1Inequality in Japan: Support for Victims of Natural Disasters
16 May 2024, Genova
Hidehiko Adachi
1. Introduction
Japan, like Italy, commonly experiences natural disasters. For Japan, such natural disasters
include earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions. When natural disasters occur and homes
are damaged and become uninhabitable, people must temporarily evacuate. Some people seek
to remain as close to home as possible, but many, especially those inhabiting rural areas, choose
to evacuate to cities with many shops, educational institutions, and medical facilities, andultimately do not return to their home regions. Japan’s birthrate is declining, its population isaging, and the size of the populace has begun to decline. Even where natural disasters do notoccur, the population is moving from rural areas to cities, and where they do occur, this migration
exhibits a dramatic acceleration. My question is whether it is possible to slow this trend at all.
When we judge something to be right or wrong, the object of our judgment is part of the realworld. We perceive this real world, and then we imagine an ideal world, and if there is adifference between the two, we consider that the real world is not right, whereas if the twocoincide, we consider the real world to be right. For example, if in an ideal world person A would
help person B, i.e., A should help B, and then if A helps B, A is judged to be right, whereas if A
does not help B, A is judged to be wrong. Thus, recognizing the real world and imagining theideal world are prerequisites for the judgment of right and wrong.
We often focus on the reality that is favorable to us and turn away from the reality that isunfavorable. These biases in human perceptions form an Interesting but thematic topic, but I will
not address this in this report. I do not want to examine our perceptions of the real world but
what the ideal world is, on which we base our evaluation of the real world.
2. What Is Justice?
In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explored the various virtues that should be possessed.
Virtue (arete) refers to the moderation of the passions, and excessive or insufficient passions are
considered vices. Aristotle goes on to discuss justice as an expression of virtue in chapter 5. Thatis, what perfect virtue manifests in relation to others (in an action or a state) is general justice,
and what partial virtue manifests in relation to others is particular justice. Then, particular justiceis divided into distributive and corrective justice. 11

Aristotelis Ethica, 1894, 1130b–1131a.

22.1. Distributive JusticeDistributive justice, on this account, describes the distribution of benefits and honor to people
in proportion to their value. This implies that equal things should be distributed equally to those
who have equal value, but it does not imply that people are equal in value. Instead it isconsidered a right to distribute less goods to those who have less value and more goods to those
who have greater value. 2
In this account of distributive justice, it remains unclear what is considered equal to what. One
interpretation might hold be that the respective benefits and honors allocated to those of equalvalue should equal. However, this may impose an interpretation of the equality of goods in ‘equal
goods should be distributed to those of equal value’, but this does not seem to be a sufficientinterpretation of equality for distributive justice. Makoto Usami proposes a different
interpretation, according to which distributive justice requires that the value of people and thebenefits and burdens to be distributed must be balanced. On this view, the value of people andthe benefits or burdens to be distributed are to be regarded as equal. It is not possible here to
test whether this interpretation is correct as far as Aristotle’s text, but it is nonetheless aplausible interpretation. For example, in the allocation of wages, determining that the rate for
10 hours‘ work is 100 euro assigns the value of 10 hours’ work as equal to the monetary valueof 100 euro. In this case, if some workers, after working 10 hours, received 80 euro or 120 euro,
the value of the labor and the salary are not equal, and the salary allocation is unjust.
2.2. Corrective JusticeCorrective justice (compensatory fairness) refers to making amends in various types of dealings
between people. Aristotle divides this corrective justice into two types, depending on whether
the type of dealing is voluntary. Voluntary types of dealing include selling, buying, lending,insuring, financing, investing, and renting. Involuntary types are those that are conducted
secretly (including stealing, adultery, poisoning, aiding an adulterer, slave enticement,
premeditated murder, and giving false evidence) and those that are violent (including assault,imprisonment, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, and verbal abuse). 3
In such transactions, a gain or loss is transferred from one side to the other. Aristotle illustrates
this using the geometrical example of line segments. Line segments AA‘, BB’, and CC‘ are all ofequal length; from AA’ a part of it, AE, is cut off, and C'D (of a length that is the same as that ofAE) is added to CC’. The overall length of CD is then longer than EA' by twice the length of the AE(=C'D). In this case, the inequality must be corrected by cutting off C'D (=AE) from the longer CD

23

Aristotelis, 1131a.
Ibid.

