عنوان مقاله [English]
The important keyword of "law" has long existed in the works of prominent political philosophers. They have had different perceptions and expectations of the law as well as law formulation stages, and sometimes their differences have been serious. Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, the study explains the foundations of Avicenna and Kant's opinions to enact or formulate a Comprehensive Universal Law and to highlight the similarities and differences between their opinions. The two philosophers have a similar end in their pursuit of the universal law, but they have differences in their ideas of the process of its development. Avicenna considered social justice achievement to rest upon not only the honesty of government officials but also a comprehensive and just law. He did not consider the general public to be worthy of legislation for two reasons: lack of knowledge and conflict of interest. This is why he linked the formulation of a comprehensive and just law to the necessity of prophecy and understanding of divine law. However, Kant acknowledged the two mentioned shortcomings of humankind but argued that morally-oriented elites must endure legislation and formulate a comprehensive law based on previous experience and the emphasis on the outer freedom of human beings. The common recommendation of both philosophers in the face of oppressive governments before the formulation and execution of the universal law was two things: first, tolerance of rulers and abandonment of suicidal acts against them in order to maintain security in society; Second, the use of legal capacity to guide community leaders to comply with and reform the existing laws.