Empirical underdetermination is one of the problems that challenges the position of scientific realism regarding the unobservable level of scientific theories. In response to this problem, Mario Alai claims that underdetermination cannot seriously trouble the realist’s position. Like other realists, he introduces theoretical virtues to break the underdetermination and offers special solutions to get rid of the objections to using theoretical virtues. Although Alai believes that theoretical virtues can break the existing underdetermination in most cases, he admits that today, despite (...) using theoretical virtues, the underdetermination between the alternatives of quantum mechanics theories – Standard Quantum Mechanics (SQM) and Bohmian Quantum Mechanics (QBM) – cannot be broken. For this reason, defending the realist position in this special case, he proposes (and brings up) a new solution that pays attention to the unobservable agreements assumed in the ontologies of alternative theories. In this article, by critically examining Mario Alai’’s approach to the problem of empirical underdetermination, it is shown that his solutions to solving the objections of using theoretical virtues are not without difficulties. Also, after examining some similarities of Alai’s new proposed solution to maintain a realist position regarding quantum mechanics theories with the approach of structural realists, it is shown that his solution faces three drawbacks: 1) Reducing alternative theories to each other and dismantling the problem instead of dealing with it, 2) inconsistency and ambiguity in the truth of parts of the agreements of alternative theories, and 3) lack of guarantee in the existence of parts of the agreements, and ineffectiveness to generalize the solution for other possible cases. IntroductionAccording to scientific realism, scientists are not blocked by underdetermination because they don’t look just for empirical data. Rather, they seek theories that have theoretical virtues such as simplicity, explanatory power, unification, and consistency with accepted theories and background beliefs. Theoretical virtues and their inconclusive objectionsBut the utilization of theoretical virtues has two following objections: First, the concepts of these virtues are somewhat vague, and context-dependent, so they may be borderline and ambiguous cases. In reply, Alai claims that there is no reason to deny that they have epistemic value at least in clear-cut and univocal cases. For instance, he mentioned the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems that are underdetermined by empirical data. Alai says some unifying and explanatory features of the Copernican system speak for the truth of this system today just as they did five centuries ago, in a completely different cultural and epistemic situation. But the example that Alai narrated is not compatible with historical facts. In late 16th-century astronomy, there is a struggle between three theories: Ptolemaic geocentrism, Copernican heliocentrism, and Tycho Brahe’s geoheliocentricism. While Alai ignores Brahe’s theory and does not consider its coherence with accepted theories and background beliefs. Brahe’s compromise system preserved the explanatory achievements of the Copernican approach and remained in agreement with most of the received physics and cosmology. Hence, the scientific community chose this theory. It is unclear why Alai ignores Brahe’s theory and its coherence. Thus, the example that Alai presents is defective. Second, different theoretical virtues may recommend different theories: If theory T has virtue X and theory T′ has virtue Y, we may be uncertain which one to choose. Alai says that scientists want a theory to have (to a reasonable extent) all of those virtues, for they assume that a true and informative theory would have all of them. But it is seem that this reply hided an unnecessary assumption. Alai assumes that only one theory can have all of the virtues, yet there is no obstacle that we meet many (not only one) theories that have all of the virtues. By the usage of epistemic underdetermination concept, we try to exemplify why Alai’s assumption is incorrect. Alai’s solution to the underdetermination of Quantum Mechanics TheoriesAlai focuses on alternative theories in quantum mechanics and admits that the theoretical virtues cannot break the underdetermination between those theories. For example, the following theoretical shortcomings can be mentioned: BQM postulates an instant dependence of everything on everything that the scientific community evaluates as an implausible and unsupported idea; SQM avoids the above shortcomings, but it provides no picture of the unobservable mechanisms and no explanation of the empirical regularities. Now, the position of scientific realism is faced with a serious threat. For this reason, Alai proposes a new solution that pays attention to the unobservable agreements assumed in the ontologies of alternative theories. He says all theories associate the quantum state with a peculiar physical field, all include the Schrödinger equation centrally in the dynamics, all endorse a strong form of ontic-structural nonseparability, and all agree on geometrical relations between sub-systems. Now, those agreements (and unobservable) matters about which realists have well-founded beliefs and probably even knowledge. Assessment and evaluation of Alai’s solutionBut, it seems that this solution faces three criticisms. Regarding the first criticism, relying on making the agreements between the two alternative theories – SQM and BQM – leads to the problem that many basic components of Bohmian quantum mechanics theory (including the quantum potential) are ignored, and that means that BQM doesn’t have a distinctive characteristic from SQM, and this cannot be accepted by the advocates of the Bohmian theory in any way. Because it is demonstrated that without the existence of these conceptual components of Bohmian theory, BQM reduces SQM. So, that causes us to dismantle the problem instead of dealing with it. Concerning the second criticism, inconsistency, and ambiguity in the truth of parts of the agreements, Alai says the serious theoretical shortcomings of alternative theories indicate that, despite their compatibility with available evidence, none of them is true. In defense of the realist position, he proposes that we could rely on unobservable entities of agreements as part of alternative theories. It is not clear how the unobservable agreement parts of alternative theories (none of which are true due to theoretical shortcomings) can be considered true. On the one hand, Alai considers none of the theories to be true due to theoretical shortcomings; on the other hand, he considers the agreement parts of the theories to be true!Finally, the third criticism is the lack of guarantee in the existence of parts of the agreement and the ineffectiveness to generalize the solution for other possible cases. According to Alai’s view, the different theories and interpretations are constrained by the empirical findings, which limit the possible options. But there is no reason to accept that constrained theories by empirical data can guarantee existing great agreement in alternative theories. The same empirical underdetermination is a good reason to confirm that we can construct greatly different theories with equal empirical data.Furthermore, some differences and similarities between the approach of structural realists and Alai’s solution are pointed out. For example, it seems that the main idea of Alai is approximately similar to the view of structural realists. Because both attribute the claim of truth (and successful empirical predictions in scientific theories) to the commonality between alternative theories. (shrink)

