philosophy
Mehdi akhavan
Abstract
The type and program of Kant's monetary philosophy in ethics is prescient and pre-empirical (or metaphysical) principles of ethics. With this goal in the foundation of metaphysics, ethics, moral value, absolutely, only the decent will is the good field; An intention that is determined by the moral law, ...
Read More
The type and program of Kant's monetary philosophy in ethics is prescient and pre-empirical (or metaphysical) principles of ethics. With this goal in the foundation of metaphysics, ethics, moral value, absolutely, only the decent will is the good field; An intention that is determined by the moral law, absolute, rational and simple, and the motive of action is duty and not something else, including a feeling of compassion and a desire to achieve the result and obedience to God's orders. Kant presents various formulas for the moral law (universal law, universal law of nature, humanity, self-reflection and kingdom of ends). In Post-Criticism II, Kant relates the completion of abstraction to integration problems. One of the problems that Kant deals with is speed, relationships, and sexual intercourse, which can only be fulfilled legally in the form of marriage. In addition, marriage is not based on friendship or love, but based on sexual intercourse and agreement between a man and a woman for the exchange of sexual organs. This image of marriage and sexual relations raises various issues in Kant's field of ethics; including that opposition to individuality in the interaction between people, how is it gathered in the fulfillment of sex and marriage? Does Kant's formula of humanity make an exception in this case or does it somehow justify marriage in the same formula? Prohibition of ownership of a person's body, how can it be collected by marriage, which is the transfer of this ownership? The commentators of Kant answer these questions with the points that I will discuss in this article. Kant, along with theorists of physical law in ethics (such as Thomas Aquinas), believes that sexual intercourse with a married person is obviously devoid of any virtue, unless it is done with the motive of reproduction. Kant's opposition to certain sexual relations and/or sexual movements (such as masturbation, sexual relations with animals and homosexuals) can be understood in this context. Finally, in this article, the place of love in Kant's ethics is discussed and the question is whether we have a duty to love others.
Mohammad Mahdi Fallah; mahdi akhavan
Abstract
One of the main issues in explaining the phenomenon of diversity of religions in the world is the issue of religions ranking; i.e. the question of whether religions are essentially comparable or not! And if it is comparable, what is the criterion and criterion of this comparison? It seems that the border ...
Read More
One of the main issues in explaining the phenomenon of diversity of religions in the world is the issue of religions ranking; i.e. the question of whether religions are essentially comparable or not! And if it is comparable, what is the criterion and criterion of this comparison? It seems that the border between two different positions in explaining the phenomenon of religious plurality, namely relativism and religious pluralism, comes from the accuracy of the issue of religions ranking. In this article, we will speak of two main representatives of these two trends by proposing and examining this problem and among the religious relativists we refer to Ernest Troeltsch and to John Hick from religious pluralism. This article seeks to put these two theories together and remind them of their similarities and reveal their fundamental differences. Briefly, it can be noted that the major similarity between Troeltsch and Hick is to rely on cultural categories in the consistency of religious awareness, while the fundamental difference between them is the observation of objectivity or subjectivity in their grading criteria. In the end, Hick claims that although religions are comparable in principle, but practically the result of this comparing is the equivalence of religion’s Truth-claims, while Troeltsch says it's basically impossible to compare religions, اowever, in his original statements, he clearly states that in practice, Christianity is superior to other religions. Of course, in his later remarks, he reviews this result and claims that religions are only relative in absolute terms and he claims absolute religions are relative only.
