بررسی وتحلیل حکمرانی و ایجاد حکومت جهانی منطبق بر عدالت اجتماعی با تاکید بر اندیشه های شهید مطهری و جان رالز

هدف مقاله  حاضر بررسی وتحلیل حکمرانی و ایجاد حکومت جهانی با تاکید بر اندیشه های شهید مطهری و جان رالزمی‌باشد. روش پژوهش حاضر بر اساس ماهیت توصیفی- تطبیقی و بر اساس هدف کاربردی نگاشته شده است. یافته ها نشان می‌دهد در نزد شهید مطهری عدالت امری فطری است و تنها با پیوند قانون بشری با قانون الهی قابل‌دستیابی است و عدالت را واقعیتی تکوینی و خلقی می‌داند که نظام آفرینش آن را پدید آورده است، درحالی‌که در نظریه‌ی جان رالز عدالت امری مدنی است و با اجماع بشری در شرایط انصاف و اجماع به‌دست آمدنی است. این دو مبنا دو خروجی متفاوتی دارد، ولی نتیجه هر دو مبنا رقم زدن اصلاحات اساسی و شروع یک حکمرانی، جزء با حرکت در مسیر عدالت ممکن نیست؛ عدالت به‌منزله شاخص‌ها، عوامل و آثار مورد پیشرفت و توسعه و مختصات حکمرانی عادلانه و تعالی‌گرا ترسیم می‌گردد. به‌نوعی که هر دو نظریه برای حکومت به‌عنوان یکی از ارکان اصلی حقوق عمومی وظایفی در ایجاد عدالت اجتماعی قائل هستند و ایجاد عدالت اجتماعی را از راه قانون‌گذاری می‌پندارند، اما دیدگاه این دو متفکر از آنجا از هم فاصله می‌گیرد که منشا و مبانی این دیدگاه‌ها با یکدیگر کاملاً متفاوت است. جان رالز از منظر لیبرالی و البته با جرح‌وتعدیل در آن و مطهری از منظر اسلام به ارائه نظریات خود در باب عدالت می‌پردازند.

investigating and analyzing governance and creating a global government in accordance with social justice emphasizing the thoughts of shahid motahari and john rawls

introductionsocial justice is a fundamental concept in political philosophy and governance that addresses the fair distribution of resources, rights, and opportunities within a society. this concept has gained increasing importance in the contemporary world and significantly influences social development and policymaking. in this context, two prominent thinkers, martyr motahhari and john rawls, have analyzed and articulated the concept of social justice from different perspectives. this article examines and analyzes governance and the establishment of a global government based on social justice, emphasizing these two intellectuals.research methodologythis research employs a descriptive-analytical and comparative approach. the data used in this study were collected through library research and an examination of scientific and philosophical texts. the aim of this research is to investigate and compare the viewpoints of martyr motahhari and john rawls regarding social justice and governance.research findingsmartyr motahhari, as an islamic thinker, views justice as an inherent principle rooted in human nature. he believes that justice exists naturally in the world and that its realization requires the integration of human law with divine law. motahhari emphasizes that justice can only be achieved through adherence to divine and ethical principles in society and must be shaped according to religious teachings and islamic values. he refers to the existential and creative realities established by the creation system, asserting that justice as a truth in society should aim to meet the basic needs of individuals and alleviate social and economic inequalities.on the other hand, john rawls, with a liberal approach, considers justice as a civil matter that can be attained through human consensus under fair conditions. rawls' theory particularly hinges on two foundational principles: first, every individual should have equal rights to fundamental liberties, and second, social and economic inequalities are only permissible if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. rawls believes that achieving social justice requires individuals to engage in discussions from a position of neutrality and fairness, and laws must be designed to establish justice in society.comparative analysiswhile martyr motahhari addresses justice from a theological and ethical perspective, emphasizing its inherent nature, rawls approaches the concept from a humanistic and rational viewpoint. these two approaches differ not only in their foundations but also in their methodologies. motahhari refers to islamic and ethical principles and perceives justice as an existential reality, while rawls emphasizes social and civil consensus and views justice from a contractual perspective.both theories strive to create a just government and ensure social justice. however, while motahhari sees justice as a divine and existential reality that must manifest in societal legal structures, rawls argues that justice must be established through social and political processes with individuals' consensus under fair conditions.regarding practical solutions for achieving justice, motahhari emphasizes legislation based on islamic and ethical principles, believing that laws must be designed to establish justice in society. in contrast, rawls stresses the importance of creating social and political institutions as frameworks for achieving justice, asserting that social institutions should be designed to provide freedom and equality for all individuals.conclusionultimately, both theories illustrate the significance of justice in governance and policymaking. martyr motahhari, from an islamic perspective and with a focus on the inherent nature of justice, emphasizes the connection between human law and divine principles. meanwhile, john rawls, from a liberal standpoint and with an emphasis on human consensus, seeks a pathway to justice through social and political processes. despite their fundamental differences in foundations and methodologies, these two viewpoints converge on a common point: the necessity for fundamental reforms and the effort to establish just governance, where justice is presented as an indicator of progress and development.