In Transcendent Wisdom, the human soul is a supreme parable of God. Almighty God has created the human soul in its nature, attributes, and actions as a parable of Himself, so that contemplation on its three aspects is a ladder to the knowledge of the three divine aspects. The Theory of the Unity of Human Actions is one of the aspects of the supreme parable of God. In an innovative Theory of the Unity of Human Actions and by proposing the (...) opinion that the unity of human acts is the highest parable of the unity of divine acts, Mulla Sadra doubles the effort to provide a precise explanation of the unity of divine acts. The meaning of the unity of man acts is that while a single act is really and essentially attributed to that faculty, it is also really and essentially attributed to the soul in the same sense. In the same way, an important point in explaining the unity of divine acts is that a singular act, while truly and essentially being related to a possible agent, is also truly and essentially related to the divine agent. In this article, using a descriptive-analytical method, in order to analyze the aspects of the supreme parable of the unity of human acts for the unity of divine acts, we have analyzed the most important aspects of this theory with a comprehensive view of Transcendental Wisdom. We have concluded seven points from this theory while explaining the unity of acts both in the human and the divine spheres. IntroductionThe unity of divine acts and the relationship between God’s acts and those of creation, especially freely human acts, have been emphasized in Islam as one of the most important levels of Unity. At the same time, it is one of the most difficult theological issues. Transcendental Wisdom, by creating fundamental changes in philosophical thinking and related fields, in this important issue too, has presented new analyses and arguments while paying attention to its exact points. Mulla Sadra believes that the important point in explaining the unity of divine acts is that a singular act, while truly and essentially related to a possible agent, is also truly and essentially related to the divine agent, and at the same time, the divine agent is a close agent for the possible agent and for his action. And the possible agent is not an independent existence before the existence of the divine agent while the act is related to him. Since the understanding and analysis of the unity of divine acts is difficult and exhausting, Mulla Sadra invented a theory and called it the Unity of Human Actions. He considered its understanding to be the best aid in understanding the unity of divine acts because the unity of human actions is like the supreme parable of the unity of divine actions. The bodyThe idea of the unity of human actions is one of the aspects of the supreme parables of God. Mulla Sadra, in the general framework of this theory, tries to make easy the difficult way to the unity of divine actions. By initiating the Theory of the Unity of Human Actions and by proposing the opinion in which the unity of human acts is the highest parable of the unity of divine acts, he doubles the effort to provide a precise explanation of the unity of divine acts. The meaning of the unity of human action is that the true agent of various actions and works that are performed by the human being is his soul, and the act that the soul performs through its faculties is both attributed to the specific faculty and attributed to the soul as well. In such a way, while it is an act of the specific faculty, it is also an act of the soul. In other words, a single act, while it is really and essentially attributed to that faculty, is also really and essentially attributed to the soul in the same sense. In this article, we will explain that to achieve its purpose in explaining the unity of human actions, the views of Transcendental Wisdom should not be interpreted as the relationship between the soul and faculties according to any of the following models: a) The common relationship of two subjects for a single action; b) the relationship between a craftsman and the tools of the industry; c) the relationship between the employer and employee. Acceptance of the faculties along with the denial of the above relations, will not bring an analysis other than that a single action is attributed to soul and faculty from the same point of view. DiscussionIn this article, by using a descriptive-analytical method, in order to analyze the aspects of the supreme parable of the unity of human actions for the unity of divine acts, we have analyzed the most important aspects of this theory with a comprehensive view of Transcendental Wisdom. ConclusionWe have concluded seven points from this theory while explaining the unity of acts both in the human and the divine spheres. a) The unity of human acts and divine acts have the same process in Transcendental Wisdom.b) In the second analysis, according to the same method that the soul is the faculties or the faculties are the soul, the Simple Truth is the objects, and the objects are the Simple Truth.c) The third analysis of the supreme parable of divine acts is about the agency of the superior agent for the weaker agent and also for this agent itself.d) The relationship between the faculties and the soul and their role in the realization of human actions is a supreme parable of the relation of possible agents with Almighty God and their role in the realization of divine actions.e)The fifth analysis explains the real connection between the freely chosen acts of the objective human and the creator of existence by using the conception and creation of free human beings and the relationship of his actions with his imaginative creator.f) The three levels of realization of the soul’s action is a supreme parable for the three levels of realization of God’s actions.g) Obedience without violation in forces that have no identity other than the identity of the soul is a supreme parable for obedience without violation and without the legal command and prohibition in some creatures of the Almighty God. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most influential philosophers in the field of ethics, in his criticism of elder ethical systems, undercuts the philosopher’s ethics and considers it inefficient. This essay, taking Nietzsche’s criticism as its canon, scrutinizes his critiquess of Kant’s Categorical Imperative and clarifies that most of his reproves of Christian morality and philosophical ethics is, in fact, a reaction against the Categorical Imperative and the generalization latent in it. The essay at hand studies notions like Will, Reason, and (...) Instinct before arriving at the conclusion that, the extreme contrast in ethics and opposition is due to two different perspectives adopted towards the human being and his will. Finally, we will find out that the canon of ethics is the Categorical Imperative and general maxim for Kant while Nietzsche, by reevaluating the values, introduces a moral criterion that recommends we seek the morality of any action in its conformity with the will to power. At the end of the article, we will show that Nietzsche’s attack on the philosopher’s morality, is concerned with Kant’s Categorical Imperative more than every other moral system. Regarding this interpretation, we show that Nietzsche’s reaction to Kant’s Categorical Imperative does not mean that Kant’s Ethics can be denied. These approaches are formed in separate discourses and we can just interpret them as continuous steps of progress in the history of Ethics. Nietzsche’s approach to morality can’t be considered without Kant’s account of the Categorical Imperative. IntroductionNietzsche’s criticism of morality is an important part of his thought. Through this approach, he traces morality to a new realm which is usually called metaethics. This paper demonstrates that while the basic element of moral value in Kant’s viewpoint is the Categorical Imperative, for example, the general moral law (the generality of morality), Nietzsche, by reevaluating values, believes in the compatibility of morality with the will to power as a criterion for recognizing moral actions (an individual approach). Answering a famous criticism in moral philosophy that accuses Nietzsche of returning to the same Kantian Categorical Imperative would be our objective too. Philosophical foundationWe can straight away approach the main topic of this essay by considering the essential element of Kant’s philosophical system and then investigating Nietzsche’s reaction to them. The concept of duty plays a central role in Kant’s moral thought, so every action has moral value based on the condition that it is done out of duty, not because of the results it brings about. This point is also one of the most important differences between Kant’s thought and Nietzsche’s because Nietzsche does not attach importance to duty and tries to replace it with will directed to power. Nietzsche, refusing noumenon or anything like that, replaces Kant’s metaphysical approach to ethics with a focus on human nature. Furthermore, considering the human faculties, Kant appreciates reason and renounces desire and instinct in his investigations; while Nietzsche establishes his account of morality based on the superman’s human instinct. The contrast between reason and instinct sets Nietzsche’s Will to Power against Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Categorical Imperative vs. The Superman’s WillThe contrast which we explained above, in this paper is interpreted in the light of Kant’s account of the Categorical Imperative from Nietzsche’s point of view. The purpose of this essay is to compare the two ways of interpreting morality to make Nietzsche and Kant relevant. In fact, the problem of this paper is to reinterpret the roots of Nietzsche’s reaction to Kant’s Categorical Imperative, analyzing the philosophical and intellectual foundations of Kant and Nietzsche. As a matter of discussion, we will show that the Categorical Imperative, as Kant formulates it, contains three different formulations all of which are rejected by Nietzsche because of different reasons. Typically his perspective leads him to reject every noumenon and avoid any result which presupposes that. Based on the explanation of the philosophical foundations of Kant and Nietzsche on this issue and interpreting the contrast between the Categorical Imperative versus the Will to power, we can conclude that Nietzsche’s approach to the human being is entirely individualistic, and, accordingly, he criticizes Kant for trying to generalize the Categorical Imperative to all human beings. It seems that Kant’s metaphysics of morals turns into moral naturalism in Nietzsche’s thought. In other words, Nietzsche aims to put forward natural interpretations of human life instead of metaphysical interpretations. Will to PowerNietzsche’s reaction to Kant’s view, which criticized moral philosophy and the values in Kant’s account, is broadly accepted by most scholars in contemporary thought. This approach forms by claiming the reevaluation of values originated from the crucial ethical principle that slave morality should be replaced with the superman’s morality in order to preserve the vital human values and provide the basis for the flourishing of human will. Nietzsche’s reason for paying attention to the instinct is rooted in the difference between human entities. He considers a noble’s morality to be perfect and affected from vital instinct. Nietzsche, who considers the Categorical Imperative as the cause of the degrading of the superman’s instinct, rejects any reference to the affairs of the supernatural world. ConclusionAt the end of the article, we will show that Nietzsche’s attack on the philosopher’s morality, is concerned with Kant’s Categorical Imperative, more than every other moral system. Regarding this interpretation, we show that Nietzsche’s reaction to Kant’s Categorical Imperative does not mean that Kant’s Ethics can be denied. These approaches are formed in separate discourses and we can just interpret them as continuous steps of progress in the history of ethics. (shrink)

