Types of ethical attitudes and actions. Types of ethics

Outstanding ethicist and philosopher of the 20th century. Eric Fromm (1900-1980) owns the doctrine of two types of ethics - humanistic and authoritarian - a doctrine that most adequately explains the moral problems of our time.

There are periods in human history when ethics and morality are truly human-centered.

This is humanistic ethics.

To some extent, these were, for example, the ethics of antiquity and the ethics of the Renaissance; in our time, elements of humanistic ethics are inherent in democratic civil societies.

But there are periods and situations when ethics and morality are focused on something else, external to man (for example, the idea of ​​communism or world domination). This kind of ethics is called authoritarian.

The essence of humanistic ethics lies in the fact that it considers a person in his bodily and spiritual integrity, believing that “the goal of a person is to be himself, and the condition for achieving such a goal is to be a person for himself” (E. Fromm).

Humanistic ethics believes that the foundations of “virtue” are laid in the very character of a mature and whole personality, and “vice” lies in indifference to one’s self.

Therefore, “not self-denial and selfishness - but self-love, not the denial of the individual, but the affirmation of one’s truly human Self - these are the highest values ​​of humanistic ethics” (E. Fromm).

Thus, humanistic ethics is based on faith in man, his autonomy, independence, freedom and reason, believing that a person is able to independently distinguish between good and evil and correctly make ethical assessments.

Humanistic ethics is anthropocentric (from the Greek “anthropos” - man) in the sense that all value judgments are determined by the characteristics and interests of human existence, i.e. For her, a person is “the measure of all things”; there is nothing higher and more worthy than human life.

A person finds himself and his happiness only in kinship and solidarity with people.

Moreover, love for one’s neighbor is “not a higher power descending on a person, and not a duty assigned to him: it is his own strength, thanks to which he becomes related to the world and makes the world truly his own” (E. Fromm).

The principled position of humanistic ethics allows us to contrast it with authoritarian ethics for a number of reasons.

Humanistic ethics (HE)
In GE, man himself is both the creator and the executor of moral norms. GE is compatible only with rational authority, which presupposes ethical competence - knowledge of a wide range of authoritative ethical doctrines. Rational authority is based on equality between the authority and the subject, who differ only in the level of knowledge, experience, and skills (teacher - student). Therefore, GE not only allows, but also requires analysis and criticism from those who recognize it.	In AE, the “author” is the authority that determines what a person’s good is and establishes laws and norms of behavior that people only follow. Moreover, “authorship” and “execution” can be separated (for example, when “authors” do not consider moral norms binding on themselves). AE is based on irrational authority, the source of which is power over people, on the one hand, and fear, on the other, it is built on inequality and subordination, on the priority of authority. Such an authority not only does not need criticism, but also prohibits it.
Difference in goals and means.
GE considers a person, his life, freedom and property to be the highest value and goal. Accordingly, everything that serves the self-realization of human essence - from material values ​​and social achievements to moral values ​​and human qualities - is recognized as a means and guarantor of achieving the goal.	In AE, the highest value and goal is not a person, but something external to him: the interests of society or the state, highest idea, leader, God, etc. A person loses his self-worth and begins to be seen only as a means to achieve a goal, acting under duress or voluntarily (religious fanatics going to self-destruction in the name of their religion).
Differences in regulation methods
GE recognizes as the main method of moral regulation a person’s free conscious choice of his own line of behavior based on ethical competence, personal interests, the ability to foresee the consequences of his actions and the willingness to bear responsibility for them.	In AE, the main method of moral regulation is external coercion, which is carried out through the mechanism of subordination. AE is based on fear, dependence and violence (physical or moral).
Difference on moral principles
GE is based on the principle of individualism, understood as self-love, the desire for self-affirmation and self-realization, as a result of which a person acquires “selfhood,” presents himself to the world and bears responsibility for himself, recognizing the same rights for others. Society becomes richer due to the diversity and opportunities of many individuals.	AE is based on the principle of collectivism, which requires the individual to be focused on public interest(regardless of personal interest), subordination to the will of society (or the majority) and unification personal qualities, views and interests (to be “like everyone else”). Therefore, a fight is being waged against individualism and “dissent.”

• · in the same era they can coexist in parallel and act as regulators;
• · the same ethical doctrine can combine both humanistic and authoritarian principles;
• · in the behavior of the same person both humanistic and authoritarian inclinations can manifest themselves simultaneously or sequentially. Thus, humanistic values ​​and ideals can be implemented in life in an authoritarian way (for example, the demands of parents and teachers on children, giving rise to the problem of “fathers and children”);
• · under the dominance of humanistic ethics, the authoritarian method of moral regulation may be more effective and efficient. For example, extreme situations, emergency circumstances, when strict authoritarianism turns out to be more humane than the free choice of citizens (evacuation of the population from a natural disaster zone).

Therefore, it is difficult to give an unambiguous assessment of this or that type of ethics; in each case they should be approached specifically. In current conditions, humanistic ethics acts more like a theoretical model. Current state ethics - both as a science and as an academic discipline - can be characterized as a state of transition from the “old”, authoritarian ethics we are accustomed to, to the “new”, humanistic ethics. At this stage, the main task is to master the basics of humanistic ethics, for which it is necessary to reflect, compare, choose and make a decision: what a “man for himself” is and what he should be.

