Note: The thirty-seventh promotional chair of the Research Institute of Systemic Jurisprudence with the topic “Internal Structure of Ethical Jurisprudence” was held on Thursday, February 28, 2019, in the holy city of Qom. In this session, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mohammad Alamzadeh Nouri, a member of the scientific board of the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, as the presenter, and Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mahdi Goudarzi, a researcher at the Qom Seminary, as the critic, were present.
The relationship between the knowledge of ethics and ethical jurisprudence
At the beginning, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Alamzadeh Nouri said: The topic of the speech is the “internal structure of the knowledge of ethics” or the knowledge of ethical jurisprudence and its system of propositions. The reason we used “or” here, knowledge of ethics or knowledge of ethical jurisprudence, is that the subject of ethical jurisprudence is the same as ethics; however, its method is different.
When we employ the method of jurisprudence and ijtihad from religious sources in discovering ethical propositions, ethical jurisprudence emerges; therefore, whatever the internal structure of the knowledge of ethics or the system of propositions and chapters of the science of ethics is, it is reflected in ethical jurisprudence; however, with another method.
The existing ethical method may be rational, but we want to focus more on the jurisprudential ijtihad method and, through this conventional and familiar principled method in the seminaries, in a completely scientific and methodical way, not in an arbitrary, impromptu, and intuitive manner, derive ethical rulings from religious sources. So the discussion we have is actually a kind of structuring of the science of ethics and ethical jurisprudence.
Characteristics of ancient ethical books
The ethical books that exist in the ancient Islamic heritage usually start like this: one section on discussions of the soul, one section on virtues and vices, and one section on acquisition and avoidance. These three discussions have a long history in our ancient ethical books.
These three discussions relate to three dimensions of human beings: one is human as he is and as God has created him with God-given and bestowed characteristics. Second, human as he should be, meaning he should use his free will and volition to reach a certain point. Third, human in motion, moving from the slope where God has created him on that slope toward the peak to which he must move; therefore, three discussions are arranged for three humans.
If we want to liken it, we say that God Almighty has created human on the slope of the peak and commanded him that he must acquire these human values with the steps of his own will and free choice. The first human on the slope is the human that God has created. The human at the top of the peak has used his will and free choice well, traversed the path well, and reached the peak of values, that is, achieved felicity and happiness. The middle one is also human in motion.
The threefold human dimensions and their scientific characteristics
It seems that for these three humans, we should consider three sciences, not one science. Human as he is with those bestowed and God-given characteristics is the subject of the science of anthropology. Human as he should be is the subject of the science of ethics, and human in motion toward ethical or spiritual perfections is the subject of the science of education. Education is the science of human transformation. Anthropology is the science of bestowed and God-given human characteristics. Ethics is the science of goods and bads, oughts and ought nots, virtues and vices. Ethical education is also the science of human transformation toward perfections.
Therefore, the first consideration we have regarding the system of chapters of the science of ethics and ethical jurisprudence is the separation of these three sciences from each other.
These three sciences are mixed together in our ancient books; but when a science gains detail, accumulation of content, and density of knowledge, it gradually becomes clear that those domains should be separated from each other; like what happened in our jurisprudence. At one time, principled discussions, rijal discussions, and dirayah discussions were raised in jurisprudence; but gradually, jurists realized that they have separate natures and separated them from the heart of jurisprudence.
Our first suggestion is to distinguish between ethics and ethical education and between ethics and ethical anthropology. Ethics is merely said to be the science that speaks of goods and bads, rights and wrongs, virtues and vices. Ethical education discussions fit under the science of education or under educational jurisprudence. This is also the difference between ethical jurisprudence and educational jurisprudence. Alongside it, we can also have a human jurisprudence or jurisprudence of the soul in which anthropological issues, descriptive and informative propositions related to describing human characteristics are mentioned.
Proposed structure for ethical books
In ethical books, structures have been proposed. Some have presented virtues and vices alphabetically; of course, there are some books that have presented ethical discussions in a completely disorganized and incoherent manner without cohesion, with which we have no concern at all; like the Encyclopedia of Quranic Ethics by Ahmad Sharbasi, which is a very good book but has no order or arrangement. Some have presented them alphabetically. The alphabetical structure has order but no system. It is a conventional order that is good for accessing content, but system in the sense of logical and existential relations between topics is not evident in the alphabetical structure. Some have presented them in a historical manner; Ayatollah Makarem in the book “Ethics in the Quran” said that we present ethical discussions in a historical manner. What is the historical manner? For example, what was the first ethical event that happened in the world? It was the story of Iblis, and then what? For example, Abel and Cain, Cain’s jealousy toward Abel, and then they presented them in historical order.
