To address the question of the nature of modern STATE in the contemporary Iran, the present paper seeks to investigate the issue of STATE in the contemporary Iran in terms of Foucauldian approach and the conceptual apparatus driven from it. In his late intellectual career, Michael Foucault introduced a new field into the researches on STATE in which fundamentally the rationalities underpinning / constituting the STATE are zeroed in on. The present paper hypothesizes that the drawing, organization and articulation of the modern STATE in Iran were being done by the govern mentality of the pastorship prevailing over the tradition system and the rationalities remained out of the episteme belonged to Iranian previous universe, though it was built in the course of modernization process stimulated by Iranians` encounter with some western forms of governance. The present paper maintains that the tenacity of “the pastorship rationalities of the tradition system” and their being strengthened due to combining with some imperfect rationalities driven from modern era – that is, the rationalities oriented to consolidate the STATE such as “raison d' état” and “police” – lead to the generation of an “instrumental pastorship” equipped with modern technics and apparatus. Thus, it provided grounds for raising a particular political order which the present paper calls “neo-pastorship”. “Neo-pastorship”, thanks to the modern apparatuses, such as the army or the bureaucracy that was developed in the new age, came to more success in interference and carving power on the body of society.

When an earthquake occurs and its news spreads, on the spur of the moment, the militaristic imagination of notions and categories, objects and technologies, army officers and relief guards, a mass of victims and people damaged, spring to mind. However, of the moment, ironically neither prior notions nor categories are sufficient to fathom the reasons behind it, nor the objects have their previous meanings. Accordingly, we do not consider earthquake victims as the passive ones in advance, or linking them to such fictitious creativity that they, themselves were coping quite well with what had happened to them. Although nobody has been killed by the earthquake which has struck Abdanan last summer, it was important enough not to be ignored. Over the course of earthquake, we could both pondering ways individuals withstanding and their inability, their asthenia. At once watching both their endeavor to live and their grief and incapacitation. Paying attention to how the affairs were being reordered, likewise such an up growing traumas which based on our capabilities in hand, there was no way to be cured. Meanwhile, though the government acted munificently in the case of providing people with services and facilities, it did not has potency in counseling with people neither in the process of allotment nor in the field of specifying the requirements. Surprisingly, the goal was to settle people down. Those who were being put aside from the course of consultation.

Introduction: From a long time ago, benefiting from technology has been an inevitable thing for human interests, which is born and based on science. It can be claimed that there is harmony between ethics, science and technology, which promote each other. In this article, the researcher discusses this harmony and compatibility. Material and Methods: The current review study was descriptive and using the study of sources and research keywords among the books and articles published in the databases of Thomson Information Institute, Science Direct and Pub Med. Conclusion: As science and technology continue to advance and become more integrated into our daily lives, ethical considerations become increasingly important. For example, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised questions about the potential implications of creating machines that can make autonomous decisions and take actions. If science and technology were considered as a tool, it should have been able to subjugate humans and influence all aspects of behavior and values. While it has become a problem that eventually becomes aligned with morality by applying reason, and people now seek help from it as a tool.

RATIONALITY as logical consistency is, formally, directly related to logical derivations. The idea behind reductio ad absurdum is captured in this relation.

The RATIONALITY of ethics is one of the most important issues for philosophers. This concept includes judgment on RATIONALITY of choice and justification of beliefs as well as explanation and justification of moral behaviors.Strong, weak and moderate rationalists take different positions, based on their approaches to the concept of reason. Having more inclination to the role of emotions, weak rationalists do not agree with the others in epistemic and motivational role of reason. Despite many similarities, strong and moderate rationalists think differently about the role of cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of moral motivation.In this paper, we clarify the relationship between morality and reason in these three approaches. Justification of behaviors and moral motivation, as well as intemalism and extemalism are discussed in this paper. At last, the role virtue as a mean of justifying the moral RATIONALITY is emphasized.

RATIONALITY of Faith is one of the most important issues in contemporary philosophy of Religion that most philosophers of religion have discussed it. Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne with theistic approach have discussed this subject. Swinburne with evidentialist approach concludes that religious belief like every another belief can be rational only if it has evidence and of cource theists have evidence for their belives so they are justified and rational. But Plantinga criticizes evidentialism and classical foundationalism. Instead of justification, He uses concept of Warrant and finally concludes that Christian believes have proper warrant so Christians are rational in their believes.In this project I want to survey and compare this two great thinkers ’views. My questions in this project are: 1) what criticisms Plantinga can has to Swinburne approach? 2) Is not Plantinga’s analogy argument a Kind of evidentialism? 3) Way does Plantinga use concept of Warrant instead of Justification? 4) What is difference between Warrant and Justification? 5) Are Christian believes properly warranted?

RATIONALITY or behavior based on reason is one of the most important attributes of individual and social human action and in this general sense, it is universal and common among human beings. Considering the cognitive, value and practical levels of RATIONALITY and explaining its reliance on ontological and epistemological foundations, reveals the difference between Islamic and instrumental RATIONALITY. On the other hand, RATIONALITY, since it organizes the behavior and social interaction of human beings, has an important role in determining the nature, realization and efficiency of social capital as one of the important factors in achieving growth and development. The study of the ratio of Islamic RATIONALITY in determining the nature, context and efficiency of social capital in comparison with the RATIONALITY of conventional economics (instrumental RATIONALITY) is important and should be considered for planning and policies to achieve the growth and development of the country. In this research, with an interdisciplinary philosophical-economic approach, while explaining what Islamic RATIONALITY is, relying on its principles and enumerating the components and dimensions of social capital, the relationship between Islamic RATIONALITY and social capital and its advantages compared to instrumental RATIONALITY are investigated. Findings show that the nature of social capital based on Islamic RATIONALITY is beyond mere objective and historical communication based on social needs and the basis of individual and collective action on Islamic RATIONALITY based on strategic principles and economic human beings can logically level Promote trust and participation and prevent the negative aspects of social capital, pave the way for its realization and greater efficiency

Most differences in socio-economic opinions stem from misunderstanding the concept of “RATIONALITY. In this paper we present two different interpretation of RATIONALITY. We explain that “Evolutionary RATIONALITY” is more conductive to development while “constructivist RATIONALITY” divert attention from a free spontaneous market to socio economic engineering, thereby diverting development from its evolutionary path

Morality as somehow involving RATIONALITY and impartiality received classic expression in philosophy of Kant who frankly speaks of “rational and impartial spectator” in contemplating the universal law. The overall aim of this paper is to show (1) that the idea of morality implies RATIONALITY and this will be reached at in refuting the moral scepticism; but (2) it does not necessarily indicates impartiality, since the justification of the principle of impartiality does not solve the problem of justifying particular moral principles. I will start with the question “Why should we be moral?” and then turn to moral RATIONALITY to refute moral scepticism, finally the relationship between rational morality and the principle of impartiality will be reconsidered.