Panpsychism, as opposed to physicalism and dualism, offers a third way to explain consciousness. According to panpsychism, some fundamental physical entities have conscious states. One of the important arguments for this view is the refutation of the emergence of consciousness. According to emergentism about consciousness, the consciousness of human beings and other beings is a property that emerges at the non-fundamental physical level from the fundamental physical nonconscious level. In the contemporary era, Galen Strawson first argued in detail for panpsychism (...) through the refutation of the emergence of consciousness. Strawson divides emergentism into two types, true and inexplicable emergentism; he takes the true emergence of consciousness to be impossible, and inexplicable emergence to be fundamentally incoherent. The claim of this paper is that according to the historical background of emergentism, it turns out that a third type of emergentism can be assumed, which is, firstly, coherent and, secondly, the emergence of consciousness based on it is possible. In this type, the emergent property is only partially dependent upon the fundamental level. The dependence of the emergent property upon the fundamental level is nomological, and the laws of nature are fundamental (nomism), not reducible to powers (powerism). IntroductionAccording to emergentism, the consciousness is a property that emerges at the non-fundamental physical level from the fundamental physical nonconscious level. In the contemporary era, Galen Strawson first argued in detail for panpsychism through the refutation of the emergence of consciousness. His argument is a dilemma. According to it, emergence is either true or brute. The aim of this paper is to critically assess Strawson’s argument. We show that according to the historical background of emergentism, it turns out that a third type of emergentism can be assumed, which is, firstly, coherent and, secondly, the emergence of consciousness based on it is possible. We conclude that Strawson’s argument does not work. Strawson’s argument Strawson argues that the emergence of consciousness is either true or brute. In true emergence, the emergent property is wholly dependent upon the fundamental level and is explainable by it (in other words, knowledge of the emergent property is deducible from complete knowledge of the fundamental level). In brute emergence, although the emergent property is wholly dependent upon the fundamental level, it is unexplainable by it. Therefore, the main feature of the emergence in Strawson’s definition is the whole dependence of the emergent property upon the fundamental level. Because of this feature, Strawson considers brute emergence in general (it doesn’t matter whether it is about consciousness or not) as impossible, for the assumption of the whole dependence of the emergent property upon the fundamental level is inconsistent with the assumption that it is not deducible from the fundamental level (even in the case of complete knowledge of the fundamental level). Strawson also takes the true emergence of consciousness to be impossible; because if the emergence of consciousness is true emergence, then the existence of consciousness must be explainable in terms of the fundamental nonconscious level. But this explanation intuitively is as impossible as an explanation of extended things in terms of non-extended things. Therefore, neither true emergence of consciousness from the nonconscious fundamental level nor the brute one is possible. So, Strawson concludes that the only reasonable and naturalistic explanation of the existence of consciousness at the non-fundamental physical level (such as in humans) is panpsychism.Ontological emergenceWe offer a comprehensive conceptual framework for emergentism that includes the views of most contemporary emergentists. The main features of emergentism are hierarchical ontology, supervenience of higher levels on lower levels, the novelty and unpredictability of the emergent, and inexplicability and irreducibility of the emergent. So, one may consider a version of emergentism in which the emergent mental properties are nomically supervenient on the basic properties and thus are wholly dependent on the basic biological bases according to the laws of the current world. Why Strawson’s argument does not workThe offered conceptual framework for emergentism shows that one can assume another type of emergence besides the true and brute types. In this type, the emergent property is only partially dependent upon the fundamental level. In other words, the dependence of the emergent property upon the fundamental level is nomological. So, in a world with different relevant laws of nature, the emergent property does not exist, even if exactly the same fundamental level exists. This third type of emergence can be found in Broad’s view, the most famous British emergentist. Broad divides laws of nature into intra-ordinal laws and trans-ordinal laws. He believes that the existence of a fundamental level with the laws of nature within it (intra-order laws) is not enough for emergence unless the relevant trans-ordinal law also holds. Then, to avoid Strawson’s dilemma, we need to determine the ontological status of laws of nature (specifically, trans-ordinal laws). In other words, we need to decide whether the laws of nature are fundamental (nomism) or reducible to powers, counterfactual conditionals, or the Humean Mosaic. It seems that Strawson’s argument presumes a certain ontological status of laws of nature, i.e., powerism. According to powerism, the truths of powers are fundamental and truths of laws of nature are reducible to them. So, the trans-ordinal laws of nature are reducible the to truths of powers at the fundamental level. It concludes that the emergent property is wholly dependent upon the fundamental level. But on the contrary, Broad avoids Strawson’s dilemma by assuming a different ontological status of trans-ordinal laws, i.e., nomism. ConclusionThe historical background of emergentism (Broad’s view) shows that Strawson’s dilemma is not enough to deny the emergence of consciousness and to defend panpsychism; Because, by assuming the whole dependence of the emergent only on its base, Strawson has assumed only two types of correct and brute emergence. On the one hand, he has considered brute emergence to be incoherent, and on the other hand, he has considered correct emergence to be impossible. But according to an emergentist such as Broad, the dependence of emergent properties, including mental properties, on the basic properties is not whole dependence, even considering intra-order laws of the basic level; On the contrary, the emergent properties are totally dependent on the basic level (basic level properties and intra-order laws), considering trans-ordinal laws. (shrink)