Various methods of ethical discussions
The historical method also has no appeal. Firstly, history does not provide access to many discussions, and secondly, presenting in this way does not help quick access between discussions and does not create a logical relationship between discussions. In mystical ethical books, ethical discussions are mentioned in the manner of stations; meaning according to the order of their external realization, they presented the discussions and considered that if a human wants to become ethical, what is the first step he must take? For example, awakening, and then what? Repentance, and so on. Some went up to a hundred stations or three hundred stations. This is also a familiar method expressed in books like Stations of the Seekers or Stations of Conduct.
Another expressive method in ethical books is what has come in philosophical ethical books. This expressive method is based on the faculties of the soul. They considered the human soul to have three faculties: appetitive faculty, irascible faculty, and rational faculty. Then for each of these three faculties, they considered excess, deficiency, and moderation. Based on this, virtues and vices of the appetitive faculty first, virtues and vices of the irascible faculty second, virtues and vices of the rational faculty third, and virtues and vices related to two faculties or three faculties are mentioned in subsequent turns.
This is the method used in the book Comprehensive Felicities and Ascension to Happiness. Another method is the one that Ghazali did in Revival of the Sciences and following him, Fayd Kashani in The White Path. He divided the discussions into four parts: worships, customs, destructives, and salvations. Destructives are actually vices, and salvations are the same as virtues. Under each of them, he also mentioned ten titles.
A method that has become common in the last seventy years is based on the domain of human communications, mentioning virtues and vices; usually it is like this that they say ethics is divided into divine ethics, individual ethics, and social ethics. Because human has three communications: communication with God, communication with self, and communication with others; of course, some, to cover all matters in their opinion, added a fourth side to this and said: human has communication with God, with self, with others, and finally with other beings: water, soil, air, and so on; therefore, they presented a fourth domain titled environmental ethics.
Whose authorship is the book Misbah al-Shari’ah?
As far as we know, this division first has roots in the book Misbah al-Shari’ah. It has been said that this book is attributed to Imam Sadiq, peace be upon him; but apparently, the definitive opinion of researchers is that this book is not a hadith book and is actually written by one of the mystics. Now, whether its author is Kujuri, Qushayri, or Ibn Arabi, there are disagreements about that. In any case, it is not attributed to Imam Sadiq, peace be upon him.
In the book Misbah al-Shari’ah, an expression is mentioned in this way that Sadiq said, who is not Imam Sadiq, peace be upon him; rather, it is the same Sadiq who wrote this book. In this book, it says: human communications have four aspects: transaction with God, transaction with the soul, transaction with creation or transaction with the world, then they made each into seven parts. For each, they expressed seven parts or seven examples, which we skip because time is short.
This was a report of what has happened in the statements of scholars. Pay attention to one point, and that is that there was a difference between the words of Misbah al-Shari’ah and that previous model. The previous model said: human communication with God, with self, with others, and with the environment; but Misbah al-Shari’ah said human communication with God, with self, with creation, with the world, this fourth differed. There it was environment, and here it was world.
It seems that the word world is more general than environment and includes environment and other things as well; including supernatural beings, like communication with angels and jinn. These are also subject to ethical rulings.
Considerations raised regarding Misbah al-Shari’ah
Of course, transaction with the world is somewhat more general than transaction with the environment. It seems that there are considerations in this fourth division that is formed based on types of human communications. When human relationship with others is said, usually what comes to mind is the relationship of an individual with an individual; meaning on this side we consider an individual, and on that side also an individual, and we say sir, in relation to individuals like yourself, you must, for example, be humble, benevolent, faithful, trustworthy, honest, and the like. The first thing that comes to mind is this; while there are other forms that are usually overlooked. For example, the relationship of an individual with family is subject to a series of specific rulings that are not mentioned in social ethics.
Usually, a separate chapter should be brought for this discussion. It is true that logically it falls under the ethics of human communication with others, but it needs to be specified; for example, zeal and attention to education. Because here there are titles like fatherhood, motherhood, sonship, sisterhood, brotherhood. These titles that are formed in the family environment are specific titles that need independent mention, and these should be mentioned independently. Of course, this attention has been more or less present. In ancient Greece, between individual and society, they imagined a third domain and a middle ring called family. Individual on one side, society on the other side, and family imagined in the middle.
