A critical reflection on "necessity in relation" theory in explaining the nature of moral sentences and solving the Is/Ought problem

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Faculty of Theology and Ahl-al-Bayt Studies. Isfahan. Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, University of Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

According to the owners of the “necessity in relation” theory, explaining the nature of moral sentences and solving Hume's "Is/Ought" problem, are two things that are intertwined and Addressing one, is the same as addressing the other. This theory has been proposed in order to achieve very important issues in ethics, such as generality, certainty, realism, absolutism and having criteria for evaluating the moral system. Therefore, a critical look at this theory is very important. The aim and purpose of the article is to evaluate the “necessity in relation” theory, both in explaining the nature of moral sentences and in solving Hume's problem. The authors' approach has two stages. In the first stage, some foundations for evaluating a theory in solving the "Is/Ought" problem are presented. The second stage is done by presenting four critiques (based on the foundations presented in the first stage) around the ambiguities and foundations of this theory. According to the authors of the article, there are four criticisms on the “necessity in relation” theory: 1- circle and succession; 2- incompatibility with deontological ethics; 3- begging the question fallacy; 4- Denial of ethical primary self-evidents. The method used in this research is a descriptive-analytical inferential and problem-oriented style.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Journal of Religious Thought : A Quarterly Journal of Shiraz University

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 12 December 2023

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics