The characterization of morality as humanity indicates its humanistic content. Traditionally, humanism is understood as a worldview position that believes that all social processes in the world should be performed for the sake of man. As an intellectual movement, it originated in the Renaissance; sometimes the early Renaissance is called the era of humanism. But then, growing out of the Middle Ages, where the main attention was focused on God, it meant the awakening of interest in man, his feelings, capabilities, position in the world. However, in less than a century, the humanist movement is revolutionizing the European worldview. From now on, a person is recognized as the center of the universe, possessing unlimited possibilities in cognition. The philosophy of modern times continued to develop the idea of the independence of the individual, the highest point of which can be recognized as Kant's doctrine of the autonomy of the will.
The humanism of the Enlightenment era finally substantiated the human right to earthly happiness, well-being, personal interest, and the choice of a life goal. Of particular importance were the ideas of individual rights and freedoms as a natural framework for a person's existence in society. Nevertheless, the Enlightenment proceeded from the presence of a person's special, unchanging essence - reason. The sensory-emotional nature was still assigned a secondary role. Therefore, the humanist movement of the XX century. attached great importance to emotions, in fact admitting that a person is not a rational, but a feeling, experiencing being. It is no coincidence that a very influential movement in psychology that insisted on the identity of the existential foundations of a person and her emotions is called humanistically oriented. In addition, the development of the idea of individual autonomy led to the fact that modern philosophy in most of its directions refused to make it dependent on any essence. So, existentialism insisted: man is an open project, whose freedom is not constrained by any predetermined natural and social framework. We become what we ourselves decide, and we can only hinder ourselves.
But the line of reasoning indicated above constitutes only one, the individualistic side of humanism.
Morality, as an expression of humanity, takes from it its autonomy, as well as the idea of another person as an individual equal to us in dignity, who has the right to take care of himself. But there is another side of humanism, conditioned by the teachings of world religions. Only thanks to them did a person acquire the meaning of a personality, i.e. a being of absolute value regardless of social or political conditions. In addition, the religious view substantiated not only the unshakable status of the person himself, but also the need for an exclusive relationship to another person commanded by God. World religions saw the meaning of this relationship in sacrifice, service to another person and a categorical rejection of everything that could harm him. From here, morality acquires its unselfish content, which allows one to relate to another person outside the framework of pragmatic social ties. But the main thing that she took from religion is the nature of an absolute demand. A moral view of things not only expresses good wishes, but also categorically requires the individual to observe the framework of humanity. At the same time, as we have shown more than once, morality derives the source of its demand not from external force, but from the very moral essence of a person, expressed in the command of his conscience.
If we briefly formulate a conclusion about the nature (essence) of morality, then we can say that it is a voluntarily imposed requirement of an unselfish, benevolent attitude towards another person. Does this mean that morality is completely closed on the other, up to self-denial? Not really. There is another side to morality, which we mainly talked about in the previous chapter - work on oneself, self-improvement, the struggle with evil thoughts. But it should be understood that it cannot happen alone, but must proceed from the desire to make both oneself and others better. Moreover, the moral view does not prohibit pursuing self-interest. He only insists that it does not harm both himself and other people, and does not turn into indifference to their fate. In this regard, morality is a very delicate, fragile reality of human relations, allowing people to break out of the chain of pragmatic use of each other. Is it possible, then, to imagine life without morality? Yes, but such an inhuman "life"
will turn into endless enmity and chaos. Accordingly, it will be short-lived.
11.3. Are there different morals?
Earlier we already had to talk about the dialectic of the absolute and the relative in relation to the idea of good. The same can be said for morality. On the one hand, moral experience is beautiful in its diversity, but on the other hand, there has not yet been such a culture or such a moment in time where people did not have an idea of ideal relationships. And if we take a closer look at them, we will see that in this content it is possible to isolate something common to all ideas, which constitutes the absolute content of morality. We will have another reason to talk about him. But is it permissible here to mention different morals? For example, Nietzsche spoke about slaves and masters, which are opposite in their content of morality, and Marx - about bourgeois and proletarian morality. But here, again, we should not confuse morality as an image of perfect relationships, with morals that express the really existing practice of relationships. As for the declared higher principles, it will be more competent to speak not about their cardinal contradiction, but about different ways of their perception and implementation.
