What is the basis of morality. Moral standards of human behavior. Moral and ethical standards
MORALITY
MORALITY
M. belongs to the number main types of normative regulation of human actions, such as customs, traditions and others, intersects with them and at the same time differs significantly from them. If in law and organization-zats. regulations, prescriptions are formulated, approved and carried out in specialist. institutions, the requirements of morality (as usual) are formed in the very practice of mass behavior, in the process of mutual communication of people and are a reflection of life-practice. and historical experience directly in collective and individual ideas, feelings and will. Moral norms are reproduced daily by the force of mass habits, decrees and assessments of societies. opinions, beliefs and motives brought up in the individual. The fulfillment of M.'s requirements can be controlled by all people without exception and by each individual. The authority of this or that person in M. is not connected with c.-l. official powers, real power and societies. position, but is a spiritual authority, i.e. due to his moral qualities (example) and the ability to adequately express morals. requirements in one way or another. In general, there is no separation of the subject and object of regulation, which is characteristic of institutional norms, in M..
Unlike simple customs, the norms of M. are not only supported by the power of an established and generally accepted order, by the power of habit and the cumulative pressure of others and their opinions on the individual, but "receive an ideological expression in general fixed ideas (commandments, principles) about how it should be done. The latter, reflected in societies. opinion, at the same time they are more stable, historically stable and systematic. M. reflects a holistic system of views on social life, containing this or understanding of the essence ("appointment", "meaning", "goals") society, history, man and his being. Therefore, the morals and customs prevailing at the moment can be evaluated by M. from the point of view of its general principles, ideals, criteria for good and evil, and the moral outlook can be critical. relation to the actual accepted way of life (which finds expression in the views of the progressive class or, on the contrary, conservative social groups). In general, in M., in contrast to custom, what is due and what is actually accepted does not always and not completely coincide. In class antagonism. society norms universal. morality has never been fulfilled entirely, unconditionally, in all cases without exception.
The role of consciousness in the sphere of moral regulation is also expressed in the fact that morals. (approval or condemnation of actions) has an ideal-spiritual character; it appears in the form of non-effectively material measures of societies. retribution (rewards or punishments), and the assessment that a person must realize, accept internally and accordingly direct his actions in the future. At the same time, it is not just someone's emotional-volitional reaction that matters. (outrage or praise), but the conformity of the assessment to the general principles, norms and concepts of good and evil. For the same reason, individual consciousness plays an enormous role in M. (personal beliefs, motives and self-esteem), which allows a person to control himself, internally motivate his actions, give them independently, develop his own line of behavior within the framework of a team or group. In this sense, K. Marx said that "... morality is based on the autonomy of the human spirit ..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, T. 1, from. 13) . In M. are evaluated not only practical. people's actions, but also their motives and intentions. In this regard, in the moral regulation, a special role is acquired by the personal, i.e. formation in each individual relatively independently determine and direct their line of behavior in society and without everyday ext. control (hence such concepts of M. as, a sense of personal dignity and honor).
Moral requirements for a person do not mean the achievement of some particular and immediate results in a certain way. situations, but general norms and principles of behavior. In a single case, practical actions can be different, depending on random circumstances; on a general social scale, in the total result, the fulfillment of a moral norm corresponds to one society or another. the needs displayed in a generalized form by this norm. Therefore, a form of expression of morals. rules are not rules ext. expediency (to achieve such and such a result, you need to do something like this), but an imperative requirement, an obligation, which a person must follow in the implementation of his most diverse goals. The moral norms reflect the needs of man and society not within the boundaries of the defined. private circumstances and situations, and on the basis of a huge historical. experience pl. generations; so with t. sp. of these norms can be evaluated both the special goals pursued by people, and the means of achieving them.
M. is separated from the originally undivided normative regulation into a special sphere of relations already in a tribal society, it takes a long time. the history of formation and development in a pre-class and class society, where its requirements, principles, ideals and assessments acquire meaning. least class character and meaning, although along with this, the general human being is also preserved. moral standards associated with common human conditions for all eras. hostels.
In an era of social and economic crisis. formations arises as one of his expressions of the dominant M. Moral crisis bourgeois society is part of the general crisis of capitalism. The crisis of tradition values bourgeois M. is found in the "loss of ideals", in the narrowing of the sphere of moral regulation (amoralism bourgeois politics, the crisis of family and marriage relations, the growth of crime, drug addiction, corruption, "escapism" and "rebellion" of youth).
span. M., different historical. optimism, preserves and develops genuine moral values. As the socialist relations, the new M. becomes the regulator of everyday relationships between people, gradually penetrating into all spheres of society. life and shaping the consciousness and morals of millions of people. For the communist morality is characterized by succession. implementation of the principle of equality and cooperation between people and nations, internationalism and respect for the individual in all spheres of his societies. and personal manifestations based on the principle - "... the freedom of each is a condition for the free development of all" (Marx K. and Engels F., ibid., T. 4, from. 447) .
Communist morality becomes unified already within the framework of the socialist. society, but its class character is preserved until the complete overcoming of class contradictions. “A morality that stands above class oppositions and any memories of them, truly human morality, will become possible only at such a stage in the development of society when the opposition of classes will not only be overcome, but also forgotten in life practice” (Engels F., ibid., T. 20, from. 96) .
Lenin V.I., On the Communist. morality. [Sb.], M., 19752; Kon I. S., M. communist and M. bourgeois, M., I960; Bek G., On Marxist Ethics and Socialist. M., per. from German M., 1962; Selzam G., Marxism and M., trans... s English, M., 1962; X and y k and n Ya. 3., Structure of both moral and legal systems, M., 1972; Gumnitsky G. N., Osn. problems of theory M., Ivanovo, 1972; Moral regulation and personality. Sat. Art., M., 1972; Drobnitsky O. G., Concept M., M., 1974; Titarenko A. I., Structures of morals. consciousness, M., 1974; M. and ethical. theory, M., 1974; Huseynov A. A., Social morality, M., 1974; Rybakova N.V., Moral relations and them, L., 1974; M. developed socialism, M., 1976; morals. and personality, Vilnius, 1976; Social, structure and functions M., M., 1977; Petropavlovsky R.V., Dialectics of progress and its morality, M., 1978; Anisimov S. F., M. and behavior, M., 1979; Shishkin A. F., Chelovech. nature and morality, M., 1979; Moralny, M., 1980; Fundamentals of the communist M., M., 1980 ; The definition of morality, ed. G. Wallace and A. D. M. Walker, L., ;
O. G. Drobnitsky.
Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .
MORALITY
(from lat. moralis - moral)
that area from the realm of ethical values (cf. Ethics), which is recognized above all by every adult. The size and content of this sphere change over time and are different for different countries. different peoples and strata of the population (many morals and unity of ethics). Main problems in morality are questions about what is a "good custom", what is "decent", what makes it possible life together people, in which everyone refuses the full implementation of life values (food consumption, sexuality, the need for security, the desire for significance and possession) in favor of the implementation (least of all by understanding what is considered right) social values (recognition of the rights of others. personality, justice, truthfulness, trustworthiness, fidelity, tolerance, courtesy, etc.); cm. Rule. The dominant morality of all peoples and at all times, in addition to social values, also includes those that are regarded by religion as good behavior (love of neighbor, charity, hospitality, veneration of ancestors, religious worship, etc.). Morality is an integral part of the individual microcosm, it is one of the moments that determine the picture of the world for the individual.
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
MORALITY
(from lat. moralis - moral) - a form of society. consciousness, a set of principles, rules, norms, by which people are guided in their behavior. These norms are an expression of the definition. real relations of people to each other and to various forms of human. community: to the family, work collective, class, nation, society as a whole. The most important specific trait M. is morals. actions and motivations. The basis of such an assessment is the ideas that have developed in society, among this class, about good and evil, about duty, justice and injustice, about honor and dishonor, in which the demands on the individual from society or class, societies are expressed. or class interests. Unlike law, the principles and norms of M. are not fixed in the state. legislation; their implementation is based not on the law, but on the conscience and society. opinion. M. is embodied in mores and customs. Stable, firmly entrenched norms of morality. behaviors that pass from generation to generation constitute morals. tradition. The content of M. also includes morals. beliefs and habits that together form morals. personality consciousness. M. manifests itself in the actions of people. morals. behavior is characterized by the unity of consciousness and action.
According to the historical materialism, M. is one of the elements of the ideological. superstructure of society. Social M. is to contribute to the preservation and strengthening of existing societies. relations or contribute to their destruction - through morals. approval or condemnation. actions and societies. orders. The basis for the formation of M.'s norms is social, those relations, to which people are connected with each other in society. Among them, manufacturing plays a decisive role. relationships. People develop certain moral norms primarily in accordance with their position in the system of material production. That is why in a class society M. has a class character; Everyone develops their own moral principles. In addition to production. relations, M. is also influenced by historically established nat. traditions and life. M. interacts with others constituent parts superstructures: state-vom, law, religion, claim-vom.
