What is moral essay. "My understanding of morality

You can order a full version of an essay (abstract, term paper or other type of work) on a given topic (or on other topics of work).

“Are moral norms in demand in modern society?”

The way of life of a modern person is distinguished, first of all, by freedom - freedom of belief, freedom in obtaining and using knowledge. And the freer a person becomes, the more urgent the question becomes for him - to rely on the will of unknown forces, God, or solely on his knowledge, backed up by practice. Asking such a question, a person often asks himself whether faith is a manifestation of ignorance and dependence in his judgments. Should a person take on faith what he has never encountered and what contradicts the usual laws of physics, nature.

Issues of morality, morality, ethics have gone through a long stage of formation in the process of evolution of society. World religions, in turn, have contributed to the formation of traditional moral norms and their comprehension in new categories, creating new motivational accents.
In the modern sense, traditional morality is based on two fundamental principles: a) all people have the same rights; b) what is allowed is that which does not violate the rights of other people. Understanding morality and morality (which in philosophical literature are sometimes non-identical categories) in this aspect raises a large number of questions, disputes, and opposing opinions in modern society.

Understanding moral standards.

The initial understanding of moral norms was reinforced at one time by religious scripture, the approval of specific prescribed norms, rules according to which the level of morality in society was measured (“Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not steal”, etc.). At various stages of the development of society and in various states, social groups, religious norms had a different impact on the understanding of morality, but the basic principles that ensure equality and harmonious existence of people are preserved. Today, many religious leaders are of the opinion that morality and religiosity are not synonymous, because even without religion, a mentally healthy person would never think of killing or robbing. In the Middle Ages, such an attitude towards religion was utopian. But, for example, the morality of the Russian Soviet society, which supports the rejection of religiosity, in turn, has similar functional characteristics - the idea of ​​collectivism, fostering a sense of duty of a person to society, etc.

Sincerely,
Head of the project “Learn simply!”
Vilkova Elena

To place an order or clarify the cost, please fill out the feedback form, and I will contact you as soon as possible:

In his statement, the French writer Helvetius raises the problem of the importance of the relationship between legal and moral norms in the process of social control. In other words, the author believes that the main role in ensuring compliance with legal norms remains with the general principles of morality and ethics.

I fully share the author's point of view - moral norms are a universal regulator, which we get acquainted with gradually throughout our lives. At the same time, moral norms do not contain heavy, legal language, incomprehensible to many citizens.

Of course, the arsenal of social norms is extremely large: corporate norms, religious norms, aesthetic rules, rules of etiquette, but only the two types described above - legal and moral norms - are a universal regulator, that is, they apply to the entire population.

Of course, there are many differences between these standards. Analyzing them, we will understand why the law is so dependent on morality.

Morality is guided by the categories of "good" and "evil", drawing the line between the behavior that society needs and does not need. Such concepts are basic for society. Law often echoes morality, fixing moral truths in laws. It turns out that people may not be aware of the legal prohibition on any act, but still avoid it, since such an act is immoral.

Morality is provided by the fear of public censure, the individual does not want to lower his reputation, does not want to be an "outcast" in society. The right is enforced by the coercive apparatus of the state: this is not always an effective mechanism, especially if the state is on the verge of destruction or the guardian of law and order takes bribes. And the fear of being ignored by the whole society can keep a person from anti-social activity.

At times, morality can go at odds with the legal norms enshrined in the state. Let us give an example from history: the decree of Peter 1, according to which it was necessary to pay tax in the event of a beard, was accepted by society with hostility, since the beard was an integral symbol of a man of that time. As a result, the total fees from this tax were not significant, although the vast majority kept their beards (this is confirmed by the historical chronicles of the visit of Peter the Great to the Siberian governor. On the day of such a visit, the governor urgently ordered everyone to be shaved, although the Decree was adopted several years ago). It turns out that law is extremely weak as a regulator in the area where it is not provided with the support of morality.

The second example of the relationship between these norms can be found in the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". Rodion Raskolnikov, having committed the murder of an old money-lender, violated both morality and law. The state reacted by assigning hard labor to the hero as a punishment, but Raskolnikov committed true repentance because of pangs of conscience - moral norms have a prevailing influence over legal norms in this novel.

Thus, the problem of the importance of the relationship between legal and moral norms in the process of social control remains relevant and has been confirmed in Russian history and literature. I hope that the state will keep this connection in mind when making laws!