What's happened ethics? People put different meanings into this concept, believing that it is:

· The doctrine of morality;

· A system of rules that monitor and correct people’s behavior;

· A way of assessing human actions, their approval or condemnation;

· “Social regulator” of behavior and relationships between people;

Indeed, ethics is interested in questions human behavior and relationships between people. Aristotle also argued that main task ethics is A study of human relationships in their most perfect form. Since its emergence in antiquity, it began to act as a “philosophy of practical life”, analyzing the behavior of a “social person”, a “communicating person”. Ethics -Philosophical teaching, Subject which is Morality (morality), A Central problem - Good and evil. Ethics studies the genesis, essence, specificity of morality; reveals its place and role in the life of society, reveals the mechanisms of moral regulation of human life, criteria moral progress. She examines the structure of the moral consciousness of society and the individual, analyzes the content and meaning of such categories as good and evil, freedom and responsibility, duty and conscience, honor and dignity, happiness and the meaning of life. Thus, ethics becomes the basis for creating an optimal model of humane and fair relations that ensure high quality communication between people and a guideline for each person to develop their own strategy and tactics of “correct life”.

Ethics focused on Man, his life, freedom and interests – This Humanistic ethics. E Tika and morality, oriented towards something else, external to man (for example, the idea of ​​communism, or world domination, or fulfilling the will of the leader), is Authoritarian character.

The principled position of humanistic ethics Thing is she considers a person in his physical and spiritual integrity, believing that “ Target person - To be youreself, A Condition achieving such a goal - Be a man for yourself” (E. Fromm). Highest values humanistic ethics - “not self-denial and selfishness - but self-love, not the denial of the individual, but the affirmation of one’s truly human self” (E. Fromm). Thus, Humanistic ethics is based on faith in man, his autonomy, independence, freedom and reason, Believing that a person is capable On one's own Distinguish between good and evil and make correct ethical assessments. From the point of view of humanistic ethics, there is nothing higher and more worthy than human life. But a person finds himself and his happiness only in kinship and solidarity with people. Moreover, love for humanistic ethics is “not a higher power descending on a person, and not a duty assigned to him: it is his own power, thanks to which he becomes related to the world and makes the world truly his own” (E. Fromm).

Depending on affiliation with a particular ethical school, on the tasks facing ethics as a science and academic discipline, ethics is structured differently. Based on the principles of humanistic ethics and its role as “practical philosophy” in its Structure The following blocks are distinguished:

History of morals and ethical teachings -Describes the process of development of ethical teachings, as well as the genesis and evolution of morality from antiquity to the present day; here we can highlight Descriptive ethics , describing socio-historical types of morality (knightly, bourgeois, etc.).

Moral theory – Explains evolution and mechanism of action of morality based on it Structural-functional analysis; It is a doctrine about the essence of morality, its basic principles and categories, structure, functions and patterns.

Normative ethics– gives justification moral principles and standards that are based on highest moral values , Act as a theoretical development and addition to the moral consciousness of society and the individual and Prescribe from the position of obligation ( Deontology) certain rules of behavior in relationships between people, helping a person develop Strategy and tactics of “correct life”.

Applied ethics– performs on the basis of normative ethics Practical learning function People behave appropriately in specific situations and in certain areas of their life. Applied ethics also has its own structure. It includes:

· Environmental ethics and bioethics;

· Ethics of citizenship;

· Situational ethics;

· Ethics of Interpersonal Communication;

· Ethics of business communication;

· Professional ethics.

QUESTIONS AND TASKS

Ethics. Morality. Moral. How do these concepts differ? Is such a task of ethics as “teaching morality” feasible? Can morality be taught?

“If ethics is the doctrine of the moral norms of society, then wouldn’t it turn out that ethical norms lead to the unification human personality“, - reflects student K. - Isn’t ethics, in this case, a means for selecting those qualities that are useful to society, and discard the rest?” What is your opinion on this matter?

“Don’t you think that ethics is a product of human weakness, since it replaces the formation of one’s own views with ready-made cliches?” – this was the question asked by student M.M. to the teacher. What would you answer him?

What do you see distinctive features authoritarian and humanistic ethics on different grounds: on goals and means, on basic principles, on methods and methods of regulation.

How do you evaluate A. Schweitzer’s statement that ethics is an infinitely expanded responsibility to all living things?

“Situational” ethics: do any life situations fall under ethical standards? Can you call situations “outside ethics”?

In connection with what do professional ethics arise and become relevant? What is professional deontology?

Analyze the presented diagrams and find additional connections in them: between normative and applied ethics, normative and situational, within applied ethics. Are all connections and relationships presented in the diagram unambiguous? Establish double connections between individual structural elements ethics.

Can environmental ethics and citizenship ethics be classified as normative ethics? Try to justify your position.

Professional ethics -- a system of moral principles, norms and rules of conduct for a specialist, taking into account the characteristics of his professional activity and a specific situation. It is designed to regulate the relationships between large social groups people in production, labor, socio-political and everyday spheres of life.

Professional ethics is integral part general theory morality. It is connected with the moral and legal foundations of life. But at the same time, it contains specific moral and professional requirements for representatives of various specialties, forms in them certain ideas about the meaning of life, about work, about duty, honor, dignity, pride, and the principles of interpersonal relationships among colleagues.

Professional ethics comes into play big role in the system of mechanisms for moral regulation of the activities of specialists. This is due, first of all, to the desire of society to meet the needs of the modern division and specialization of labor caused by scientific and technological progress. Currently, there are more than six thousand professions. All of them are based on universal human moral norms and principles, although they have their own specifics and their own moral conflicts.

Professional ethics, as a rule, concern those types of professional activities, the consequences or processes of which have a special impact on the lives and destinies of other people. The need for a professional code of ethics arises when it is necessary to specify the moral requirements for specialists dealing with the destinies of people, their lives, for people endowed with special powers and responsibilities, obliged to make independent decisions, often in extreme conditions.

In this regard, traditional types can be distinguished professional ethics- such as pedagogical, medical, legal, scientist's ethics - and relatively new ones, the actualization of which is associated with the increasing role of the “human factor” in the field of activity (engineering ethics) or resonance in society (journalistic ethics).