Moral views of people changed following the changes in their social life. In each era as a whole or its constituent antagonistic. worked out such criterion M., to-ry with objective necessity followed from their material interests. None of these criteria could claim to be universally valid, since in a class society there was not and could not be a unity of the material interests of all people. However, in M. advanced societies. forces contained universal. M. of the future. They are inherited and developed by the , designed to forever end the exploitation of man by man and create a society without classes. “Truly human morality,” wrote Engels, “standing above class contradictions and any recollection of them, will become possible only at such a stage in the development of society, when not only the opposition of classes will be destroyed, but its trace in practical life will also be erased” (“Anti- Dühring", 1957, p. 89).
Progress in the development of society naturally led to progress in the development of M. "... In morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, progress is generally observed" (ibid.). In every historical epoch of a progressive nature were those moral norms, to-rye met the needs of societies. development, contributed to the destruction of the old, obsolete societies. building and replacing it with a new one. The bearers of morality. progress in history has always been revolutionary. classes. Progress in the development of M. lies in the fact that with the development of society, such norms of M. arose and became more widespread, to-rye raised the dignity of the individual, socially useful labor, brought up in people the need to serve society, between fighters for a just cause.
M. is the oldest form of society. consciousness. It originated in a primitive society under the direct. the influence of the process of production, to-ry required the coordination of the actions of members of the community and the subordination of the will of the individual to common interests. The practice of relationships, which developed under the influence of a fierce struggle for, was gradually fixed in customs and traditions, which were strictly observed. The basis of morality was primitive and primitive collectivism characteristic of tribal society. The man felt his inseparable from the team, outside of which he could not get food and fight against numerous enemies. "The security of an individual depended on his kind; ties of kinship were a powerful element of mutual support; to offend someone meant to offend him" (Archive of Marx and Engels, vol. 9, 1941, p. 67). Selfless devotion and fidelity to one's clan and tribe, selfless protection of relatives, mutual assistance, in relation to them were the indisputable norms of M. of that time, and in the clan its members showed diligence, endurance, courage, contempt for death. A sense of duty was laid in joint work, a sense of justice was born on the basis of primitive equality. Absence private property at the expense of production, M. was made uniform for all members of the clan, for the entire tribe. Each, even the weakest member of the clan felt its collective strength behind him; this was the source of the feeling dignity characteristic of the people of that time.
The classics of Marxism-Leninism pointed to the high level of M. in a tribal society, where, according to Lenin, the general connection, the society itself, the work schedule were kept "... by force of habit, traditions, authority or respect enjoyed by the elders of the clan or women, in at that time, they often occupied not only an equal position with men, but often even a higher one, and when there was no special category of people - specialists to govern" (Soch., vol. 29, p. 438).
At the same time, it would be wrong to idealize the M. of the primitive communal system and not see its historically determined limitations. harsh lives, the extremely low level of development of production, the impotence of man in front of the still unknown forces of nature gave rise to superstitions and extremely cruel customs. In the genus, the ancient custom of blood feud got its start. Only gradually did the wild custom of cannibalism disappear, which had been preserved for a long time during military clashes. Marx in the synopsis of the book "Ancient Society" indicated that both positive and some negative ones developed in a tribal society. morals. quality. "At the lowest stage of barbarism, the highest qualities of man began to develop.
Personal dignity, eloquence, religious feeling, frankness, courage, bravery have now become common traits of character, but cruelty, betrayal and fanaticism have appeared along with them "(Archive of Marx and Engels, vol. 9, p. 45 ).
M. primitive communal system - ch. arr. M. blind obedience to the indisputable requirements of custom. The individual is still merged with the collective, he is not conscious of himself as a personality; there is no distinction between "private" and "public". Collectivism is limited. character. “Everything that was outside the tribe,” says Engels, “was outside the law” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 99). The further development of society required the expansion of people's communication and should naturally lead to the expansion of the framework within which moral norms operate.
With the advent of the slave Society began the period of the existence of class M. Private undermined and then destroyed the collectivism of tribal society. Engels wrote that the primitive community "... was broken under such influences that directly appear to us as a decline, a fall in comparison with the high moral level of the old tribal society. robbery of the common property - are the heirs of a new, civilized, class society; the most vile means - theft, deceit, treason - undermine the old classless tribal society and lead to its death "(ibid.). Private property freed slave owners from the need to work; produces. was considered unworthy of a free man. In contrast to the customs and mores of a tribal society, M. slave owners considered social inequality as a natural and fair form of humanity. relations and defended private ownership of the means of production. Slaves, in essence, stood outside M., they were considered as the property of the slave owner, "speaking".
Nevertheless, the new M. was a reflection of a more high level development of society and, although it did not apply to slaves, it covered a much broader people than either a tribe, namely, the entire free population of the state. Morals remained extremely cruel, but the prisoners, as a rule, were not killed. Subjected to morals. condemnation and cannibalism disappeared. Individualism and associated with it, to-ry came to replace primitive collectivism and from the time of the slave owners. Mentalism underlies the morality of all exploiting classes and was at first a necessary form of self-affirmation of the individual (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 236). At the same time, the best that was created in morals. consciousness of the tribal system, did not die at all, but received in new conditions new life. Many of the simple norms of morality and justice that originated in tribal society continued to live among the free artisans and peasants of the era of slavery. Along with the militancy of the slave-owners and its variety for the oppressed—the slavish militia of humility and obedience—arose and developed among the masses of slaves the militia of the protest of the oppressed against oppression. This militancy, which aroused indignation at the inhuman conditions of the slave-owning system and developed especially in the era of its decline, reflected the contradictions that led to the collapse of the slave-owning society and accelerated its collapse.
In the era of feudalism, a characteristic feature of spiritual life was religion, the church, which acted "... as the most general synthesis and the most general sanction of the existing feudal system" (Engels F., see Marx K. and Engels F., Soch. , 2nd ed., vol. 7, p. 361). The dogmas of the church had a great influence on morality and, as a rule, they themselves had the force of morals. norms. M., who preached Christ. church, aimed at protecting the feud. relations and reconciliation of the oppressed classes with their position in society. This M. with her preaching of religions. intolerance and fanaticism, sanctimonious rejection of worldly goods, Christ. equality of people before God and humility before those in power outwardly acted as a single M. of the whole society, but in reality served as a hypocritical cover for immoral practices and the wild arbitrariness of spiritual and secular feudal lords. For the M. of the ruling exploiting classes, an ever-increasing divergence between the official M. and the practical one is characteristic. M. or real morals. relationships (morals). A common feature of the practical M. spiritual and secular feudal lords had contempt for the physical. labor and the working masses, cruelty towards dissidents and all those who encroached on the feud. orders, clearly manifested in the activities of the "holy inquisition" and in the suppression of the cross. uprisings. The peasant "... was treated everywhere like a thing or a beast of burden, or even worse" (ibid., p. 356). Real morals. relations were very far from certain norms of Christ. M. (love for one's neighbor, mercy, etc.) and from the chivalric code of that time, which ordered the feudal lord to show loyalty to the overlord and "lady of the heart", honesty, justice, selflessness, etc. The prescriptions of this code played, however, determined. positive role in moral development. relations.
M. ruling classes and estates of the feud. society was opposed primarily by the militancy of serfs, which was distinguished by its extreme inconsistency. On the one hand, centuries of feud. exploitation, political lawlessness and religion. intoxication in feudal conditions. isolation developed among the peasants and humility, the habit of submission, a servile view of the spiritual and secular feudal lord as a father, determined by God. Engels wrote that "... the peasants, although embittered by the terrible oppression, were still difficult to rouse to revolt.
Int. inconsistency and exploitative essence of bourgeois. Mathematics manifested itself when the newcomer to power found herself face to face with the proletariat rising up to fight. Promised bourgeois. Enlighteners, the realm of reason and justice turned out to be in fact the realm of the money bag, which increased the poverty of the working class and gave rise to new social disasters and vices (see F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1957, p. 241). Burzh. M., with her claim to and eternity, turned out to be narrow, limited, and self-serving M. bourgeois.
Main bourgeois principle. M., determined by the nature of the bourgeoisie. societies. relations, is the principle of sanctity and inviolability of private property as the "eternal" and "unshakable" foundation of all societies. life. From this principle follows the moral justification of the exploitation of man by man and the whole practice of bourgeois. relations. For the sake of wealth, money, profit, the bourgeois is ready to violate any moral ideals and humanist. principles. The bourgeoisie, having achieved dominance, "... left no connection between people, except for naked interest, a heartless "chistogan". In the icy water of selfish calculation, it drowned the sacred awe of religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, petty-bourgeois sentimentality. It turned the personal into an exchange value. .." (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 426).
In the bourgeois M. received its finished expression inherent in one way or another M. of all exploiting classes and selfishness. Private property and competition divide people and put them in hostile relations with each other. If in the struggle against feudalism bourgeois. individualism still contributed to a certain extent to the formation of personality, its liberation from feuds. and religious fetters, then during the period of the domination of the bourgeoisie it became a source of hypocritically masked or open immorality. Individualism and egoism lead to the suppression of the truly human. feelings and attitudes, to the neglect of societies. debt, suppress and mutilate the development of personality.