* * *

Slaves of morality. Who is this? These are all those people who are active carriers of certain moral rules, attitudes, norms, views, and so on. To be an active carrier means to share and follow all these rules in life. (But why slaves? Why not such a combination of the words “slave” and “morality”? I will answer this question a little later.) These norms refer to a special form of social consciousness based on the normative regulation of human actions in society. Regulation occurs through society's evaluation of a person's actions from the standpoint of the categories of good and evil, justice and injustice, honor and dishonor, and the like. Morality regulates the behavior and consciousness of a person, to one degree or another, in all spheres of public life without exception - in work, in everyday life, in politics and science, in family, personal, interclass and international relations, and others. Morality belongs to the main types of normative regulation, such as law, customs, traditions, and intersects with them, and at the same time differs significantly from them. Unlike legal norms, the rules of morality are not written down in laws, they are supported by the power of public opinion, customs, habits and upbringing, the power of a person's inner motives. They have the status of "tacit", "unwritten". They determine the attitude of a person to society, to the peoples of other countries, to the family, and so on. The fulfillment of the requirements of morality can be controlled by all people without exception and by each individually. The authority of a person in morality is not associated with real power, but is a spiritual authority based on his own moral qualities.

Morality is universal. This statement is not an absolute law, but a regularity, since there are people who do not accept universal moral prescriptions at all, moreover, they deny them and act contrary to them. But the vast majority of the world's population (the developed population, except for various Papuans and the like) share common moral standards. General moral norms include, for example, well-known commandments from religion. Rules of this kind are the pillars that hold most of society together. I will call these norms the norms of the first, basic, level. Over the course of the development of mankind, a huge number of new installations have accumulated on these general rules, penetrating into all corners of social relations and regulating them. And they, on the one hand, begin to interfere with living freely and developing, but this is only on the one hand, however, more on that later. Of course, I have nothing against the basic settings, I completely share them. Moreover, those people who deny such fundamental values ​​as life, freedom and everything that follows from it should be isolated from society, sent to forced re-education, because action against these values ​​leads to undermining the foundations of human society. As for the moral attitudes of the next level, the second, there is already confusion in their acceptance and adherence to them. Some people believe (and they are still in the minority) that speculation, treason, fawning, lies, theft are permissible phenomena, other people - on the contrary. Some believe that all means are good to achieve the goal, others do not think so. These differences are explained by the unequal development of those social societies, groups in which these people are located. The differentiability of development is due to historical prerequisites, economic, economic conditions. For the most part, being determines human consciousness. Such people who, solely for their own reasons, do not accept the moral norms of the second level are a minority. And from the position of the majority of people who follow these norms, people who deny them are characterized as immoral. People who do not accept the basic moral principles, not only are they immoral, in the spiritual dimension they cannot be called people. After all, if there are doubts about whether it is possible to kill a person, and until such doubts are resolved, and this process will take place, in the sense of a mass character, then there will be no need to talk about any development of society, not to mention the implementation of moral norms second level. Therefore, I a priori proceed from the fact that the basic moral principles of the first level are shared by absolutely all members of society. This is a pattern. Henceforth I will speak only of the moral norms of the second level. Based on the above reasoning, we can confidently conclude that the morality of the second level is of a class nature. If the word "class" causes confusion, then you can replace it with any other synonym, for example, "group", or even "class". Regardless, the core content of this entire synonymous series has the same essence. (But whatever one may say, the ideologists of Marxism-Leninism, as always, are on friendly terms with the true state of things.) If there are groups, classes, then there is an act of division, which in turn excludes the state of unity. So the society is fragmented.

Morality, in a good sense of the word, is infected with a large part of society. And what then are value, and if from the standpoint of the majority of society - anti-value attitudes, of a minority of people who oppose generally accepted morality? Can their views be called morality? Again, from the standpoint of the moral majority, no, of course not. And from the position of their minority? It seems to me that theoretically one can also call their system a kind of morality; for them, the morality of the majority can also be immoral. But in my reasoning, I, nevertheless, will proceed from the fact that people who go against the moral principles of the majority are immoral and represent one big reactionary force.