The role of family in the science of ethics
Practical wisdom in ancient Greece had three parts, one side was ethics which was completely the person’s communication with himself. The other side was politics of cities, and in the middle, they placed household management. Household management is the family domain which is neither individual nor society; rather, it is where the individual becomes society. It is the smallest social domain and cell. It is a place that has specific rulings. These should be said, otherwise they may be overlooked. Of course, you say in ethical books, they are usually not overlooked and have been said; but pay attention that it should not be forgotten.
Another thing that may be forgotten is the relationship of the individual with society, not individual with individual which usually comes to mind. The meaning is the relationship of the individual with society in its social form and composite aspect. Consider society as an integrated society to which you say system. Society-building ethics is mentioned here, like law-abidingness which is an ethical duty, but this does not relate to my relationship with you as individual humans. Rather, it relates to my duty toward that society and collective body; or fighting oppression in society has two meanings: once I defend the oppressed and the oppressed is an individual, and once I fight an oppressive system which is useful for systemic jurisprudence.
Or the topic of involvement in determining destiny, now marches or elections or whatever it is, this has an ethical ruling; meaning the ethics professor must express in the ethics class that people participate in marches and elections. This has an ethical ruling. We have no concern with its jurisprudential ruling. When we say social ethics and our mind is focused on my relationship with an individual, this is overlooked, and usually you see in our ancient ethical books this chapter does not exist; although they mentioned social ethics and in their opinion covered everything; but this matter has not been covered. Incidentally, this is very close to the space of systemic jurisprudence and is exactly equivalent to systemic jurisprudence.
The relationship of the individual with human history and with the future of humanity
Another relationship is the relationship of the individual with human history and the future of humanity. We have ethical duties toward the history of human life and the future of humanity. Civilization-building ethics and ethics of waiting are raised here. We are obligated to act in such a way that we bring the path of history closer to its bright future and prepare the ground for the appearance.
In our ethical books, this view does not exist; meaning it has not become so grand. When they say social ethics, meaning the ethics of my relationship with you and you with me, and it has not developed to here. Or for example, the relationship of the individual with the perfect human, the prophet and infallible guardian which has come in the comprehensive visitation, has not come in our ethical books. Our ethical books do not have a chapter that specifies our ethical relationship with the infallible guardian. Wilayah ethics; like that we must acquire knowledge of the infallible imam and must follow the infallible imam and have obedience. The duties we have regarding the Imam of Time have come in other places; but in ethical books, it has been forgotten. The relationship of the individual with the guardian jurist and Islamic ruler is the same and usually should be said especially in social ethics.
The relationship between society and individual is based on the definition of society
The relationship of the individual with members of the guild in which he operates; meaning in the system of division of labor and distribution of social roles, he has taken a role, in a guild he has taken a profession, those guild and professional duties are raised under guild and professional ethics. Up to here, we have taken this side as individual and changed that side. Considering that here is also the Research Institute of Systemic Jurisprudence, we can take this side as society and specify the relationship of a society with the individual. Of course, it must be defined what society is?
For example, institutions, structures, social laws relate to the social identity of society. These must be ethical toward individual persons who are called citizens; meaning our organizations must be ethical organizations, and ethics must be observed in the system governing society as well.
The relationship of society with society, like when two nations want to communicate with each other, is also subject to a series of ethical rulings. For example, the Islamic nation wants to communicate with the nation and infidel societies, “And Allah will never make a way for the disbelievers over the believers” is an ethical ruling, and we name this, for example, international ethics or al-akhlaq al-dawli.
Ayatollah Misbah’s ethical model is more complete compared to other models / In Islamic ethics, the wilayah relationship has been forgotten / We do not have a comprehensive and coherent ethical system
Of course, logically, the word social ethics encompasses all of these, but when these are not said aloud, they are forgotten, the same thing that has happened in our ethical books. The ethical books that Shiite scholars wrote are devoid of the distinguishing feature of Shiite thought, which is wilayah.
Just as we detailed the human relationship with society, we can also detail the human relationship with existence. What they called environmental ethics, and we said it is better to say ethics of communication with existence, is the human relationship with unseen matters and other worlds.
The human relationship with the natural environment has also been considered. Water, soil, air, space, plants, and animals have also been considered. The human relationship with the urban environment like buildings, streets, private and public places, the human relationship with technology and human artifacts, machinery and hardware, these must be said. Firstly, those who said environmental ethics did not bring these at all, and those who say relationship with existence have forgotten these.