Thaddeus Metz, by developing a non-consequentialist theory on meaning in life, has tried to provide a relatively complete explanation of the meaning of most people’s lives. Metz’s theory is based on two components: 1) “rational nature” as a subjective component and 2) “the fundamental conditions of human existence” as an objective component. This article through an analytical-critical approach, first examines Metz’s argument and its components, then explains some important objections raised against the components of Metz’s theory, that is, :1) defending (...) the meaning-conferring of the consequentialist view of the meaning in life, 2) the incompatibility of Metz’s theory with human intuition, 3) lack of attention to the role of emotional aspects, 4) meaning-conferring of some necessary conditions, 5)the problem with the sufficiency of fundamental conditions for meaning, 6) the inability of fundamental conditions to explain the meaning of some works of art, and 7) ignoring the meaningfulness of an artificial intelligence’s actions. Although Metz’s theory is considered defensible to most of the objections, it has been shown that his theory in the subjective aspect is problematic. Based on the Robot Problem, it can be argued that without the need for transcendence and going beyond the animal nature, meaningfulness is possible. If it is possible to regard the computational aspect of artificial intelligence as a part of the rational nature of humans, the subjective component of Metz’s theory cannot be defended. Introduction Thaddeus Metz proposes a principle that captures, under naturalist and non-consequentialist assumptions, the way in which the good, the true, and the beautiful are able to confer great meaning on life. He also shows how previous attempts to do so have failed. His criticism of other theories and his replies to possible objections to his own, improved theory suggest that he is an objectivist. Metz’s theory has two main components, which might be called the subjective component and the objective component. Metz’s proposal is probably the best theory available today of the meaning of life as self-transcendence under naturalist and non-consequentialist assumptions, and there are good reasons to prefer his suggestion to others. His theory, however, has been between criticism and defense. In this paper, while acknowledging the importance of the contribution of Metz’s theory to the literature, only the objections against two components of his theory will be explained. Iddo Landau, Stephen Kershnar, and Minao Kukita are critics whose objections are examined in the present paper. In addition to the most important critiques, this paper has posed another challenge to the subjective component of Metz’s theory and also provided an answer for it, yet it contends that his theory requires further critical attention to this aspect. Metz’s theory the most basic statement of the fundamentality theory of meaning in life is:A human person’s life is more meaningful the more that she employs her reason and in ways that positively orient rationality towards fundamental conditions of human existence. Thus, Metz’s theory is based on 1) the subjective component, a matter of positively orienting one’s rational nature towards objective values, and 2) the objective component, the fundamental conditions of human existence. Metz also explains the way of identifying meaningful objective values. That is, with respect to the good, the true, and the beautiful, Metz’s account in virtue of when and why they confer great meaning in life is that they involve substantial exercises of human intelligence directed towards fundamental conditions of human existence. The way he construes ‘rational nature” as a subjective component is broad. What Metz means by such a phrase, signifies not merely cognition and intentional action, but also any ‘judgment-sensitive attitude’ that includes a variety of propositional attitudes. Metz also argues that the basic idea of fundamental conditions of human existence is that of conditions that are largely responsible for many other non-fundamental conditions. He notes that a fundamental condition should not be conflated with a necessary condition. A necessary condition of an object is something that is required for that object to obtain, whereas a fundamental condition is something that is responsible for that object. Not every necessary condition is a fundamental condition. Likewise, a condition could be fundamental and yet not be a necessary one. More specifically, he suggests the relevant conditions of human existence are those of 1) a typical human person’s life, 2) the life of our species, or 3) the environment in which we live. Hence, Metz by distinguishing between fundamental conditions and non-fundamental conditions suggests that firstly, the meaningfulness of people’s life can be explained only by appealing to “fundamental conditions of human existence” and secondly, people, by orienting their rational nature, positively and substantially, towards fundamental conditions of human existence, can achieve a meaningful life. Objections to the theory’s components Some objections have been raised against Metz’s theory: The incompatibility of Metz’s theory with human intuition and lack of attention to the role of emotional aspects are critiques about the subjective component, and meaning-conferring of some necessary conditions, the problem with the sufficiency of fundamental conditions for meaning and the inability of fundamental conditions to explain the meaning of some works of art, are among the objections to the objective component. Objections to the subjective component a) Landau’s major objection to the subjective component is that contouring rationality towards fundamental conditions is not always enough to obtain great meaning. He points out that those ‘who just study or understand’ the works of Einstein are positively orienting their intelligence towards fundamental conditions, but are not intuitively obtaining great meaning thereby. b) Since reasoning is at the center of the theory, Kershnar believes Metz’s theory is over-intellectualized. He suggests reasoning instrumentally helps people connect to reality and what makes people’s life meaningful is not merely deliberation and reasoning. Objections to the objective component a) According to Landau, on some occasions, orienting one’s intelligence towards merely necessary conditions for human existence can confer great meaning on a person’s life. Landau contends that the meaningfulness to be found in these cases is not fundamental. b) Minao Kukita also believed Metz’s theory does not work for a work of art to confer meaning and fundamentality is not essential as Metz is claiming. Metz in reply to these objections provides some answers and this paper has tried to defend Metz’s theory against the mentioned objections. Notwithstanding some answers, the subjective component of the theory cannot be defended. Because it has been argued without the rational orientation of humans, meaning is possible. As the computational aspect of artificial intelligence is identical to a human’s, if a robot based on its program helped people enjoy autonomy, this robot’s life would be meaningful. If so, meaningcan be realized without requiring to go beyond animal nature. ConclusionMetz’s theory is invulnerable to the disadvantages of the previous theories and is thus a significant contribution to the literature on the meaning of life. Although his theory in facing most critiques is defensible, it has ignored the meaningfulness of the actions of artificial intelligence. (shrink)

