Deontological theories are better understood in contrast to Consequentialist theories and are commonly used in moral philosophy to refer to non-Consequentialist moral conceptions. While consequentialism specify right action based on good consequences، deontologism is claimed that although Goals and means of achieving to them are intrinsically associated with the practice، However، there are other important features that determine the actions are right or wrong. consequentialism are divided two theories of act and rule consequentialism both theories are agree that evaluate action based on results and outcomes but، What would be the main criterion for evaluating، are disagree. Based on act-consequentialism، Review and assess the person's agent or his judgment، the criterion for determining right or wrong action but، Based on rule-consequentialism، rules and general maxims are determine what to do action is right. In this article، we will examine and evaluate a rule-consequentialism.

Deontological theories are better understood in contrast to cosequentialist theories and are commonly used in moral philos­ ophy to refer to non-cosequentialist moral concep­ tions. One of the most important implications of deontologism is that a person's behavior can be wrong even if it results in the best possible consequences. In deontological theories, the obligation derives from the nature of the action itself, but, in consequential theories, this obligation is out of the action and a posterior to that. In action, for the deontologist, the preference is with agent’s intention and will, but, the cosequentialist considers only the results and consequences of action. In this article, we will explain and analyze both of deontological and cosequentialist theories. Then, we will examine the relation between these theories. Recent moral philosophy shows much interest in the problem of how deontological constraints are to be reconciled with consequentialism.

Background: Two new ethical philosophies called "moral consequence" and "moral duty" are two important theories in normative ethics. The purpose of the present study is to compare the moral consequence and ethical duty in the gender of Iranian certified accountants. Method: The present study was one of the post-event studies. The statistical population of this study consisted of the members of the Iranian Society of Certified Public Accountants in 1397 from whom a sample of 318 persons was selected using available sampling. The research instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire and the data were analyzed using independent t-test. Results: According to the findings, there is a significant difference in gender-based accountability and ethical consequence in the community of accountants. Conclusion: Analysis of the findings showed that accountability and moral consequence were higher among women accountants than men and that women had higher levels of moral obligation and consequence.

Dēnkard (Acts of the religion), written in Pahlavi, is a summary of 10th-century knowledge of the Mazdean religion and is described by Jean de Menasce on the title page of his translation as a ‘Mazdean encyclopedia.’ The Dēnkard VI (Book VI of the Dēnkard) is representative of late antique and early medieval Zoroastrian ethical ideas. This article analyzes Book VI of the Dēnkard based on modern moral philosophy and introduces it as a candidate for early consequentialism and capitalism. The first generation of Iranian studies scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as Buch, Darmesteter, and Menant were aware of these concepts and even explained some of them, but the next generation did not take them seriously. This article also analyzes paymān (the ‘right measure’), that is the ancient Iranian ‘golden mean,’ in Book VI of the Dēnkard and shows the similarities and differences between paymān and the Aristotelian ‘golden mean.’ Probably, due to the biblical tradition in the interpretation of ancient religious texts or the anti-utilitarianism and anti-capitalism atmosphere in the second half of the 20th century, many scholars like Shaked inclined to the view that paymān is the main ethical principle of the Dēnkard VI and neglected its consequentialist and capitalist concepts.

One of the most important issues in normative ethics is investigation and explanation of the problem consequentialism and Deontologism. Many intellectuals have focused in the West and the Islamic world (partly) on this issue and researches also have remained. The problem consequentialism and Deontologism one of the valuable researches that can be applied as beginning in the teachings of Islam, especially in the realm of ethics .The fact that ethical Islamic propositions related to consequentialism or Deontologism itself is very important and in this area researches demands to be done. In many ethical doctrines Islam, such as Qur'an, the sayings of Imams clearly referred to deontologists and in some doctrine is provided to consequentialism. In this research we sought to investigate the important point that the ethical doctrines of Islam, related to consequentialism or Deontologism. In addition to be important the pursuit of the fact that Islam is considered in the discussion of ethical education, Consequential or De-ontological. To achieve this objective, descriptive - analytic method has been investigated to investigate this issue with a focus on religious texts especially the Holy Qur'an. The results of this study, the separation between the two fields of Islamic teachings the field of relationship with God Deontologism and consequentialism in society and people sphere.

In recent decades, one of the challenges facing morality is its alleged conflict with what are among the most important contributors to human well-being. It is claimed that adopting moral theories may alienate one from that which makes one’ s life worthwhile, such as her affections, her personal commitments, as well as from other people. In his paper, “ Alienation, consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” , Railton attempts to answer this objection from a consequentialist point of view. For this purpose, he has formulated a new version of consequentialism, which he calls “ sophisticated consequentialism” . This version, he thinks, avoids the problem of necessitating alienation. This paper first provides an explanation of Railton’ s formulation of consequentialism and then goes on to criticize the solution he has devised for the problem of alienation by using this formulation and while showing certain incoherencies in the proposed formulation, refuses to accept it as a new version of consequentialism. It is also argued that there are problems in how Railton’ s account solves the problem of alienation which ultimately render it non-consequentialist.