Factors influencing human happiness
The human relationship with worldly blessings, fame, wealth, power, and so on all fall under the human relationship with existence. A thesis has been written in this field about the structure of the science of ethics, which I quickly read the titles of this thesis.
He has taken the factors influencing human happiness as the axis and under it said we have a series of human factors and a series of non-human factors. Human factors are either the acts of the human himself or the acts of other humans. The acts of the human himself are either the bilateral duties of human in relation to God directly or the multilateral duties of human in relation to God.
Multilateral duties regarding the human himself in relation to the human himself and in relation to non-self. Then non-self are either rational beings or non-rational. Rational beings are either beings of the unseen world like angels and jinn or beings of the visible world like divine guardians and ordinary humans. Regarding non-rational beings, transcendent beings and ordinary beings are raised. He has also divided other humans into divine guardians and ordinary individuals.
He has also divided non-human factors into divine factors, supernatural factors, and natural factors. In this division, ethics and education are confused, and ethics and education are not separated from each other.
Ayatollah Misbah’s ethical theory
He has taken the factors influencing happiness as the axis of the science of ethics. In his opinion, the factors influencing happiness are factors of human transformation and educational factors. The axis of the science of ethics should not be an educational topic at all. Ayatollah Misbah proposed a model under the title of educational goals in the book Philosophy of Education, which in our terminology becomes ethics. Servitude, personal, social, natural.
He also divided social into cultural, economic, political; meaning he took those four sides in their place, to which all the objections there apply. The only thing he did is that he detailed this social into cultural, economic, and political, and of course said that human has three dimensions: cognitive dimension, inclinational dimension, behavioral dimension. In each of these, these three dimensions come. Servitude first house, personal second house, and three social become five, and with natural become six. These six houses, multiplied by cognitive, inclinational, behavioral, form an eighteen-house matrix.
For example, the ethics of the servitude domain has three houses: cognitive ethics, inclinational ethics, and behavioral ethics. Cognitive means we have an ethical duty to know God Almighty and the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. Inclinational means we have an ethical duty to acquire love for God the Exalted and fear Him and hope in Him. Behavioral means we have an ethical duty to give thanks and observe divine piety.
Similarly, the personal domain has one cognitive, one inclinational, and one behavioral. The social domain also has cultural like this, economic like this, political like this, and natural like this. This was Ayatollah Misbah’s division.
Objections to Ayatollah Misbah’s ethical book
Although this detail is a good detail; its flaw is that in the natural domain, they only paid attention to the environment and therefore had to bring natural resources and angels under servitude ethics, and that detail does not exist here. Although Ayatollah Misbah’s model is more complete compared to other models, we can quickly conclude that we have not yet reached a comprehensive coherent system in the science of ethics in a way that all minor and major ethical recommendations fit under it.
Our suggestion is to observe these details. I also think if we want to treat these objections one by one, the alternative model will emerge automatically; meaning we consider this servitude and personal, social, and communication with the world domain, which apparently encompasses everything; however, we detail social according to the types of details mentioned so that nothing is overlooked. For example, see social ethics and guild ethics are not in this Ayatollah Misbah’s model; unless with difficulty, for example, we bring it under economic.
Wilayah ethics is not in this model unless we bring wilayah under the servitude domain and communication with God and say communication with the Imam of Time is also a kind of communication with God and not consider this social. In short, there are difficulties. If we properly make the affirmative aspect of these things that were said as criticism, it seems that the desired model will automatically reveal itself.
Your ethical concern in the science of ethics is commendable
In continuation, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Mahdi Goudarzi as the critic said: What came to my deficient mind from Your Excellency’s statements are a few points. One is Your Excellency’s concern in serving the science of ethics, which is truly commendable. Your Excellency’s reformist view and resolving defects and problems and that view toward the emergence of problems in this science is among the merits of your statements.
What was really very instructive for me was your concern that scientific contents be organized and have logical connection and order so that its scientific value increases and actually have more use. This content for those who are the audience of this science. The beautiful point that I always had this concern was why in our ethical science space, there is no discussion of human communication with the guardian?
This question had arisen for us that this thing that we now say as the science of ethics in a non-religious space and in a secular space is the same ethics: truthfulness, honesty, sacrifice, and so on. These are things that even if someone is in a space outside of religion and religiosity, he has them. So what is the difference and distinguishing feature of Islamic ethics from other ethics that you mentioned.