An integral feature of the bourgeoisie. M. is hypocrisy, hypocrisy, duplicity. The source of these vices is rooted in the very essence of capitalism. relations that make each bourgeois personally interested in the violation of officially proclaimed moral norms and in the fact that these norms are respected by the rest of society. According to the figurative remark of Engels, the bourgeois believes in his morals. ideals only with a hangover or when he went bankrupt.
The closer the capitalist system to its death, the more anti-people and hypocritical becomes the militia of the bourgeoisie. Especially reaction. She took on a character in modern times. era - the era of the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of communism. Deep moral decay has gripped to the greatest extent the top of the capitalist. societies are monopolistic. bourgeoisie. It has become a superfluous class both in the process of production and in societies. life. For modern the bourgeoisie is characterized by the absence of genuine morals. ideals, disbelief in the future, and cynicism. Burzh. society is experiencing a deep ideological and morals. the crisis. The moral degradation of the bourgeoisie has a particularly detrimental effect on young people, among whom crime and crime are growing. Historical the doom of the bourgeoisie is perceived by the bourgeoisie. consciousness as the impending death of the whole society, is a source of degradation of all moral values of the bourgeoisie. society. In order to delay its death, the bourgeoisie resorts to the preaching of anti-communism, in Krom it means. takes slander on the heroic. M. advanced fighters for and progress.
Already in the early stages of the development of bourgeois. society in the working class is born span. M. It arises and develops in the struggle, which leads the class against the bourgeoisie, against lawlessness and oppression, and is then formed under the influence of scientific, dialectical-materialistic. worldview. Marxist-Leninist theory for the first time gave scientific. substantiation of the goal that all the oppressed classes aspired to - the destruction of exploitation - and opened up ways and means to achieve this goal. Main span features. M, follow from the features and historical. the role of the proletariat.
In the communist M. receives the further development of the socialist. collectivism, mutual assistance of members of the socialist. society in labor, in societies. undertakings, in study and life. This one, which is developing in all directions during the period of extensive construction of communism, is based on the genuine collectivism of societies. relations. Thanks to the dominance of the socialist ownership of the means of production is the property of morals. consciousness of members of society becomes that simple that "..., the good, the happiness of each individual is inextricably linked with the good of other people" (Engels F., see Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 535).
Contrary to the slander bourgeois claims. ideologues, communist M. does not require the dissolution of the individual in the team, the suppression of the individual. On the contrary, the principles of the communist M. open wide scope for the all-round development and flourishing of the personality of every working person, because only under socialism "... the original and free development of individuals ceases to be a phrase ..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed. ., vol. 3, p. 441). One of the conditions for the development of high morals. personality traits (a sense of dignity, courage, integrity in beliefs and actions, honesty, truthfulness, modesty, etc.) is an individual in the socialist. team. In the owls society building communism, pl. millions of workers participate in the management of the state. deeds, show creativity, initiative in the development of socialist. production, in the struggle for a new life.
For morals. socialist relations. society is characterized by a new society.-useful labor, to-ry is estimated by society. opinion as high morals. business (see Communist Labor). morals. the quality of owls. people became about societies. good, high consciousness of societies. debt. Owls. people are peculiar to the socialist. Homeland and socialist. internationalism.
The victory of socialism approved new morals. relationships in the everyday life of people, in their family life, put an end to the oppressed position of women.
Family relations in the socialist. In society, they are freed from material calculation; love, mutual respect, and the upbringing of children become the basis of the family.
Communist M. socialist. society building communism is a coherent system of principles and norms that have found a generalized expression in the moral code of the builder of communism. These principles and norms are affirmed in the life of owls. society in the fight against the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people, with alien owls. societies. I build the moral norms of the old society, which are kept by the force of habit, tradition and under the influence of bourgeois. ideology. Communist the party is considering the fight against manifestations of the bourgeoisie. morality as an important task of the communist. education and considers it necessary to achieve new morals. norms have become internal. the need of all owls. of people. New moral norms are generated by the very life of the socialist. society and are a reflection of new social relations. But in order for them to become the property of the whole people, persistent, purposeful ideological and organizational work of the party is necessary.
Its full development of the communist. M. will receive in the communist. society where morals. relations will play the role of ch. human regulator. behavior. Together with the improvement of the communist societies. relations will be constantly improved and communistic. M., will increasingly reveal truly human moral relations.
V. Morozov. Moscow.
Lit.: Marx K., Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4; Engels Φ., Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; his, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, ibid., vol. 21; his, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, ibid., vol. 21; V. I. Lenin about morality, M.–L., 1926; V. I. Lenin on communist morality, 2nd ed., M., 1963; Lenin V. I., Tasks of youth unions, [M. ], 1954; Program of the CPSU (Adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU), M., 1961; Moral as communists understand it, [Documents, letters, statements], 2nd ed., M., 1963; Schopenhauer A., Free will and foundations M., 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1896; Bertelo M., Science and morality, M., 1898; Letourno Sh., Evolution M., 1899; Brunetier F., Art and morality, St. Petersburg, 1900; Ηitsche F. V., The origin of morality, Sobr. soch., v. 9, M., ; Kautsky K., Origin M., M., 1906; Krzhivitsky L.I., Origin and development of morality, Gomel, 1924; Lunacharsky A. V., M. from a Marxist point of view, X., 1925; Marxism and ethics. [Sat. Art. ], 2nd ed., [K. ], 1925; Yaroslavsky E., M. and life of the proletariat in transition period , "Young Guard", 1926, book. 5, p. 138–53; Lafargue P., Research on the origin and development of ideas: justice, goodness, soul and God, in the book: Lafargue P., Economic. Karl Marx, 2nd ed., M.–L., ; Morgan L. G., Ancient society, 2nd ed., L., 1935; Kalinin M.I., On the moral character of our people, 2nd ed., M., 1947; Kareva MP, Law and morality in the socialist. society, M., 1951; Volgin V.P., Humanism and, M., 1955; Shishkin A.F., Fundamentals of the Communist. M., M., 1955; his own, Fundamentals of Marxist Ethics, M., 1961; Buslov K., V. I. Lenin on the class essence of morality, "Communist of Belarus", 1957, No 6; Kolonitsky P. F., M. and, M., 1958; Mukhortov N. M., Some questions of communist M. in connection with the problem of necessity and freedom, "Proceedings of Voronezh University", 1958, v. 69, p. 187–201; Kon I. S., M. communist. and M. bourgeois, M., 1960; Bakshutov VK, Moral incentives in human life, [Sverdl. ], 1961; Εfimov B. T., Kommunizm i M., K., 1961; Prokofiev V.I., Two M. (M. religious and M. communist.), M., 1961; Shtaerman E. M., M. and religion of the oppressed classes of the Roman Empire, M., 1961; Marxist ethics. Reader, comp. V. T. Efimov and I. G. Petrov. Moscow, 1961. Baskin M.P., Crisis bourgeois. consciousness, M., 1962; Bök G., On Marxist Ethics and the Socialist. M., trans. from German, M., 1962; Everything in a person should be perfect. [Sat. Art. ], L., 1962; Kurochkin P.K., Orthodoxy and humanism, M., 1962; Oh communist. ethics. [Sat. Art. ], L., 1962; Selsam G., Marxism and M., trans. from English, M., 1962; Utkin S., Essays on Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, M., 1962; Khaykin Ya. Z., Rules of law and M. and their connection during the transition to communism, "Uch. Zap. Tartu University", 1962, no. 124, Tr. in Philosophy, vol. 6, p. 94–123; Drobnitsky O. G., Justification of immorality. Critical essays on contemporary bourgeois ethics, M., 1963; Zhuravkov M. G., The most important principle of communist morality, "Problems of Philosophy", 1963, No 5; Ivanov V. G. and Rybakova N. V., Essays on Marxist-Leninist ethics, [L. ], 1963; Sadykov F. B., Communist. morality, [Novosib. ], 1963; Shvartsman K. A., "Psychoanalysis" and questions M., M., 1963; Zlatarov A., Moral and, in the book: Zlatarov A., Essays on biology, Sofia, 1911, pp. 46–105; Schweitzer A., Civilization and ethics, 3 ed., L., 1946; Oakley H. D., Greek ethical thought from Homer to the stoics, Bost., 1950; Draz M. A., La morale du Koran, P., 1951; Lottin D. O., Psychologie et morale aux XII et XIII siècles, t. 2–4, Louvain–Gembloux, 1948–54; Carritt E. F., Morals and politics. Theories of their relation from Hobbes and Spinoza to Marx and Bosanquet, Oxf., .
L. Azarch. Moscow.
Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .
