چکیده:
the valuation of goodness has always been a significant topic in the realm of political philosophy, attracting the attention of numerous scholars. the intuitionist philosopher g.e. moore argues that goodness is an ideal concept resulting from the aggregation of various states and diverse values. ethics, according to moore, is concerned with what is "good," and he posits that goodness is a simple notion that cannot be defined, as only complex entities can be defined. moore introduces moral pluralism and advocates for a form of ideal utilitarianism, wherein maximizing utility does not solely mean enhancing pleasures; rather, it entails an effort to cultivate and elevate the myriad inherent values, of which pleasure is merely one. in islamic thought, ayatollah misbah yazdi views the understanding of goodness as a valuation of human actions, emphasizing the recognition of moral qualities like goodness and badness of actions. he conceptualizes an inner faculty that perceives the beauty and correctness of actions, or conversely, the ugliness and wrongness, with this perception being related to the perfection of each action. this paper employs a comparative analytical method to explore the viewpoints of these two thinkers
خلاصه ماشینی:
In Islamic thought from the perspective of Ayatollah Mesbah, the recognition of good is considered the valuation of human actions, and they believe in the rational recognition of the goodness and badness of actions, in such a way that they conceive of an internal faculty through which the perception of the beauty and correctness of actions, or conversely, the perception of the ugliness and badness of actions, is perceived and inferred by that faculty, and this perception is inferable in relation to the perfection of each action.
E. Moore and Ayatollah Mesbah generally share views on subjects such as the definition of the nature of good and its recognition, as well as the necessity of observing ethics in actions and the necessity of dividing pleasures based on their type of quality; however, they differ regarding the definition of ethics, the meaning of pleasures, the motivation for performing actions, and such criteria for valuing and categorizing actions.
Because it is not correct to say this forest has a good view but is not beautiful; the reason we were able to use "good" instead of "beautiful" by changing the wording is that in some cases, due to specific relationships established between the subject and the predicate or due to context, the other word Scientific Journal of Intellectual Explorations, Research Article, Year 4, Issue 1, Spring Season, 1404, pp.
He calls it the "naturalistic fallacy," and because all philosophers of ethics have been in pursuit of defining "good" Intellectual Explorations Scientific Quarterly, Research Article, Year 4, Issue 1, Spring Season, 1404, pp.
(
, 
, 
)
