سید احمد فاضلی

Are opinion (as the product and perfection of theoretical reason) and practice (as the result and perfection of practical reason) involved in the ultimate happiness of humans? Why and how? According to a well-known perspective, Sadr Al-Mota'allehin regards the perfection of theoretical reason as the foundational structure of ultimate human happiness and the perfection of practical reason as a means of removing obstacles toward achieving theoretical reason's perfection, which constitutes ultimate happiness. Furthermore, he advances a related theory suggesting that ultimate happiness not only stems from the knowledge derived from theoretical reason but also requires detachment from material concerns—a practical virtue and outcome of practical reason. This detachment is an intrinsic affirmative act within the core structure of ultimate happiness. In this view, the perfection of theoretical reason (knowledge) is the principal element of ultimate happiness, while the perfection of practical reason (virtuous dispositions) forms its supporting framework. Finally, Sadr Al-Mota'allehin identifies the highest human ascent as annihilation, where theoretical and practical faculties unify and merge in the Divine Essence, culminating in ultimate happiness.

Ameri believes that knowledge is formed through matter and form. This matter either originates from religion or does not. If the matter comes from a religious source, it constitutes religious sciences in the specific sense, including disciplines such as hadith studies and similar fields. However, since religion requires not only matter but also form, and since the general form of all sciences is shaped by the universal intellect that is the source of religion—namely, the intellect of the Prophet—while their details are discovered by ordinary human intellects, it can be said that the true form of all sciences is religion and knowledge takes shape under a form called religion. In this sense, all real sciences,inasmuch as they correspond to reality,are religious, and it is religion, through its teachings, that leads to the existence of real sciences. In other words, since the combination of religion and human intellect, which is called wisdom, forms the structure of real sciences, it can be said that the main paradigm for the formation of real sciences is wisdom.

Moral responsibility is a fundamental component of ethics, shaping our understanding of accountability, blame, and praise. Responsibility-internalism, which holds that moral responsibility is grounded in some internal mental states, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions, represents a novel yet radical departure from traditional frameworks that focus on the outcome, circumstances, and interpersonal relationships to draw the moral line. While this theory presents a simple, self-contained picture of moral responsibility, it faces serious theoretical problems that challenge its coherence and practical utility. It specifically cannot adequately explain cases of negligence, culpable ignorance, and the relational aspects of moral responsibility that are central to human interactions. This paper offers a critical-analytic examination of responsibility-internalism and its theoretical and practical shortcomings. It examines positions that would incorporate both internalist assumptions, emphasizing the control agents possess over their actions, and externalist and interpersonal factors, aiming to offer a more complete and nuanced conception of moral liability. Some of the paper is devoted to discussing case studies in which the limitations of responsibility-internalism relative to its alternatives are illustrated. And it concludes that although responsibility-internalism offers a novel take and a new tool in the discussions of moral responsibility, such an internalist approach ultimately fails to provide a full and usable theory of moral responsibility.