One of the important discussions in moral philosophy concerns the origins of morality or, in other words, the foundations, on which morality is based. There have been different theories in this regard that have based morality on natural law or human NATURE or human need or agreements made between the persons. Some of these theories, such as the agreement theory suffers from fundamental problems and cannot explain many of our moral experiences. Others such as the human NATURE theory are faced with difficulties, but it seems possible to develop a version of them that can answer to all the objections. The theory developed here has similarities with the human NATURE and the human need theories, but tries to avoid their problems. In this paper, in addition to the explanation of the NATURE of morals and the difference between them and customs, origins of morality are studied and the idea that morality is simply based on self-love is criticized. Genuine needs of human beings are emphasised on and their role in the process of decision making is discussed. The paper also studies the way moral concepts such as "good" and "bad" are abstracted from the relation between human NATURE, voluntary acts and their positive or negative effects upon the agent.

This short speech is on attempt to obtain a deeper understanding of the world of existence and discover the mysteries hidden behind this scenery. NATURE is a phenomenon (a creature) and God is the Create of this tremendous masterpiece, therefore it continuously moves forward with a harmonious motion as an intellectual system. The hope, then, is that humans can find themselves a part of this unlimited and boundless NATURE through recognition of such harmony and grandeur and institute a unity with the world of existence, resulting in perfection and bliss for humans since the goal and destination of Creation is nothing more them that.

There are different views about the goodness of human NATURE, which four of them are discussed here. Our discussion here limited to only moral goodness and did not include the existential goodness or badness. Some philosophers believe in essential goodness of human NATURE while according to some others the NATURE of humanity is not wholly good and has twofold character. The third groups of the thinkers take the NATURE of human being to be essentially bad and wicked. According to forth groups the NATURE of human being is not good or bad essentially and it only becomes good or bad with the influence of external conditions. In this paper the first view, the goodness of human NATURE is discussed in more details and the arguments pro and against it is considered and finally is defended by the author.

This paper concerns on the scientific approach to NATURE; especially in general mean as a part of universal knowledge. Through this paper it is perceived that the Constructivism started a critical argument on the western scientific traditions. Constructivism specter in approach to NATURE perceives interconnectivity between NATURE and Culture. This is one of the facts that Constructive Realism tries to face by using an approach to culture and scientific proposition that shows extensively in universal means any proposition could only achieve to its ideal conception when it is strangified to different culture. So it comes to the state in which there is no exact answer to the questions which related to the value of NATURE; and reminding that NATURE could not be regarded as a knowable norm. So if we do not know the structure of the Natural world any attempt to replace it or a part of it with any artificial world could be a dangerous enterprise. Those ideas are followed in sample study of rice production and the rites and related ceremonies in Japan.

Reality of time is one of the most beautiful and meanwhile the most complicated subjects on Philosophy. In order to scrutinize this matter, the philosopher, since a Long time ago, would resort to natural sciences and at present, it would be impossible to discuss it seriously without help of physics findings. This article has a glimpse at selected viewpoints posed during the compiled history of philosophy about reality of time and with regard to conclusions drawn from the new physics theories, tries to make the degree of our insight towards the NATURE of time clear to some extents.

Various views have been expressed in the analysis of the NATURE of Reward. In this paper, the two main views of the mutual contract and unilateral obligation NATURE of Reward have been aimed to explain by referring to a few points. The supporters of the Reward consider the agreement and acceptance of the worker as a condition for the realization of it. But, according to the view of jurisprudents -who chose the theory of being unilateral obligation of Reward - the acceptance of the worker does not have an effect on the offer (Ijab) of conductor and would not be considered as a pillar in this regard. These jurisprudents regarded being mutual contract of Reward would entail of ignoring the general rules of contracts. In return, some jurisprudents have also cited other ideas such as causation, interval between mutual contract and unilateral obligation, and being requirement of Reward. They believe that Reward is absolutely not a mutual contract or a unilateral obligation. In the midst of this difference of opinions, the present paper, investigating the NATURE of Reward, follows the theory of being requirement of Reward.

In humanities, NATURE of the crime is recognized by conceptual definition yet in criminal law; exceptionally crime is defined by Act. In fact in criminal law, NATURE of the crime is legal definition of crime, whereas this kind of definition refers to offences separately and then it is not definition of the crime basically.Understanding the NATURE of the crime in criminal law inevitably is dependant on three external methods: First definition of offences, which points the NATURE of offences in each case and not by focusing on the NATURE of the crime; Second ,by using the concepts in humanities such as sociology, philosophy and moral and third, by attending the comparison crime with similar titles which may help the distinctions among the crimes, but not understanding the NATURE of crime. In any case, crime is one of the most prominent interdisciplinary subjects and criminal law should at last conceder the humanities for explaining the NATURE of the crime.