Kant’s moral theory aims at highest good, and he believes that good will is the mote unconditioned kind of good in the world. According to Kant, human beings are continually subject to the reason’ demand, and they should try to cultivate their humanity following the universal moral laws. However, he doesn’t leave us with an ambiguity about the definition of these universal laws; proposing his categorical imperative, he leads us to the universal laws. He believes that we would go toward (...) unconditionality and the highest good following these rules. By the way, there are different interpretations of his categorical imperatives as well as some their extensions. There are two possible interpretations of the third formulation of categorical imperatives and its relation to the animal rights in general, and the vegetarians’ viewpoint in particular. Some people might believe that “being end in itself” is incompatible with vegetarianism. They will invoke some quotes from Kant’s work which support their views. In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant Explicitly prescribes killing the animals and making use of them, and it can be served as strong evidence to the idea that Kant's moral theory is inconsistent with vegetarianism. However, I don’t think so. According to the second possible interpretation, I believe that Kant’s moral theory is incompatible with the interpretations proposed by those who think it is not compatible with vegetarianism. In the first part of this paper, I briefly explain the relationship of reason and nature in Kant’s moral theory. Then in the second part, I shall explain two concepts of “person” and “things” in his texts, and briefly, state the difference between rational being and non-rational being in his philosophy. Then. In the third part, I will explore some pieces by my Kantian opponent of vegetarianism, and I shall show that their interpretation is some kind of oversimplification. On the basis of some passages of Kant’s writings, using one mental experiment, and one counterexample, I hope to show that Kant is completely sympathetic to vegetarianism. (shrink)

In this paper, I want to compere some of the ideas of Martin Buber, a distinguished existential philosopher, with Muhammad Husain Tabatabaei, one of the significant figures of contemporary philosophy and Sufism in Shia Islam. In the first section, I shall briefly introduce these two important philosophers and in the second part, I will consider the relationship between God and the creatures form their point of view. In this section I will show that there is a similarity between Buber’s conception (...) of “I-Thou” with Tabatabaei’s view on “I” as the only way toward reality. In section three, I will compare their perspectives towards good and evil. In the fourth section, I will explain Tabatabaei’s novel argument for an eternal reality and I will show that how it is similar to Buber’s Eternal Thou. (shrink)

In this paper, I want to compere some of the ideas of Martin Buber, a distinguished existential philosopher, with Muhammad Husain Tabatabaei, one of the significant figures of contemporary philosophy and Sufism in Shia Islam. In the first section, I shall briefly introduce these two important philosophers and in the second part, I will consider the relationship between God and the creatures form their point of view. In this section I will show that there is a similarity between Buber’s conception (...) of “I-Thou” with Tabatabaei’s view on “I” as the only way toward reality. In section three, I will compare their perspectives towards good and evil. In the fourth section, I will explain Tabatabaei’s novel argument for an eternal reality and I will show that how it is similar to Buber’s Eternal Thou. (shrink)