Various moral practices within the framework of a single morality have received the name "ethos" in ethics. They represent dissimilar moral cultures that have formed significant currents within the framework of a single human morality. Ethos is a special style of moral life that forms an original attitude towards moral values. For example, the chivalrous ethos prescribed to defend the highest values with arms in hand, and the monastic ethos - in internal, prayer practice. But both the one and the other ethos considered the worship of the Lord and philanthropy to be the highest values. We can say that ethos not only does not testify to the relativity of morality, but even more emphasize the versatility and depth of this phenomenon. Most often in the literature on ethics, knightly-aristocratic, philistine (bourgeois), heroic, monastic, military ethos are distinguished. It should be noted once again that they are not singled out in order to prove the case.
the pursuit of different morals, but for the sake of demonstrating different perceptions of morality.
Professional dignity, on the one hand, reflects the attitude of other people towards a given employee as a specialist, professional, and on the other hand, it testifies to a person's attitude towards himself as an employee, about his awareness of his merits and professional qualities. Professional dignity is largely a consequence of a decent profession, i.e. determined by the social significance of a given profession, its prestige, prevailing public opinion. However, one cannot ignore the personal, individual attitude of a person to his profession, which by no means always coincides with the objective situation in society of people of this profession.
As experience and scientific research show, the higher the employee's sense of personal and service dignity is, the more he values his professional honor, the more significant is his social value if they are combined with high moral maturity, employee culture, and necessary moral qualities.
Thus, professional ethics in the internal organs contains such rules of conduct that are moral in content, aesthetic in form and legal in the nature of their application. This is their vitality and stimulating role.
12. Universal, sociocultural, class and concrete historical in morality.
Marxist ethics proceeds from the position of the historical and class the nature of morality. She believes that moral requirements change in accordance with the change in social life of a person and are understood in different ways by different classes.
Any new idea of morality that arises historically is affirmed in the life of society through the active activity of its bearer, who is interested in practically universal implementation. This bearer of moral consciousness is usually a very definite Class, possessing certain material and ideal interests, the ability to organize himself and purposefully influence the development of society. Class morality has a universal character, since it forms the requirements for all people in a given society. It either becomes dominant in this society, or is oppositional (in an antagonistic society - revolutionary) and requires, accordingly, the elimination of existing living conditions and the construction of a new social order. In both cases class morality acts in form as universal... But in reality it becomes such depending on how much it corresponds to the further development of the historical process. The continuity of some moral requirements remains. This mainly concerns the requirements associated with the simplest forms of human relationships: not to steal, not to kill, to help people in difficulties, to keep promises, to tell the truth, etc. At all times, cruelty, greed, cowardice, hypocrisy, treachery were condemned in one way or another. , slander, envy, arrogance and encouraged courage, honesty, self-control, generosity, modesty. But at the same time, the conditions and limits of applicability of these requirements and the relative importance of these moral qualities were understood in different ways.
A universal in morality is both a set of certain universal moral requirements and the logical structure of moral consciousness, the form in which its ideas are expressed.
In more complex moral concepts (such as, for example, the concepts of justice, philanthropy, good deeds, evil deeds), only the abstract form, the way they are defined by means of other moral concepts (for example, the fact that philanthropy is understood as love for people, respect human dignity, etc.), but the content was invested in these concepts in different epochs by different classes each time different; these concepts sometimes presupposed completely different actions.
Lecture 1. The essence and main categories of morality.
In order to understand the problems of business ethics, you need to learn such important concepts as morality, ethics, ethics.
Term « ethics" comes from the ancient Greek "ethos" - custom, disposition, character, stable nature of any phenomenon.
Term « moral b " comes from the Latin "moral is", which etymologically coincides with "ethos" - means custom, character, temperament, fashion, cut of clothes.
Term « moral" is synonymous with "morality", comes from the word "temper" - this is the Russian version of the Latin term.
As the culture develops, different meanings begin to be assigned to different words.
Morality (morality) - this is a certain social reality, a sphere of social life, a type of social relations, i.e. something that really exists.
Ethics - it is a philosophical science, a field of knowledge, a theory that studies morality.
In general cultural vocabulary, all three words continue to be used interchangeably.
The nature of morality stems from the social character of a person's life. A huge number of people interact in society, and in order for society to function normally, their actions must be agreed, subject to social laws, rules.
For this there is from the beginning undivided form of regulation, and over time, separate forms such as law, customs, traditions, organizational charters, instructions, and including morality.