When analyzing each area, it is necessary to take into account the “super task” of the profession: to identify in a specialist such qualities that are not simply associated with the conscientious performance of his main duty, but also develop a sense of increased moral responsibility for the results of his activities, for the fate of those with whom he is involved.

Professional ethics covers four areas of relationship:

Intraprofessional,

The relationship between a professional and the object of his influence,

Interprofessional,

Relationships between a specialist (individual) and society.

There are criteria for a profession that allows it to claim special ethical characteristics, a “code”:

• 1) deep penetration of a specialist into the mood, internal spiritual world those with whom he comes into contact (teacher, doctor, priest);
• 2) increased proportion of creative elements in activities;
• 3) greater independence and authority of a specialist or official in making responsible decisions;
• 4) relative autonomy (independence) of activity;
• 5) the ability to foresee the social and moral consequences of one’s decision, action, or work;
• 6) high social status and moral prestige of the profession;
• 7) moral justification for a set of specific operational requirements and procedural issues (the problem of ends and means);
• 8) high universal and civil mission of the specialist.

The object of professional ethics is the morality of a specialist in a given profile: scientist, physician, lawyer, teacher, etc. However, it is very difficult to strictly define its boundaries, since it does not go beyond the scope of morality in general, but includes a number of interrelated moral codes, which can, for example, trace the ethics of the educator and leader.

In professional ethics, vital values, ideals, concepts of goodness, justice, duty, honor, comradely mutual assistance, humanity, culture of behavior, communication, even thinking and feeling find a specific refraction.

When identifying a particular type of professional ethics, it is important to find the moral “core”, the most important “cell” of the entire “block”, a specific feature of this type of morality.

General principles of professional ethics (except for universal moral standards) presuppose:

• a) professional solidarity;
• b) a special understanding of professional duty and honor;
• c) the form of responsibility determined by the subject and type of activity.

Particular principles arise from specific conditions, content and specifics of a particular profession and are expressed mainly in moral codes- requirements for specialists.

When selected the most important professional moral trait, It would probably be correct to say that, for example, for teacher What is also important is systematic work to improve one’s knowledge, professional skills, and the desire to instill a love of learning and knowledge in one’s students, to convey to them one’s life experience. The teacher must develop pedagogical tact in communicating with students and parents, with colleagues, with the administration of the institution, and be fluent in the basics of business communication ethics. At the same time, a sense of tact is important for representatives of any profession.

For a lawyer, it is a matter of honor to have perfect knowledge of legislation, history and theory of law, and legal ethics. However, the ability to behave impartially, to comply with the requirements of justice, legality, and the presumption of innocence is of decisive importance. No one can be considered guilty until the court makes its decision. J.-J. Rousseau noted at one time that “the most dangerous pitfall for justice is prejudice.” This statement is still relevant today. The requirements for tact in communication for a lawyer are very high.

A matter of professional honor for an athlete is fair competition in equal conditions, rejection of doping, respect for brothers and opponents in sports, right relationship with the fans.

For medical worker The main task is to fully promote the preservation of mental and physical health patient. V.M. Bekhterev once rightly remarked: “If a patient does not feel better after talking with a doctor, then he is not a doctor.” For example, a sense of tact should tell the doctor whether or not to tell a seriously ill patient the whole truth about his prospects.

Medical ethics has traditionally paid predominant attention to the rights and responsibilities of the doctor in relation to patients, as well as the normative regulation of relationships within the medical community. The intervention of non-professionals, if allowed, is reduced to a minimum, to some exceptional cases. It is implicitly assumed that the doctor has the fullness of not only special, “technological”, but also ethical competence.

Nowadays, the situation has become significantly more complicated due to the actualization of problems related to issues of human life and death (specific treatment methods, transplantations, abortions, euthanasia, IVF). Ethical issues, for example, in biomedicine are resolved not at the corporate level, but at public basis. Neuropathology, psychiatry, psychotherapy have their own pressing issues - the possibility of using drugs that affect the central nervous system, psychotropics, NLP, psychosurgery, etc. Let us remember “The Heart of a Dog” by M. Bulgakov, which shows all the moral threats of such manipulation.

Has acquired considerable relevance ethics of science . The most important norms of scientific ethics have always been the denial of plagiarism, the rejection of falsification of experimental data, the disinterested search and defense of the truth, the requirement that the result of the research be new knowledge, logically, experimentally substantiated.

A scientist must: know well everything that has been done and is being done in his field of science. When publishing the results of our research, we need to indicate exactly what works of other scientists we rely on, and it is against this background that we show what is new that we have discovered and developed. The publication must provide evidence of the accuracy of the results obtained. It is always necessary to provide comprehensive information to allow an independent examination of the research results. Great importance for science has a selfless search and defense of truth. For example, Aristotle’s saying is widely known: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer.” In the pursuit of truth, a scientist should not be guided by his likes and dislikes, self-interest or fear. Russian geneticist N.I. Vavilov, who became a victim of repression, said: “We will go to the cross, but we will not give up our convictions.”

In modern science there is the problem of the connection between freedom and responsibility in the activities of scientists. The need for comprehensive and long-term consideration of the ambiguous consequences of scientific development has increased. When assessing the effectiveness of science, a special approach to scientific ideas that affect the interests of living and future generations is required. And for this, a broad and competent discussion of scientific decisions is important.

Scientists are required to have a deep awareness and moral responsibility for possible consequences their research projects (especially in biomedical and genetic research). The idea of ​​unlimited freedom of research, which has been progressive for many centuries, cannot now be accepted unconditionally. For example, in 1975, the world's leading scientists entered into a moratorium, suspending research that was potentially dangerous to humans and other life forms on our planet. Knowledge does not always lead to virtue. Science also contributes to the improvement of weapons mass destruction of people.

