نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد قزوین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قزوین، ایران.
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
This article examines the philosophical foundations of the concept of wrong in legal systems and the prevailing ethical theory in Iranian law. In order to achieve this goal, we first investigated deontologism and consequentialism as two dominant moral theories in the moral philosophy and legal systems of continental Europe, the English-speaking area, and Islam. The main question of this research is what is the basis of right or wrong actions in Iran's legal system? Then we examined the position of these two moral theories in Iranian law.The findings of the research indicate the recent tendencies of philosophers and jurists towards synthesis theories. In such a way that by combining the elements of Deontologism (breach of previous duty) and consequentialism (violation of another's right), they consider the wrong as a violation of duty while violating another's right. In Iranian law, we witness a heterogeneous combination of deontological and consequentialist elements regarding the concept of wrong. To get rid of this situation And in order to resolve this conflict, the authors offer two proposals: the first proposal is to provide a single definition of the concept of wrong by combining elements that can be collected, moral deontolgism and consequentialism.The second suggestion is to present an innovative theory called neurobiological consequentialism, based on which the behavior wrong is caused by data and Boundedand ,reletive mental-brain components of the subject in the face of environmental stimuli, while the person in the mentioned situation has the possibility of access to appropriate reasons in order to made a decision and choose other than wrong behavior
کلیدواژهها [English]
)