“No, that is not right. No, his motives were merely subjective and emotional so in that case they cannot be considered good.” “But, if the motive is good killing one’s lord is not evil, no?” Nakajima replied to this based on the theories of Muirhead. “It is not the case that it is absolutely wrong to murder one’s lord. If it is unavoidable and one’s motives are good there are times when it may be acceptable. In Japan, there is no example of a lord being killed. In England Cromwell led a parliamentary army to defeat the king’s army and executed King Charles I, thus creating a republic, but his actions are accepted by historians.” “Does [Thomas Hill] GREEN also explain it like this?” Nakajima replied, “Yes, I believe so.” The exchange between Nakajima and Kumamoto was as brief as the above interaction. It was clear that Kumamoto was suggesting Nakajima was problematic from the viewpoint of Japanese national polity because the latter accepted the idea of killing a monarch under some circumstances. Nakajima could never have dreamed that this would later develop into a major incident. When the inspector asked Nakajima if he had supplemented Muir-head’s theory with critical commentary, Nakajima replied that he had not added anything in particular. For the inspector, accepting this meant also accepting terrorism. That is to say, he considered it dan-gerous ideology. At the time in Japan terrorist attacks against politi-cians were rampant. Based on this he concluded that this must be considered dangerous ideology. In his defense Nakajima argued that Why Did It Become a Problem? 127
元のページ ../index.html#133