In morality, specific norms and virtues were fixed, which were the most productive in terms of the ways of functioning and the goals of this sphere. For example, NS overcoming fear in war - courage, inviolability of private property - do not steal.
These forms are closely interconnected with each other, at the same time, each of them has its own specifics.
And so what is morality. It must be said right away that different thinkers and schools give different answers to this question. The extreme complexity and special "subtlety" of the moral sphere predetermined the fact that ethics still there is no universally valid definition of morality, revealing the full depth, ambiguity, comprehensiveness of this concept.
Let's consider some of the most common characteristics of morality, its various dimensions.
The Proper or Ideal Dimension of Morality:
· It set of norms , which express attitude of people to each other, to society as a whole, which evaluate human behavior, social phenomena in terms of categories such as good and evil, justice and injustice, etc.
· It form of public consciousness which creates a perfect order, acts as an ideal model of behavior and attitude that affects all people.
· It a form of self-awareness, with the help of which a person comes to comprehend his being as a person, to comprehend goals and the meaning of your life.
The real or real dimension of morality:
· It relationship between people, their behavior, actions, thoughts, etc.
· It qualities and inclinations , specifications the personality itself, her souls, making her capable of a moral life. In other words, these are the virtues of a person, such as truthfulness, honesty, kindness.
· It moral thinking.
Human Dimension of Morality:
· Consciousness, rationality in a person, the ability to restrain the unreasonable,
natural, animal, instinctive.
Morality not inherent in animals, since they have no intelligent beginning, they are non-intelligent beings. Morality is pure human phenomenon, which combines a rational and an unreasonable beginning. Intelligence restrains animals, unreasonable passions, desires.
Morality always stands as moderation, human ability limit yourself, impose a ban to their natural desires, to resist unbridled sensuality.
Not by chance from antiquity she was understood as the measure of a person's domination over himself, an indicator of how much a person is responsible for himself, for what he does. Let's say the ability to curb your anger, fear, gluttony, etc.
· Expediency, striving for the highest good .
Reasonable behavior is an morally perfect when it is directed to perfect goal... She is ultimate goal, an end in itself, which acts for a person as highest good... It gives meaningfulness human activity as a whole, expresses its general positive focus.
A person in his life proceeds from the assumption existence of the highest good... And for him tend to strive for the highest good, have an absolute pivot point. Human- creature unfinished and in its incompleteness left to itself. Man is not identical, not equal to himself. He is constantly in the making, strive to rise above oneself, to have more than he is.
· Following goodwill .
Aiming the mind for the highest good is discovered v goodwill. All other goods without good will can be used for vicious purposes. She alone has absolute value. She is pure of considerations benefits, pleasure, worldly prudence, etc.
An indicator of goodwill is the ability to act, not only not promising benefits, but also associated with losses. She is disinterested will. It is priceless, priceless.
Goodwill always intertwined in other, quite specific, empirically explainable and understandable motives. Goodwill distinguishes between what is done from a pure heart and what he does for some purpose. She focuses not on utilitarian benefits, but on multiplication in the world of kindness, justice, nobility.
Goodwill is completely dependent on the individual. This is the motive of his behavior.
Social dimension of morality:
· Morality sets the space for human relations, creates a field in which human being can unfold as a human .
Morality cannot remain a fact of self-consciousness. Morality is the realm of action, with fer relations between people. Morality are found only in relationships with other people, and describes the quality of this relationship.
People enter into relationships with each other because they do something together... If from their relationship subtract this “something", It will remain what what makes this relationship possible- their social form, the very need of people for a social, joint life, as the only possible condition for their existence. This will be morality. She connects people to all connections.
She there is humanity, and characterizes a person from the point of view of his ability to live in society.
· Morality is possible only assuming freedom will .
It exists in the form of a law, which is established by the person himself, his free will and does not allow exceptions.
Morality speaks deeply personal, subjective motivation behavior consisting in the free and voluntary acceptance of obligations to follow the requirements of morality, supported only by a personal conviction in their justice and humanity.
· It has general form , applies to all people.
These provisions designate different aspects of morality. They are interconnected in such a way that each of them implies the others.
That. v definition of morality all this totality of manifestations must be reflected, plus ambiguity of the term itself plus her spiritual perfect nature.
Morality is a form of self-regulation, deeply personal motivation, which consists in conscious (reasonable ), free ( unencumbered by traces of pressure and coercion ), disinterested ( not burdened with traces of calculation and benefit ), following the highest good ( moral goals and motives ) in all situations.
