Comparative Analysis of the Foundations of Victim’s Moral Damage Compensation in Iranian and American Law

Abstract

Moral damage refers to harm inflicted upon non-material assets and is twofold: harm to emotions, which pertains exclusively to natural persons, and harm to reputation, which targets individuals’ credibility. In Islamic jurisprudence, there is no distinct discussion of harm and its classifications. However, jurists have made scattered references to moral damage within the context of the "no-harm" rule (la darar) in chapters concerning diyat (blood money) or other related principles. By relying on three jurisprudential rules—“no harm” (la darar), “no injury” (la jarah), and the rational conduct of reasonable people (bina al-uqala)—the permissibility of claiming moral damages in Islamic jurisprudence is established. Under Iranian statutory law, the possibility of moral harm is recognized, granting the aggrieved party the right to claim moral damages in addition to material damages. This right is primarily based on the Civil Liability Act of 1960 (Iranian calendar: 1339). Furthermore, the Code of Civil Procedure for Public and Revolutionary Courts of 1999 (Iranian calendar: 1378) explicitly acknowledges the right of the injured party to claim moral damages, even providing a definition of moral damage in a specific note. In American law, the basis for compensating moral damages is established through codified regulations and the legal framework governing civil liability for torts.