List of Articles Cruelty

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Investigating the Relationship between the Terms of the Traditions of Satan with the Authority and Justice
  Abdollah Niknam
  Some hadiths mean that the happiness or cruelty of man is predetermined and his talent determines his destiny. These traditions are known as the "traditions of Satan". The important question in the way of these hadiths is the relation of these traditions to human author More

  Some hadiths mean that the happiness or cruelty of man is predetermined and his talent determines his destiny. These traditions are known as the "traditions of Satan". The important question in the way of these hadiths is the relation of these traditions to human authority and their apparent contradictions with divine justice. The answer to this question requires the examination of the document and the implications of the above hadiths. This article aims to study the implications and implications of these hadiths and has attempted to draw the following conclusions: First: Satan's traditions deal with both the physical and spiritual aspects of human beings; There is no difference between the authority of man and the content of the traditions of Satanism: Fourth: These traditions are not incompatible with divine justice; That is: some exist and some lack justice. In general, the lack of difference between creatures is incompatible with divine justice. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - Goodness of Justice: An Intellectual or Rational Theorem?
  Mohammad Imami حسین فرزانه
  “Justice is good” and “cruelty is bad” are two of the most frequently used principles and propositions in various disciplines. Mutikallimun consider these two propositions to be rational, primary necessary, evident, certain, and needless of reasoning. However, some phil More

  “Justice is good” and “cruelty is bad” are two of the most frequently used principles and propositions in various disciplines. Mutikallimun consider these two propositions to be rational, primary necessary, evident, certain, and needless of reasoning. However, some philosophers deny their evidence and certainty and consider them as generally accepted propositions that bear no truth except for conforming to thinkers’ views. Certainty in relation to these two propositions means believing in the correctness of their use in arguments and production of scientific results, and indemonstrability refers to their dialectical application. Some believe that the indemonstrability in the interpretation of such propositions would undermine the basis of moral propositions. The question here is why there is so much controversy about these two apparently evident propositions. The findings of this descriptive-analytic study reveal that the solution must be found in distinguishing between “intellectual goodness” and “rational goodness”. When these two propositions are considered as individual intellectual propositions, they are hypothetical and genetic judgments; however, at a rational social level, they are evident and, of course, mentally posited and, unlike the general view of logicians, they must be viewed as certain propositions (not as generally accepted ones). In addition, some statements such as “They have no basis but popularity”, which are used by some philosophers and logicians about the two propositions, are not used to deny their reality. Rather, they are intended to deny the evidence and necessity of these two propositions in intellectual analyses. Thus, no damage is done to their support for moral propositions. Manuscript profile