Feature and the functioning of morality:
- She acts as practical, active consciousness... In it, the ideal and the real coincide, forming integrity. The ideal here acts as the real beginning of conscious life.
WITH The specific way of existence of morality is obligation. She does not exist as a state, but as vector of conscious life... It presupposes the continuity of efforts to implement it.
- She covers all the diversity of human existence without being confined to any special sphere or aspect of life.
- She cannot fit into some content-specific, positive requirement. Its requirements can only record the imperfection of a person, his remoteness from the goal. Therefore, moral requirements, claiming to be absolute, can only be negative... They are prohibitions.
- It comes from unconditional values, human holiness. Personality as a moral being has the most valuable meaning and worthy respect. Nothing unconditional respect for a person- the original and fundamental relationship that opens the space of human existence proper.
The unconditional obligation of moral requirements is found in the requirement asserting the very value of the human person... And the most strict and adequate form is an categorical prohibition of violence mainly to kill a person. Violence is the exact opposite of morality. The prohibition on violence is the first and foremost moral prohibition. Its famous wording "Thou shalt not kill"
Morality has specific historical nature ... Different people, in different societies, at different times understood the highest good in different ways. Morality takes on a qualitatively unique form depending on which idea is recognized as the highest. Specific norms and virtues are formed within the framework of a particular
A person sets himself the law of behavior, but at the same time he is universal, objective and generally valid.
This controversial requirement is resolved in the so-called golden rule which reads: “ Do not act towards others in the way you would not want others to act towards you. "
The Gospel of Matthew: “ And so in everything, as you want people to do to you, so do you to them, for this is the law and the prophets. "
Gospel of Luke: "And How
Any morality is conditioned socially - historically. Its specific appearance in different eras is determined by many factors:
type of material production;
the nature of social stratification;
the state of state and legal regulation;
conditions of communication;
means of communication;
a system of values accepted by society, etc.
In other words, qualitatively heterogeneous types of community give rise to the emergence of different types of moral systems. Each of them is peculiar, inimitable, bears the stamp of its own historical time.
Primitive morality is distinguished by such features as direct collectivism, mutual support, equalizing equality. At its core, it is not even morality in the full sense of this concept, since the norms of behavior adopted in the tribal society have not become isolated as an independent form of consciousness, have not separated from the actual behavior of people as some kind of ideal model. Primitive man is completely dissolved in the genus, he has not yet formed as a person and, therefore, his strict observance of the norms established by custom is not the result of a free moral choice, but only of natural generic necessity. This period can be called the pre-moral period in the history of mankind. Morality in the true sense of the word appears only in class society. The growing productive power of society, the division of labor, the emergence of private ownership of the means of production and its products naturally break the clan bond of individuals, isolate, alienate them from each other, deprive social life of stability. The division of labor, as well as the emergence of large and small state formations bind people are stronger with each other than the tribal community. This connection is already different - mediated, material, alienated. In such a situation, the strict rules of generic life lose their meaning. A person acquires independence, freedom of choice expands, a moral horizon appears. During this period, there is an understanding that the rules of behavior are set not only by external necessity, but are also created by the person himself, that is, the rules are the result of a conscious choice. During this period, the first experience of self-knowledge was carried out.
There is a difference between the concepts of "morality" and "morality". Morality is understood as a specific form of social consciousness that concentrates high ideals and strict imperatives of behavior. Another meaning is laid out in the concept of "morality": these are the principles of real, practical behavior of people, in which the severity of highly moral rules is fairly relaxed.
Morality, thus, "soars into heaven", breaks away from real morals, the source of its origin is carried out into the otherworldly spheres. Moral norms and rules begin to be interpreted as direct commandments of God (do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc.)
The religious framing of morality is characteristic of the era of the Middle Ages, feudalism, which covers a thousand-year period, from approximately the 5th to the 16th centuries. Also, other distinctive features of morality of this time are recognized as its estate - corporate nature, ritualized etiquette form of behavior, the use of the relationship between fathers and children as a universal value template.
The moral of the bourgeois era is completely different. First of all, it is secular and worldwide, that is, it does not recognize any territorial, national, religious and other boundaries and divisions. Conventionally, it can be called historically the first universal system of morality. The moral of this period is distinguished by a sharply expressed individualistic orientation of morals, their considerable egoistic nature, that is, the desire of a person to realize himself independently at the expense of another person. The cult of reason imposed by the philosophy of the Enlightenment is recognized as the semantic core of the moral systems of the bourgeois era. At that time, it was believed that only the mind, with its fundamentally unlimited capabilities, is able to overcome the anarchy of evil, fetter its activity, unite the chaotic aspirations of people into a kind of harmonious whole.