So, professional ethics should be an integral part of the training of all specialists. The content of any professional ethics consists of the general and the specific. In any professional field, the principle of humanism and the principle of “reverence for life” put forward by A. Schweitzer are important.

Currently, it is legitimate to distinguish the following blocks in the structure of ethics:

History of Morals and Ethical Teachings

Moral theory: structure and function

Normative ethics and higher moral values

Applied ethics

History of Morals and Ethical Teachings describes the process of development of ethical teachings, as well as the genesis and evolution of morality from antiquity to the present day. Here we can also distinguish descriptive ethics, which describes socio-historical types of morality (knightly, bourgeois, etc.).

Moral theory explains the evolution and mechanism of action of morality based on its structural and functional analysis; is a doctrine about the essence of morality, its basic principles and categories, structure, functions and patterns.

Normative ethics provides a rationale for moral principles and norms that are based on the highest moral values, act as a theoretical development and addition to the moral consciousness of society and the individual, and prescribe from the position of duty certain rules of behavior in relationships between people, helping a person develop a strategy and tactics for a “correct life.”

At the end of the 20th century, it became widespread applied ethics. This direction arises as a response to the practical needs and demands of modern society. Applied ethics is a set of principles, norms and rules that perform the practical function of regulating people’s behavior in specific situations and in certain areas of their life.

The need for the existence and development of applied ethics can be considered as a kind of social and individual order to ethics from practice, determined, on the one hand, by the needs of the individual and society, and on the other, by the level of their moral culture. Thus, applied ethics represents a modern modification of the traditional role of ethics - to be “practical philosophy”.

Applied ethics includes:

Environmental ethics, which considers the norms of human behavior as part of an ecosystem.

Professional ethics, reflecting specialized forms of human activity (business ethics, ethics of business communication and business ethics, political ethics, medical ethics, pedagogical ethics, ethics of censorship, etc.).

Ethics of business communication, acting both as an independent professional ethics (for managers and entrepreneurs) and as an integral component of the ethics of other professions.

Ethics of citizenship, developing norms of human behavior as a citizen in relation to society.

Ethics of Interpersonal Communication, which studies the system of norms, principles and rules of communication, as well as technologies for their implementation, developed by the human community in order to optimize and effectively communicate.

Situational ethics, developing practical recommendations in relation to specific situations and areas of human activity: public and intimate.

Applied ethics also considers ticket, as a set of rules for communication and behavior of people.

All human actions are assessed through the concepts of good and evil. Hegel wrote: “For an action to have moral value, it is necessary to understand whether it is just or unjust, whether it is good or bad.”

Feelings, thoughts, intentions, actions can be either good - corresponding to good, or evil - coming from evil or leading to it. Therefore, good and evil are the main categories of ethical consciousness, the ultimate polar characteristics of the human world, on the content of which all other ethical ideas depend.

Good is something that is assessed positively, considered as important and significant for the life of a person and society, allows a person and society to live, develop, prosper, achieve harmony and perfection.

Thus, good is associated with life, prosperity, fullness of being, harmonious interaction with the surrounding reality. The great Russian writer L.N. Tolstoy pointed out: “There is one undoubted sign that divides people’s actions into good and evil: love and unity of people increases the action - it is good; produces enmity and disunity - he is bad.”

Traditionally, good is associated with the concept of good, which includes what is useful to people. Ethics is interested in spiritual goods, which include such highest moral values ​​as freedom, happiness, and love. In this series, good is a special type of good in the sphere of human behavior.

The concept of goodness also correlates with two other concepts - kindness and virtue.

A person who brings good to people, understood as love, help, and benevolence, is called kind. Truly kind people are not aggressive and never forcefully impose benefits. They always give others the opportunity to make a free decision.

Kindness is a quality that characterizes the integrity of the individual, expresses itself in practical life, in the behavior of people, characterizes the integrity of the individual. It is impossible to be “kind on the inside (in the soul)”, but tough, rude, authoritarian on the outside (in behavior). Kindness is fundamentally unselfish, and is manifested in the ability to sacrifice one's own interests and ambitions for the benefit of another person.

Virtue is not the same as kindness. Virtues are moral and praiseworthy human qualities, and they vary significantly in different cultures and in different eras.

It is very important to distinguish between the concepts of good and benefit. Beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries, the idea of ​​morality as a system of mutual utility was formed in Western Europe. In accordance with these views, good is everything that is useful, that meets the satisfaction of any human need. This pragmatic reduction of good to the benefit of a person or group blurs the criteria between good and evil. A person who follows only his own selfish desires, while infringing on the interests of others, regardless of accepted norms, is an immoral person. A moral person, in a certain sense, sacrifices the satisfaction of his own whims, ambitions and desires, pursuing the good of society.

Quite often, for the general good, one must give up one’s little “good,” one’s own selfish benefit and voluntarily sacrifice them to the interests of the race, thereby helping humanity harmonize social and moral relations. But relationships of utility are often based on the principle: you - to me, I - to you.

If we associate goodness with life, prosperity and well-being for all people and society, as well as all living beings, then h lo - always destruction, destruction, humiliation. Evil leads to the alienation of people from each other and from the life-giving sources of existence, to death. The great theologian Augustine the Blessed said that “evil is the absence of good.”

Philosophers argue that basically the evil that exists

in the world, can be divided into three types.

First of all, this is - physical or natural evil. This includes natural forces: earthquakes and floods, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions, epidemics and droughts.

If historically natural evil does not depend on the will of man, then at present man already contributes to a significant extent to many phenomena of “natural evil”.

