The Semantic Effect of “Good Action” and “Evil action” on the Efficiency of “Enjoining the Good and forbidding the Evil” in the Institutionalization of Values

Whatever "good action" and "evil action" mean can be used to improve the function of ‘enjoining the good and forbidding the evil’. Accepting this rests upon the fact that these two words should have common meanings and that they should not have become lawful or unlawful truth. These two concepts (titles) are abstracted from the aesthetic and perfectionistic human nature. Therefore, taking commonly accepted norms into consideration and using appropriate methods make it possible to institutionalize what we may call the good action and the evil action. Accordingly, drawing upon a descriptive-analytical method and library sources used to collect the data, this article has been written to establish the thesis that the good action and the evil action have preserved their conventional meaning while having their origin in natural abstraction; the article considers abandoning the good actions and committing the evil actions as the product of an error in their instances of application and claims that the desired aim of institutionalizing ‘enjoinig the good and forbidding the evil’  can be achieved  if one can explain it correctly by showing the beauty of the good and the ugliness of the evil, the effects and benefits of the good and the evil as well as  explaining the concordance or coherence between the structure of the universe and enjoining the good, which make it possible to make a paradigm of the true agents who fulfil the aforementioned obligation.