The present article looks at the issue of expediency from the point of view of Sunni and Shiah jurists, while looking at their interpretation bases, and examines the approach of both schools of jurisprudence from the perspective of political ethics. Collecting sources with the library method, examining them with the documentary-analytical method, and comparing two Sunni discourses and Shiah with the comparative-critical method. In addition, the simultaneous entry into the political jurisprudence and political ethics issues puts the current article in the ranks of interdisciplinary studies. According to the selected definition, political ethics means an action that is morally legitimate in the public sphere and regardless of legal validity. On this basis, the approach of Sunni jurists relying on the three issues of lack of text, referring to the historical course of the Companions, and practical conflict with the government is expedient. On the other hand, Shia jurisprudence believes in the continuity of the text and the presence of the infallible sharia; Logically, accepting an expedient contrary to the primary rulings is not in its discourse priority. Therefore, it is only in the era of the absence of the innocent and with the assumption of referring to the extensive history of the presence of the innocent and the interpretability of the way of the Shariah that expediency is developed in Shia jurisprudence, in a morally favorable hypothesis, it is accompanied by luck and public persuasion.