Comparative Analysis of Public Good from the Perspective of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and Stuart Mill

Abstract

The public good is a topic that has been extensively addressed throughout the history of political philosophy. Aristotle uses the idea of the "public good" as the basis for his distinction between "right" constitutions, which lead to the common benefit, and "wrong" constitutions, which benefit the rulers. The utilitarian thinker, Stuart Mill, believes that the most important public good is the act or rule of action. He considers the public good acceptable only if it leads to the dominance of good over evil in the world at least as much as any other option. Therefore, the criterion for evaluating any action is the increase or decrease in the level of happiness and satisfaction of society. In Islamic thought, from the perspective of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the key to understanding the public good is the evaluation of human actions. He believes that before understanding the public good, one must have an understanding of the types of pleasure and their relationship to interests. A person can reach an understanding of the public good if they comprehend the source of moral goodness and badness and if their intellect can discern the difference between benefit and harm, seeking the public good without mixing it with harm and not merely judging with the aim of achieving material and worldly benefits. This article uses a comparative analytical method to examine the views of these two thinkers.