This type of morality has retained its main features to this day. Although over the past three hundred years, he still evolved. This evolution expressed itself:
in a significant increase in the degree of moral freedom;
in the increasing tolerance of society to the diverse differences of people;
in a growing respect for the individuality of each person, etc.
In the XX century, another type of morality arose - socialist. The idea of the creators of this type successfully fit into the theory of morality: if the mores of people are ultimately determined by the material conditions of their life, then, therefore, in order to generate morality, it is necessary, first of all, to change these conditions. This was done in the most radical way. The relations of property, production, politics, law, etc. were rebuilt. Morals also changed. The values of collectivism, internationalism, the ideology of universal equality have become the inner convictions of many people, real regulators of their behavior. But, despite all the efforts of the state and ideological apparatus, real, practical morality has not been able to reach the "official morality".
Each era has its own type of morality, therefore, morality develops. Any changes in material relations give rise to a new orientation of people's interests. Existing moral norms cease to correspond to their new interests and to optimally regulate social relations. Their implementation does not give the desired result. In such conditions, the practical mass behavior of people who ignore the existing moral norms is changing; new relations are formed - and all this is fixed by public consciousness in the form of new norms. Thus, the essence of the mechanism of moral progress lies in the fact that the practice of behavior finds optimal patterns, which are then formalized in the form of moral codes.
The subject of ethics, therefore, in the most general terms, is the field of a person's moral choice, the study of the arsenal of those means by which it is done. At the same time, the arsenal of means can include both objective socially canonized conditions for making a choice, these are primarily moral norms, and personal resources for making it, these are the emotional and volitional qualities of an individual. The latter, however, although they are the subjective property of each individual person, do not exist without the support of public consciousness in the sense that they themselves develop under the influence of certain moral ideas, turn out to be aimed at the implementation of these ideas. In this sense, they are impossible without rational ideas about the proper moral behavior of a person, which, undoubtedly, is already the subject of theoretical ethics. The subject represents those aspects, properties of reality, which are revealed in connection with the specific goals of study.
Morality (Latin moralis - concerning morals) is one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions. Morality covers moral views and feelings, life orientations and principles, goals and motives of actions and relationships, drawing the line between good and evil, conscientiousness and dishonesty, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice, norm and abnormality, mercy and cruelty, etc.
Morality (German Sittlichkeit) is a term most often used in speech and literature as a synonym for morality, sometimes - for ethics. In a narrower sense, morality is the internal attitude of the individual to act in accordance with his conscience and free will - in contrast to morality, which, along with the law, is an external requirement for the behavior of the individual
Ethics (Greek ἠθικόν, from Old Greek ἦθος - ethos, "disposition, custom") is a philosophical study of morality and ethics. Initially, the meaning of the word ethos was a common dwelling and rules generated by a common community, norms that unite society, overcoming individualism and aggressiveness. As society develops, the study of conscience, compassion, friendship, the meaning of life, self-sacrifice, etc. is added to this meaning.
- Philosophy as a methodological basis for the professional ethics of a police officer
- General human, sociocultural, class and concrete historical in morality.
Morality can be seen as synonymous with morality; a perfect mode of action aimed at achieving harmony with oneself and with others. Morality is the subject of ethics study. The degree of a person's morality is determined by his virtue. Morality enters into a complex relationship with law. On the one hand, formalized morality becomes law. The Ten Commandments are both a moral and a criminal law. Now the law is trying to absorb morality through the concept of "moral damage". However, morality always remains a sphere of higher ideas, a matter of conscience, which serves as a criterion for historical legal reforms. In addition, the practice of totalitarian regimes has shown that sometimes morality can conflict with law. The modern philosopher Fukuyama, Francis views morality as social capital that determines the degree of the viability of a society.
In Russian, the concepts of morality and ethics have different shades. Morality, as a rule, implies the presence of an external evaluating subject (other people, society, church, etc.). Morality is more focused on the inner world of a person and his own beliefs.
