Spektrum Iran

Abstract Abstract
The emergence of artificial intelligence as a semi-autonomous agent has challenged the classical paradigms of knowledge production in the humanities. Employing a comparative-analytical approach and qualitative methodology, this study addresses the central question: How are the legal and ethical components of responsibility for works produced with AI participation redefined within the frameworks of Imami jurisprudence and the German legal system? Data were collected through the study of authoritative jurisprudential sources, German codified laws, and scholarly articles, and analyzed using inductive reasoning. The findings reveal that the shift from a purely instrumental paradigm to one recognizing AI's "relative agency" has intensified three structural crises: the crisis of attribution (ambiguity regarding authorship and ownership); the crisis of originality (erosion of human creativity and scientific credibility); and the crisis of accountability (conflict in determining final responsibility). In response, this research proposes the innovative "Proportional Responsibility" model as an interdisciplinary solution. This model distributes ethical and legal responsibility equitably among three key actors: the researcher (active supervision and final verification of content); the developer (transparency regarding system limitations and potential errors); and academic institutions (formulating clear standards and implementing oversight mechanisms). By integrating foundational jurisprudential principles from Imami jurisprudence—such as the rules of lā ḍarar, ḍamān, and tasbīb—with the advanced doctrines of German civil liability, particularly § 280 BGB and producer liability principles, the model establishes a coherent framework designed to preserve scientific integrity in humanities research in the age of artificial intelligence.
 Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; Imami Jurisprudence; German Law; Algorithm and Text; Proportional Responsibility

Abstract Political metaphors are not merely rhetorical devices but cognitive instruments that shape perception, structure judgment, and guide collective action. Among them, medical–political metaphors are particularly influential, as they draw on culturally authoritative notions of health, disease, diagnosis, and treatment to interpret political realities. This article offers a philosophical analysis of the epistemic, ethical, and socio-political implications of such metaphors. Drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, discourse ethics, and theories of epistemic injustice, it argues that medicalized political language functions not only descriptively but also as a mechanism that reorganizes political understanding through biologically grounded schemas.

The analysis proceeds in three stages. First, it reconstructs the conceptual structure of five recurrent medical–political metaphors, showing how political actors, institutions, and conflicts are mapped onto medical categories such as pathology, infection, surgery, and cancer. Second, it examines their epistemic consequences, arguing that these metaphors simplify political phenomena, produce category mistakes, obscure agency and structural causality, narrow interpretive possibilities, encourage affective shortcuts in reasoning, and improperly transfer the authority of scientific discourse into domains of normative and political contestation. Third, it explores their ethical and political consequences, showing how they may contribute to dehumanization, weaken mutual recognition, enable epistemic injustice, legitimize exclusionary practices, and reshape political culture by normalizing antagonistic identities and exceptional forms of governance.

The article concludes that medical–political metaphors are not neutral tools of political communication. By framing political disagreement as pathology, they reshape the epistemic and moral conditions under which democratic judgment, public deliberation, and political pluralism operate. Their significance lies not only in the meanings they convey but also in the forms of political reality they render intelligible and governable. A critical examination of these metaphors is therefore essential for understanding the relationship between language, power, and democratic life.