فهرست مطالب mohammadamin khansari

Benevolence has many meanings and usages in the Qur'an and tradition, and "goodness to others" is one of them. One of the most important issues in ethics philosophy is the ethical norms, which seeks the criterion to find the normative ethics theory in the field of benevolence and kindness to others. Based on the Qur'an and tradition, using descriptive-analytical method, this research seeks to find out what is the basic criterion for benevolent responsibility in the ethics. Should we do good to others because of its consequences? Or is it a rational or divine duty? Or is it a virtue that should cover the moral factor? The results indicate that in the Qur'an and tradition. The results indicates that one should not look for just a single criterion for the charity ethics in the Qur'an and tradition. Rather, there are evidence based on different criteria. In some cases, it pays attention to consequences for himself, others or everyone, and sometimes it pays attention to duties and in other places to virtues.

Deontology is considered to be one of the most challenging well-known theories in the field of ethics. Being a traditional rival to utilitarianism, deontology has constantly been defined as opposed to the consequentialist theories. It has been acknowledged by many theorists that Immanuel Kant - the famous German philosopher – provided the most prominent account of deontology. This account has been explored and criticized from different standpoints, and it seems essential to critically assess it in terms of the foundations of Islamic ethics. Employing a critical analytical method and using library sources, especially transferred ones about Islamic ethics, this study aims to elaborate the different constituents and aspects of Kantian theory, and to weigh it up according to the doctrines and foundations of Islamic ethics. Although Kantian theory demonstrates a variety of significant capabilities and advantages, it pursues an absolutist and radically rationalist approach which has raised serious objections and challenges. It seems implausible at least to the advocates of religious ethics that morality cannot justifiably depend upon religion. This claim is regarded as the most significant drawback of Kant’s moral theory while there are some other presuppositions and assertions in it which are seen as wrong by other thinkers.

One of the fundamental issues in the field of moral psychology is what psychological assumptions moral views have and how much empirical evidence these assumptions carry. Accordingly, the conflict between egoism and heterogeneity has been proposed in the psychology of ethics, and empirical evidence has emerged in favor of either of these two moral theories. Otherness is one of the goal-oriented theories that, based on the psychological basis of its theory, recommends selfsacrifice and creating the greatest good for others, regardless of oneself. Psychological heterogeneity is the most important basis of moral heterogeneity and is an attempt to violate monotonousness and love of human nature and to prove other heterogeneous desires and motives. Most moral philosophers and psychologists reject the monotonous nature of human nature and believe in the possibility of altruism along with selfishness in human nature. In this research, relying on arguments and empirical evidence, an attempt has been made to prove psychological heterogeneity in order to be able to rely on this basis, moral heterogeneity in the field of normative ethics.

Assuming responsibility for other human beings has been amongst ethical issues which is underlined in different ethical schools of thought and justified through various argumentations.  The current research is an attempt to investigate this issue in the light of the normative theory of divine command and enjoy the divine books to answer this question that why Man is required to feel responsible and benevolent toward other human beings. Accordingly, major reasons and components of this issue are explained in keeping with the divine books. It was revealed that God is the primary source of human responsibility toward others. The incentive of divine promise, divine love and giving thanks to the most beneficent as well as human resemblance to God and His succession on the earth  as a divine creature are amongst major reasons and components in theories of divine command which motivates Man toward feeling responsibility and benevolences for others.

Moral responsibility to other human beings is one of the fundamental issues addressed by moral schools and philosophers. The present study, using a descriptive-analytical method based on Kant's view, addresses the question of what is the concept of moral responsibility and from the perspective of conscientious objectors, what is the position of others in moral relations and responsibilities and why the moral agent has moral responsibility to others. Based on the explanations and evaluations, it became clear that conscientiousness, unlike other theories, has a more coherent approach to the concept of moral responsibility. Conscientiousness emphasizes the role of actual goodness along with the present goodness on the role of moral duties by emphasizing the issue of merit, competence and merit of the moral agent. In a general sense, conscientiousness has a more coherent approach to the concept of moral responsibility than moral theories, and considers issues such as entitlement, authority, rationalism, dignity, and merit. In his moral theory, Kant addresses many forms of conscientiousness, including rationalism and elitism in the field of ethics, but he seeks to bring ethics from popular sentiment, experience, and wisdom to the rational foundation, and accordingly to responsibility. Draw a morality based on merit and merit.

This study investigates the feasibility and source of ethical responsibility in the theory of egoism through a descriptive-analytical method. Ethical egoism is among normative theories which-through emphasizing egoistic values - sees Man as mere responsible for securing his individual interests, one who gains the most of benefits for himself without altruistic considerations. The main challenge with which this theory is faced in explanation is the issue of “other” and ethical responsibility for others. This is a serious challenge because many of ethical values hold value and meaning only in relation with “others”.  Thus, adopting an egoistic position, results in devaluation of social ethics and adoption of an instrumental view toward others.  An egoist human being accept responsibility only for satisfying his individual happiness and joy, gaining personal satisfaction and securing collaborative benefit aimed at securing human life while this is an instrumental and non-authentic view toward responsibility.  Although ethical responsibility seems feasible in this theory, such a view results in a kind of calculation of benefit and instrumental misuse of others. This study has tried to explain the position of joy (pleasure) in the thoughts of egoists and show that egoists follow altruistic inclinations to satisfy their pleasures.

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that mainly focuses on public good. In this research, we deploy the method of philosophical analysis with an emphasis on the views of Bentham and Mill to provide an account of the utilitarian approach to moral responsibility. With the rejection of entitlement in moral responsibility, utilitarianism takes the origin of responsibility to lie in pleasures and pains. In its evaluations, it focuses on consequences of actions and takes the scope of responsibility to be general. We believe that responsibility is unclear in utilitarian terms, for example as to the instrumental deployment of moral values, inattentiveness to the agent’s motivation, inattentiveness to prior commitments because of the Utilitarian Principle which is a posterior principle, relativism, the predicament of naturalism, and inattentiveness to permanent afterlife pleasures, which are ignored in non-religious theories.

Al-Ghazali was one of the Islamic scholars who was concerned to revival of religious teachings. In Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din، he tried to provide a pattern in this regard for the believers of his time. In this article، authors Attempt to discuss effects of religiosity with emphasis on psychological views of al-Ghazali. For this purpose، al-Ghazali’s ideas which has been expressed in four parts of Ihya’ ‘ulum al-din as ‘Ibadiyyat، ‘Adat، Munjiyat and Muhlikat has been debated under the titles of epistemic، spiritual، emotional، moral and social effects of religiosity. Knowleldge based religiosity، depends on the answers to existential and Interpretative questions. For Believers، Saviors of religion (Munjiyat)، In addition to the elimination of evils (Muhlikat)، help to create positive emotional feelings. Ethics has a crucial role in religiosity. Believers in their lives، must try to acquire moral virtues and avoid moral vices. In al-Ghazali’s thoughts، religion provides happiness for believers both in this world and in hereafter.