Evil in social processes is another type of objective evil. It is already accomplished with the participation of human consciousness, but still mainly apart from it. Wars, revolutions, uprisings, terrorism, slavery, all these phenomena pull people into a funnel, very often against their will, and like a heavy road roller they mercilessly pass through thousands and millions of destinies, breaking them and maiming them. You can be a model of morality and decency and accidentally find yourself in the epicenter of social evil. For example, terrorist attack in the subway, and dozens of innocent people die, while others become disabled, and their relatives are doomed to suffering, mental and sometimes material, in the event of the loss of a breadwinner.

The third type of evil - actually moral evil. Moral evil is the evil that is committed with the direct participation of human consciousness and will. This is evil that occurs and is created by the decision of the person himself, by his choice. As the inhabitants of ancient India said, “A person who does evil is his own enemy: after all, he himself will taste the fruits of his evil.”

Currently, there are two main types of moral evil - hostility And promiscuity. Manifestations of hostility come in different forms. First of all, it is aggression (physical and verbal). This is anger and hatred, slander, ridicule, desire for death, desire for humiliation, suppression of others. This can include envy. The feeling of envy causes a person to desire failure and misfortune for other people. It is envy that is considered one of the most serious sins, since all other sins can be considered as a consequence or manifestation of envy.

Arrogance is also an evil that manifests itself in a disrespectful, contemptuous, arrogant attitude towards people. This evil is directed from a person to other people. It is conscious, active, energetic, and strives to destroy someone else’s existence and well-being. An evil person, a person for whom evil is the norm, and sometimes pleasure, takes revenge, as it were, on other more successful people for the inability to satisfy his unjustified ambitions - in his personal life, in professional and social activities.

Another group of human vices, representing promiscuity, includes: cowardice, laziness, gluttony, greed, inability and unwillingness to control one’s inclinations, desires and passions, lust, irrepressible passion for a variety of pleasures. Even St. Augustine argued that one of the three main sins of man is the lust of the flesh, the desire for sensual joys and pleasures. A dissolute person easily succumbs to temptation. He has no sense of responsibility for himself and his actions, much less for other people.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778) wrote in his works that moral evil in society is generated by social inequality, private property, and that it grows on an economic basis. Rousseau considered conscience to be the central axis around which the human personality is built. She expresses herself not in judgments, but in feelings. Civilization destroys human emotionality. The process of development of society is a process of alienation, the establishment of hostile relations between people towards each other, but benevolence and sympathy are their natural desire. Class stratification, inequality and confrontation, the hatred that accompanies all this, worsens and distorts morals. According to Rousseau, there are two primary abilities in a person: the desire for self-preservation (in a class society it is transformed into self-love) and the desire for sympathy. These are natural virtues; they generate and limit each other. The leader, however, in his opinion, is compassion.

Interesting are the ethical views on moral evil of K. Marx (1818 – 1883) and V.I. Lenin (1870 – 1924). At the heart of their ethical teachings was a set of ideas closely related to the main goal - the construction of a communist society, to which the world revolution led. From their point of view, moral evil as a component of social evil historically arises and is clearly manifested in connection with the emergence of private ownership of the means of production.

Good and evil are closely interconnected, but have their own characteristics. It should be noted their universal, universal character. The concepts of good and evil are considered human relations, human relations to nature and the world of things.

These concepts are historical; they depend on real, specific social relations and circumstances. For example, in primitive society, everything that contributed to the survival of the race was considered good. Thus, virtue could be not only courage and bravery, but also deceit, cunning and even cruelty.

Good and evil are not only value concepts, but also evaluative ones. And therefore they carry within themselves an element of human subjectivity, personal preferences and emotionality. Subjectivity presupposes the absence of absolute good and evil in the real world.

Russian philosopher N.O. Lossky pointed out that evil is always relative and argued that in any evil, from a philosophical point of view, there are some elements of good, for example in death. A person’s awareness of his mortality prompts him to moral quest. A different point of view was expressed by the Russian philosopher S.L. Franc. He wrote that “all the grief and evil that reigns on earth, all disasters, humiliations, suffering, are at least 99% the result of the will to implement good, fanatical faith in some sacred principles that should immediately be implanted on earth , and the will to mercilessly exterminate evil; whereas hardly one hundredth of evil and disaster is due to the action of a frankly evil, criminal and selfish will.”

The famous philosopher Nietzsche argued that evil is just as necessary as good: they are a necessary condition for human existence and development. However, their unity is the unity of opposites. And at the same time, there is a continuous struggle between good and evil. This constant struggle cannot end with the final victory of one of the sides.

It should always be remembered that good and evil are understood differently in different cultures. If we accept the conditional division of cultural regions into West and East, we will undoubtedly find differences in moral assessments of the same phenomena, based on different historical traditions and mental attitudes. In the West, a person’s desire for individuality, uniqueness and originality is assessed as highly moral. In the East, on the contrary, it is not customary to stick oneself out. Here the desire to be well integrated into the human community, to form one of the invisible “wheels” of its internal mechanism, is morally approved and encouraged.

In the West, man's invasion of nature, his ambitions to conquer and win in relation to the outside world, the desire for expansion are assessed as good, because they are equated with self-affirmation. And in the East, careful and careful handling of nature and inseparable unity with the surrounding world have always been morally approved and valued. Aggressive positions towards nature were never encouraged, but were generally condemned.

The idea of ​​what is good and what is evil depends largely on the era. In a patriarchal way of life, following the traditions of older generations, unquestioning submission to elders, and imitation of the lifestyle and values ​​of one’s fathers was moral and was considered a serious virtue. Currently, respectful but creative rethinking of traditions, the rejection of their significant outdated part, the creation of a new way of life and new ideals required by modern realities have become good and valuable. Modern generations choose freedom from dictate, and for them true good is independence, the ability to act according to their own discretion and will.

