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.

Introduction and Objectives: Some economic policies, such as income policies, are expected to create changes in the distribution or redistribution of income, which are called welfare needs, such as improving the condition of the poor and reducing the wealth and income of some people in society. Welfare requirements are discussed and investigated in economic knowledge related to social welfare. These requirements are completely intertwined with moral values ​​and theories. The history of using moral theories in welfare economics goes back to Pigou's initiative to introduce Bentham's utilitarianism into his theory of welfare economics. After him, doubts were raised about the competence of economists to enter the normative realm and judgment about welfare situations, as a result of which some tried to free the area of ​​welf  are economics from normative discussions by focusing on Pareto optimality,but by inventing the social welfare function, Bergson showed that it is possible to introduce normative ethics theories into welfare economics in such a way that it does not harm its science and can support normative welfare policies. One of the most important and famous theories of normative ethics borrowed from the philosophy of ethics to be included in the function of social welfare is the theory of utilitarianism. This moral theory has been accepted as the main subject in the welfare function of utilitarians, but despite the application of the utilitarian moral point of view in the social welfare function, the relationship between this moral issue and the social welfare function is still not very clear,therefore, it seems that clarifying the concepts and the characteristics of the utilitarian moral theory and the social welfare function, as an introduction and explanation of how to apply the utilitarian moral theory in the utilitarian welfare function, is one of the essential topics that will be examined in this essay. Method: Social welfare functions are presented as mathematical functions in related works,on the other hand, utilitarianism is described descriptively as a normative theory in moral philosophy. This duality in the method made it very difficult for the author to present an article about "the investigation of the application of the moral theory of consequentialism in the social welfare function of utilitarians". Therefore, inevitably, the main elements of the social welfare function had to be changed from a mathematical expression to a descriptive one, so that uniformity in the method would occur, and as a result, it would be possible to communicate between these two different issues. After changing the mathematical expression to a descriptive one, with analysis and accuracy in the concepts of social welfare function as an economic topic and utilitarianism as a theory in normative ethics, the relationship between the two became possible and the discussion about this application was completed. Results: There are many ambiguities in the research about the application of consequentialism in the utilitarian social welfare function. This article clears the most important ambiguities as follows: * Social welfare functions are directly related to utilitarianism, in which the criterion of the goodness of an action is the result that reaches the general human beings, and since consequentialism is a broader concept than utilitarianism and ultimatum is a broader concept than consequentialism, it is indirectly related to both. * Social welfare functions are normative and are related to normative ethics. The independent variable in these functions consists of the welfare status of all members of the society. The dependent variable is the desired "social welfare" in a society, which must be provided for the society. The relationship in this function states: how much change in the social welfare will be caused by any change in the existing welfare status of the members of the society. * Utilitarianism in Pigou's welfare economy can act as utilitarianism,but at the same time, considering the rule of diminishing final utility, he has turned to the rule of utilitarianism. * Act utilitarianism, as opposed to rule utilitarianism, can be interpreted both in an egoistic way and in otheristic and holistic ways. * In moral philosophy, utilitarianism refers to its holistic type. Holistic utilitarianism deals with the well-being of all members of society or related intelligent people,of course, considering the welfare of the whole society does not mean that there is no need to consider the welfare of individual people at all. * The function of social welfare is different from the function of happiness. The function of happiness in utilitarianism is individual, but the utilitarian social welfare function deals with changes in the preferences of all members of the society, and the agent is not taken into account. Discussion and Conclusions: The application of the moral theory of consequentialism in the social welfare function of utilitarians is explained in this way that in the dependent variable of this function, the welfare of the whole society is introduced as a valuable and moral goal, and in this way, it will be related to the moral theory of utilitarianism in moral philosophy. As a result of this relationship, the social welfare function of utilitarians is normative. In this case, it is recommended to the policymakers and implementers of the welfare policies of the society to create it for the society. In this function, the moral action is that the utility of poor people should be increased, but the moral justification of the goodness of such an increase is that by increasing the utility of the poor, the utility of the whole increases more. The independent variable and the relationship between the independent and dependent variables in each welfare function do not express the moral goal,rather, their relationship with ethics depends on the dependent variable. For example, in the welfare functions of utilitarians, it is said that the welfare of poor people (independent variable) should be morally increased. This statement is based on the fact that the function relationship states: that increasing the welfare of poor people increases the total welfare that is related to the dependent variable more than when the welfare of the rich increases. Acknowledgment: We would like to thank Dr. Gilak as the respected supervisor of this project, and Dr. Alizadeh and Dr. Rafiei Atani as critics, as well as the respected officials of the Research Institute of the Hawzah and University, who made this research possible with their great help.