Morality stands out from the originally undivided normative regulation into a special sphere of relations already in the tribal society; it goes through a long history of formation and development in a pre-class and class society, where its requirements, principles, ideals and assessments acquire a largely class character and meaning, although along with this preserved and universal human moral standards associated with common for all epochs conditions of human community. Morality reaches its highest development in a socialist and communist society, where it becomes one within the framework of this society and subsequently becomes entirely universal human morality.
A particular difficulty for non-Marxist ethics is the problem of the relationship between the universal and the concrete-historical in morality: the concrete content of moral requirements is either understood as eternal and universal (ethical absolutism), or something is seen in it only particular, relative, transitory (ethical relativism).
Thanks to the socio-historical approach to the analysis of morality, we find that this or that class morality expresses the position of various social groups in the process of social production of culture and its historical development and, ultimately, one way or another, reflects the objective laws of history. At the same time, if the social position of a given class is historically progressive and, especially if this is the position of the working masses, who experience the oppression of exploitation, inequality, violence, and therefore are objectively interested in establishing more humane, equal and free relations, then this morality, while remaining a class , contributes to the moral progress of society as a whole, forms the elements of universal human morality.
- Dialectics of general and special, subjective and objective, form and content, essence and phenomenon in morality.
Dialectics (Greek - the art of arguing, conducting reasoning) is the doctrine of the most general laws of formation, development, the internal source of which is seen in the unity and struggle of opposites. The Stoics defined dialectics as "the science of talking correctly about judgments in questions and answers" and as "the science of the true, false and neutral," about eternal becoming and about the mutual transformation of elements, etc.
The very term "dialectics" was first used by Socrates to denote a fruitful and mutually interested achievement of truth through a clash of opposing opinions through questions and answers.
The following main stages are distinguished in the history of dialectics:
- spontaneous, naive dialectics of ancient thinkers;
- dialectics of the philosophers of the Renaissance;
- idealistic dialectics of German classical philosophy;
- dialectics of Russian revolutionary democrats of the 19th century;
- Marxist-Leninist materialist dialectics.
Many famous philosophers turned to dialectics, however, the most developed form of dialectics was in D. Hegel, despite the fact that at the origins of this method, sometimes offering no less interesting and unorthodox varieties of it, there is still Kant with his antinomics of pure reason.
In Marxist materialist dialectics, Lenin paid special attention to the law of the unity and struggle of opposites. The dialectical concept of development, in contrast to the metaphysical one, understands it not as an increase and repetition, but as a unity of opposites, a bifurcation of the one into mutually exclusive opposites and the relationship between them. Dialectics sees in contradiction the source of self-movement of the material world. Marx treated philosophy as a science and moved from the abstract to the concrete. Being determines consciousness, consciousness is understood as the property of matter to reflect itself, and not as an independent entity. Matter is in constant motion and develops. Matter is eternal and infinite and periodically takes on different forms. Practice is the most important factor in development. Development takes place according to the laws of dialectics - the unity and struggle of opposites, the transition of quantity into quality, the denial of negation.
On the basis of this, Engels derived three laws of dialectics:
- The law of the transition from quantitative to qualitative changes. Quality is the inner determination of an object, a phenomenon that characterizes an object or phenomenon as a whole. Quantity is a certainty, "indifferent to being" - the external certainty of a thing. Quality and quantity cannot exist independently of each other, since any thing or phenomenon is determined by both qualitative characteristics and quantitative indicators. An example of a transition is ice - water - steam transformations.
- The law of unity and struggle of opposites. It is believed that the basis of all development is the struggle of opposing sides. The resolution of any contradictions is a leap, a qualitative change in the given object, transforms it into a qualitatively different object that denies the old one. In biological evolution, this leads to the emergence of new life forms.
- The law of negation of negation. Denial means the destruction of the old quality by the new, the transition from one qualitative state to another. The development process is progressive. Progressiveness and repeatability impart a spiral form to cyclicity, and each stage of the development process is richer in its content, since it includes all the best that was accumulated at the previous stage.
- The golden rule of morality.
The "Golden Rule of Morality" is a general ethical rule that can be formulated as "Treat people the way you want them to treat you." The negative formulation of this rule is also known: “do not do to others what you don’t want for yourself”.
The golden rule of morality has been known since ancient times in the religious and philosophical teachings of the East and West, it underlies many world religions: Abrahamic, Dharma, Confucianism and ancient philosophy, and is the fundamental world ethical principle.
As an expression of some general philosophical and moral law, the golden rule in different cultures can take different forms. Attempts have been made by scientists and philosophers to classify the forms of the golden rule according to ethical or social criteria.