MORALITY
MORAL (lat. Moralitas) - the concept of European philosophy, which serves for a generalized expression of the sphere of higher values and obligation. Morality generalizes that cut human experience, the different sides of which are denoted by the words “good” and “evil”, “virtue” and “vice”, “right” and “wrong”, “duty”, “conscience”, “justice”, etc. Ideas about morality are formed in the process of understanding, firstly, the correct behavior, proper character (“moral character”), and secondly, the conditions and limits of a person’s will, limited by his own (internal) obligation, as well as the limits of freedom in conditions of an externally specified organizational and (or ) normative ordering.
In the world history of ideas, it is possible to reconstruct antinomic ideas about morality as a) a system (code) imputed to a person in fulfillment of norms and values (universal and absolute or particular and relative) and b) the sphere of individual self-assertion of a person (free or predetermined by some external factors) .
According to one of the most popular modern approaches, morality is interpreted as a way of regulation (in particular, normative) of people's behavior. Such an understanding is formed by J.S. Mill, although it was formed earlier - the idea of morality as a certain form of imperativeness (in contrast to the understanding of morality as a predominantly sphere of motives that dominated in enlightenment thought) is found in different versions by Hobbes, Mandeville, Kant. Several approaches and levels are distinguishable in the perception and interpretation of the imperativeness of morality. Firstly, a nihilistic attitude towards morality, in which imperativeness is not accepted as such: any ordering of individual manifestations, in the form of everyday rules, social norms or universal cultural principles, is perceived as a yoke, the suppression of the individual (Protagoras, Sade, Nietzsche). Secondly, a protest against the external coercion of morality, in which morality itself can also be expressed - an individualized attitude to existing mores or a denial of external, official, hypocritical submission to social norms; the inherent value of morality is interpreted as its insubordination from outside to given and self-reliant norms and rules (S. L. Frank, P. Janet). Thirdly, the interpretation of the imperativeness of morality as an expression of the need for expedient interaction in society. Understanding morality as a set of “rules of conduct” (Spencer, J.S. Mill, Durkheim) will prevent it from becoming more common system (nature, society) and the criterion of the morality of actions is their adequacy to the needs and goals of the system. In line with this understanding of imperativeness, morality is interpreted not as the power of supra-individual control over the behavior of citizens, but as developed by the people themselves and fixed in the “social contract” of interaction between people (sophists, Epicurus, Hobbes, Rousseau, Rawls), a system of mutual obligations that people as citizens of one community take over. In this sense, morality is conventional, variable, prudential. Fourthly, consideration of moral imperativeness from the point of view of its specificity, which lies in the fact that it is more motivating than prohibitive: moral sanctions addressed to a person as a conscious and free subject are ideal (Kant, Hegel, Hare). Fifthly, the understanding of the mutual and self-limitations imputed by morality, as indicating that its peculiarity is that morality sets the form of volition; the fulfillment of the requirement directly depends on the person, fulfilling the requirement, he, as it were, proclaims it himself. Such is the peculiarity of non-institutionalized forms of regulation of behavior. Related to this is the fact that the morality of actions is determined both by the content and result of the action performed, and to no lesser extent by the intention with which it was committed, which significantly distinguishes morality from law-abidingness, opportunism, servility or diligence. The “internally motivating” nature of the imperativeness of morality was reflected in the special concepts of duty and conscience. However, the imperativeness of morality is perceived as “internal”, that is, coming from the individual (as autonomous, self-determining and creative), with a certain, namely social or socio-communitarian point of view on morality, according to which morality is the norms existing in the Community, and the personality in its activity is conditioned by those dependencies in which it, as a member of the community, is included. With the assumption of variously interpreted transcendental principles of human activity and, accordingly, when considering a person not only as a social or socio-biological, but also as a generic, spiritual being capable of volitional and active change in external circumstances, as well as himself (see Perfection), - the source of moral imperative is treated differently. A person broadcasts, and so on. represents value content in society (in relation to society). From this arises the idea of virtue or moral phenomena in general as having a value in itself, not conditioned by other vital factors. Such are the various ideas about the imperativeness of morality, which reflected (in one form or another) its inherent role of harmonizing separate interests, but also ensuring individual freedom and resisting arbitrariness - by limiting willfulness, streamlining the individual (as tending to atomization, alienation) behavior, clarification of the goals to which the person aspires (in particular, to achieve personal happiness), and the means that are used for this (see Purpose and Means).
In comparison with other regulations (legal, local group, administrative-corporate, confessional, etc.), moral regulation has features arising from its specificity. In terms of content, moral requirements may or may not coincide with other types of institutions; at the same time, morality regulates the behavior of people within the framework of existing institutions, but with respect to what these institutions do not cover. Unlike a number of tools of social discipline, which ensure that a person as a member of a community is opposed to natural elements, morality is designed to ensure the independence of a person as a spiritual being (personality) in relation to his own inclinations, spontaneous reactions and external group and social pressure. Through morality, arbitrariness is transformed into freedom. Accordingly, according to its internal logic, morality is addressed to those who consider themselves free. Proceeding from this, one can speak of it as a social institution only in the broadest sense of the word, i.e., as a set of some culturally shaped (codified and rationalized) values and requirements, the sanctioning of which is ensured by the very fact of their existence. Morality is non-institutional in the narrow sense of the word: to the extent that its effectiveness does not need to be ensured by any social institutions and to the extent that its coercion is not due to the presence of a force external to the individual authorized by society. Accordingly, the practice of morality, being predetermined (set) by the space of arbitrary behavior, in turn sets freedoms. This nature of morality makes it possible to appeal to it when assessing existing social institutions, as well as to proceed from it when forming or reforming them.
On the question of the relationship between morality and sociality ( social relations) There are two main points of view. According to one, morality is a kind of social relations and is conditioned by basic social relations (Marx, Durkheim); according to another, differently expressed, morality does not directly depend on social relations; moreover, it is predetermined by sociality. The duality in this question is related to the following. Morality is undoubtedly woven into social practice and in its reality is mediated by it. However, morality is heterogeneous: on the one hand, these are principles (commandments), which are based on an abstract ideal, and on the other hand, practical values and requirements, through which this ideal is realized in various ways, displayed by a separate consciousness and included in the regulation of the actual relations of people. The ideal, the highest values and imperatives are perceived and comprehended by various social subjects who fix, explain and justify them in accordance with their social interests. This feature of morality as a value consciousness was already reflected in the statements of the sophists; quite clearly it was fixed by Mandeville, reflected in its own way by Hegel in the distinction between “morality” (Moralitat) and “morality” (Sittlichkeit); in Marxism, the idea of morality as a form of class ideology, that is, a transformed consciousness, was developed. In modern philosophy, this internal heterogeneity is reflected in the concept of "primary" and "secondary" morality, presented in the early works of A. Macintyre (A. Macintayre), or in E. Donaghan's distinction between first and second order moral requirements.
). Through the utopian socialist, this view was adopted by Marxism, where morality is also interpreted as a form of ideology, and through Stirner influenced the interpretation of morality by Nietzsche. As in Marxism, in Durkheim's social theory, morality was presented as one of the mechanisms of social organization: its institutions and normative content were set in relation to actual social conditions, while religious and moral ideas were considered only as economic states, appropriately expressed by consciousness.
In modern European philosophy (thanks to Machiavelli, Montaigne, Bodin, Bayle, Grotius) there is also a different idea of morality - as an independent and not reducible to religion, politics, economic management, learning, a form of managing people's behavior. This intellectually secularized area of morality became the condition for a more particular process of formation and development in the 17th and 18th centuries. proper philosophical concept morals. The idea of morality as such is formed as an idea of autonomous morality. This approach was first developed in a systematic way by the Cambridge Neoplatonists of the 17th century. (R. Cudworth, G. Moore) and in ethical sentimentalism (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson), where morality is described as a person's ability to sovereign and independent of external influence judgment and behavior. In Kant's philosophy, the autonomy of morality, as the autonomy of the will, was also affirmed as the ability of a person to make universalizable decisions and be the subject of his own legislation. According to Kant, appeals not only to society, but also to nature, to God, characterize heteronomous ethics. Later, J.E. Moore sharply strengthened this thesis by pointing out the inadmissibility of references to extramoral qualities in the theoretical justification of morality (see Naturalistic error. Ethics). However, the following needs attention. 1. The concept of morality, developed in European philosophy since the 17th century, is a concept that is adequate precisely to the new European, i.e., secularizing society, which developed according to the model of "civil society. In it, autonomy is an unconditional social and moral value, against the background which many values of a society of a traditional type, for example, the value of service, fade into the background, if not completely lost sight of. understood as autonomous morality. An essential feature of morality in its special philosophical understanding is universality. In the history of ethical and philosophical thought, there are three main interpretations of the phenomenon of universality: as general prevalence, universalizability and general addressability. The first draws attention to the very fact of the existence of certain moral ideas, actually different in content, all peoples in, in all cultures. The second is a specification of the golden rule of morality and assumes that any moral action or any individual is potentially explicable for every decision, action or judgment in a similar situation. The third concerns ch. about. imperative side of morality and indicates that any of its requirements are addressed to every person. The principle of universality reflects the properties of morality as a mechanism of culture that sets a person a timeless and supra-situational criterion for evaluating actions; through morality the individual becomes a citizen of the world.
