Question from a reader:
What kind of impact do you think will occur if the constitution and laws are amended to prohibit rejecting or treating people as unnecessary? For example, what would happen if it became illegal to not invite someone or to not reply to an email? Additionally, is it realistic that someone proven to be incompetent would not be
considered, and if they violated this, they would be arrested? Furthermore, if those who report or point out such behavior are also charged with the same crime, how would society change? I have heard that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce the number of people with mental illnesses and suicides, and to improve the morals of the citizens, but will that actually be realized?

Constitutional Amendments and Social Change: Considering the Prohibition of Rejection and Being Treated as Unnecessary

Recently, I received a question regarding how society would change if the constitution and laws were amended to prohibit rejecting or treating people as unnecessary. This is a very interesting theme and has the potential to affect various aspects of society. As someone in my early thirties, a father of one, and involved in the entertainment industry, I would like to think deeply about this issue.

Social Impact of Prohibiting Rejection and Being Treated as Unnecessary

First, we can consider the changes in human relationships in daily life. For example, what would happen if it became illegal to not invite friends or to not reply to work emails? Imagine this scenario. If you want to invite someone to an event but decide not to because you haven’t talked to them much lately, you would no longer have that choice. In our daily lives, we decide whether to invite someone by considering our relationship with them and the situation. However, if this becomes prohibited by law, what will happen to friendships? Being told that not inviting someone is “illegal” feels quite constraining. For instance, if I have to invite someone to hang out with friends who I clearly don’t get along with, wouldn’t that person feel pressured to “have to go”?

Application of the Law and Its Realism

Next, let’s consider the scenario where “even if proven incompetent, one would not be considered, and if they violate this, they would be arrested.” If this becomes a reality, it could lead to the arrest of employees in a company for not inviting someone due to their inadequate performance. This raises a new question: who decides who is “incompetent”? In practice, applying the law requires various interpretations. There are many ambiguous aspects regarding the definition of incompetence and who makes that judgment. Additionally, if the penalties for not complying with the law are excessive, society may develop a sense of fear. For example, if someone could be arrested for not selecting members for work-related reasons, the atmosphere in the workplace would change drastically.

Impact if Whistleblowers are Charged with the Same Crime

Furthermore, if those who report or point out such behavior are also charged with the same crime, this presents another issue. Our daily communication could change significantly. For instance, if someone thinks, “It’s strange that that person wasn’t invited to that event,” and reports it, that whistleblower would also be charged with the same crime. This carries the risk of society shifting from “mutual support” to “surveillance.” While we believe that supporting each other is important, in a society where reporting is encouraged, the connections between people may actually weaken. I worry about what values children raised in such a society will hold.

The Purpose and Its Feasibility

I have heard that the purpose of such amendments is to “reduce the number of people with mental illnesses and suicides” and to “improve the morals of the citizens.” While this goal is admirable, will it actually be realized? I have significant doubts about this. To protect mental health, it is necessary for society as a whole to understand and support one another, not just to impose legal constraints. For example, to prevent social isolation, community formation and support are essential. Even if the law prohibits rejecting people, without mental care and support, I believe it will not lead to a fundamental solution.

Conclusion: Balancing Human Relationships and Law

Ultimately, how much the law affects human relationships depends on how that law is implemented. If we can build a society where we understand and support each other, even without legal constraints, rejection and being treated as unnecessary may naturally decrease. Conversely, trying to solve everything solely through law has its limits, and it would be difficult to bring about essential changes in society. Of course, the existence of laws is important, but their implementation requires caution. We must not forget that the society we desire is built not only by the power of law but also by the connections between people’s hearts. In this way, I would like to continue thinking about how amendments to the constitution and laws will change our lives and human relationships. It is an intriguing theme that will likely have a significant impact on the future of society.