The subject of this paper is to examine and analyze the efficiency, or inefficiency, and the preference of functionalist theories, with an emphasis on Ross`s functionalism and Mill`s view in the field of ethical limitations. The authors have explained the standards for human deeds as being good or bad, right or wrong. The main question of the paper, performed with a descriptive-analytic method, follows as: when meeting ethical limitations, what is preferred, noting duty or its consequence? Achieving a stable and definite ethical criterion leading to the best consequence has necessitated the study. One important goal in the paper lies in explaining the failure of functionalism and conseque in deciding a standard for measuring the value of ethical deeds. One significant finding in the paper lies in the fact that regarding human intention, proximity and divine satisfaction in human deeds will cause both theories to be acceptable, in such a way that, in order to eliminate the limitation and to measure the correctness and inaccuracy of the acts, it may be regarded as the most decisive criterion.

Introduction The concept of public rights is commonly understood as the rights of the general public. However, when scrutinized more closely, this notion becomes somewhat ambiguous, leading to questions and disagreements among legal doctrines and jurists. This ambiguity revolves around the precise definition of the term, its instances, and its scope, such as whether it pertains solely to criminal law or extends to non-criminal law. Examining the scope of public rights reveals numerous and sometimes conflicting interpretations. Legal and judicial opinions on the scope of public rights generally fall into two general yet conflicting approaches, namely narrow and broad. Given the divergent viewpoints, it is crucial to adopt a valid interpretive approach within the legal system to establish a systematic framework aimed at reaching an understanding. Objective consequentialism, as a normative-based interpretive method, serves as a valuable theoretical tool for evaluating these approaches. In this line, the present study sought to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism? Literature Review Legal and judicial opinions concerning public rights can generally be categorized into two competing approaches. On one hand, there are viewpoints advocating for a narrow interpretation, which suggests limiting the scope of public rights in times of uncertainty. On the other hand, there are perspectives that advocate for a broader understanding of public rights, incorporating a wider range of interpretations and instances. Although there is no coherent and methodical discussion on this matter in legal literature thus far, various schools of legal interpretation have debated different methods, such as objective consequentialism. In objective consequentialism, the focus lies on discerning the purpose of the law, so the interpreter, whether a judge or a lawyer, seeks to deduce the purpose of the law from the text itself and other relevant sources. Subsequently, they interpret provisions of the law in light of the general purpose. In this method, justification for interpretation is grounded on the objective purpose behind establishing the rule. The purpose of the law can be inferred from the very text of the law, including its title, preamble, or relevant chapters. Furthermore, the purpose may be predestined or assumed, with implications being inferred through logical or judicious readings of the text of the law—based on the premise that the legislator is judicious. Therefore, it is assumed that the legislator has intended for legal provisions to have meaningful effects rather than being rendered null or futile. Objective consequentialism seeks to uncover the underlying purpose behind a given law or provision.     Materials and Methods The present study relied on objective consequentialism, which is an interpretive method based on the normative ground, in order to evaluate the two approaches concerning the scope of pubic rights. The study aimed to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism? Results and Discussion According to objective consequentialism, fostering a broad understanding of the concept of public rights while maintaining a systematic view of functions of the judiciary body can result in an appropriately balanced understanding aimed at claiming public rights. The present study synthesized the opinions sharing a common essence and overarching direction, discussing the existing legal approaches regarding the scope of public rights. Additionally, considering the principles of the Constitution, a hypothesis (called the conceptual approach derived from purposiveness) was formulated and tested about the distinction between the scope of public rights—as outlined in the Constitution—and the restoration of public rights. The scope of public rights can be either narrowed or expanded, considering the purpose of the law and of justice outlined in each instance, as well as the implications derived from a judicious interpretation of the law. Conclusion Public rights can be re-evaluated with an eye to the purpose of the law, hence interpreted as rights and interests arising from the objective goal of the law. In this light, the scope of public rights becomes meaningful considering the purpose of the law, the justice it guarantees in each instance, and the implications stemming from the judicious interpretation of the law. Therefore, there two central points here: rights (the conceptual standpoint) and the negation of oppression and injustice (the functional standpoint). From the conceptual standpoint, public rights extend to legal rights. Yet the functional standpoint would include those instances of rights that have been or are about to be unjustly taken away from their rightful owners, making it impossible for the beneficiaries (whether individuals or groups) to reclaim them.

The imposition of legal restrictions on unsafe abortions, the risk to women's mental and physical health, the increase in healthcare costs, and its impact on the national health budget necessitate a thorough examination of this issue. One of the most influential thinkers in this field is Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941), an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and atheist who is a staunch advocate of   abortion and calls for the removal of all restrictions on it. Evolution and consequentialist ethics are the two main foundations of his argument. Motahhari, as a philosopher and theologian who grounds his ideas in religious knowledge and ethics while also using philosophical and rational interpretations to challenge and reinterpret these concepts, contrasts with Dawkins. From his perspective, abortion is the killing of a soul, although saving the mother's life takes precedence in case of conflict. This research, using content analysis, aims to analyze and evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of both viewpoints based on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis.