective, not a short-sighted perspective. If we adopt long-term consequentialism I
speculate, so actually I don't have any evidence, so I am just speculating that the consequenceof respecting the value of the rule of law even in an emergency situation is much better thanignoring the rule of law. We should not sacrifice our long-term interests of ours in order to get
short-term profits. So, I think we should think about anything from the long-term perspective.
These are my own opinions.
Now, I would like to move on to some comments to Dr. Moshammer and Dr. Posrithong.
First, Dr. Moshammer's arguments are very interesting as a philosopher. The relationshipbetween facts and values is one of the most interesting and important questions of philosophy.
In my view, the complexity, and uncertainty that Dr. Moshammer said are quite natural things.
These are what we should accept in my opinion. Here to complexity and uncertainty, I would
like to add my own opinion about the plurality. But anyway, these discussions remind me ofthe suggestion of naturalistic fallacy in George Edward Moore's Principia Ethica. Actually, I
have a book about that.
However, in many instances, many are pointing out of naturalistic fallacy, a misunderstanding
about the relationship between facts and values. Certainly, facts and values must be
distinguished. These are different kinds of propositions. However, being different does notmean being unrelated or being independent. I want to claim that facts and values are interruptive
and interdependent. Of course, we should not derive normative claims only from fact
propositions. But on the other hand, we cannot explain any normative claims without referringto or without relying on any propositions about facts at all.
Some idealists may reject that what we can do influences what we should do or what we mustdo. But I was a realist who accept or even require that what we can do influence what we should
do. Actually, it is not any question to Dr. Moshammer but just a comment. But I found we canshare lot of issues as a philosopher. Thank you very much.

Page 38 of 41

Now I would like to move on to the questions to Dr. Posrithong. Actually, I think I talked
about this previously, but I recently feel I am getting more and more gender-sensitive after mydaughter was born. In my very private interest, I am worried about the gender gap in education
opportunities in Japan. There is many good boys' high school in Japan, but not so many girls'
schools or co-ed schools in my opinion. I am worried about the future of my daughter.
But anyway, I am always wondering about one question when I read about the gender issue.
It is a question of adapting preference, the question about sour grapes of the Fables of Aesop.
According to that, we always shape our preferences according to our circumstances. Then, howshould we deal with women who have a very conservative idea about gender because of theircircumstances oppressing women? Should we deny their "freedom" of conscience, or should
we take avant-garde strategy or enlightenment strategy to educate such kind of poor anduneducated women, or should we respect their conservative culture? This is my question to Dr.
Posrithong. There are all of my comments.
Section3: Discussions
Dr. Gerald Moshammer
Thank you very much for all these comments, and especially the original contributions. They
were very interesting. Professor Mizushima, if I may also refer to his brief presentation. I foundthis very interesting, this difference between administrative and social kinds of control because
it reminds me – and sorry to come with western philosophy again – but it reminds me of the
Aristotelian virtue conception, the idea of self-restriction. Maybe you could say the pandemic
has shown that in an abstract society where everything has to be basically rule-based, law-based,
regulation-based, in a society where no one trusts the other one, but everyone still somehow
trusts rules but that's it, it doesn't really work. So maybe both utilitarian and deontologicaltraditions fall short and the notion of virtue that may – and here I can only speculate –may bebetter implemented in Japan than for example in my country in Austria. Maybe that is a really
important issue to reconsider that justice and fairness need a basic common virtuous layer. If
we don't have that, we get into all these complex issues that I wanted to mention.
Just briefly about that one, one question I think from Professor Mizushima about the antivaccination issue and whether I would restrict these people. First, I would definitely not touch
their freedom of speech, definitely not. Secondly, I would also not support vaccine mandates. I
think if someone does not want to have a vaccine, even you shouldn't find these people, like in
my country in Austria. Of course, it is the right of the group which is often the majority, or isthe majority in many countries, to restrict the movement of those who are unvaccinated maybe
or something like that, but only if you have clear scientific proof and evidence that theunvaccinated do that harm that we say they do.
Because I often feel that again there is this complexity, is it really only the vaccine that leads
to this high mortality rate? Possibly it is, and especially with the Delta variant, it is. But weneed to ask questions about other things too: nutrition, Vitamin-D, all that stuff, immunity ingeneral. I mean I am not an anti-vaxxer, but I am just saying there is kind of complexity alreadythere when we have draconian measures. I would definitely stick to deontology when it comesto free speech and control over one's body.

Page 39 of 41

When it comes to the balancing act, I think it was Professor Kobayashi asking about which
tradition strikes the balance best between individual and social interests. Of course, it would be
more utilitarian one might say. But utilitarians of course suffer from that problem of causality
and how far into the future should one go? That relates also to Dr. Kawase's point. I mean, how
far into the future can we plan? Where do we stop to think about consequences? That's why
deontology is often a secure place, I would say if we are not so ignorant and sometimes arrogant
to think we know everything already. We can model everything. That's somehow the flavor ofthat.
The last point briefly about facts and values, I actually really with the universalizability axiom
tried to point at the connection between facts and values, because we universalize ethically
based on facts. There is a link. It's not the only link but there is the link. My argument basicallywanted to say since the facts are often in the realm of uncertainty, the kind of sense of justicethat relates to Professor Kobayashi's point that justice and fairness are so important for
wellbeing. But how do people understand justice and fairness? Are there different results inrationally applied universalizability axiom? Yes. Because it depends upon which facts touniversalize. And if the facts are not crystal clear, you can rationalize different ethical positions.
That's the plurality.
And maybe the last point to Dr. Kawase about the subjectivity of risk assessment and so on,that's principally true but we shouldn't forget this huge divide in the statistical community
between frequentists and Bayesians. Also, I think as a medical scientist if you do a clinical trial,
you definitely want to have an objective risk assessment. You do not think that is subjective
anymore. If you have a proper clinical trial, a certain therapy medication has a 99.2 safety rate,you believe that is objective I think. There is not much subjectivity.
We do have actually the scientific tools even to establish a certain objective kind of
measurement of uncertainty. But my whole argument was not using that. I was saying most ofit, we don't have it. I agree with Dr. Kawase. But we shouldn't forget science is impressive insometimes managing these difficult tasks, especially medical sciences having a long trackrecord of clinical trials that are very successful. On a positive note, one could say that maybe
we have some uncertainty about uncertainty, so to speak.
Dr. Natanaree Posrithong
I think I also learned a lot from your discussion just now, but just to answer a few points. The
first question that the Professor asks me was about what I see in the future of the feminist
activist movement as now I brought up the FemTwit. Actually, I think it began – I think it's
happening also in Korea. I am not even sure maybe in Japan – I was trying to look into it. Even
Japan also had started this FemTwit thing. But certainly, what I see in the future, to respond to
the question, I would think, just like everything else, it could be a hybrid. I think the hybrid
form could be a combination of both the online and the traditional movement combined. Thatwould even be targeting a large audience. I only see it in the long run as a positive contribution
to feminism, to the feminist movement in the post-pandemic. I think it's going to grow, and thetarget is going to be definitely larger. On that point, that's my humble opinion.
Thank you so much Professor Kobayashi for bringing up another piece of evidence on theJapanese women. We definitely as the gender scholar looking into the Japanese women would
be like the pattern that we are looking for. But definitely, as I said, I think it's going to look up
from now, right? Now that we are at the bottom, I don't think it can go worse than this. I believe

Page 40 of 41

that it's going to look up. There could be always new opportunities and new alternatives, but I
appreciate you showing me your results and your survey on that.
Just last point on Professor Kawase, I remember you mentioned your daughter before. I
appreciate that every time that you mention her. I don't know how old she is that you should
already start worrying. But anyway, to my point here, I would like to just emphasize your lastpoint, on the freedom of conscience. I think that's a very powerful phrase. Basically, I think it's
very important that we respect that freedom of conscience. That's the term that we use in genderstudies called transnational feminism. Assuming that all kinds of feminist movements aretransnational is actually wrong. Because gender itself is a social construct, it should depend on
the culture as well. We should not judge based on just one western perspective. I believe in thefreedom of conscience nevertheless. Yes, that would conclude my points.
Hikari Ishido
I would have liked to give my own point about international economic structure apex open
regionalism. It has the spirit of openness but also it also has the spirit of regionalism. And then,in combination, it's open regionalism. Our new post-COVID society should be like that. That
was my point. We are now speaking from our open regionalism point of view because they areconnected. We have our territory of speculation, and academic investigation. That's regionalism.
But we are open to being connected to other people's and other scholars' opinions.
Alfonso Torrero
I also have a reflection on Dr. Mizushima's intervention, specifically about the categorizationof administrative and social control in different countries. I understand he didn't point out Latin
America's position on administrative and social control. I believe that, in general, in Latin
America, administrative control is inconsistent and corruptible in practice. Even if most public
institutions promote preventive activities to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, civil servants andcitizens can easily not follow the preventive practices without negative consequences. So, I am
not sure if you can say there is autonomy in that categorization or think about another word tocategorize Latin America's response to the pandemic in terms of politics. Because I meanautonomy can be very responsible in countries like Nordic countries, like Finland or something.
But in Latin America, this autonomy had the effect of high mortality rates due to the pandemic.
Just that. I hope I can collaborate with another point of view related to the pandemic in Latin
America.
Hikari Ishido
Thank you so much Mr. Alfonso Torrero for your excellent remark. Professor Mizushima will
respond briefly and then conclude today's session.
Jiro Mizushima
Today, we have truly a global meeting. I realize that we have to take into consideration thevarious kinds of policy responses to the pandemic. Also, in Latin America, we see anothersituation, especially in Brazil. After that, we have to broaden our scope, and probably next yearor shortly, we would like to get together truly after the pandemic. Thank you for yourparticipation. This is the end of our session.

Page 41 of 41