Using the system of textual titles in verses and narrations
I have a few real questions to remove points of ignorance from me in your presence. One is that in the system of topics of ethical jurisprudence or the science of ethics, why has there not been direct reference to the narrations themselves and classification of narrations?
In the text that you sent me, you had collected ethical titles from the heart of narrations. That for example, what are praiseworthy attributes? What are blameworthy attributes? You had extracted all these titles from narrations, which is very valuable; but really, have classifications and categorizations or even priorities in the religious ethical system not been presented in our narrations and verses? Or we say it may not have been and it may have been and no one has worked on it, which is a correct statement that for example, work has not been done on this; but if work has not been done, can we come and present a model ourselves without paying attention to whether it may be or not? Especially that for example, in some narrations, the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, themselves asserted. For example, Imam Sadiq’s, peace be upon him, expression regarding some vices that these are the principles of disbelief or in the discussion of behavior, for example, they said such behavior is the key to all evils. Yes, we may say there is no system and in Your Excellency’s expression, for example, the Ahl al-Bayt said in a haphazard way or no, we do not understand it now, but is it not necessary for us to first refer to this and then come to present a model and say we searched there and it was not and now we present a model. This is my main point of ambiguity.
How can we separate the science of ethics from ethical jurisprudence?
The next point is how do we want to separate the science of ethics from ethical jurisprudence? Is it correct, for example, in the same way that Your Excellency said; meaning actually, we should not consider those infrastructures and foundations of Islamic ethics in extracting the Islamic ethical system. Perhaps the ethics that we want to produce is based on this very thing. We learned from Your Excellency that in order for scientific issues not to overlap and merge with each other, we separate them and no problem arises; but some scientific issues have a longitudinal relationship with each other and some influence each other and are dependent on each other. For example, in the Islamic view, if we do not solve the issue of monotheism or the issue of wilayah or even the issue of human nature and free will, how do we want to talk about human values and the value of human acts and the value of human traits and states. Where is our measurement and evaluation system at all and where do we want to bring it from?
It may be said that this discussion relates to human jurisprudence or jurisprudence of monotheism and jurisprudence of nature and has no relation to the discussion of ethical jurisprudence. Yes, if we separate these and say they have no relation to ethical jurisprudence, then what becomes the relation of this ethics with secular ethics? Another point that is the necessity of this very point is that we do not just want to separate sciences for the purpose that separation has taken place.
What is important for us is the classification of the sciences themselves. That for example, we specify the relation of the science of ethics with philosophy and empirical sciences and with other sciences. For this matter, we need to have a macro view and look from above.
Referring to inner religious sources for classification of sciences
In continuation, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Alamzadeh Nouri responded to the raised doubts and said: Three or four objections were mentioned. The first point was why the inner religious categorizations that possibly have come in verses and narrations have not been addressed; meaning as a religious researcher, when we want to lay the foundation for the structure of a science, it is good to refer to inner religious sources and textual sources for this structure itself. This is correct.
Those who went to Misbah al-Shari’ah for types of transactions, assuming that Misbah al-Shari’ah is a hadith book and for example attributed to Imam Sadiq, peace be upon him, discovered an inner religious division for classifying ethical propositions.
This work is logically correct, and I must confess that I did not exhaust all efforts in this field and pursued this stage of classifying propositions in a way with rational analysis, not with textual and inner religious references. Of course, we look, for example, suppose in our jurisprudence with the element of jurisprudence with this brilliant history that it has in this thousand years or more than a thousand years, what did they do? They divided jurisprudence into fifty-odd chapters. Chapter of purity and prayer and fasting and so on until it reached to hudud and qisas and diyat and inheritance and then put a period. This indicates a system and cohesion. Some arranged the chapters in a completely inductive and arbitrary way, for example, suppose you enter Lum’ah, you do not see any clear cohesion in the chapters of Lum’ah or the practical treatises.
Muhaddith Hilli’s division in jurisprudence was very influential
Some tried to discover a kind of existential and logical relations between chapters. For example, it is said that the late Muhaddith Hilli in the book Shara’i’ divided jurisprudence into contracts, unilateral acts, customs, and worships, has a fourfold division which is a completely analytical rational division, and at least no evidence from narrations and verses has been brought for it, but it has been greatly welcomed by thinkers and jurists after him; meaning you see Wasa’il al-Shi’ah is in the order of Shara’i’ and Masalik is in the order of Shara’i’. Many other books, meaning works dependent on Shara’i’ are many.