Alongside acquired-conceptual knowledge, intuitive knowledge, as one of the instances of knowledge holds a very important position among Islamic philosophers as well. Allamah Tabatabai also mentions presential knowledge with importance while discussing acquired knowledge, and ultimately, considers presential knowledge to precede acquired knowledge. In this paper, using an analytic method, we have tried to explain his theoretical foundations regarding presential-intuitive knowledge and rationally defending its cognitive validity. An important finding of this paper is that presential-intuitive knowledge, apart from being the (...) base of acquired knowledge, also provides a convincing rational defense regarding cognitive validity. The basis of this validity is that accessing reality is the main goal of knowledge and if we can verify that reality itself is available to us in presential-intuitive knowledge, we would have no further concerns epistemological concerns. According to Allamah Tabatabai, just as sensory intuition creates a certainty of being in accordance with reality in ourselves, presential-intuitive knowledge also contains similar dominance over reality. At the end of this paper, some instances of views that claim to disaffirm the validity of presential-intuitive knowledge have been addressed, analyzed, and explained so that the epistemic validity of presential-intuitive findings is objectively proven. Introduction Islamic philosophers, being aware of the findings of past philosophers, have made valuable innovations regarding knowledge. In the works of Avicenna, Suhravardi, and Mulla Sadra there are priceless and authentic points regarding presential-intuitive knowledge and they have opened up new areas in intuitive knowledge and have paid attention to its rational explanation. One of the important epistemological elements in the ideas of Allamah Tabatabai is this very type of knowledge. In this paper, we have strived to explain the theoretical foundations of Allamah Tabatabai regarding presential-intuitive knowledge, rationally defend its cognitive validity, and refute the claims that disaffirm its validity using an analytical method. The important finding and result of this study is that, apart from being the base of acquired knowledge, a claim to knowledge cannot be made without presential-intuitive knowledge because the real agent of knowledge is the human immaterial soul that provides a convincing rational defense regarding epistemic validity. Intuitive knowledge according to Allamah Tabatabai Terminologically, intuition (shuhūd) is direct knowledge that is achieved in the soul as soon as it is directly received, considered, and reflected upon. Such specific knowledge that manifests with purification and self-refinement is not of the category of concepts. Rather, it is attained through existential connection and unity with reality and is not directly attributed to truth or falsehood and other mental concepts. To reach such a level, the soul requires complete and sincere attention to God and to stay away from worldly diversions. It is in this case that it can gain dominion over reality when encountering it through the illuminative power it has achieved and control over it. It is with intuitive knowledge that the witness arrives at a level of insight and perfection where he observes the realities in the Imaginal realm and in the form of images and at a higher level, is able to witness intelligible realities and ascends. It is in this case that knowledge becomes intelligible. Explaining the foundations of intuitive knowledge according to Allamah, the relation between the material world and the realms above the material is the relation between imperfections to perfection and diluted reality to reality. According to him, exoteric realities that are observed cannot be without intuitive knowledge of the esoteric because the exoteric existence is a manifestation of the esoteric existence and is its link. Thus, by witnessing the exoteric, intuitive knowledge of the esoteric is attained. Allamah considers the human intuition of his own essence as one of the most important instances of presential-intuitive knowledge and presents intuitive knowledge of the reality of the soul as one of the meanings of the narration, one who knows his self knows his Lord and shows its dependency on God considering this narration. It is in such a state that he considers his own actions to be complete dependence on the real agent and the intuition of such a reality takes the witness to a higher level of perfection and in the next step, takes him to a higher level of intuitive knowledge where he sees his own attributes as absorbed into the attributes of God to the extent that he becomes the interpretation of the famous narration of Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) about whom God has stated: I am the ears, eyes, tongue, speech and hands and feet of my beloved. Arriving at such a potential is achieved through the grace of God and presential-intuitive knowledge. The precedence of presential-intuitive knowledge over acquired-conceptual knowledgeAllamah Tabatabai holds that presential knowledge precedes acquired knowledge such that acquired knowledge is based upon knowledge-by-presence. Pure rational concepts, which are abstract concepts such as cause and effect, substance and accident, are not obtained through quiddites; rather, the soul discovers their referents through presential-intuitive knowledge and then attains a concept from them. In other words, when the soul arrives at a reality and truth and existentially connects to it, at another level, the faculty of imagination transforms that presential intuitive knowledge into acquired knowledge and forms and archives an image of it in the memory. Thus, the basis and foundation of all our acquired knowledge is presential-intuitive knowledge and its criterion is the existential unity and connection of the soul with the reality of the perceived thing. Refuting some views that claim to disaffirm the validity of intuitive knowledge according to Allamah Tabatabai, presential-intuitive knowledge always corresponds to reality; however, some do not accept such a view and present views refuting this and we will address some of those views here. In some instances, perceiving biological perceptions such as the feeling of hunger and thirst can be fallible, or you have knowledge of pain, itchiness, and burning of an amputated limb, and sometimes, as a side-effect of taking medication, one has unreal perceptions, and even though every person’s knowledge is presential in relation to his own soul; however, there are differing opinions on whether they are material or immaterial and all these instances show the infallibility of presential-intuitive knowledge. In response to the aforementioned disaffirmed instances, it can generally be said that the sources of perceiving unreal biological perceptions, are interpretations and explanations that are attained through acquired knowledge and this is unrelated to the fallibility of knowledge-by-presence. Preciseness regarding knowledge-by-presence and its contents reveals the negation of supposed errors. (shrink)

According to event-causal modest libertarian accounts of free action, the sort of control an agent requires to perform free actions consists in the action’s being nondeviantly and indeterministically caused by apt reasons of the agent. It has been argued that these modest views succumb to a problem of luck because they imply that, given exactly the same past up to the time of action, and the same laws of nature, at this time the agent could have performed a different action, (...) or no action at all. Hence, it appears that whatever the agent does at this time as a result of indeterministic deliberation is a matter of freedom- or responsibility-undermining luck. In this paper, I argue that neither Robert Kane’s variant of modest libertarianism, which combines a form of non-traditional agent causation with indeterministic event causation, nor John Lemos’ weightings variant, in which agents perform intentional acts of assigning weights to their reasons, circumvents the luck objection. (shrink)

This essay presents William Wainwright’s conception of religious reasoning. He rejects the view that proper reasoning in religion must be limited to “neutral technical reason” (NTR), modes of reasoning that are neutral and acceptable to all parties in a religious disagreement. He emphasizes that religious reasoning, as seen in outstanding practitioners from different religious traditions, incorporates additional elements, such as appeals to revelation, emphasis on religious reading, rhetoric, acknowledgment of mystery, and especially “passional reason,” in which the arguments presented and (...) the conclusions accepted depend essentially on the state of the reasoner’s heart. The essay goes on to consider how Wainwright deals with issues surrounding religious diversity: he rejects all of the standard methods by which it has been argued that differences in belief between traditions either do not really exist or do not ultimately matter. Special attention is given to religious pluralism, as advocated by John Hick and Peter Byrne. This leads to a consideration of exclusivism, in which it is held that the fundamental doctrines of one religion are true, and those of other religions, insofar as they differ from those of the favored religion, are false. Wainwright finds the standard objections against exclusivism to be ineffective or inconclusive. Finally, the essay addresses a question suggested but not resolved by Wainwright’s work: Does religious diversity have the consequence that truth in religion is not accessible to us? (shrink)

This article first explains the classical version of the Divine command ethics in both Christian and Islamic traditions, and then by pointing out its coherency, at least in appearance, with Divine sovereignty and absolute power, it tries to show why this idea is not accepted by a significant number of the Christian and Muslim theologians. William Wainwright answers this question by using Ralph Cudworth’s objections to Divine command ethics. In total, he considers seven objections and criticisms as the main reasons (...) for Christian theologians’ turning away from the theory. By presenting these seven objections, which are mainly taken from Ralph Cudworth’s book, we try to find similar examples in the Islamic tradition and compare them with Wainwrights’ arguments. Some of these objections can be seen in both Christian and Islamic traditions of moral rationalism. But some of them, despite the similarity in content, have different formulations. Also, some objections are specific to Christian or Islamic theology. Last but not least, there are intra-religious objections based on revelations in Islam and Christianity against the theory of Divine command, which is not the subject of my discussion in this article. (shrink)

In some contexts, philosophical debate can be rancorous even when the volume is kept low. In other contexts, certain stripes of “evangelical apologetics” can be equally adversarial and inimical in tone. In the name of preserving a professional, if not an irenic spirit, some unspoken ground rules have been adopted for interreligious dialogue. First is the demand to avoid all appearance of circular reasoning, which is to say avoid making any rhetorical moves that depend upon metaphysical presuppositions about the reality (...) of God. Second, it is understood that (supposedly) unimportant theologically-laden details are to be left off until the (supposedly) prior task of establishing God’s reality is achieved. Such ground rules put philosophical theologians at a distinct disadvantage in interreligious dialogue as they sideline the very voices that have the highest stake in the conversation. William Wainwright offers the concept of “passional reason” as a way to counter the ground rules. Wainwright has shown that charges of circularity and subjectivism fail in the cases of such thinkers as Jonathan Edwards, John Henry Newman, and William James. Read in one way, Wainwright’s work may be taken as a strategic defense that prevents antagonists from excluding religious voices from philosophical conversation. I argue that there is an even more fruitful way to read Wainwright. Simply put, Wainwright’s recapture and rehabilitation of “passional reason” for philosophy of religion simultaneously opens the door for more constructive approaches to interreligious dialogue than an agonistic-styled philosophical debate can allow. (shrink)

Editor’s NoteThe Memorial of Prof. William J. WainwrightThe member of Editorial Board of Journal of Philosophical Theological ResearchWilliam “Bill” Judson Wainwright (1935-2020), a distinguished professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was the member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Philosophical Theological Research (JPTR).Wainwright is the author of several books in various fields of philosophy, especially the philosophy of religion, and numerous articles and chapters. Monotheism and Hope In God (2020), Reason, Revelation, and Devotion: Inference and (...) Argument in Religion (2015), Religion and Morality (2005), and Heart and Reason (1995) are among his published books.His last published article is “God, Love and Inter-religious Dialogue”1, which was published by the Journal of Philosophical Theological Research in the autumn of 2020. Wainwright gave final approval to his paper but unfortunately could not see its publication. He passed away on November 5, 2020, a few days before we published his article. May he be in peace and God’s grace. I never met him but I understood from my contacts with him that “He was a very kind, respected, noble, and patient philosopher.”We decided to dedicate a special issue titled “Theology, Philosophy, and Ethics”: In Memory of William J. Wainwright to him. I would like to express my gratitude to all the philosophers who accepted my invitation and generously and kindly helped us in publishing this special issue by writing their valuable articles. We hope that Wainwright would be pleased with the publication of this issue.I will end my words with this wish, which was Wainwright’s wish too, that: I wish that the followers of monotheistic religions can establish peace and tranquility in the world through inter-religious dialogue, mutual understanding, and extending their love for God to each other.1. Wainwright, W.J. (2020), God, Love, and Interreligious Dialogue, Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 22(85), 5-13. (shrink)

In Reason and the Heart, William Wainwright defends a kind of religious evidentialism, one that takes int consideration the promptings of the heart, provided the heart is a virtuous one; and he claims that this view is able to avoid relativism. Here, Wainwright’s evidentialism is examined in relation to other views that have gone by that name. Wainwright’s position is briefly stated together with an expression of doubt about its ability to fend off relativism. Following this, an outline of the (...) history of evidentialism is presented. It is concluded that Wainwright’s view is not really a form of evidentialism at all. Evidentialism may be weakened in two ways: (1) redefining “evidence” to include elements that are not recognized by objectifying inquiry; (2) allowing subjective factors, such as religious emotions, to govern the interpretation of the evidence. Wainwright describes his view as a form of evidentialism because it does not avail itself of (1); but it is only misleadingly called “evidentialism” because of (2). After making this case, several reasons are presented for rejecting evidentialism. It is argued that evidentialists focus attention of what the evidence is to determine whether beliefs are justified or rational, while how the evidence is treated is of no less importance when beliefs are supported by reasons. Furthermore, there are beliefs the justification of which is a practical matter of commitment to a more general framework rather than inference from some body of evidence. It is suggested that some religious beliefs may fall into this category. (shrink)

In honor of William Wainwright, this article takes up his interest in interreligious dialogue. It pursues two goals simultaneously: One is to provide a better model for understanding philosophy of religion. Terrence Tilley claims that there is the standard model which is mistaken in that it takes arguing for religious beliefs to be equivalent to justifying commitment to a religion. He promotes a practical model, which has its ancestry in the writings of Michel de Montaigne and Blaise Pascal. This model (...) begins with the lived practices of religion and justifies its intellectual content as explanation for the rightness of this way of life. Wainwright’s work fits into the practical model, but Tilley provides a description and a stronger basis for it. The second goal is to provide much more adequate epistemological resources than those used by the standard model, with contributions from Catholic modernist theologian George Tyrrell, recent philosopher of science Imre Lakatos, and Alasdair MacIntyre, who became interested in evaluating traditions, in science, in moral reasoning, and finally what he came to call large-scale traditions. The problem he needed to overcome is the fact that such traditions carry their own, often different, concepts of reasoning. The possibility of fruitful rational conversation between religions is illustrated here by an account of dialogue between Christianity and Shi’ia Islam, as exemplified in David Burrell’s ability to use conversation with Islamic thought to clarify for Christians their own doctrines of the Trinity, the mediation of Christ, and original sin. (shrink)

In this article, the author claims that Kant’s political thought is formed both in the break from his moral thought and in the continuation and decline of his moral thought in politics. Kant has previously struggled in the field of ethics to realize autonomy in external and internal nature, as well as in institutions, on the premise that man is evil and that the world of phenomena or experience lacks rationality. And to escape from this problem, he either seeks refuge (...) in the unknown future or in God and theoretically never has a theory to establish a relationship between the world of phenomena and phenomena, or in other words, the subjective and objective. In such a state, the person stands outside nature with his free inside, and the experience or object appears to him as something threatening. Kant brings all these problems with him to his world of understanding of politics. And because it has already created a disconnect between the two realms of subject and object, this continues also in political thought, because it cannot use the capacity of its new understanding of human freedom to achieve the theory of public will and its embodiment outside. Instead, it seeks to establish the government of law and ensure it by forcing the state to achieve good citizenship for society. Thus Kant’s political thought separated from the freedom of autonomy and it falls into utilitarian thought.In this article, the author not only believes that there is a gap between freedom and autonomy in Kant’s moral thought and his political philosophy but also believes that Kant’s theoretical decline in political thought is due to the weakness of his moral thought. That is, not establishing a relationship with the real world or phenomena or experience in Kant’s moral thought and not realizing his autonomy outside, whether on the basis of anthropology based on man’s evil or on the irrationality of the outside world and also not accepting its institutions which is the embodiment of human desires and wishes; all of these have had an inevitable impact on his political thought. in such a way that whenever Kant speaks of politics in the real world, he can never speak of the transcendental freedom embodied in it. Thus, that conflict between subject and object or morality and nature or human desires with social institutions in politics has been reproduced again. In such a situation, as Kant has not been able to bring that abstract moral man into the realm of politics and in concrete cases, explain the conditions of its realization in case of public will, inevitably, one must turn to the government for the realization of both private and public will in the field of politics which is not at all the embodiment of the public will of individuals, but a master who prepares man for social life by coercion and its metaphysical repression. Thus, autonomy is not realized in politics as in ethics in the external sphere, and empirical coercion in the form of government will impose itself on the abstraction of autonomy like God in Kant’s moral thought. (shrink)

