Positive and Negative Doctrines: Convergence or Divergence (A comparative Study in Moral Philosophy and Jurisprudential ʾUṣūl)

Utilitarianism, as one of the theories discussed in normative ethics, is considered to be one of the most influential theories in moral philosophy. Traces of this theory can be found in many prevalent sciences. The theory is in accordance with the tradition of ʿuqalā (the wise) and has a long-standing history in the theological context despite its considerable growth in the non-theological space in the West. For instance, it can be observed where questions of virtue and vice are discussed. At its core, utilitarianism is a commendable concept that can also be advocated based on reason. However, scholars hold significantly different views regarding the quality of utilitarian thinking. Some take the maximization of happiness and the reduction of suffering as the model of utilitarianism. On the other hand, a group of thinkers center their utilitarianism around the reduction of suffering, which has multiple interpretations, including absolute, weak, moderate, and threshold negativisms. A similar tendency and pattern can be observed among scholars of ʾUṣūl, where some prioritize the avoidance of mischief (mufsidih), some prioritize attracting benefit (maṣlaḥat), some give precedence to the avoidance of mischief only in case of conflicting priorities, and yet some advocate for a balanced approach (takhyīr), considering the importance of benefit and mischief to be the criterion for preference except in cases where priorities are conflicting. The present research analyses the various approaches to utilitarianism and its justifications, using the analytical method and relying on library sources. It seems that the theory of negativism is weak and prioritizing the avoidance of mischief is logical and justified in case of conflict, whereas the principle of priorities (ʾaham va muhim) applies to non-conflicting cases.