How can I place, implement and link to the existing concepts in my reasoning the concepts of “masters”, “slaves”? Who are moral people? Probably slaves to their morals. Does their position correspond to the coloring that the word “slave” carries in itself? I think no. A slave state is an oppressed, suppressed, disenfranchised state. Are moral people moral? No. By their original nature, by their original state, they are not slaves. They can become slaves, and become when they enter into certain relationships. But if they are all equal, what type of relationship labels them as a slave? And this is precisely the relationship with the very social reactionary force mentioned above. The smallest immoral part of society. These relationships are the result of the natural course of things. For a handful of immoral people in the conditions of being in the vast majority of moral people, excellent development prospects open up. If an immoral person wants to achieve some high position, then he will go to his plan, neglecting all morality, guided by the principle "to achieve the goal - all means are good." Accordingly, free from moral attitudes, he will achieve his goal better and faster. After all, he will not experience any significant competition from the absolute majority of a society that develops on the basis of moral principles, and such a state as remorse. An immoral person, having stolen, lied, pandered, will come to the goal much faster. Just, in most cases, such people are at the top of managerial, coordinating structures, leading the rest of the moral society. If you rise above this whole structure and look at it from a height, then it is quite possible to consider a large moral part of society as slaves. Slaves of their morality, which did not allow them to achieve access to a high position, to the distribution of material wealth. And the slaves of a spoiled handful of people who stood at the "helm". And, unfortunately, this is an objective reality, the actual state of affairs, the alignment of forces. And in such an arrangement, access to higher positions is closed to a moral person, since he will be a threat to the domination of an ungodly handful of people, a threat to the current system in which a moral society is a slave to an indecent bunch of immorals, and they, in turn, are his master. And moral people, at times, cannot oppose this situation, cannot revolt, go to bloodshed, because their own moral attitudes do not allow them. In all this, in my opinion, lies the weakness of the slaves of morality. And what is their strength? Strength lies in their ability to unite. They can unite, and their morality will easily allow them to do so. Morality will play the role of a consolidating substratum that fills all spaces of human relationships. As for the merits of a structure that can be described as a single, close-knit, friendly, powerful one, I think it's not worth talking about, it's obvious. The “morality” of immorals will not allow them to unite, they, based on their “morality”, are a disunited group of individualists, they are more likely to fight for influence, for a high position, than to unite. Therefore, the slaves of morality need to take advantage of their advantage, their strength, contained in unity, and give battle to vice, obscenity, immorality, debauchery, corruption! Also, the strength of the slaves of morality will be manifested in the fact that they will be able to forgive the defeated and, instead of destroying them, subject them to re-education. The ability to forgive, to forgive disinterestedly is also a kind of power that is inherent only in people of high morality. With the destruction of classes (well, it doesn’t work without Marxist-Leninist terminology - it’s so powerful), or rather the class of immorals, the moral part of society will lose the status of a “class”, and there will be one single moral society. And it will no longer be possible to apply the concept of a “slave” of morality to him. It will be a free and, at the same time, a disciplined society, which is the main postulates of rapid and high-quality development. And when all its members are highly moral people, then development in an immoral way within the framework of this society will be simply impossible.

As for Nietzsche, his views on morality. It follows from his philosophy thatressentimentappears as a driving force in the process of formation and structuring of moral values. Yes, there is such a moment in the formation of morality - I agree with him. But originally there was morality, I believe, not out of a sense of revenge. Morality began to emerge in its proto-forms - various systems of taboos and prohibitions. They began to appear in primitive communal society. People began to understand that if they kill each other, at least within the community, this is a regression, there will be no development. Thus, over time, a ban on killing one's neighbor was formed, and other prohibitions also arose in a similar way. Then, gradually accumulated rules, which constitute the backbone of future morality, were influenced by changes in societies, modes of production, production relations. The slave era came, and then people began to form a sense of revenge, because of the oppression they experienced from the slave owners. I agree with Comrade Nietzsche, if I understood him correctly, that the impotence of the slaves of morality, their internally intense experience of this helplessness is so emotional that the emotion, as it were, plunges into the center of the personality, thereby moving away from the personality's zone of action. This emotion is constantly experienced again and again. Forms negative qualities and feelings. And if there is no way to rebel, then the slave, in fact, directs this hatred towards himself, by creating ascetic ideals. These ideals contributed to the formation of culture and morality, but in part they were meaningless.