Reformed epistemology, based on the reliability of the functions of cognitive faculties, holds that one can believe in God directly without argument or evidence. Alvin Plantinga, one of the proponents of this view, replaces justification with warrant in the classical definition of knowledge and considers true belief, which has a warrant as knowledge. On this basis, he considers it reasonable to believe in the existence of God because it has a warrant and arises from our healthy cognitive faculties without the (...) need for an independent argument. Some defenders of the cognitive science of religion also seek to provide evidence from cognitive science to explain religious beliefs in such a way as to show that there is a natural mechanism in man to know God. They argue based on this mechanism in favor of the existence of God. Justin Barrett, one of the leading proponents of this view, uses a mental bias called the Hyperactive Agency Detection Device, which is evolutionarily developed in humans, to explain the process of generating belief in supernatural intentional beings, including God. In recent years, efforts have been made to integrate these two approaches and use the experimental results of cognitive science to validate reformed epistemology. The 2010 joint paper by Barrett and Clark, the former a cognitive scientist and the latter a reformed epistemologist, is a prime example of this effort. Although this paper lists some of the differences between the various perspectives in cognitive sciences of religion and reformed epistemology, its ultimate goal is to show the correlation and convergence of the two approaches. One of the similarities emphasized in this article is related to a particular type of cognitive faculty, called the sense of divinity or Sensues Divintatus, and in both approaches is mentioned by various terms.While acknowledging some similarities between the two theories, the present paper seeks to undermine the view that tries to use the cognitive science of religion as a scientific basis for validating reformed epistemology. This task has been done in this article by pointing out and providing evidence in favor of the fundamental differences between the two theories. In this article, two arguments are presented to show their fundamental differences.The first argument is based on differences in the origins and roots of the two theories. According to this argument, HADD as a cognitive tool in Barrett’s theory can be counted as a mediator, proof, or scientific evidence to prove God; while the foundation of reformed epistemology is to put aside these intermediaries and explain the rationality of belief in God, without resorting to an argument. As the scholars of the cognitive science of religion agree, what creates human bias towards intelligent factors is a spandrel or byproduct property that is not adoptive in the human evolutionary process. Some of them consider the generation of this property as the reason for the existence of God, but regardless of whether this argument is true or false, human cognitive biases in this argument are mediations to prove the existence of God. Accordingly, the two theories, despite their apparent similarities, are fundamentally different.The second argument emphasizes the difference in the goals or visions of the two theories. The main concern of the cognitive science of religion, according to Barrett, is how to produce belief; while the main concern of reformed epistemology is the rationality of belief. In fact, by relying on HADD, one can only remark on how a belief is made, regardless of its rationality. However, this does not meet the purpose of reformed epistemology. In reformed epistemology, Plantinga considers belief in God to be a kind of basic belief that we are reasonable to accept. Here, some have said, the belief produced in the evolutionary process can also be reasonable. This claim can be examined in its place, but so far as the ultimate goal of the cognitive science of religion is the explanation of belief production, and it is different from the ultimate goal of the reformed epistemology, that is, the explanation of the rationality of belief, it is sufficient for this article to show their differences. (shrink)

While there is no real tension between faith and reason for Muslim scholars, in post-Kantian philosophy of religion there have been serious doubts about the rationality of religious doctrines. It is noteworthy that Ghazali’s critiques of philosophical reasoning are totally different from Kant’s. Ghazali denied the reliability of pure reasoning without the help of faith, while Kant denied the access of reason to the intangible world. By paying attention to Kant’s philosophy for understanding the very difference of the faith/reason tension (...) in Islamic tradition and contemporary philosophy of religion and employing an extra-religious approach and an analytical-critical method, the present research has studied Ghazali’s corpus and concluded what concerned Ghazali was faith, not reason; since he held that only a pious believer could be saved from the hell. He was not concerned about reasoning without revelation and religious belief. Ghazali maintained that philosophical reasoning falls short of the truth of affairs. One could say, from a different point of view, he was aware of the limits of reasoning in the same way as Kant was; but unlike Kant, through faith, he arrived at matters which are far from the access of reason. Finally, although in Kant’s thoughts, faith has lost its rational bases, Ghazali was not in the same situation. He held that mystical, prophetical reasoning, which he called “al-Qalb”, could obtain the truth and has no conflict with faith and revelation, and it is just human reasoning that makes judgments that could come in conflict with religious beliefs. Previous research saw Ghazali as fideistic; although thinking of him of rationalist or fideistic, could be easy based on his Ashʿari commitment, but after enough reflection on his works, it turns out to be difficult to do so because one could find both evidence for his rationality or fideism. Regarding his prioritizing faith over reason, there is a lot of textual evidence in his corpus; his tendency toward reason is not very explicit but can be perceived implicitly from his works. Despite his efforts to emphasize revelation and faith, as well as left human reasoning for revelation, what arises afterward, which has a kind of validity even for him, is the same common reason. Ghazali interpreted the prima facie meaning of Quranic verses which are impossible from a rational viewpoint, such as the corporeality of God. There is no middle ground between faith and reason, and yet Ghazali still stands in the very middle; thus, he could not be seen as just fideistic. If he wanted to demarcate what could be interpreted, he would have taken the side of reason. At the same time, comparing his rationality with Descartes’ is a naïve position to hold. Mystic-minded Ghazali did not see the issue of faith and reason like a philosopher and, ultimately, due to his obedience to God, as well as the fact that his main concern is salvation, he prioritized faith over reason. It is not possible to speak of tension or competence for a mystic-minded like him. (shrink)

There are two main approaches to evolutionary epistemology: the analogical or Spencerian approach, and the literal or Darwinian approach. The analogical approach claims that the process of the development of culture – particularly the development of science – is purely like that of living creatures and is based on natural selection. Michael Ruse calls this approach the “traditional approach” or the “analogical approach”, and sometimes calls it the “Spencerian approach.” In the latter approach, which this essay is going to consider (...) from the viewpoint of Michael Ruse, the claim is that not only the development and evolution of animal bodies but also the development of the structures of their mind is a product of natural selection. The proponents of these approaches are divided into two groups: first, theorists like Lorenz, Reidl, and Wuketits, who believe that evolutionary epistemology is complementary to the critical philosophy of Kant. Second, theorists like Clark link evolutionary epistemology to Humean skepticism. Ruse, like Clark, believes that evolutionary epistemology is complementary to Humean philosophy and that the human mind isn’t a blank slate, but it is provided with innate capacities or secondary epigenetic rules. So, Ruse like Quine, believes that there isn’t any difference between analytic and synthetic propositions and that they all are synthetic propositions and posteriori. The difference is that Quine appeals to philosophical reasons, and Ruse appeals to biological ones. Moreover, there isn’t any necessity in knowledge according to Quine but rather, a pragmatic necessity; while Ruse believes that there is a type of necessity, that is, according to the present framework of our minds, based on our evolutionary history, we are condemned to think causally and mathematically, but we may lose this framework in the evolutionary process. It seems that Ruse’s viewpoint corresponds more with our common sense than that of Quine because we always put up resistance against those who believe that the principles of mathematics and logic are contingent. The viewpoint of Ruse was criticized, and he responds to his critics. We believe that some of his answers aren’t plausible.One of the most important criticisms against Ruse’s evolutionary epistemology is that it is self-contradictory, that is, what is important for evolutionary epistemologists is success in survival and reproduction, and the truth doesn’t matter to him, so he should accept that we need to believe that the principles of evolution itself can possibly be false. Ruse, responds to this criticism by distinguishing between the reality of common sense and metaphysical reality.We show in this essay that this solution doesn’t work because Ruse doesn’t suggest any criterion for distinguishing between beliefs based on common sense and beliefs based on metaphysical reality so we can express doubts about the examples he gives for common-sense beliefs. Furthermore, even if it were to be accepted that common-sense beliefs are infallible the problem still exists because natural selection isn’t a common-sense belief, so according to this, all of our beliefs might be mistaken, including the natural selection mechanism itself, and applying it to human knowledge. (shrink)

Bernard Williams in his “Internal and External Reasons” argues for internalism about reasons. He holds that according to internalism of reasons, agent A has reason to Φ if and only if he has a desire ψ which will be satisfied by Φ-ing and he also believes that it is so. Williams maintains that if one does not have a preceding desire and cannot form any desires through deliberation then it will be rational to claim that he does not have reason (...) to Φ. Clearly desires play a crucial role here because if an agent does not have such desires, then he does not have reasons for action. Williams goes beyond this claim and says only internal reasons are reasons for action. In this article, we argue against his claim. After explaining descriptive and normative senses of rationality and alternative views regarding the rationality of beliefs and desires, in virtue of the idea of blameworthiness, responsibility, and having practical reason, we show that there are a set of actions for which moral agents are blameworthy and they, therefore, have reasons at least for certain actions which are not dependent upon their desires. This idea would be supported by the facts that most people consider a person who violates hedonic, prudential, and moral norms as much as possible to be irrational, that they consider the act of counting him as rational to be counterintuitive, and finally that societies have founded institutions for restraining such a person.Our argument from blameworthiness can be formulated as follows: If a moral agent performs an action X for which he can justly be blamed, then he will be responsible and he ought not to perform X. If a moral agent is responsible and he ought not to perform X, then there is a reason for him not to perform X. There are a set of actions, S, that moral agents can be justly blamed for performing. So moral agents are responsible for performing an action in S. So there are reasons for moral agents not to perform an action in S.By falsifying the negation of premise, we show that is true. To falsify that it is not the case that there are actions for which moral agents can be justly blamed, we presented an example of an extremely immoral, imprudent, and pain-seeking agent who forms abnormal desires and acts against moral, prudent, and hedonic norms as much as possible. Since there are not any desires for such norms in his psychology, and his actions are based on these desires, he is not regarded as rational by most people and social institutions such as psychiatric clinics and courts. In addition, it would be irrational to hold that he is rational in his having immoral, imprudent, and pain-seeking desires and acting accordingly because it is a rational, prevalent, conventional practice to believe so and any theory which denies its rationality should provide convincing reasons. (shrink)

As a normative ethics theory, virtue ethics theory can present a criterion for criminalization. The revival of this theory brought about a great new change in new ethics philosophy in the second half of the 20th century. Its effects on criminalization are just like the two sides of a coin. On the one hand, it has the capacity of promoting ethics to reach its climax and even act as a permit for criminal intervention in the internal qualities of the individuals (...) and on the other hand, it can decriminalize most of the vicious actions in order to make citizens virtuous.In the field of the philosophy of the law of virtue, the theory of the ethics of virtue is used for the philosophical justification of criminalization. Therefore, in order to present a virtuous criminal theory, special attention is paid to moral vices. In the theory of virtuous criminalism, we are faced with two main axes: one, flourishing, and the second, vice. The presentation of a legislative theory in the philosophy of virtue-based law takes into account human flourishing. Proponents of liberalism, on the other hand, argue that criminalizing moral depravity violates privacy; while the problem is not simple. For this reason, the criminalization of vicious behavior faces challenges including the threat of self-ownership and the justification of these behaviors from the perspective of the principle of harm. The main question now is, to what extent is the criminalization of moral vices in the context of the theory of self-government? One might also ask how virtuous criminal theory can be justified by a reading of the principle of harm. The present paper has achieved the following approach with a descriptive-analytical method: The criminalization of some moral vices violates the right of citizens to self-government. Therefore, criminalizing these behaviors will not be justified. On the other hand, from the perspective of the theory of virtuous criminalism, moral vice is not a sufficient and even necessary condition for criminalization. For this reason, assuming that the criminalization of a vice is justified on the basis of a reading of the principle of harm, it can not necessarily be claimed that the application of criminal law against this behavior is effective. In addition, the purpose of this study is to explain the limits and challenges of the theory of virtuous criminalism in the context of the theory of self-government and the principle of harm. In addition, in this article, readers are introduced to the concerns of liberals. And they will realize that criminalization in the context of virtue-based philosophy of law does not necessarily violate privacy, that is, we will not face maximum criminalization. In addition to the analysis of the nature of virtue ethics, the present thesis dissertation reviews argumentative methods of virtuous criminalization in the context of virtue-oriented criminal law jurisprudence and criticizes hurdles and methods of creating a liberal approach. (shrink)

For a long time, human beings have been wishing to improve the genetic composition of their generation and clearing it of some disabilities and defects, and this concern has always been pursued in different ways in different eras. The existence of authoritarian and racist policies and discriminatory methods in the old Eugenics made it easy to rule that it was immoral, but it is somewhat difficult to judge the liberal and new Eugenics because one group, citing the scientific contexts and (...) social contexts resulting from the advances in genetics and the values of liberal societies, dictates its moralization, while the other group, despite these contexts, still retains the relevant ethical challenges.One of these important challenges is the violation of the principle of justice, albeit in a different way than in the past. Injustice in the old Eugenics was discriminatory due to the imposition of a Eugenics program on a particular class, and the manifestation of injustice in the new Eugenics is that by prescribing that its benefits belong to certain classes, it is not possible for the public to benefit from it. The author of this article believes that various ethical challenges still exist in the liberal and modern Eugenics program with a focus on the principle of justice, and the present article seeks to identify, examine and analyze them from a point of view.The findings of this paper are that some of the ethical considerations related to the application of the principle of justice to Eugenics are:Although some solutions may be effective at some level, it is not possible to provide an absolute and general solution for all cases of breeding.Bioethical issues such as Eugenics due to their multifaceted nature, need the consideration of the requirements of various principles and some contextual considerations related to cultural and social conditions and indigenous and regional situations.It is necessary to have appropriate programs to eliminate the factors that incite immoral attitudes and prejudices against the disabled.Despite the context in which it has been made, advocates of liberal Eugenics themselves admit that the challenge of discrimination remains and have an unprecedented impact on genocide and the rise of racism.The well-being of individuals in society depends on the fair distribution of the benefits and resources of Eugenics in a fair social context, and the prescription and distribution of these resources in a society with defective and unjust structures will not have the desired effect. (shrink)