The described features of morality are revealed when it is conceptualized from the point of view of imperativeness - as a system of norms. In a different way, morality is conceptualized as a sphere of values defined by the dichotomy of good and evil. With this approach, which took shape as the so-called. ethics of the good and dominating in the history of philosophy, morality appears not from the side of its functioning (how it works, what is the nature of the requirement, what social and cultural mechanisms guarantee its implementation, what should be a person as a subject of morality, etc.), but in aspect of what a person should strive for and what to do for this, what results his actions lead to. This raises the question of how moral values are formed. In modern literature (philosophical and applied), the difference in fundamental approaches to the interpretation of the nature of morality is associated - on the basis of a generalization of late modern European philosophical experience - with the traditions of "Kantianism" (understood as ) and "utilitarianism". A more definite concept of morality is established on the path of correlating good and evil with those common goals-values that a person is guided by in his actions. This is possible on the basis of a distinction between private and common good and an analysis of the divergent interests (inclinations, emotions) of a person. Then morality is seen in the limitation of selfish motivation by a social contract or reason (Hobbes, Rawls), in a reasonable combination of selfishness and benevolence (Shaftesbury, utilitarianism), in the rejection of selfishness, in compassion and altruism (Schopenhauer, Solovyov). These distinctions are continued in the metaphysical clarifications of the nature of man and the essential characteristics of his being. Man is dual in nature (this can be expressed in a conceptual various forms), and the space of morality opens up on the other side of this duality, in the struggle between the immanent and the transcendent principles. With this approach (Augustin, Kant, Berdyaev), the essence of morality is revealed, firstly, through the very fact of the internal contradiction of human existence and through how this fact turns into the possibility of his freedom, and secondly, through how a person in specific actions regarding particular circumstances can realize the ideal principle of morality, how in general a person joins the absolute. In this regard, the peculiarity of morality as one of the types of value consciousness among others (art, fashion, religion) is revealed. The question is posed either in such a way that moral values are of the same order with others and differ from them in their content and mode of existence (they are imperative, they are imputed in a certain way), or in such a way that any values, to the extent that they correlate decisions, actions and assessments of a person with meaning-life foundations and an ideal, are moral.
Another, adjacent to the previous one, conceptualization of the concept of morality is possible when building ethics as a theory of virtues. The tradition of this approach comes from antiquity, where it is represented in the most developed form by Aristotle. Throughout the history of philosophy, both approaches - the theory of norms and the theory of virtues - somehow supplemented each other, as a rule, within the same constructions, although it was the ethics of virtues that prevailed (for example, in Thomas Aquinas, B. Franklin, V, S. Solovyov or McIntyre). If the ethics of norms reflects that side of morality that is associated with forms of organization or regulation of behavior, and the ethics of values analyzes the positive content, through the norms imputed to a person in execution, then the ethics of virtues indicates the personal aspect of morality, what a person should be in order to realize proper and proper conduct. Medieval thought recognized two fundamental sets of virtues, the "cardinal" and the "theological virtues." However, along with this distinction in the history of ethics, such an understanding of morality is being formed, according to which the virtues of justice and mercy are cardinal in the proper sense of the word. In terms of theoretical description, these different virtues indicate two levels of morality - morality social interaction(See the Golden Rule of morality - (Latin moralis doctrina; this. See moralist). Moral teaching, a set of rules recognized as true and serving as a guide in people's actions. Dictionary foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. MORAL [fr. morale] ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
The social system of the 21st century presupposes the existence of a set of certain legal and moral laws that create an indestructible hierarchical system of moral and state standards. Caring parents from childhood explain to their child the difference between good and bad deeds, laying in the offspring the concepts of “Good” and “Evil”. It is not surprising that in the life of every person murder or gluttony is associated with negative phenomena, and nobility and mercy are classified as positive personal qualities. Some moral principles are already present at the subconscious level, other postulates are acquired over time, forming the image of the individual. However, few people think about the importance of cultivating such values in themselves, neglecting their significance. It is impossible to coexist harmoniously with the outside world, guided solely by biological instincts - this is a “dangerous” path that invariably leads to the destruction of the personal image.
Maximum happiness.
This facet of human morality was considered and proved by the utilitarians John Stuart Mill and Jeremiah Bentham, who are engaged in ethics at the US State Institute. This statement is based on the following formulation - the behavior of the individual should lead to an improvement in the lives of those around him. In other words, if social standards are adhered to, then a favorable environment is created in society for the coexistence of each individual.
Justice.
A similar principle was proposed by the American scientist John Rawls, who argued for the need to equalize social laws with internal moral factors. Man holding in hierarchical structure the lower step must have equal spiritual rights with the person at the top of the ladder - this is the fundamental aspect of the assertion of a philosopher from the USA.
It is important to think about your own personal qualities for self-improvement. If we neglect such a phenomenon, then over time it will develop into betrayal. The variety of changes that cannot be avoided will form an immoral image that is rejected by others. The main thing is to responsibly approach the identification of life principles and the definition of the worldview vector, objectively evaluating your behavioral signs.
Commandments of the Old Testament and modern society
“Dealing with” the question of the meaning of moral principles and morality in human life, in the process of research, you will definitely turn to the Bible to get acquainted with the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament. The cultivation of morality in oneself invariably echoes the statements from the church book:
the events taking place are marked by fate, suggesting the development of moral and moral principles in a person (for all the will of God);
do not elevate the people around you by idealizing idols;
do not mention the name of the Lord in everyday situations, complaining about an unfavorable set of circumstances;
respect the relatives who gave you life;
spend six days labor activity, and the seventh day - spiritual rest;
do not kill living organisms;
do not commit adultery by cheating on your spouse;
do not take other people's things, becoming a thief;
avoid lying in order to be honest with yourself and those around you;
do not envy strangers about whom you know only public facts.
Some of the above commandments do not meet the social standards of the 21st century, but most of the statements have remained relevant for many centuries. To date, it is advisable to add the following statements to such axioms, reflecting the features of living in developed megacities:
do not be lazy and be energetic to match the fast-paced industrial centers;
achieve personal success and self-improvement without stopping at the achieved goals;
when creating a family, think in advance about the expediency of the union in order to avoid divorce;
limit yourself in sexual intercourse, not forgetting to protect yourself - eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy, which results in an abortion.
do not neglect the interests of strangers, walking "over their heads" for personal gain.
Morality is a complex and contradictory social phenomenon and one of the forms of social consciousness. It is possible to reveal the nature of morality on the basis of a socio-historical analysis of the development of mankind. Thus, order in primitive society was maintained with the help of a system of taboos - prohibitions, and in the course of historical evolution, customs and traditions developed from prohibitions. In the process of social stratification, new forms of moral regulation of human behavior took shape.
The specificity of morality lies in the fact that it reflects the norms of human behavior objectively established in society in basic ethical concepts and categories. Moral norms, together with concepts, constitute moral consciousness, which is found in the actions and behavior of people. At each stage of development, mankind develops the principles and norms of its behavior. These norms and rules are fixed in the individual consciousness of the members of the social collective, thanks to which a general idea of the moral and immoral is gradually developed Kropotkin P.A. Ethics. - M.: Yurayt, 2016. - P.15.
Following moral principles is the result of a meaningful and voluntary choice of a person. The fulfillment of moral standards is based on a sense of duty, the requirements of conscience, the desire to avoid shame for one's actions or inaction.
The basic principles of morality remain unchanged: this is the desire to do good and refrain from evil, to take care of other people and the public good Skvortsov A.A. Ethics: Proc. for university students - M.: Yurait, 2015. - P. 140. There are universal moral principles, the meaning of which is not to harm other people, regardless of their social status, national and religious affiliation. However, specific forms of moral norms and requirements have evolved throughout the history of mankind Sabirov V.Sh. Ethics and the equal life of man. - St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2010. - S. 205.
Allocate the following types moral standards:
- 1. Taboo - a strict ban on the commission of any actions, the violation of which in the minds of people is associated with a threat to society and is punishable by supernatural forces; this phenomenon was characteristic of the early stages of the development of human society and persisted up to our time in traditional cultures;
- 2. Custom - a pattern of action that has developed in the course of social practice, repeated in certain circumstances and supported by public opinion;
- 3. Tradition - a stable custom, a form of behavior that is passed down from generation to generation and reproduced at a long stage of society's existence;
- 4. Moral rules - consciously formulated norms governing human behavior; unlike ritual prohibitions, customs and traditions, they require moral self-determination, a conscious choice from a person.
Morality as a form of social consciousness and a way of regulating social life is characterized by the following main features of Zolotukhina-Abolin, E V. Modern ethics: textbook. allowance for university students - M.; Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 2013. - S. 86:
- 1. The universality of moral norms: the requirements of morality are the same for all members of society and cover all people, fix the foundations of culture, their relationships, created in a long process historical development societies
- 2. Voluntariness in following moral requirements, in contrast to legal norms, the implementation of which is mandatory and controlled by law enforcement agencies, moral norms are reproduced in society by the force of tradition, public opinion. Their implementation is controlled by the people themselves.