I don't quite agree, or rather I can't even imagine that the Jews overestimated the values ​​of their masters. What now, the noble and powerful have become hated, evil, and the oppressed and the poor - good and pious, thanks to the Jews. It seems to me that the noble and powerful long before the creation of Christianity were considered insatiable and cruel. Slavery existed for a long time before the advent of Christianity, and, therefore, slaves have long created such an assessment. And it has been transmitted in the public consciousness from time immemorial. Even more, I do not agree with the position of Nietzsche, who, in fact, stood up for the masters, the aristocracy. If only pure aristocrats exist, they will never develop, they will just indulge in pleasures, and without physical labor, by mental reflection alone, they will not achieve much. And their oppression of other people is disgusting! (Here I am acting as a classic slave of morality, giving an expressive assessment of oppression.) Society, as I said above, will develop effectively only in the presence of freedom and order. So the Jews only reinforced, but did not create, the already existing dissatisfaction with the masters in society, by creating a religion. And in general, the basic prohibitions on which morality was formed did not come from religion, but arose at the very beginning of the formation of a primitive communal society. (These are prohibitions on murder, theft, incest.) Jews, I agree with Nietzsche, have some kind of special state, not that of the world messiah, but significant enough, piercing for everyone. They harmed the masters as well, having created an ideological basis for the further uprising of the slaves of morality, and harm the rest of the world with their negative traits. The main pernicious, corrupting feature of the world order is usury, from which the current world economy and ordinary people suffer. This nasty property was transferred from them to other peoples, but the benefit was not fully. If everyone is usurers, the world cannot exist. And the Jews themselves seem to have settled down quite well: having risen, they overthrew the masters and took their place. Now all the most influential structures are Jewish, the most influential people are Jews. They, through financial mechanisms hidden from the layman, just mentioned by Nietzsche, the mechanisms of relations between creditors and debtors, control more than half of the world.

I do not see anything unusual in the fact that slaves form their morality based on opposing themselves to an external aggressive source. That they themselves, like gentlemen, generate their image based on their own independent ideas. This is quite understandable by the specific historical conditions in which the formation of the morality of the slaves took place, after all, they were oppressed, and it is natural that in this case, they first needed to get rid of the oppressors, opposing themselves to them. After that, moral norms would no longer be formed to such a large degree of dependence on external conditions.

To sum it up, I ultimately, for the most part, still disagree with Nietzsche. Instead of being touched by free aristocratic gentlemen, glorifying their independent noble position, it is better to take a more difficult path. Along the way of destroying master relations, along the way of overcoming the morality of the herd instinct among slaves, the effect of the crowd, building a truly free and equal community of developed individuals, creating a highly moral, disciplined, responsible society, a society of dynamic development and prosperity!

Puleshkov Evgeny

MOSCOW ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTE

Speciality:

"Finance and Credit"

COURSE WORK

By discipline:

"Business conversation"

subject:

"Moral morality"

Performed: student

Correspondence department

/>Beldy Olga Borisovna

Checked: _______________

Grade:_______________

Ufa-2008

Introduction

Essence and structure of morality

What is morality for?

Man and Morality

religious morality

Moral principles and their role in the management of moral

human behavior

On a single morality and morality

The norm is an elementary cell of morality

Moral aspects of social behavior and activity

personalities

Ideals and values: the upper tier of moral consciousness

Thinking, morality, morality

Unity of thought, morals of morality

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Etymologically, the term "morality" goes back to the Latin word "mos" (plural "mores"), denoting "temper". Another meaning of this word is law, rule, ordinance. In modern philosophical literature, morality is understood as morality, a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations; one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society with the help of norms.

Morality arises and develops on the basis of the need of society to regulate the behavior of people in various areas of their lives. Morality is considered one of the most accessible ways for people to comprehend the complex processes of social life. The root problem of morality is the regulation of relationships and interests of the individual and society.

Moral ideals, principles and norms arose from people's ideas about justice, humanity, goodness, public good, etc. The behavior of people that corresponded to these ideas was declared moral, the opposite - immoral. In other words, what is moral is what, in the opinion of people, is in the interests of society and individuals. What brings the most benefit. Naturally, these ideas changed from century to century, and, moreover, they were different among representatives of different strata and groups. From this follows the specificity of morality among representatives of various professions. All of the above gives reason to say that morality has a historical, social class and professional character.

The sphere of activity of morality is wide, but, nevertheless, the richness of human relations can be reduced to relations:

ü individual and society;

the individual and the collective;

ü team and society;

ü team and team;

ü person and person;

a person to himself.

Thus, in resolving issues of morality, not only collective, but also individual consciousness is competent: the moral authority of someone depends on how correctly he realizes the general moral principles and ideals of society and the historical necessity reflected in them. The objectivity of the foundation just allows the individual to independently, to the extent of his own consciousness, perceive and implement social requirements, make decisions, develop rules of life for himself and evaluate what is happening. This is where the problem of the relation between freedom and necessity arises. The correct definition of the general basis of morality does not yet mean the unambiguous derivation from it of specific moral norms and principles or the direct following of the individual "historical trend". Moral activity includes not only the implementation, but also the creation of new norms and principles, finding the most appropriate ideals and ways to implement them.

