The Relationship Between the Ethical Foundations of the Constitution of I.R. Iran and Modern Public Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Qom, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, University of Qom, Iran

3 Ph.D Candidate in Public Law, University of Qom, Iran

10.22034/law.2025.62538.3400

Abstract

The relationship between ethics and law is an important topic in the philosophy of law in a general sense. In this article, however, the relationship between the ethical foundations of the Constitution of the Republic of Iran and modern public law is specifically discussed with a descriptive, analytical, and comparative method. Modern public law is often based on utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, social contract, or existentialist humanism. According to the results of this research, firstly, the Iranian Constitution has the capacity to establish a kind of constructive interaction between "human dignity" and "the inalienable sovereignty of man over his social destiny", "the negation of instrumentalism and objectification of man", and "social contract". Secondly, in the Iranian Constitution, in the event of a conflict, ethical foundations prevail over "social contract" and "the right to self-determination". This is achieved in two ways: the simultaneous commitment of rulers and people to ethics; And the moral rule of "rejecting individual or group domination and subjugation and eliminating any tyranny, autocracy, and monopolization in society."

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) منابع فارسی

    - کتاب‌ها

    1. تبیت، مارک (1384). فلسفۀ حقوق، ترجمۀ حسن رضایی خاوری، مشهد: دانشگاه علوم اسلامی.
    2. صادقی، محسن (1384). اصول حقوقی و جایگاه آن در حقوق موضوعه، تهران: میزان.
    3. فرانکنا، ویلیام کی (1383). فلسفۀ اخلاق، ترجمۀ هادی صادقی، قم: کتاب طه.
    4. لاگلین، مارتین (1392). مبانی حقوق عمومی، ترجمۀ محمد راسخ، تهران: نی.
    5. مرادی برلیان، مهدی (1400). دولت مدرن اسلامی؛ بررسی تحلیلی نظریه امتناع، تهران: طرح نو.
    6. هارت، هربرت (1395). مفهوم قانون، ترجمۀ محمد راسخ، تهران: نی.

    - مقالات

    1. کاستیلیون، داریو (1384). تئوری سیاسی قانون اساسی، حقوق اساسی، ترجمۀ مسعود کاکاوند، (‌5)، 311-336.
    2. واعظی، سید مجتبی (1403). مبانی و مؤلفه‌‌های مدرن حقوق اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران در پرتو ساختار و رویه موجود، پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، 10 (1)، 265-286.

     Doi:10.22091/csiw.2023.7751.2216

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    - Books

    1. Bell, D. (1993). Communitarianism and Its Critics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    2. Bernard, G., & Gert, J. (2017). The Definition of Morality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Columbia University.
    3. Bix, B. (2002). Natural Law: The Modern Tradition. In J. Coleman & S. Shapiro (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
    4. Coleman, J. L., & Leiter, B. (1996). Legal positivism. In A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
    5. Edwards, P. (Ed.). (1967). Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
    6. Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    7. Heimsoeth, H. (1994). The Six Great Themes of Western Metaphysics and the End of the Middle Ages. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
    8. Hunter, I. (2003). Rival enlightenments: Civil and Metaphysical Philosophy in Early Modern Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    9. Jones, P. (1994). Rights. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave.
    10. Kant, I. (1900). Dreams of a Spirit-Seer Elucidated by Dreams of Metaphysics (E. F. Goerwitz, Trans.; Sewall, Ed.). New York: The Macmillan.
    11. Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    12. Origen. (1953). Against Celsus (H. Chadwick, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    13. Rachels, J. (1993). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
    14. Scheffler, S. (1988). Consequentialism and Its Critics. New York: Oxford University Press.
    15. Wall, S. (1998). Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    16. Weale, A. (1985). Toleration, Individual Differences and Respect for Persons. In J. Horton & S. Mendus (Eds.), Aspects of Toleration: Philosophical Studies, London; New York: Methuen.

    - Articles

    1. Dutra, D. J. V., de Oliveira, C. L., & Brennand, E. G. G. (2022). Habermas and Legal Positivism.Ethic@: An International Journal for Moral Philosophy, 21(3). Doi: 10.5007/1677-2954.2022e90932.
    2. Eberle, E. J. (2012). Development of Human Dignity and Personality in German Constitutional Law. Liverpool Law Review, (33), 225- 242. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316106327.018.
    3. Ford, J. D. (1988). Pufendorf, Samuel (1632–1694). In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (4). London: Routledge.
      Doi: 10.4324/9780415249126-T047-1.
    4. Maccormick, N. (1994). The Concept of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 14(1), 1-23. Doi: 10.1093/ojls/14.1.1.
    5. Marmor, A. (1995). Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. USC Legal Studies Research, 683-704. Doi: 10.1093/ojls/gqi028.
    6. Owigar, John W. B., “Ethics and Living Values In Constitution”, Constitution of Kenya Review Commission, Address: http://www.commonlii.org/ke/other/KECKRC/2002/4.html#Headingl, (2002. Feburary, 08)
    7. Simmonds, N. E. (1998). Rights at the Cutting Edge. In A Debate Over Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 113–232.

    Doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298991.003.0003.

    1. Smerdel, B. (2000). Ethics in Government: Conflict of Interest and the Constitution. Zbornik PFZ, (50), 769.
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 16, Issue 38
April 2025
Pages 53-77

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics