Page 53 - Pure Life 38
P. 53
(
52 / International Multi. J. of PURE LIFE, 11(38), Spring. 2024
what is good and bad. who defined realism from their
However, this belief is complex viewpoint, is the belief in
and can be categorized into the objective reality for moral
following three main claims; values, not subjective one, i.e.,
1. Moral facts are considered regardless of the moral agent,
special and different from moral values exist. Of course,
other facts, but there is Mulla Ṣadrā's view differs
disagreement among realists from other realists in two
as to whether natural facts can following ways at least;
be considered moral facts. The first point is the type of
2. Moral facts are independent reality of moral values in which
of beliefs or thoughts that Mulla Ṣadrā goes back to the
people may have about them. real relationship between
3. People can make mistakes voluntary affairs and the true
about what is right and perfection of man, but the type
wrong, even if they think of moral reality in the Western
carefully about their philosophers’ viewpoint is
decisions (Ref; Dancy, 1998) different due to the differences
.
Examining each of the in foundations, and includes
above-mentioned definitions items such as being adaptable
demands another domain. By with nature, rationality, etc.
separating the epistemological The second point is the
aspects from the ontological separation of ontological aspects
ones, moral realism can be from epistemological ones, since
considered as a belief i.e., in other theories such as Miller's
regardless of the feelings and and McNaughton's definition,
desires of individuals, the contract the issues of the truth or falsity
and collective agreement and of moral propositions are also
order of the commanders, moral pointed out, which refer to
values are real. Then we discover epistemology and not the
values not construct them. ontology, while in Ṣadrā's
The common point of Mulla view, these matters are apart
Ṣadrā and the moral philosophers, from each other.