This book with this special framework and charting that the owner of Shara’i’ created, opened a lot of space in Islamic thought; meaning he offered an interesting topical organization or system of chapters. With this distinction, he attracted attentions and created many dependent works behind him. Some say the owner of Shara’i’ is the most knowledgeable jurist of the era of occultation. Our professor Ayatollah Madadi quoted this from His Eminence Ayatollah Bujnurdi and said I once asked him in your opinion who is the most knowledgeable jurist of the era of occultation, he said the owner of Shara’i’.
Ask the same question from the likes of the owner of Shara’i’ that Mr. owner of Shara’i’, did you refer to verses and narrations for your classification? You may say we ask this too, meaning our jurists should also do this. It seems that if there was a clear classification in our verses and narrations, it should have become apparent. It is as if the basis of verses and narrations was not to mention these divisions in this way. Scientific divisions that arise from existential relations of propositions, meaning logical relations of propositions, it is as if it was not intended to be mentioned there. In verses and narrations, they did not speak to us in scientific language but expressed scholarly matters in common language.
Expressing scholarly matters in common language
His Eminence the Imam always spoke scholarly, but sometimes he wants to give an advanced lesson, he speaks in one language, sometimes he wants to speak with the people of the street and market, he still speaks scholarly but in common language. The Quran and narrations are scholarly speech and wise words of God Almighty and the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon them, but their language is typically common language. Yes, where Imam Sadiq, peace be upon him, speaks with the likes of Zurarah as a full-fledged jurist, there the language is scientific, and where Imam Jawad wants to humble someone who claims scholarship, he suddenly divides the divisions, and there his language is scholarly; but typically the language is common language and the matter is deep scholarly matter; therefore, this expectation is as if not very fulfillable in verses and narrations.
Of course, I again confess that in any case, we are obligated to make a round of reference. Despair should arise from search and then we make this claim. I did not refer to find a clear logical classification in verses and narrations. This is a confession of deficiency and fault; but a bit of it intuitively returns to a kind of hopelessness that as a rule, there is no such thing and if there was, it should have been found.
Ethical expressions existing in verses and narrations
But this matter that about principles of disbelief and key to good and principle of religion and half of religion and the like of these expressions that are in our ethical narrations that have magnified something or for example said the head of every sin, these do not return to that grand classification. Some of them return to the realization system. In one sense, it returns to education that in human education, the attribute that must first be realized so that if it is realized, the rest of the attributes will be realized in a chain behind it, that main attribute is this.
It does not return to the system of general ethical topics, and the topics that are expressed in all ethics have come in a non-coherent way. These are also a series of relations between ethical norms. These relations are several categories. Sometimes something is counted as an instance of something else. For example, they said “Indeed, polytheism is a great injustice,” polytheism is counted as an instance of injustice. This relation is an inclusive relation that injustice includes polytheism. Sometimes the relation is opposition. What happened in the hadith of armies of intellect and ignorance, and they said for example such thing is the opposite of humility and the opposite of pride.
Sometimes the relation is causality. For example, they said such thing is the cause of such thing, for example, said “Backbiting is the effort of the incapable,” meaning this inner incapacity and weakness of the human soul causes the human to do this work. This causality is in the realm of realization and emergence. The emergence of this attribute is dependent on that attribute. Other types of relations between ethical concepts can be discovered, part-whole relation and particular-general relation, necessary concomitance relation and relation of effects of a single cause and other types of relations.
The foundations of the science of ethics are outside the science of ethics
The second point you mentioned was why the infrastructures and foundations of Islamic ethics are not seen in this system of chapters? These are the internal chapters of the science of ethics. The foundations of the science of ethics are outside the science of ethics; meaning we must first establish the foundations in another science and then build ethics based on them. We have now paid attention to the internal structure, not the external structure; meaning actually we have shown the internal domains of the science of ethics, not the peripheral domains and their types of relations with peripheral domains.
Yes, ethics has a relation with beliefs and ethics has a relation with rulings and manners, some likened it to a tree whose root is beliefs and its main trunk is ethics and its branches are jurisprudence and for example its fruits are manners. We have now apparently focused all our view on ethics and the title of our discussion was also the internal structure of the knowledge of ethical jurisprudence. Naturally, infrastructures and foundations are outside the science and another science is responsible for expressing them; however, when we want to prove ethical rulings, we must definitely consider those foundations. Monotheism, wilayah, and human nature, which are all foundations, must be paid attention to.
Source: Ijtihad