- 3. Comprehensiveness of morality: the rules of moral behavior regulate all types of human activity - in interpersonal and intergroup communication, in production activities, in politics, in creativity.
- 4. Responsibility in morality has a spiritual, ideal character acts in the form of moral assessments, which a person must realize, internally accept and, accordingly, direct and correct his actions and behavior.
- 5. Morality depends on the conditions of human existence, the essential needs of a person, but is determined by the level of social and individual consciousness.
The essence of morality is the generic properties of morality relating it to the social regulator Sudokov A.K. Absolute morality: the ethics of autonomy and the unconditional - M.: Editorial URSS, 2012. - P.28.
Five essential signs of morality:
- 1. Regulative. The ordering of phenomena, processes, is always a movement from chaos to order.
- 2. Historicity. All types of social regulation have their own specific historical time emergence and features of historical development and change.
- 3. Sociality. All types of regulation, in particular morality, are generated by a certain social necessity.
- 4. Social heterogeneity or social differentiation of morality. Each social class and group forms its own morality, which ensures the internal consolidation and preservation of these communities.
- 5. A certain place of morality in the system of social regulation.
GOALS:
- give an idea of the philosophical problem of determining the essence of morality;
- form an idea of the essential and specific properties x morality as a type of social regulation;
- develop skills in analyzing the structure of morality;
- give an idea and develop the skills of analyzing the functions of morality.
1. The essence of morality.
2. Subjective and objective specifics of morality.
3. The structure of morality.
4. Functions of morality.
5. Morality and morality: the problem of unity and difference.
1. The essence of morality
The essence is the main thing necessary in the object under study, it is its “qualitative certainty” (G.W.F. Hegel). The essence is the generic properties of the studied objects.
What is the essence of morality? Morality refers to the kind of social regulators.
We can highlight five essential signs of morality:
1. Regulative. The ordering of phenomena, processes, is always a movement from chaos to order.
2. Historicity. All types of social regulation have their own specific historical time of occurrence and features of historical development and change.
3. Sociality. All types of regulation, in particular morality, are generated by a certain social necessity.
4. Social heterogeneity or social differentiation of morality. Each social class and group forms its own morality, which ensures the internal consolidation and preservation of these communities.
5. A certain place of morality in the system of social regulation.
What is the place of morality in the system of social regulation?
| Types of regulation/comparison criteria | politics | right | morality |
| 1. Purpose of regulation | A. The obvious goal of politics is power and domination. The essence of any power is dominance over others, primacy, supremacy. | A. protection of property and owner. The right arises together with the state, the types and forms of ownership have historically changed, but the purpose of the right has always been preserved. | A. resolution of the universal contradictions of social and individual life: social and individual (priority of the social), due and existing (orientation to due), good and evil (primacy of good). |
| B. meeting the needs and interests of various social classes, groups, layers. Power often becomes a means to achieve this goal. | B. protection of public order. Protection of the individual from social and individual arbitrariness. | B. The second purpose of morality is to be the guardian of the community. This is the main purpose of morality. | |
| 2. Ways of regulation: A. spiritual way of regulation. B. material and economic. B. physically violent. |
Politics relies on everything possible ways: A Political education, agitation, diplomatic work. B. Economic aid or economic blockades B. Terrorist attacks, the physical elimination of political leaders, revolutions, the entire arsenal of wars: civil, anti-colonial, world. |
The right is based on all possible ways: A. legal education, legal education, spiritual sanctions of the law, for example, a suspended sentence, a suspended sentence, a jury trial. B. Fines, deprivation of property. B. However, most actively, the law relies on the last method: imprisonment, the death penalty. |
Morality relies only on the spiritual way of regulation: on a good mind, good feelings, good will of a person. It appeals to social feeling and social consciousness. It is the most perfect type of social regulation, because it does not use either material or physical methods of regulation. Morality often turns into the most impotent way of regulation, and therefore, into the most imperfect one. |
Thus, morality is, first of all, a type of social regulation. The tragic contradiction of morality lies in the fact that it is, in essence, the most perfect form of regulation, based on the human in a person. In fact, morality turns out to be the most violated type of regulation, and therefore imperfect. Charles Fourier called morality "impotence in action", Friedrich Nietzsche considered morality the lot of the weak. Modern ethical theory makes it possible to prove the opposite: morality is the lot of people who are strong in mind, will and spirit.
2. Specificity of morality
Specificity is special, single, unique in the object under study. This is what distinguishes the phenomenon under study from related phenomena. Let us consider two levels of specificity - the objective specificity of morality (morality is studied as a holistic, abstract, ideal object). The second level is the subjective specificity of morality (morality is studied as the special qualities of a moral subject - the bearer of morality).
Object specificity of morality includes four features:
1. Historical longevity of morality - morality arises earlier than other types of social regulation, the future is possible behind moral regulation.
2. Comprehensiveness - its universal inclusion in all spheres of human life and society. This quality is explained by the universality of contradictions, to the resolution of which morality is directed: social - individual, proper - existing, good - evil.
3. The activity non-isolation of morality - morality is an aspect of all other types of activity: economic, political, legal, religious, etc., due to the same universality of the contradictions it resolves.
4. Non-institutional and all-institutional nature of morality - morality does not have specific social institutions that perform its functions. However, we can recognize non-institutionality as all-institutionality, because we expect each institution to perform moral functions.
Subject specificity of morality
Signs:
1. Moral consciousness - correct awareness and correct fulfillment of moral requirements. Awareness is a mirror image of reality. Consciousness is a valuable evaluative reflection of reality, consciousness is the quality of an act.
2. Voluntariness. In the "Philosophy of Law" G.V.F. Hegel writes that "the will in itself is neither good nor evil", "the will ... is the desire of consciousness to inform itself of existing being."
In other words, will is the activity of consciousness aimed at its realization in activity. Will is strong and weak, calm and tense, good and evil, healthy and sick. Mental illness will is "aboulia" - pathological lack of will. In order for the will to become evil, one condition is enough - an evil goal, an evil intent. To achieve a perfect act of good will, it is necessary that three conditions coincide - a good goal, good means, free will, that is, the absence of any coercion, both external and internal - self-coercion.
The qualities by which we can exercise free will are:
1. Moral habit - the automaticity of following a duty, which does not require lengthy reflection, a long decision, a strong-willed effort to commit an act.
2. A moral need that governs good deeds done not out of duty, not out of obligation, but out of natural necessity, due to the fact that a person cannot act otherwise (he is not just habitually honest, he cannot lie).
3. Selflessness is a specific moral motive (this is an explanatory principle of activity that answers the question “for what?” a person acts this way and not otherwise, this is an implicit, remote in time, but the true goal and value of an act).
Three signs of selflessness:
1. The absence of a motive for profit (a person's disinterest in profit). Benefit is just a kind of benefit achieved by one person at the expense of harming the benefit of others. This is a benefit based on deception and lies (to guess - to cheat, to deceive, to cheat, to cheat). The desire for profit can be provoked by envy. Envy is a "religion of mental cripples" (F. Iskander). Envy is "the indignation of nothingness before dignity." The moral culture of interpersonal, business relations involves their implementation on a mutually beneficial, mutually beneficial basis.
2. The absence of a motive of gratitude, rewards, for the good done. “The highest reward for virtue is virtue itself” (Seneca). One should not count or expect gratitude for kindness, but it is necessary to cultivate a culture of gratitude in oneself and others, because the culture of gratitude is the culture of “reciprocity in goodness”. The expectation of gratitude for a good done makes this good unselfish.
3. Priority of the public over the personal. Morality, as the guardian of the community, as an internal consolidating force, adapts the individual to different societies, “embeds” the part into the whole, teaches the part to live according to the laws of the whole, ensures the normal functioning of the whole, and, therefore, its parts. This priority is objective, because a part cannot be more significant than the whole. So it's wrong to deny it. "I don't owe anyone anything."
3. The structure of morality
Characterizing the structure of morality, two blocks of elements can be distinguished: moral consciousness and moral practice.
The following elements are distinguished in the structure of moral practice:
1. Moral relations - a specific type of social connection that subjects enter into in the process of moral activity.
2. Moral activity - a specific type of social activity, which is the implementation of moral requirements and values.
3. Moral behavior. Every type of activity has its own behavioral form.
4. An act is a unit of moral activity. All actions are divided into actions - operations and actions - actions. Every act - action - operation, but not every action - operation is an act. An act highlights the significance of an action - an operation for the person himself and for other people. Refusal to act can also be an act. The act is performed in a situation of moral choice.
Moral consciousness is a specific kind of consciousness, which is a reflection of moral requirements, values, specific moral situations.
Structuring criteria:
1. Subject (carrier). Subject structure: public moral consciousness, class moral consciousness, ethnic moral consciousness, national moral consciousness, individual moral consciousness.