3and adding it to EA’ 4.
Aristotle’s corrective justice can be interpreted in such a way that it is right for two parties tobe equal in the benefits or disadvantages that they exchange with each other, so it has also beencalled commutative justice. In this presentation, however, I emphasize Aristotle’s image of thelines, as described above. This image represents two parties who originally had property of equalvalue, after which one party gains or loses more than the other, followed by a restoration ofequality through returning half the difference to the party with less. I suggest that this sense ofcorrective justice in this sense could provide a basis for assistance in the event of natural
disasters and a criterion for roughly determining the total amount of assistance.
3. Natural Disasters and Corrective Justice
It may seem strange to apply the concept corrective justice to natural disasters. This is because
the usual case of its application is a bilateral relationship between an offender and a victim.
When someone hits someone else, according to Aristotle, the offender gains and the victim
suffers a loss. 5 The offender corrects this imbalance with the payment of compensation to thevictim. In the case of a natural disaster; however, the offender is nature, and nature cannot
compensate the victim.
However, let us shift our perspective and look away from any offending party to other citizens
who remained undamaged and unharmed by the natural disaster. Their property remains thesame before and after the disaster, and the property of those affected is reduced. This makes animbalance between the two groups. This imbalance must be corrected.
How much property must be transferred from the non-sufferer to the sufferer? First, the total
amount of damage should be calculated. Next, the total amount of property held by the nonsufferers and the total amount of property held by the sufferers following the damage is summed
to assess the current total amount of property of the whole group. That amount is then divided
by the number of people in the whole group to give the average amount of property per person.
The difference between the total property of the non-sufferer group and the average amount
multiplied by the number of non-sufferers is the amount of property that the non-sufferer group
has in excess of that held by the sufferer group. This amount be transferred from the non-sufferer
group to the sufferer group. Finally, the transferred property should be distributed among thesufferers.
Let us consider the simplest example. A community consists of two persons, each of whom
has property worth 100 Euro. One person loses property worth 50 Euro due to a natural disaster,and the other person is unaffected and continues to hold property worth 100 Euro. In this case,
4
5Aristotelis, 1132.b.
Aristotelis, 1132.a

4

the average amount of property after the disaster is 75 Euro, so the non-sufferer gives thesufferer 25 Euro worth of property, making the property of both 75 Euro each. This assistance isassessed as correct based on corrective justice. This view seems to be in line with our natural
intuition of justice.
In the above approach, the amount of support that a sufferer receives depends on the numberof sufferers in proportion to the size of the community to which they belong. If there are few
sufferers, they will receive assistance that is equivalent to nearly the full amount of the damage.
If a larger natural disaster affects more people, the amount of damage received by sufferers will
be smaller. If everyone is victimized by the disaster, no assistance can be expected. In this case,the issue concerns whether support should come from outside of the community or from future
generations (through the mechanism of borrowing money).
I do not intend to argue here that such naive calculations can determine the exact amount ofassistance that sufferers can receive. The total amount of damage varies greatly in relation towhat is considered damage. The above calculations can only give a rough idea of the totalamount of aid that can be provided. The primary function of corrective justice is to justify
assistance. If we consider that those who have not been harmed to be those who have more andthose who have been harmed to be those who have less, and if we agree with Aristotle thatimbalances should be corrected for the sake of justice, then the conclusion follows thatimbalances in property must be corrected following a natural disaster.
After World War II, large numbers of houses were built in Japan to accommodate the rapidly
increasing population. The standards for the earthquake-proofing of buildings set out in theBuilding Standards Law (1950) were very loose. These standards became stricter with the 1971,1980, and 2000 amendments to the law. In general, buildings that were built according to therevised 1980 standards (applicable to building permits received on or after June 1, 1981) havehigh earthquake resistance; the January 17 1995 earthquake that hit the city of Kobe caused
little damage to buildings that met these standards. However, it was not mandatory to improvethe earthquake-proofing of older buildings. The cost of updating the earthquake-proofing is high,so many houses built to the old standards still remain. Although there are differences between
regions, on average, approximately 20% of all houses in the country do not meet the 1980
standards. Many of these are inhabited by elderly people.
In Japan, temporary housing is constructed at public expense and is provided to sufferers
under the Disaster Relief Act (1947) for those who have lost their homes in natural disasters.
However, in accordance with the Building Standards Law, temporary housing is expected to be
demolished after two years. After this period, the victims must find new housing on their own.
In Japan, in cases where homes have been damaged by natural disasters, there has been nopublic assistance at all provided for housing reconstruction. The following two points have often

