Each ethical school, according to its acceptable subject matter, offers different ethical needs and needs. For Kant, science is a knowledge that has a pre -authored theorems and therefore general and necessary. Any knowledge that is delicate does not deserve the name of science. Ethics, as a science, also has preceding orders. Ethical "must" never derive from experience; That is, "it is" cannot be deduced. He considers these principles to be due to mental and intellectual forms. Unlike him, the contemporary Muslim thinker Haeri Yazdi refers to all the necessities and interprets them as a non -necessity. In the discussion of intellectual and practical intellect, Kant also described the origin of ethics as the practical reason, the non -empirical and realistic metaphysics that gives its own reality; But according to Haeri Yazdi, there is only one theoretical reason that is sometimes acted outside and is called practical reason. In this paper, it has been attempted to examine the analysis and comparison method of the philosophical foundations of these two philosophers that have made them different in their perspective. The issue of ethics among religious and epistemic issues is one of the issues that is of particular importance and requires special attention in the discussion. They usually divide the religious issues into three separate sections: beliefs, decrees, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics, ethics And among all kinds of research on ethics (descriptive, normative, and transnational) research, transcript and analytical and philosophical studies on ethical propositions. Metro -ethics is a science that deals with the philosophical analysis of the meaning and characteristic of moral language, such as: "good" and "bad", "right" and "inaccurate" meanings. Therefore, transcendence is about grammatical ethics and seeks to explain the words and concepts used in this ethics. We are more dealing with the meaning of the word "good" in transcendence; That is, whether good is what we find in objects or something we can, such as: to see color or to feel pain that has been presented on transnational issues. (Palmer, 1995, 156) One of the philosophical issues in the science of ethics is what distinguishes the former elements from the empirical elements, and what is the justification for accepting the former elements? That is, how can we be able to achieve the principles of behavior that is binding to all human beings, in the context of ethics, "must" be "should" or nine? Can we argue for ethical propositions? Or how can we come from the real -life of the real sciences? What is the appreciation and validity of human behavior? There is no emphasis on the beings. Unlike him, Kant acted in the opposite of other scholars (and so -called Copernican Revolution), as well as in the case of moral affairs; That is to say, the predecessors concluded from the essence of self -esteem and the survival of the soul that man was obliged to ethical duties, but he considered the human being to be certain of the moral duties, then concluded the survival of the soul and the certainty of the existence of the Lord.
Regarding the purpose of studying ethics, Kant generally believes that the task of the philosopher is to search and, if possible, prove the principle of supreme ethics. What is the purpose of moral duty or requirement and what is our justification for accepting that we are essentially a task? But the late Haeri, who founded his thoughts on the basis of conventional ontological ideas among Muslim thinkers, believes that the issue of ethical propositions and how to achieve them is one of the most important human concerns, the way to which one can be. Its personal and social happiness. Cutting human beings from moral life, or morality of relativity, can cause irreparable damage to man. But on the other hand, in dealing with serious questions in the field of ethics, one must look for reasonable answers. Both thinkers want to achieve this goal through reason. 2- Kant and the late Haeri Yazdi have both paid much attention to ethical precepts and values. Kant states that merely matching the verb and duty is not enough to know it. Rather, this must also have been issued for the purpose of doing so. Both have paid special attention to the issue of Hassan Faali in addition to the current good. But Kant has unfortunately gone on the way to the intention. Kant says it belongs to the intention of "respect for the law of reason". That is, moral work is something that has been done by the motivation of obedience to the law and the law of reason. The basic question that remains is that creating this intention requires a number of specific essentials. Whatever the basis, they need cognition. That is, they are based on the precepts of theoretical reason. In other words, that I want to act on my duty is because I know it perfection for myself. The intention of obeying the law of reason is issued by man when it values the respect of the law. But where does this value of the law come from? If this is also a moral sentence, there will be a seizure. And if it is a theoretical matter, it is the theoretical thing that man considers it to be perfection. Therefore, beyond the intention of doing the task is another intention, which is that I want to do it because I want to do it. However, Kant states that if anyone does something to do something, his job will not be a moral thing.