Even in the recent past, almost all countries observed double morality as a standard for assessing the behavior of different sexes. For women, the main virtue was the virtue of obedience and patience, i.e. execution is clean family role, and any attempt by a woman to change this role not only received sharp moral condemnation from others, but was sometimes very cruelly punished. The modern world encourages both the development of male individuality and the development of female individuality, considering this to be good for both the individual and society.

The paradox of good and evil can manifest itself in the following: undeniable good for some (a person, group, people, etc.) can be obvious evil for others, for example: victory in a war. The winners rejoice and see good in victory, despite the moral and material losses they have suffered. The vanquished cry, seeing in their defeat only losses, economic, physical and moral damage, i.e. only evil.

Sometimes, under certain circumstances, seemingly undoubted evil is assessed as good. In the sacred books of many nations there is a commandment “thou shalt not kill,” i.e. You cannot take the life of another person, because life is the greatest blessing bestowed by God. But it happens that people kill, and their behavior is regarded as good, for example: defense of the Fatherland.

Quite often we can consider one and the same phenomenon of life as good, and in another - as evil, for example, science. On the one hand, science is a great benefit for humanity. People's lives become more comfortable and significantly easier, thanks to science. Human well-being is growing, opportunities are emerging to cure diseases that previously led to inevitable death, and new forms of interesting pastime are emerging. But on the other hand, it is science that generates weapons of mass destruction, unceremoniously alienates man from nature, changes the laws of this nature, interfering in the living world. And here science appears as an undoubted evil.

Harmony must reign in the world. When the measure is violated, such a phenomenon occurs as the transition of good to evil. Thus, the wonderful quality of generosity can easily turn into impracticality and wastefulness, modesty into low self-esteem, and even self-abasement and a sense of dignity into blind pride and stupid vanity. As for kindness, if it is excessively demonstrated and uncritically analyzed, it begins to act as evil, because takes the form of unprincipledness and weakness. Calmness and restraint can turn into indifference, and loyalty into blind devotion. Sometimes people sincerely believe that they are doing good, while in reality their actions turn out to be outright evil.

Moral Liberty is a value that a person strives to achieve, and the possession of which is good for him. This is not just a choice of behavior options, but the transformation of moral requirements into internal needs and into a person’s beliefs. A person achieves freedom when he is able to consciously make decisions; give them a moral assessment, foresee their consequences, exercise reasonable control over one’s behavior, feelings, passions and desires.

Responsibility- the other side of freedom, its second “I”. Responsibility is inextricably linked with freedom and always accompanies it. He who acts freely is fully responsible for his actions.

There is no contradiction between freedom and responsibility. There are just different types and different measure responsibility.

The following types of responsibility can be distinguished:

A person's responsibility to himself. This type of responsibility manifests itself in our doubts, feelings of guilt, fear, regret, repentance, etc.;

A person’s responsibility for his specific actions and actions to other people. Such responsibility (remorse, fear of public opinion) often coincides with legal and administrative responsibility;

Man's responsibility to the world and humanity. There can be no administrative or legal liability here. Very often this responsibility may be denied and not recognized by a person.

Currently under debt understand the moral obligation of a person, fulfilled by him under the influence of not only external requirements, but also internal motivations. A person of moral duty has an active civic position. He is characterized by a sense of personal involvement in everything that happens in the world.

Conscience called the other side of duty, an even more personal and powerful “inner voice” of moral action.

Philosophers note that conscience is a special moral and psychological mechanism that operates from within our own soul, meticulously checking whether duty is being fulfilled. It guides (encourages) us to comply with moral requirements, corrects our behavior, and condemns us for inappropriate choices or behavior.

Honor as a moral phenomenon is, first of all, external social recognition of a person’s actions, his merits, manifested in veneration, authority, glory. A man of honor is an honest person, one who has dignity and pride, who will never stoop to immoral, vile, treacherous behavior.

Self-esteem- this is the experience of one’s own value and its assertion, perhaps despite the circumstances. The concept of human dignity tells us about the special value of a person.

Thus, ethics is a special philosophical science with a rich history. It provides knowledge in the field of morality, reveals the basic norms and principles of moral culture, reveals the moral aspects of human relationships, and contributes to the formation of a conscious choice of certain norms of behavior in various life situations, both personal and professional.

The activities of representatives of all legal professions are inseparable from the sphere of social and interpersonal conflicts, therefore lawyers bear special moral responsibility for their actions and decisions.

Modern applied ethics provides specialists whose activities are accompanied by moral costs and require the regulation of natural moral feelings and principles, a set of approaches (and techniques that can be used when making decisions, when assessing them from a moral point of view, when resolving and preventing conflicts and for the purpose of building Strategies for implementing the most effective professional communication.

In our country, applied ethics is at an early stage of development: there are only a few centers in the regions of Russia business ethics, dealing with the problems of ethical education and counseling, therefore, domestic specialists actively use and adapt the rich experience of the international business and pedagogical community.

To better understand the essence of applied ethics approaches and learn how to use them in your activities, you must first become familiar with the basic ethical concepts and terms.

Ethics is a philosophical discipline whose object of study is morality. Morality(lat. moralitas, from moralis) – relating to disposition, character, mentality, habits; mores – morals, customs, fashion, behavior. The Latin word "morality" etymologically coincides with the Greek "ethics" and was formed by analogy with it. (Dictionary of Ethics. M, 1989. P. 186).

In ordinary communication, people often do not distinguish between the concepts of “ethics” and “morality,” but in philosophical, specialized and professional literature they mean different things. Morality is what ethics studies, what it describes and prescribes, these are forms of consciousness of people (individual, group, public, corporate), ways of feeling the world, experiencing and perceiving that are valuable, unique and inimitable for everyone individual person and accessible to understanding and observation only by himself (love, friendship, brotherhood, relationship with God, mercy); this is a type of relationship in society and between people, as well as relationships between social institutions and structures, etc.