Essence and structure of morality

It is pointless to look for an exact definition of the essence of morality, this was unsuccessfully attempted in antiquity. One can only designate the main frame of concepts that “fold” this science:

Moral activity is the most important component of morality, manifested in actions. An act, or a set of actions that characterizes the behavior of a person, gives an idea of ​​its true morality. Thus, only the activity and implementation of moral principles and norms give the individual the right to be recognized by an inauthentic moral culture. An act, in turn, contains three components:

1. Motive - a morally conscious urge to commit an act or motivation - a set of motives that means the preference for certain values ​​in the moral choice of the individual performing the act. For example, ... Two friends, workers of the Oxygen Plant, were sitting at the evaporator. It was a hot summer. One of them said: “It would be nice to cool off now!”. Another quickly opened the shutter, as a result of which the speaker was frozen alive by the escaping oxygen vapors ...

It would seem that in this case there are no direct motives for committing a crime, and here the criminal result does not coincide with the motives and goals of the action. Here the motivation is, at first glance, inadequate to the perfect deed. This act can rather be called unmotivated, however, the “coagulation of the motive”, its situational conditionality does not mean its absence. This impulsive action did not have a criminal purpose and a corresponding motive, but a stereotyped readiness to act frivolously, thoughtlessly, under the influence of individual isolated ideas worked here ...

2. The result is the material or spiritual consequences of an act that have a certain meaning.

3. Evaluation by others, both the act itself and its result and motive. An act is evaluated in relation to its social significance: its significance for a particular person, people, team, society, etc.

Therefore, an act is not any action, but a subjectively motivated action.

Moral (moral) relations are the relations that people enter into by doing actions. Moral relations are a dialectic of the subjective (motives, interests, desires) and the objective (norms, ideals, mores) which have to be considered and which have an imperative character for individuals. Entering into moral relations, people impose on themselves certain moral obligations and at the same time impose moral rights on themselves.

Moral consciousness - includes cognition, knowledge, volitional motivation and the determining effect on moral activity and moral relations. This also includes: moral self-awareness, moral self-esteem. Moral consciousness is always axiological, because in each of its elements it includes an assessment from the position of a developed system of values ​​and is based on a certain set of moral norms, patterns, principles of traditions and ideals. Moral consciousness, as a system of assessments with plus or minus signs, reflects reality through the prism of approvals and condemnations, through the opposition of good and evil, attitude and activity, intentions - these categories in matters of ethics are of paramount importance. Aristotle, for the first time in European ethics, comprehensively considered the concept of "intention" , understood it precisely as the basis of virtue and deliberately contrasted it, distinguishing will and ideas. Intention does not deal with what is impossible to realize, but is directed at what is in the power of man, it concerns the means to an end (it cannot be said: I intend to be blessed), in contrast to the will in general, which can deal with the impossible (the desire for immortality, for example ), and direct to what is beyond our power (the desire to win this or that athlete in the competition), concerns the goals of a person. The rational grain of Aristotle's thought, according to which the intention concerns the means, and the will - the goals of human activity, is that the content of the intention can, as a rule, be goals that are feasible, real, taken in unity with the means to achieve them. Intention is also not representation. The first is always practically oriented, singles out in the world only what is in the power of man, the second extends to everything: both to the eternal and to the impossible; the first is distinguished by good and evil, the second by truth and falsity; the first is an indication to action, tells what to achieve and what to avoid, what to do with the object; the second analyzes what the object itself is and how it is useful; the first is praised when it is in accordance with duty, the second when it is true; the first concerns what is known, the second concerns what we do not know. In addition, Aristotle concludes his comparative characterization, the best intentions and the best ideas are not found in the same people. Aristotle sees his own essential sign of intention in the fact that it is preceded by a preliminary choice, a weighing of motives, by which he, first of all, understands the different stimulating role of reason and pleasures: "It is something that is chosen predominantly over others."

In order to reveal the nature of morality, one must try to find out how, in what ways it reconciles personal and social interests, what it relies on, what generally encourages a person to be moral.

If law, for example, relies primarily on coercion, on the power of state power, tomorality relies on persuasion, on the power of consciousness, social and individual. “It can be said that morality rests, as it were, on three “pillars”.

