This study compares and analyzes separate court rulings in three countries on “mini-cup jelly” (a firm jelly containing konjac and packaged in bite-sized plastic cups) from a food ethics perspective. While the Korean and US courts decided that the mini-cup jelly was defective, and that the manufacturers or importers were liable for damages in these cases, the Japanese court took an opposing stance in favor of the manufacturer. However, from an absolute and fundamental viewpoint, the jelly was unacceptable, ethically as (...) well as legally, because it was unsafe, unwholesome, and unfit for children’s consumption. I argue that the ignoring or sidelining of fundamental principles of food ethics, especially “respect for life,” was at the core of these cases. If the manufacturers and importers had considered and prioritized the principles of food ethics over and above big sales and profits, the choking accidents could have been prevented. To conclude, it is very important to minimize risks by applying the principles of food ethics at the outset before any accidents can occur. (shrink)

El propósito central de este ensayo es mostrar que el debate actual entre el positivismo excluyente y el incluyente se alimenta de, al menos, tres ideas equivocadas acerca de la relación entre el lenguaje jurídico y el moral, la vinculación entre la ciencia y la práctica del derecho y la concepción de lo que es una ciencia normativa. Expuestos estos errores, esbozo una propuesta para entender estas relaciones, fundada en la concepción neokantiana-kelseniana de la ciencia jurídica. De esta doctrina derivo (...) que el lenguaje jurídico y la ciencia del derecho son, respectivamente, el fundamento conceptual del discurso moral y de la práctica jurídica. Asimismo, rechazo la definición que ve en el carácter normativo de la ciencia jurídica la presencia de juicios de valor. En consecuencia, el debate entre el positivismo incluyente y el excluyente debe ser abandonado o, al menos, reformulado. (shrink)