2. Level. Level structure (level of reflection of reality): ordinary level of moral consciousness, theoretical level of moral consciousness. The specificity of the ordinary level of moral consciousness: knowledge is spontaneous, random. Knowledge at the level of phenomena that do not give a holistic understanding of morality. The specificity of the theoretical level of moral consciousness: ethics is a secondary reflection of moral consciousness. Knowledge about entities, laws, which is systematized. Theoretical level moral conscience is important, since it eliminates nihilism in everyday consciousness, from ordinary subjectivism and pluralism.
3. Element. Elemental structure (constituting functions of consciousness).
Reflection. (Consciousness is knowledge). Intellectual sphere of moral consciousness. Knowledge: ordinary, theoretical, abstract, concrete, contemplative, practically - effective, detached (indifferent), experienced (having a personal meaning, for example, virtue).
Attitude. (Consciousness - attitude). Sensual - emotional sphere. The range of moral feelings and emotions is wide. From situational (insult) to great civil grief and joy. V. Solovyov reflected on the foundations of morality in the work "Justification of the Good". He singled out three sources or natural principles of morality: shame, pity and reverence.
Activity management. (Consciousness - control.). Will sphere.
Management consists of three sub-functions:
Planning. Planning is manifested in goal-setting, choice of means, motivation, forecasting results. The peculiarity of planning in moral consciousness lies in the fact that a good goal requires good means. Motive is a justifying principle of activity, a hidden goal. Answers the question "why?". The integral motive is disinterestedness.
Forecast of the result - long-term responsibility (chronos). The actual regulation of liability.
Control - establishing compliance with the goal and results, moral assessment of activities.
Moral assessment- a specific type of assessment, which is a way to identify the moral significance of phenomena.
Objects of moral evaluation:
1. A person, his qualities, thoughts, deeds.
2. Social reality (mutual relations of subjects).
3. Natural phenomena through the prism of good for man and society.
4. Chronos: past, present and future.
Subject of moral assessment:
The subject of moral evaluation is its bearer and exponent. The exponent of moral assessment can be both a single subject and a community. If the subject and the object coincide in the same medium, this is self-esteem. The highest manifestation of self-esteem is conscience. In conscience, a person moves from morality to morality.
Criteria for moral evaluation.
1. Specifically - a historical criterion: accepted in a given society, in a given period of time, representations;
2. Universal criterion - humanism.
Types of moral assessment of actions.
The main object of moral evaluation is an act. An act is a unit of moral activity. An act is an action that is related to the good of people.
The structure of the act
| Target | Facilities | motive | Result | Characteristics of an act |
| + | + | + | + | Morally - ideal actions. Properties of morally - ideal actions: consistency, integrity, effectiveness. |
| + | + | + | - | Morally justified actions. |
| + | + | - | + | Morally acceptable actions. |
| ? | ? | ? | + | Legal, morally correct actions. “In accordance with duty,” but not “for its sake.” |
System of moral requirements
Regulation (management) of moral activity is based on a system of moral requirements. A moral requirement is a standard that resolves contradictions:
Due - being,
social - individual,
Good evil.
Signs of moral requirements.
1. The unity of content and imperative.
2. The unity of what is due and what is. Every requirement is a standard of due. Every due is rooted in being, in reality. And if there is no such rootedness, then there is no constructiveness of the due.
3. Unity of pattern and prohibition. Moral requirements are often formulated in the form of a prohibition. The nature of morality prefers to express demands in terms of patterns.
4. Subjectlessness of moral requirements. The demand is general and universal.
Moral requirement structure:
A hypothesis is the intended addressee of a moral claim.
Disposition - a form of expression requirements.
Sanction - a system of measures applied in case of non-compliance with the requirements
The system of moral requirements.
The moral ideal, the moral principles of life - a strategy that determines the future, the vertical of development.
Moral norms of activity, elementary rules of behavior - tactics, specifics, everyday life, horizontal development.
Elementary rules of conduct. Etiquette
There are two types of behavioral culture. Universal and etiquette. The universal behavioral culture is based on the principle of equivalence of human virtues. Forms of manifestation: politeness (goodwill), sincere sympathy, tact. Tact is an unwritten agreement not to notice the oversight of another. Tact is a sense of proportion in everything. At the heart of the etiquette behavioral culture is the principle of inequality. Etiquette culture is hierarchical: "Own - Alien". In the court of kings, etiquette is also meant to emphasize hierarchy.
Moral standards of activity.
Classification of social norms:
Ordering rules.
Regulatory (procedural) norms that determine the course of action, for example, regulations, charters.
Hierarchical-subordination norms. Norms in the spheres of politics, law, religion, morality. Subordination - control of interaction.
What is the nature of moral standards?
moral standards:
They are more generalized than the rules of conduct (etiquette norms). The higher the degree of generalization of norms, the lower their imperativeness.
Moral principles and moral good:
- are even more general than the norms. They have a lower imperativeness, a higher degree of freedom of moral choice. While rules and norms govern, principles and ideals guide. Principles lend themselves to codification. From them, codes are compiled, which become the basis of ideology. Moral principles change over time, but they are necessary. For example, the "moral code of the builder of communism" or the "code of corporate ethics" in a certain organization.
moral ideal
The moral ideal is the highest standard of due.
Functions of ideals.
1. Software: development program.
2. Educational:
- personalized (the real embodiment of the moral ideal);
- polypersonalized ideals (collective image of the ideal).
No function should be absolutized and hypertrophied.
Moral activity and moral relations - the specificity of the definition of ontological status.
Every kind of activity and relationship is multidimensional. Aspects of activity and relations are:
1. Space.
3. Specific purpose. (Criterion of ontological status).
4. Specific funds.
5. Specific motivation.
6. Specific result.
Moral activity is a specific type of social activity aimed at fulfilling moral requirements.
Moral relationship is a type of social connection that subjects enter into in the process of moral activity.
The moral goal is to follow moral values and requirements.
Moral motivation is selflessness.
Moral activity in its purest form is moralizing, moral education, moral reflection (work on oneself).
4. Functions of morality
1. Regulatory;
2. Cognitive;
3. Educational;
4. Estimated;
5. Value-oriented (preferential attitude towards values);
6. Worldview and worldview (attitudes of the abstract and practical attitude to the world);
7. Universal communication of man with the world;
8. Universal adaptation of man to the world;
9. Human-creative;
10. Salvation of man and the human race from self-and mutual destruction.
Functions of morality: regulatory, cognitive, educational, evaluative, value-oriented. The transition to morality is carried out through the functions: ideological and world-relationship, universal communication of a person with the world, universal adaptation of a person to the world, human-creative, saving a person and the human race from self-destruction and mutual destruction. Thus, morality forms a social worldview and attitude; morality is the guardian of the community. Morality forms a universal paradigm of world outlook and attitude.
5. Morality and morality: the problem of unity and difference
We have repeatedly used the concepts of "morality" and "morality". What is the problem of unity and difference of these phenomena?
Morality is a Latin word. It is introduced by Cicero as the Latin equivalent of the word ethics. There are several meanings of this word:
1. as a set of certain norms, rules governing the joint activities of people. Morality is a kind of social regulation.
2. as a kind of instruction, teaching.
3. as an instructive conclusion (the moral is: ...)
Moral- Russian word. Correlation: temper - morality (single-root words: “burrows”, “like”). V. Dahl gives the following interpretation of the word: “... half or one of the two main properties of the human spirit: Mind and disposition together form the Spirit (soul, in the highest sense); they treat temper as a concept of submission: will, love, mercy, passions, etc., and mind: reason, reason, memory, etc. The consonant union of temper and mind ... forms harmony, perfection of the spirit; the discord of these beginnings leads to decline. There can be no such discord in an animal: there, temperament and mind, will and reason, are inseparably merged into one (instinct); and a person must achieve the same unity, but in a higher way: by persuasion, curbing passions and cleverness, consciousness of duty.
For the first time in the history of ethics, morality and morality were separated by G.W.F. Hegel. But this division is already outlined in the philosophy of I. Kant, who singled out two types of actions: “in accordance with duty” and “for the sake of duty”. He believed that if a person acts in accordance with the imperative, then only "duty for the sake of duty" is permissible. In these reflections of I. Kant, one can see the origins of the rationale for the phenomenon of "morality". Action “in accordance with duty” is morality. G.W.F. Hegel in his "Philosophy of Law" argued that the first stage in the development of the will corresponds to abstract law, the second - morality, the third - morality (it includes: family, civil society and the state). Morality, according to G.V.F. Hegel, this is the “reason of the will”, “obedience in freedom”.
Researchers of morality are quite unanimous in the fact that its specificity is difficult to capture. O.G. Drobnitsky, writing the famous monograph "The Concept of Morality", noted that he could not comprehend its originality, its ontological status. Modern level of moral research. Studies of morality are presented in the works of Russian thinkers: S.F. Anisimova, O.G. Drobnitsky, A.A. Huseynova, A.I. Titarenko, Yu.M. Smolentsev. They come down to several fundamental provisions: morality is seen as a product and result of interpersonal, intersubjective interaction. Morality is autonomous, inherent in human activity.