The thinker Christian Thomasius distinguishes three forms of the "golden rule", delimiting the spheres of law, politics and morality, calling them, respectively, the principles of law (justum), decency (decorum) and respect (honestum):
the principle of law requires that a person should not do to anyone else what he does not want the other to do to him;
the principle of decency is to do to another what he wants the other to do to him;
the principle of respect presupposes that a person should do what he would like others to do.
Two aspects of the rule can be seen:
negative (denying evil) "do not ...";
positive (positive, affirming good) "do ...".
Russian philosopher V. S. Soloviev called the first (negative) aspect of the "golden rule" - "the rule of justice", and the second (positive, Christov) - "the rule of mercy."
The West German professor of the 20th century G. Rainer also identifies three formulations of the "golden rule" (echoing the interpretations of Christian Thomasius and V.S.Soloviev):
the rule of feeling (Ein-fuhlungsregel): "(do not) do to another what you (not) wish for yourself";
the rule of autonomy (Autonomieregel): “(do not) do yourself what you find (not) commendable in another”;
the rule of reciprocity (Gegenseitigkeitsregel): "as you (do not) want people to behave towards you, (do not) do the same you towards them."
- Moral values. The moral dimension of the individual and society.
Morality gives marks. All our actions, as well as the entire social life (economy, politics, culture), moral assesses from the point of view of humanism, determines whether it is good or bad, good or evil. If our actions are useful to people, contribute to the improvement of their lives, their free development, this is good, this is good. They do not contribute, they interfere - it is evil. If we want to give a moral assessment to something (our actions, the actions of other people, any events, etc.), we, as you know, do it with the help of the concepts of good and evil. Or with the help of other close, derived concepts: justice - injustice; honor is dishonor; nobility, decency - meanness, dishonesty, meanness, etc. At the same time, evaluating any phenomenon, action, deed, we express our moral assessment in different ways: we praise, agree or blame, criticize, approve or disapprove, etc. .d.
Morality regulates the activities of people. The second task of morality is to regulate our life, the relationship of people to each other, to direct the activities of a person and society towards humane goals, towards achieving good. Moral regulation has its own characteristics; it differs from government regulation. Any state also regulates the life of society, the activities of its citizens. It does this with the help of various institutions, organizations (parliaments, ministries, courts, etc.), regulations (laws, decrees, orders), officials (officials, employees, police, police, etc.).
The educational role of morality. Upbringing always goes in two ways: on the one hand, through the influence of other people on a person (parents, teachers, others, public opinion), through a purposeful change in the external circumstances in which the educated person is placed, and on the other hand, through the influence of a person on himself, i.e. .e. through self-education. Upbringing, education of a person continues practically all his life: a person constantly replenishes, improves knowledge, skills, his inner world, because life itself is constantly being updated.
Morality (from the Greek) is a measure of domination over oneself, an indicator of how much a person is responsible for himself, for what he does. Morality is associated with character, temperament. If you single out the body, soul and mind in a person, then it is a qualitative characteristic of his soul.
When they say about a person that he is sincere, they mean that he is kind, sympathetic. When called soulless, it is meant that he is cruel and evil. The view of morality as a qualitative determination of the soul was substantiated by Aristotle.
At the same time, by the soul I understood such an active, active-volitional principle in a person, which contains rational and unreasonable parts and represents their interaction, interpenetration, synthesis. Morality always acts as moderation, a person's ability to limit himself, to impose, if necessary, a ban on his natural desires. Morality at all times for all peoples was associated with restraint in relation to effects, selfish passions. Among the moral qualities, one of the first places was occupied by qualities like moderation and courage, evidence that a person can resist gluttony and fear. The domination of man over himself is the domination of reason over the passions.
Morality as a volitional attitude is the sphere of actions, practical-active positions of a person. And actions objectify the internal motives and thoughts of the individual, put him in a certain relation to other people.
Morality characterizes a person in terms of his ability to live in a human community. The space of morality is the relationship between people. When they say about a person that he is strong and smart, then these are the properties that characterize the individual in himself, in order to discover them, he does not need other people. But when they say about a person that he is kind, generous, amiable, then these properties are revealed when communicating with others and describe the very quality of these relationships. For example: Robinson, once on the island, could demonstrate both strength and intelligence, but until Friday appeared, he did not have the opportunity to be nice.
Work description
The work contains answers to questions on the discipline "Ethics"
