A Comparative Study of Human Free Will and Moral from the Perspective of Chizam and Judge Abdoljabar Hamedani

@ Mehdi Monfared / Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Qom University

                                                                                                                               mmonfared86@gmail.com

Maliheh Aghaei / PhD Student in Comparative Philosophy, Qom University maliheaghaei2007@gmail.com

Received: 2020 April 21 - Accepted: 2020 September 06

 

Abstract

The whole human will be known in Islam by the Mu'tazila theologian sect. Judge Abdul Jabbar is a prominent thinker of retreat with the aim of defending divine justice and explaining its compatibility with the issue of duty as well as moral responsibility, considers human actions independent of the Divine Will. On the other hand, in contemporary Western philosophy, Roderick Chizam introduces himself as the ultimate source of action in order to explain the compatibility between human causality and the principle of causal necessity. In this study, by using analytical-descriptive method, while expressing the views of both thinkers on human moral responsibility, will be expressed that despite the fundamental differences in the worldview of Chizam and Judge Abdul Jabbar on matters such as human nature and the types of causality in the world, on the issue of human free will, there is a kind of coherence and closeness, However, by accepting the total independent will of man, both thinkers, while being caught in a non-monotheistic view, have achieved wrong conclusions about human activity.

Key words: free will, moral responsibility, actual causality, event causation, Roderick Chisham, Judge Abdul Jabbar.

 

 

 


 

سال انتشار: 
1399
شماره مجله: 
24
شماره صفحه: 
133