چکیده:
One of the most important topics in applied ethics and the philosophy of ethics is the discussion of 'moral conflicts'; because sometimes a person experiences conflict in performing moral duties, namely virtues or vices. To resolve conflict, scholars of ethics have presented various methods. One of the methods for solving it, which is examined in this article using a descriptive-analytical method, is through the rational rule of 'prioritizing the more important over the less important'. This article examines this discussion in two parts: first, the semantics and conceptual examination of concepts such as conflict, collision, the more important, and the less important; and second, which is the most important part of the article, examines the importance and necessity, the levels of resolving moral conflicts, and the indicators of prioritizing the more important over the less important.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In the technical definition of Tazahum, it is stated: whenever two rulings are established such that both are desirable from the perspective of the legislator, but in practice and at the stage of compliance and execution, they accidentally coincide in such a way that complying with both of them simultaneously is not possible for the obligated person (mukallaf), and they can only perform one of them, then Tazahum has occurred between the two rulings (Muzaffar, 1384, p.
33); meaning that in each of these, a person sometimes needs to step into the role of arbitration and judgment based on their own value system, or sometimes, in the process of determining and identifying moral duty and acting upon it, encounters moral Tazahum, in such a way that the individual's duty and obligation is not clear and transparent, but rather they are sometimes forced to judge between two good options or two bad options, or to choose one option.
In resolving moral Tazahums, one of the best methods is observing the results of actions with respect to the ultimate goal (proximity to God); meaning we should use the rule of "precedence of Ahamm over Muhimm.
" It is necessary to remind that the best evidence for the precedence of Ahamm over Muhimm is practical reason, which also aligns with the opinions and practice of rational people (sira al-uqala); because the assumption is that combining two conflicting rulings during compliance is impossible.
Now, considering the above goals, the principles of Islam, and its priorities, one can reach general rules for resolving ethical conflicts.
(
, 
, 
)