Firstly, these are the traditions, customs, mores that have developed in a given society, among a given class, social group. The emerging personality learns these mores, the traditional forms of behavior that become a habit, become the property of the spiritual world of the personality.

Secondly, morality is based on the power of public opinion, which, through the approval of some actions and the condemnation of others, regulates the behavior of the individual, teaches her to comply with moral standards. The instruments of public opinion are, on the one hand, honor, good name, public recognition, which are the result of a person's conscientious fulfillment of his duties, his steadfast observance of the moral norms of a given society; on the other hand, shame, shaming a person who has violated moral standards.

Finally, thirdly, morality is based on the consciousness of each individual, on the understanding of the need to reconcile personal and public interests. This determines the voluntary choice, voluntariness of behavior, which takes place when conscience becomes a solid basis for the moral behavior of the individual.

Thus, I can conclude that for a personal attitude to morality, it is essential not only that the personality and behavior of a person depend on its assimilation, and, consequently, the attitude of other people in society towards him, his position among them, but also that that the assimilation of morality by a person, the type of his morality to an enormous extent depend on himself, on his activity, on his position in life.

A moral person differs from an immoral one, from one who has “no shame, no conscience”, not only and even not so much in that his behavior is much easier to regulate, to subordinate to existing rules and norms. The personality itself is impossible without morality, without this self-determination of one's behavior. Morality turns from a means into an end, into an end in itself of spiritual development, into one of the most necessary conditions for the formation and self-affirmation of the human personality. But it must also be said about those who disdainfully speak of morality. And this scorn is not as limitless as it might seem. First, rejecting some moral values, this or that person, even not always realizing it, accepts others, focuses on them. Indeed, “the phenomenon of “unconscious consciousness” is often a phenomenon that a person has and which is guided in practice, without reflecting this in his mind.” from time to time and in general within the framework of "tolerant" for others. Going beyond the "tolerant" leads to a break in the social environment of ties with this person, to his ostracism, expulsion from the environment. Thirdly, violating morality, a person usually does not accept its violations by others, especially in relation to himself, and thus remains under its influence, recognizes it, feels its necessity.

Man is a social being. Therefore, an indispensable condition for "admission" to the life of society is the process of socialization of the individual, i.e., the development by him of a specific human way of life, the basic values ​​of material and spiritual culture. And secondly, because modern industrial society relies on the broadest division of labor (material and spiritual), which gives rise to the closest interdependence of people. After all, the most ordinary, normal existence of each of us turns out to be dependent on how hundreds and thousands of people completely unfamiliar to us (manufacturers of goods, their sellers, transport workers, teachers, doctors, military men, etc.) perform their usual, routine work.

Thus, we can say that the very way of human existence necessarily gives rise to the need of people for each other. The social connection of individuals arising in this case involuntarily contains their a priori (pre-experienced) trust, benevolence, sympathy for each other - after all, without this initial trust in strangers (doctors, cooks, chauffeurs, rulers, etc.), no social life is possible. It is this social connection and interdependence of people, arising from the simple fact of their life together, that is the objective basis of morality - the leading spiritual regulator of the life of society.

Morality is usually understood as a certain system of norms, rules, assessments that regulate communication and behavior of people in order to achieve unity of public and personal interests. A certain stereotype, template, algorithm of human behavior is expressed in the moral consciousness, which is recognized by society as optimal at a given historical moment. The existence of morality can be interpreted as the recognition by society of the simple fact that the life and interests of an individual are guaranteed only if the strong unity of society as a whole is ensured.

Of course, when committing a moral or immoral act, an individual rarely thinks about "society as a whole." But in moral institutions as ready-made patterns of behavior, the public interest is already provided for. Of course, one should not think that these interests are deliberately calculated by someone and then formalized into moral codes. The norms and rules of morality are formed naturally - historically, for the most part spontaneously. They arise from many years of mass everyday practice of human behavior.

The moral requirements of a kind individual in the moral consciousness take a wide variety of forms: these can be direct norms of behavior (“do not lie”, “honor elders”, etc.), various moral values ​​(justice, humanism, honesty, modesty, etc.), value orientations, as well as moral and psychological mechanisms of personal self-control (duty, conscience). All these are elements of the structure of moral consciousness, which has a number of features. Among them it is worth noting: the comprehensive nature of morality, its non-institutional, imperative.

The all-encompassing nature of morality means that moral requirements and evaluations penetrate into all spheres of human life and activity. Any political declaration will not miss an opportunity to appeal to moral values, any work of belles-lettres necessarily contains a moral assessment, no religious system will find followers if it does not include a sufficiently strict morality, etc. Any everyday situation has its own “moral profile”, which allows you to check the actions of participants for "humanity".

