Türkçe karşılıkları “güzel” ve “çirkin” olan “hüsün” -“kubuh” kavramları kelâm literatüründe “iyi” ile “kötü” şeyleri tanımlamak için kullanılmaktadır. Âlemde mevcut olan nesneler ile fiiller kendilerinde var olan bir asıl nitelik sebebiyle mi yoksa dinin onlara yüklediği bir mana sebebiyle mi bu değerleri kazanmaktadırlar? Kısaca bir şey iyi olduğu için mi din onu iyi olarak kabul etmiş, yoksa din o şeye iyi dediği için mi iyidir? Matûrîdî düşüncenin güçlü temsilcilerinden olan Ebü’l-Muîn en-Nesefî’ye göre âlemde var olan bazı nesne ve eylemlerin iyilik ve kötülük yönleri zatîdir. Ancak bu özellik Allah Teâlâ’nın o varlığı veya manayı ilk defa yaratmasıyla kendisine verilmiştir. Aynı varlığın değerlendirilme ölçüsü de Allah’ın varlığının delili olan akla yerleştirilmiştir. Bu tür varlıklara doğruluk, yardımseverlik ile zulüm ve inkâr fiilleri örnek olarak gösterilmektedir. Nesefî’ye göre bazı varlıkların da iyilik ve kötülükleri ile güzel ve çirkin olma durumları dinin o şeyleri emretmesi ya da yasaklamasıyla doğrudan ilişkilidir. Bunlar duruma göre farklı değerler kazanabilirler. 

The concepts of “husn” - “qubh”, which respectively mean “beautiful” and “ugly”, are used in the literature of kalam to describe “good” and “bad” things. Do the objects and actions present in the universe acquire these qualities because of a characteristic in their essence, or because of the meaning attributed to them by religion? In short, does religion consider something as good because it is good, or is it good because religion considers it good? The authorities of the field have followed two different lines, especially in the point of actions’ having the value of husn and qubh. One of them is the view that actions have good or bad qualities due to a number of features in them and that this is always valid and can be known by the mind. The other group that opposes this view argues that actions and deeds do not have good or bad nature due to the characteristics they possess, and that they have gained their values by divine will. They state that good and evil as well as beauty and ugliness are related to the commands and prohibitions of Allah, which means what is commanded is good and beautiful while what is forbidden is evil and ugly. The biggest problem that arises here is the question of how to reconcile it with divine wisdom if the existence of an ugly being is accepted. Likewise, if it is asserted that an evil and ugly being gains this feature on its own, the assumption that it is out of Allah’s creation will emerge. If one says that there is nothing bad and ugly in the universe, then what will be the situation of what religion describes as absolutely bad and ugly? The same applies to the situation of the ugly and bad acts encountered in the society. According to Mu’tazila, neither mind nor revelation add value to actions, but they discover and reveal the existing values in them. According to Mu’tazilite theologians, the measure of moral values such as goodness, evil and justice is related to their benefit or harm. If there is a benefit for someone of something in an action or it aims to remove harm from someone, it is good and beautiful. If this is not the case, it is bad and ugly. Such objective existences can also be known by the human mind. The Ash’arites, on the other hand, argued that husn and qubh are notional, and what gives them that value is the commands and prohibitions of Allah. According to them, everything is objective. If Allah orders us to do it, it is beautiful; if orders not to do it, it is ugly. In other words, nothing has the quality of good and evil. The real curator is Allah, and medicine is only a tool. According to them, actions are actually equal, things have no husn or qubh in their essence. Praising and rewarding, or discrediting and punishing someone for doing an action should not be sought in the action itself. Maturidi attached an important role to mind in knowing good and evil. He argued that mind can generally detect them by creation. However, the fact that objects and actions are valued as good and bad in their present nature is not about an imperative in their own structure, but about the fact that Allah created them in that way. Since it is accepted that Allah is the creator of everything, it is not possible for the beings to acquire their position by themselves. According to Mâturîdî, although the mind is able to know good and evil, the mental and physical conditions of human can prevent the mind from making the right decision. Considering such situations, it is a help, guidance and reminder for the mind that Allah sent prophets and declared His orders and prohibitions through revelation. From this point of view, it can be said that Maturidi is in a position between Mu’tazila and Ash’ariyya regarding husn and qubh. According to Abu al-Mu’in al-Nasafi, who is one of the powerful representatives of maturidi thought, the good and evil aspects of some objects and actions that exist in the universe are essential. However, this quality was given to them the first time Allah created that existence, or meaning. The measure of the evaluation of the same being is placed in the mind, which is the proof of the existence of Allah. Acts of truthfulness, benevolence, persecution and denial are shown as examples for such existences.