The term “morality” is also used to characterize:

Those forms of behavior and activity that are considered correct or incorrect;

Rules and standards that guide the implementation of activities;

Values ​​that exist in consciousness are embedded in consciousness and can be realized in certain forms of behavior.

For description complex world moral phenomena over its long, more than 2500-year history of existence, ethics has developed a special language, the knowledge of which allows people to highlight, recognize (identify), analyze moral experiences, feelings, problems, principles, values, norms, ideals, and also construct codes, rules, solve problems, make decisions, develop principles, communicate values ​​and ideals. If you are not familiar with this language, the world of morality will remain inaccessible to you.

The first and extremely important distinction of concepts that we will introduce is the division of ethics into secular And religious.

The subject of the course “Professional Ethics of Lawyers” is secular ethics. The presentation of this subject has its own traditions, which we will follow, and specifics, which we will, if possible, take into account. In ethical literature and social practice it is accepted to divide ethics into universal and professional.

Universal ethics regulates the behavior of people regardless of their professional affiliation. There are many contradictions between universal and professional ethics, which are very sharp character and often give rise to various conflicts. One of the most famous examples of such contradictions is the contradiction between the commandment universal ethics“Thou shalt not kill” and military ethics, which obliges soldiers to defend their homeland with weapons in hand and, if necessary, destroy the enemy. Another example is related to the nature of people’s professional activities. According to the requirement of universal ethics, reflected in the second formulation of the moral law (I. Kant’s categorical imperative), humanity and oneself can never be treated only as a means, but must be treated in the same way as an end, as an independent value. Within the framework of professional activity, people inevitably become objects of labor, influence, coercion, study, education, i.e., means to achieve goals.

According to some psychologists, all professional communication is essentially manipulative (See: Yu. S. Krizhanskaya, V. P. Tretyakov, Grammar of Communication, Leningrad, 1990), and the success of joint activities largely depends on a person’s ability to use other people as facilities. We often ourselves do not notice how we violate this ethical requirement in communication - to treat people as an independent value, as a goal. For example, an employee meets a colleague and says to him: “I’m so glad to see you! Help me write a report!”, or: “Congratulations on your recovery! We have so much work to do." These are examples of a clear violation of this principle, and the consequence of this will be feelings of dissatisfaction, disappointment, and resentment that arise in the person who was approached in this way - he feels himself to be of independent value.

Almost all codes of professional ethics offer options for balancing such contradictions. The ethical codes of lawyers, in particular, regulate their right and duty not to disclose confidential information in the interests of clients, which public opinion can be interpreted as hiding the truth, violating the universal principles of truthfulness and honesty. Members of the legal profession are also charged with not doing anything they would not want people to do to them, such as coercion—an option for violating another precept of universal ethics, the so-called “golden rule of morality.” The most common formulation of this rule looks like this: "(not) treat others as you would(Not) I would like them to act towards you" In the Sermon on the Mount (Gospel of Matthew), Christ pronounces the “golden rule of morality”: “In everything that you want people to do to you, do so to them.”

Thus, professions that involve the need to coerce other people are associated with certain moral costs, since people experience the suffering of being forced to violate the norms of universal ethics in order to perform professional activities. At the same time, professional ethics does not exempt persons of certain professions from the moral obligations that lie with people in general; on the contrary, they must accept not less, but greater moral obligations precisely as representatives of this profession.

Social (institutional) ethics and individual ethics (virtue ethics). Law is both a product of social events and a manifestation of human will. A lawyer has to work with individuals and legal entities, with the state and society as a whole. Lawyers are sometimes themselves part of some social institutions, such as law enforcement agencies. In order to perform his professional duty well, a lawyer must have the ability to feel, understand the purpose, meaning, goals, intentions, “rules of the game” that are characteristic of this or that social institution, organization, industry, profession, etc. Moral intuition alone may not be enough to build the correct system of relationships, for example, between any government agency And commercial enterprise, organ state power and an international concern, two or more different executive authorities, etc.

IN modern society every social system, such as science, religion, law, customs, police, trade unions, industries National economy etc., is an autonomous, self-contained culture that reproduces itself and develops independently of other cultures and is “opaque” to them. The nature of the system can only be understood by interacting with it and (or) having legal descriptions and instructions.

All human relationships can be divided into two large groups:

1) direct, personal, intimate, spontaneous, not subject to any external rules, orders, or any external necessity. These relationships develop on the basis of common beliefs, friendship, love, worldview, neighborly communication, in small working communities (See: A. Rikh. Economic ethics. M., 1996. P.65). These relationships are not formalized by law and do not need to be regulated or institutionalized: a person simply joins a group of people and makes friendly contacts, following his natural desires. Direct, personal relationships are concerned with individual ethics, which is also sometimes called virtue ethics. Virtue is a concept that is used to characterize positive, stable, active, active nature, moral qualities personalities;

2) institutional, subject to legislative registration. A person is influenced by the institutions of family, marriage, various unions, organizations, enterprises, and government. The area of ​​legal institutional relations is the sphere of application of the forces of social ethics, which is sometimes also called institutional ethics or ethics of institutions (See: Political and Economic Ethics. M., 2001. P. 16). Specialists in the field of ethics and sociology also use the concept of traditional morality to describe moral phenomena occurring in society. IN feudal society Traditional morality dictated the structure of all relationships between people according to the “family” model: fatherhood - vertically and brotherhood - horizontally. Larger structures of society were also built according to the “family” model. If someone tried to act and live outside of these family ties, he destroyed the “family”, a single whole, a social organism.