OUTSIDE INSTITUTIONAL morality means that, unlike other manifestations of the spiritual life of society (science, art, religion), it is not a sphere of organized activity of people. Simply put, there are no such institutions and organizations in society that would ensure the functioning and development of morality. Even money cannot be invested in the development of morality - there is nowhere to invest. Morality is comprehensive and at the same time elusive!

The third feature of morality - IMPERATIVE - is that most moral requirements do not appeal to external expediency (do this and you will achieve success or happiness), but to moral duty (do this because your duty requires it), i.e. takes the form of an imperative, a direct and unconditional command. Moreover, good should be done not for the sake of reciprocal gratitude, but for the sake of goodness itself as such. In this call, I think, there is a completely rational meaning - after all, the overall balance of the good done and the rewards for it is reduced only at the level of society. Expect reciprocal gratitude for your good deeds in each specific case, really, is not worth it.

Among the many FUNCTIONS performed by morality, the main ones are considered to be: regulatory, evaluative-imperative, cognitive.

THE MAIN FUNCTION OF MORALITY, of course, is REGULATORY. Morality acts, first of all, as a way of regulating the behavior of people in society and self-regulating the behavior of an individual who has the opportunity to prefer one act to another.

The moral mode of regulation, unlike others (legal, administrative, etc.), is unique. Firstly, because it does not need any institutions, punitive bodies, etc. Secondly, because moral regulation involves the assimilation by individuals of the appropriate norms and principles of behavior in society. In other words, the effectiveness of moral requirements is determined by the inner conviction of the individual. Such a regulator of behavior is, of course, the most reliable of all possible. The only problem is how to form it. So far, few have succeeded.

The essence of morality is no less clearly manifested in its other function - EVALUATION-IMPERATIVE. It provides for the division of all social phenomena into “good” and “evil.” In fact, with the help of these fundamental categories of morality, any manifestation of social life is assessed and, accordingly, a command (imperative) is issued to the individual: act in such and such a specific way, because this is good, and, on the contrary, refrain from such-and-such deeds, because it is evil.

The COGNITIVE function of morality is to a certain extent derived from the evaluative one. Moral approval or indignation at any style of behavior is often the surest indicator that a particular form of life is outdated, has lost its historical justification, or, conversely, marks a new way of life, although unusual, but quite promising. The state of morals in each particular era is a self-diagnosis of society, i.e. his self-knowledge, expressed in the language of moral assessments, requirements and ideals.

The totality of these and other (educational, orienting, prognostic, communicative, etc.) functions determines the SOCIAL ROLE OF MORALITY.

Every morality is socially-historically conditioned. Its specific appearance in a particular era is determined by many factors: the type of material production, the nature of social stratification, the state of state and legal regulation, the conditions of communication, means of communication, the system of values ​​accepted by society, etc. In other words, qualitatively diverse types of society cause the emergence of various types of moral systems, including religious ones.

Of all the religious moral systems, perhaps the best known to us is the CHRISTIAN one. She proposed a fundamentally new scale of human values, resolutely condemned the cruelty, violence, and oppression common at the end of the last era, and glorified the "suffering", the poor, the oppressed. It was Christianity that actually transferred the center of gravity in moral regulation from its external, coercive forms to its internal, obeying the dictates of conscience. Thus, it recognized a certain moral autonomy and responsibility of the individual.

Religious framing of morality as its main feature is typical mainly for the era of the Middle Ages, feudalism. The morality of the bourgeois era is quite different. It is distinguished by a pronounced individualistic orientation of morals, their largely selfish character (egoism, unlike individualism, is a person’s desire not only to realize himself independently, but to do this without fail at the expense of another). The semantic core of the moral systems of the bourgeois era should be recognized as the cult of reason imposed by the philosophy of the Enlightenment, according to which only reason is able to overcome the anarchy of evil, to bind it with its activity, to unite the chaotic aspirations of people into a kind of harmonious whole.

The 20th century has witnessed attempts to create another type of morality - SOCIALIST. The idea of ​​its creators, in general, successfully fit into the theory of morality: if the morals of people are ultimately determined by the material conditions of their lives, then, therefore, in order to generate a new morality, it is necessary, first of all, to change these conditions. Which was done (initially in Russia), and in the most radical way.

