عنوان مقاله [English]
Exemplarism is a form of virtue ethics that posits moral exemplars as fundamental criteria of morality. Currently, two distinct versions of exemplarism have been articulated: one rooted in the Christian tradition and another in the Islamic-Shiite tradition. The Christian perspective, as expounded by Zagzebski, draws inspiration from the character of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the theory of authoritavist (wilāʾī) ethics, derived from the transmitted teachings of Shiism, shares notable similarities with Zagzebski’s theory. In the Christian tradition, exemplars are developed based on the writings of Zagzebski, guided by Christian principles and the character of Jesus Christ. In contrast, Shiite exemplarism holds that perfect exemplars are infallible, immune from sins and mistakes. Accordingly, their speeches and actions serve as criteria for understanding moral concepts and instances. This article aims to clarify and compare these two perspectives, highlighting the advantages of authorativist ethics over Christian exemplarism. It emphasizes the concept of infallibility (ʿiṣma) of the exemplar and explores how this belief addresses objections raised against exemplarism. Drawing upon a library and analytical comparative method, this article contends that the belief in the infallibility of exemplars addresses objections such as the unreliability of all actions and characteristics of the exemplar, moral immaturity, and relativism. The acceptance of the infallibility of the perfect exemplar stands out as a distinctive advantage of Shiite exemplarism over its Christian counterpart.