Professor Mahdi Haeri Yazdi's Analysis of Imperative Statement

In moral science, we deal with normative statements (ought and ought not). The analysis of these kinds of statements is one of the most crucial tasks in ethics: To which category of philosophical notions do these statements belong? Whether or not they belong to primitive intelligibles, secondary intelligibles, or mental considerations? In addition, the analysis of moral statements is another one of main topics in ethics: can we reduce ethical statements to declarative ones or not? Hume's question about the relationship between ' i's statements and 'ought' statements is an important ethical issue which has drawn attention of moral philosophers to for a long time. Some contemporary Islamic philosophers such as Allameh Tabatabei, Motahari, Mesbah Yazdi and Haeri Yazdi have discussed about the mentioned topics in ethics. Among them, Haeri has some specific ideas one of which is that all moral imperatives statements refer to the real state of affairs. In other words, he interprets these statements as a kind of through another necessity.In the mentioned debates, Haeri has important thoughts in common with Allameh Tabatabei, and along side, he is in agreement with Mesbah Yazdi in some respects and in disagreement in some other respects. Larijani has criticized Allamehs, Mesbah's and Haeri's views about the analysis of statements whose stances are discussed in this paper.Hume's view about the relationship between is and ought statements is associated to two main topics in the traditional formal logic. By distinguishing between these two topics, Haeri has suggested his special views regarding the mentioned relationship.