Morality characterizes the social paradigm of worldview and attitude; morality is the justification of the necessary.
Morality is a universal paradigm of worldview and attitude. N. Fedorov believed: "Morality is not nobility, not slavery, but kinship." G. Heine argued that "morality is the mind of the heart."
Morality is a kind of social regulation.
Morality is a spiritual and practical way of mastering the world by man; way of spiritual self-determination of a person.
Morality is the guardian of community and social relations; morality - is on guard of the individual. A person can be moral, but immoral.
What are the specific features of morality?
1. Morality contributes to the universalization of human existence, reminding a person that he is not only a part of society, but also a part of the universe, through a system of eternal and higher values.
2. Morality contributes to the harmonization of human existence. Harmony is the integrity, completeness and authenticity of being. Morality is an anti-chaos force, morality is a harmonizing force.
3. Morality contributes to the humanization of human existence. Man is understood as the highest value.
4. Morality contributes to the deontization (from the Greek "deon" - duty) of human existence. “Obligatory uniqueness in the universe” - this is how M. Bakhtin spoke about a person.
V. Solovyov reflected on the foundations of morality in the work "Justification of the Good". The Russian thinker singled out three sources or "natural beginnings" of morality: shame, pity and reverence. Each of the established moral foundations - shame, pity and religious feeling - can be considered from three sides: as a virtue, as a rule of action and as a condition for good. The basic feelings of shame, pity and reverence determine the moral attitude of a person to what is below him, what is equal to him and what is above him. All other phenomena of the moral life, all the so-called virtues, can be shown as modifications of these three foundations, or as the result of interaction between them. Courage, for example, is a manifestation of the principle of exaltation and mastery over the instincts. Thus, "elevation", the ability of a person to overcome the existing being organically manifests itself precisely through morality. V.Sh. Sabirov believes that ethics is the "metaphysics of morality". This is the doctrine of the substantive basis of humanity. Therefore, morality is the communion of man with the higher reason (human) and eternity.
THE GOD
Theocentric DNA
- True
Human
Anthropocentric DNA
2. What distinguishes morality from other types of social regulation?
3. List the features of the object specificity of morality.
4. List the signs of the subjective specifics of morality.
5. What condition is necessary for a person's will to become evil (according to G.W.F. Hegel)? What conditions are necessary for goodwill?
6. Why is selflessness defined as a moral motive?
7. What is "moral judgment"? What are its criteria?
8. List the types of moral assessments of actions.
9. What are the definition and signs of moral requirements?
10. What are the functions of morality and ethics? Explain the transition (characterizing functions) from moral regulation to the moral way of mastering reality.
13. Which of the thinkers was the first to separate "morality" and "morality"?
14. What are the specific signs of morality?
15. Compare religious and universal moral culture. What is the difference?
Literature
- Huseynov A.A. Morality: between the individual and society (on the question of the place of morality in modern society) / - [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.ethicscenter.ru/biblio/guseynov.html/ - Access date: 06/06/2013
- Huseynov, A.A. Ethics: Proc. for university students / A.A. Huseynov, R.G. Apresyan. - M.: Gardariki, 2002. - 472 p.
- Drobnitsky, O.G. Moral Philosophy: Selected Works / O.G. Drobnitsky; Comp. R.G. Apresyan. - M. : Gardariki, 2002. - 523 p.
- Durkheim, E. About division social labor/ E. Durkheim; per. A.B. Hoffmann. - M. : Kanon, 1996. - 432 p.
- Zolotukhina-Abolina, E V. Modern ethics: textbook. allowance for university students / E.V. Zolotukhin-Abolin. - M.; Rostov n / a: March, 2005. - 413 p.
- Sabirov, V.Sh. Ethics and moral life of a person: monograph / V.Sh. Sabirov, O.S. Soina. - St. Petersburg. : Dmitry Bulanin, 2010. - 486s.
- Ethics: Proc. for philosophy students. fak. universities / A.A. Huseynov, E.L. Dubko, S.F. Anisimov and others; Under total ed. A.A. Huseynova and E.L. Dubko. - M. : Gardariki, 2000. - 493 p.
- Ethics: encyclopedia. words. / [S.S. Averintsev, I.Yu. Alekseeva, R.G. Apresyan and others] ; ed. R.G. Apresyan and A.A. Huseynov; Institute of Philosophy Ros. acad. Sciences. - M. : Gardariki, 2001. - 669 p.
A special role in regulating the life of society and the behavior of its members is played by morality.
Morality(from lat. moralitas - related to temper, character, mentality, habits; and lat. mores - mores, customs, fashion, behavior) - a form of social consciousness that reflects the views and ideas, norms and assessments of the behavior of individuals, social groups and society as a whole.
Morality regulates human behavior in all areas public life, supporting and sanctioning certain social foundations, the structure of life, the communication of people. However, promoting the regulation of people's social behavior is not the only function of morality. Morality is, first of all, a life guide, which expresses a person's desire for self-improvement. Its main function is the affirmation of the human in a person.
Marxist social science defends the thesis that morality is a phenomenon, firstly, a derivative of the economy and, secondly, service, serving the basis. This idea is confirmed by references to the historical variability of moral norms, to the estate-class essence of many moral codes. Indeed, moral convictions and assessments in different eras among different peoples, classes, generations can be very different. Morality always expresses the spirit of the era and is closely related to the conditions of life. However, when analyzing morality and evaluating its specific forms, both ignoring social elements in morality and their absolutization are equally erroneous. Class, national and other modifications of morality are only forms in which universal, civilizational in their content norms of morality and justice are contained. The latter are a reflection in the minds of people of a really existing order of relationships in society that has developed over centuries and millennia, a certain understanding of the essence of society, history, man and his being. The social purpose of these elementary rules of community life is to protect members of society from situations that threaten their life and safety, health and dignity. Simple norms of morality condemn murder, theft, violence, deceit, slander as the greatest evil. The elementary norms of morality also include the care of parents for the upbringing of children, the care of children for their parents, respect for elders, etc.
With the help of morality, society evaluates not only the practical actions of people, but also their motives, motivations and intentions. A special role in moral regulation is played by the formation in each individual of the ability to relatively independently develop and direct his own line of behavior in society without everyday external control. This ability is expressed in terms such as conscience, honor, self-esteem.
Dignity - self-assessment of the individual, her awareness of her qualities, abilities, outlook on duty performed and social significance.
Moral requirements for a person do not mean the achievement of some particular and immediate results in a certain situation, but adherence to general norms and principles of behavior. Fulfilling, along with the law that appeared later, the role of a regulator of people's behavior, morality has with it common features, but at the same time fundamentally differs from it in a number of significant points.
The unity between them is expressed in the fact that:
1) in the system of social norms they are the most universal, extending to the whole society;
2) the norms of morality and law have a single object of regulation - public relations;
3) both the norms of law and the norms of morality come from society;
4) the norms of law and norms of morality have a similar structure;
5) norms of law and norms of morality stood out from the mononorms of primitive society.
However, there are many differences between the norms of law and morality:
1) law is a set of norms established or sanctioned by the state, fixed in legal acts. Moral norms are formed in the process of approval, development of moral views and ideals;
2) in legal acts the state will is expressed, in moral norms - public opinion;
3) legal norms are obligatory for execution from the moment of entry into force of the legal act in which they are contained. Their implementation is supported, if necessary, by a special apparatus, the power of state coercion. The implementation of moral norms does not require organized coercive force. They are fulfilled as a result of habit, internal impulses. The guarantor of morality is the conscience of the individual and public opinion, public assessment of people's behavior;
4) moral norms extend their influence to a wider sphere of relations than that which is regulated by law. Moral norms govern many relationships that are not subject to legal regulation(relationships of friendship, love, etc.);
5) legal norms are characterized by greater than moral norms, the specificity of the content, the certainty of the wording. Morality is contained in the public consciousness, law - in special normative acts that have a written form. Moral requirements give more scope for their interpretation than legal ones;
6) if the norms of morality regulate social relations from the standpoint of good and evil, fair and unfair, then the norms of law - from the point of view of legal and illegal, lawful and unlawful.
The relationship between law and morality is manifested in the fact that:
1) the implementation of legal norms, their implementation is largely determined by the extent to which they comply with the requirements of morality. In order for legal norms to be effective, they must at least not contradict the rules of morality;
2) law as a whole must correspond to the maritime views of society. Law should contribute to the establishment of the ideals of goodness and justice in society;
3) in some cases, law helps to rid society of outdated moral norms It was through law that the process of overcoming blood feuds, one of the postulates of morality of the past, went;
4) moral views are the basis on which legal views, legal ideals and, ultimately, the content of legal norms are formed;
5) some legal norms directly fix moral norms, reinforcing them with legal sanctions (for example, criminal norms).
| |