5been raised as the reason for this. (1) Housing is personal property. Public funds should not be
used to rebuild private homes. (2) Homeowners should have earthquake insurance. Those whodid not sign up for this protection chose to bear the damage themselves. Of these, (1), in myopinion, has not been adequately refuted. However, a counterargument based on the conceptof corrective justice introduced in this presentation is possible. With regard to (2), it is true that
if one has earthquake insurance, one can receive insurance benefits, but earthquake insurancein Japan covers a maximum of half of the value of the home. Public financial support is necessary
to provide for the other half.
Finally, in 1998, the Law to Support the Reconstruction of the Lives of Disaster Sufferers waspassed, but the maximum amount of assistance provided was 1 million yen (approximately 6,000euro) and it was not permitted to use the assistance money to rebuild houses. The act has been
amended twice, and the maximum amount was raised to 3 million yen (about 18,000 euro),
which could also be used for housing reconstruction. However, this amount remains quite
insufficient, given that the construction of a family home in Japan costs at least 20 million yen.
A change in this legislation to increase public subsidies is desirable to provide support meetingcorrective justice. My understanding of corrective justice in Aristotle would provide a basis forthis type of legal reform and could be used to calculate the approximate amount of money forthe correct support.
It should be noted that, before a house is rebuilt, the previous house must be removed.
According to Japan’s Waste Disposal and Public Cleansing Act, the state must bear the cost ofremoving homes that are damaged in a natural disaster. However, to apply for this, ownership of
the house must be proved, and many are unable to do this. In Japan, registration of inheritedproperty is not mandatory. As a result, there are many properties that have unknown owners; in2016, 20.1% of all land in the country had unknown owners. The reasons for this include thefollowing: complicated inheritance procedures; seeking to avoid real estate taxes; and heirs
leaving the division of the estate undiscussed, with the parent’s house is left unregistered andvacant. This question of heirs grows larger if an heir dies while the property remains unregistered.
If the house is to be demolished at public expense, all of the heirs (part-owners) must be
contacted to obtain their approval for the demolition. In many cases, there may be several dozen
heirs, and it is very difficult to contact all of them for this purpose. For this reason, the Property
Registration Act has finally been amended, making inheritance registration mandatory from 1
April 2024. Thus, inheritance registration must now be performed within three years of thedecedent’s death.
4. Natural Disasters and Distributive JusticeOnce assistance to the sufferers is justified through corrective justice, and property can be6transferred from the non-affected group to the affected group, it is necessary to consider how
to properly distribute it. In doing so, many would agree that a distribution in accordance with
Aristotle’s distributive justice is justified. This means that the amount to be distributed should
be in proportion to the extent of the damage. The scale on which the size of the damage should
be calculated can be debated.
One approach would be to calculate the economic value of each house as it was immediately
before the disaster, ascertaining the extent of the damage caused by the disaster (whether it wasentirely or partially destroyed), calculate the amount of damage based on the value of the houseand the percentage of damage and the aid in proportion to the amount of damage. However,
several problems with this approach should be noted. Most houses in Japan are made of wood,and their property value falls to zero about 30 years after their initial construction. For thisreason, the value of the damage to such houses is also reduced to zero, and the occupants ofthese houses receive no aid at all. Rich families who live in newer and larger homes receive alarger amount of aid if their homes are damaged. This distribution seems simply intuitively unfair.
Would a distribution undertaken according to the Capability Approach as advocated byAmartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum be fair? Capability does not refer to the means (basic goods)
but the ability of people to realize their life’s purpose. In terms of housing, more than theminimum, common facilities that all houses have, such as shelter from rain, wind, summer heat,and winter cold, but also a variety of facilities are necessary, according to the diverse nature of
its inhabitants. For example, a resident in a wheelchair needs there to be no steps in and aroundthe house so that he can have freedom of movement, but a person who can walk does not
require this. For families with children, it is desirable for the house in an area that is close to aschool, but this is not necessary for families who do not have children. This distribution inproportion to each person's capability seems to be something that we can agree on.
However, the Capability Approach also has its shortcomings. First, in using the Capability
Approach to determine the amount of distribution, the various needs of victims must be grasped
by the administration, and the time and costs involved in this process cannot be ignored. Only
limited resources can be distributed. It is necessary to prevent much of it from disappearing in
the costs of distribution.
Second, the question arises whether differences in land prices in residential areas should betaken into account. Generally, land prices in large cities are high, and those in surrounding areas
are low; under the Capability Approach, residents who evacuate to large cities should receive alarge amount of assistance, while those who evacuate from the countryside would only receivea small amount of assistance. A support system faithfully based on the Capability Approach
would further accelerate population concentration in large cities in the event of a disaster.
What should be distributed equally is a disputed question in legal and social philosophy.

7However, a persuasive and adequate theory for how to determine the amount to be distributedin the event of a natural disaster does not seem to have been provided. Thus, the following
support, which has already provided by the general administration, would be appropriate:
support should be provided that is based on the minimum construction cost of the housingnecessary for a healthy person to live in, with increased support for some of a victim’s typicalneeds.
5. Conclusion
In this presentation, Aristotle’s theory of justice was examined to determine why it is right toprovide assistance to the victims of natural disasters, to what extent such assistance should beprovided, and how it should be distributed. It was noted that, based on one interpretation ofAristotle’s concept of corrective justice, which differs slightly from his own account, it is possible
to determine that it is right to give assistance to victims and to calculate the approximate total
amount of assistance to the affected population. Regarding the question of how the total
amount of aid should be allocated to individual sufferers, I note that, based on Aristotle’sdistributive justice, it is correct to distribute the aid in proportion to the size of the damage, but
it is a difficult question on upon what scale the size of the damage should be calculated. This lastpoint remains a challenge for us legal and social philosophers.