One of the important issues in moral philosophy is explaining the sources that are influential in explaining moral judgments. In this regard, profound discussions have long taken place concerning the role and scope of reason in moral. Some have gone so far as to attribute the origin of moral propositions entirely to reason and rational principles. In his moral philosophy, Henry Sidgwick seeks an objective and universal foundation for moral judgments, and he considers rational intuition to be a fundamental factor in discovering moral principles and ethical values, whose ultimate goal is to optimize the outcomes and consequences of actions. By differentiating between various types of intuition, he emphasizes the role of reason in refining and systematizing these intuitions to prevent contradictions and moral relativism. In contrast, Ayatollah Javadi Amoli by relying on the principles of Islamic philosophy and revealed teachings, not only considers reason to be a fundamental source in the field of ethics and even in some cases, believes in the independence of reason in this field, but unlike Sidgwick, does not neglect revelation, which is itself another valuable source in this field.This article employs a descriptive-analytical method and a critical approach to elucidate the role of reason in Sidgwick's theory, subsequently critiquing it from the perspective of Ayātollah Javadi Amoli. Sidgwick seeks to create a moral system based on rational intuitions, but Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, in addition to emphasizing the role of reason in the field of ethics, also emphasizes the necessity of relying on and paying attention to revelation and spirituality in this field, and considers the consequentialist approach based on mere intuition to lack sufficient support for achieving true human happiness.