With the growth and complexity of society, personal and family ties are destroyed and, accordingly, traditional morality based on them is destroyed. Social institutions begin to determine the nature of moral relations between people - they put forward certain requirements in relation to individuals and groups, establish frameworks and boundaries for their actions, thereby limiting their freedom and at the same time orienting and giving stability and orderliness to their lives. Relations in society cease to be the result of the decision of someone’s individual will or individual legal act– these relations, as a rule, are based on collective agreements and arise from a whole group of agreements and legal provisions.

Direct personal and institutional relationships are closely intertwined in everyday life.

Example 1. A person does not pollute the nature around his home, but at the same time he works in an enterprise that emits harmful waste into the air. We can say that the real negative impact on nature depends not on the individual moral position of this person, but on the nature of the social institutions in the system of which he is included.

Example 2. I work at a company, and I have good friendly relations with colleagues and superiors, but at the same time I obey the requirements of the contract concluded with me; The activities of my enterprise are regulated by the state and the “rules of the game” of a market economy, and are connected by a certain system of relations with other enterprises. Therefore, my relationships with colleagues and superiors depend not on personal likes and/or dislikes, but on the method of organizing production, management style, and market needs. I am hired or fired for reasons. production needs, and not out of personal likes or dislikes.

Example 3. Sometimes the requirements of different structures contradict each other, and a person finds himself hostage to different norms, rules, and principles. This happens when the interests and “rules of the game” of the enterprise and the norms of behavior of its members accepted in the professional community come into conflict. The contradiction of interests of these two structures is manifested in the collision of the requirements of loyalty and subordination, which a person must comply with as an employee of a given organization (these are the requirements of corporate ethics) - on the one hand, and the requirements of independence and impartiality, which a given employee must obey as a member of a particular professional group(these are the requirements of the code of professional ethics of a lawyer) - on the other.

In a market economy, this division of ethics into individual and social is very important due to the fact that the development of the market in various countries is, as a rule, accompanied by an increase in moral problems and moral indignation of significant sections of the population. Business and the market are accused of immorality, the destruction of the traditional foundations of society, the impoverishment of the population, the injustice of income distribution, etc. Economic (or business) ethics, which is a section of social ethics, deals with the solution of ethical problems of the economy.

Economists see the cause of morally unsatisfactory policy outcomes not in the evil motives or preferences of individuals or businesses, but in the special nature of the social situation. They believe that problems that are collective in nature and the result of the operation of a social system cannot be solved by appealing to the internal motives of people - to a sense of shame, remorse or correctly understood moral duty, or to the “corporate conscience” of individual enterprises . Their solution requires collective agreements and appropriate legislation that takes into account the benefits of everyone. For example, a company that “legally pollutes the environment forces moral competitors to abandon their voluntary abstinence” (Political and Economic Ethics. P. 207). At the same time, ensuring the moral behavior of a company requires large financial costs from it (in particular, costs for wastewater treatment plants), therefore, an individual enterprise is unlikely to voluntarily finance long-term ethical programs due to the fact that it may not withstand tough competition. Because of this, the behavior of a company that meets high ethical standards and does not ruin it is only possible if other entrepreneurs are also ready to follow these standards. In other words, the ethical behavior of companies in the long term can only be ensured through collective efforts.

Economic ethics helps to structure the activities of social institutions in such a way that their ethical behavior becomes possible, but at the same time competition is not destroyed, and the “rules of the game” of the market are observed, according to which the moral obligation of firms is long-term profit maximization.

Social institutions cannot, however, take responsibility for a person’s individual morality and do for him what he should and can only do himself. A person must bear responsibility for everything that directly concerns him, his life, his relationships with the people around you, with nature, with public structures and the institutions within which it operates. However, these institutions can alleviate moral, correct behavior people, and lawyers largely contribute to this by identifying and developing “rules of the game” that do not interfere with individual and group responsibility, but, on the contrary, promote it.

In order to understand the “rules of the game” that should guide social institutions, it is necessary to master special style thinking and develop a worldview that is sometimes called “organizational Darwinism” in management science.

From the perspective of organizational Darwinism, researchers consider enterprises, industries, the state, science, etc. as living beings, somewhat similar to people. In sociology, a similar approach is followed by a direction called “understanding sociology.” Its creator was the German sociologist M. Weber. In this case, social institutions are attributed the property of being conscious, reasonable, having the ability to make decisions, having their own goals, purpose, intentions, good will, conscience, reputation, interests, and even the properties of “getting sick,” “aging,” “dying,” and behaving it is correct, ethical (in a socially responsible manner), to follow certain moral principles.

People can feel pride in an industry, enterprise, achievements of science, or disappointment or resentment, for example, at the same enterprise, state or any government body. They experience the injustice or “nobility” of any action of a social institution and at the same time their experiences and feelings real, true, bring them suffering or joy. It turns out that first people endow institutions with reason, will, the ability to do good or evil, and then experience their relationships with them as if they were people and morally equal to them.

From a moral point of view, any action can be assessed regardless of whether it is carried out by a person or by entities such as a corporation or the state - otherwise it would turn out that committing murder is immoral for an individual, but not immoral for businesses. It is another matter if a natural, spontaneous moral assessment, due to its emotionality, prevents the lawyer from seeing the reasons, motives, circumstances that are important for his understanding of the essence of the case. Therefore, in order to deal with the objects of one’s moral feelings, for example, a sense of responsibility, it is important to be able to carry out reflection.

Moral theory teaches us to think about our assessments and understand what underlies them - their assumptions, hypotheses, beliefs, stereotypes, ideals, ideas. We morally evaluate ourselves, people, actions, and this assessment is made mentally, so “thought about evaluation is actually a thought about a thought,” and the reflection of a thought in another thought is called reflection (See: Shrader Yu. A. Lectures on ethics M 1994).