The relations of property, production in general, politics, law, etc. were resolutely revised. e... Mores have also changed, both due to the "natural course of things" and under the influence of a massive "moral" or "communist education". The values ​​of collectivism, internationalism, Stalin's ideology of universal equality are in fact the inner convictions of many people, the real regulators of their behavior.

However, despite the colossal efforts of the huge state and ideological apparatus, real morality could not reach the level of "official morality", a system of norms fixed at least in the well-known "Moral Code of the Builder of Communism".

In order to understand the essence of this peculiar phenomenon, it is necessary to explain the mechanism itself, the method of self-development of morality. How does morality develop?

Any changes in material relations give rise to a new orientation of people's interests. The existing moral norms cease to correspond to their new interests and, therefore, to optimally regulate social relations. Their implementation no longer gives the desired result.

The growing discrepancy between mass moral practice and officially enshrined norms always testifies to DIFFERENCE in public life. Moreover, trouble can be a signal of the need for two kinds of changes:

a) either generally accepted moral standards are outdated and require replacement;

b) either the development of material social relations, reflected in moral norms, went completely in the wrong direction, in which it was expected, and order must be brought in precisely in this area.

This situation has developed in our society in recent decades. A deep crisis in the economy, a non-working economic mechanism, the powerlessness of the leadership to change the situation, formed a behavioral practice that contradicted the officially proclaimed moral requirements. The well-known during the socialist economy formula "the plan is the law of the activity of the enterprise" operated in very peculiar conditions.

It is known that many sectors of the national economy of the country, especially those that produced consumer goods, never received funded materials for one hundred percent fulfillment of the plan. And this could not help pushing the economic leaders to various kinds of abuse in the name of fulfilling the tasks set from above, and even without any personal self-interest, but only in the interests of the enterprise.

So already at the planning stage, deliberate deceit, a discrepancy between words and deeds, were laid in economic relations. And what was the practice of compiling actually two different state budgets worth - prosperous for everyone to see and scarce for a narrow circle of initiates.

Ultimately, the moral crisis of our society was only a symptom of a deeper crisis - in the economic foundations of our socialist existence. Their next radical turn to the old, mainstream of the development of European civilization will, of course, affect morality. Will he heal her? In the future - certainly, yes, in the near future - hardly. After all, new economic, political, and other realities overturn the system of values ​​that has developed over the course of the life of many generations of people.

Under the new conditions, private property is no less sacred than public property; speculation branded as criminal often turns into an honest business, and the "native" team leaves a person to the mercy of fate, advising them to rely on their own strengths and not to engage in dependency.

Such a "cool" change of values ​​and guidelines cannot be painless for morality. It resembles a surgical operation without anesthesia: it hurts, of course, but be patient, perhaps the condition will improve.

In the meantime, the moral crisis continues to deepen. The hope of overcoming it can be seen, at least, in the following:

firstly, in simple universal norms of morality (such as “do not kill”, “do not steal”, “honor your father”, etc.), which nevertheless the majority of normal people adhere to no matter what;

secondly, in the mechanism of SELF-REGULATION of morality, which, by its very essence, is designed to comply with the general, generic interest in the chaos of individual passions and vices. A real threat to this common interest can stabilize morals and stop their degradation. The moral instinct seldom fails mankind.

Recall once again that no morality, by the very nature of this social phenomenon, can be introduced, imposed "from above", from a theoretical level (as is possible, for example, in science). It must grow "from below", take shape and take shape at the empirical level, which theoretical morality can only correct, serve as its model, ideal.

The real basis for improving morals, i.e. practically developing moral relations and empirical moral consciousness, there can only be putting things in order in the material and other spheres of the life of our society.

religious morality

The concept of religious morality occurs in our lives quite often. This concept has long been accustomed to, it is widely used by scientists, publicists, writers and propagandists.

Most often, “religious morality” is understood as a system of moral concepts, norms, values, which are justified by religious ideas and ideas.

Morality and religion are social phenomena, each of which has a qualitative originality. Speaking of "religious morality", it is necessary to correlate this concept with both religion and morality as forms of social consciousness, with a specific way of regulating human social behavior inherent in each of them.

The most expansive interpretation of "religious morality" boils down to the fact that it is generally understood as the moral consciousness of the believer. So, V.N. Sherdakov, for example, notes: “Religion in the full sense of the word organically includes the doctrine of how one should live, what is considered good and what is evil; Morality is an essential aspect of any religion." But after all, religious motives are not always behind the actions, intentions, and thoughts of a believer. Therefore, I agree with the opinion of many scientists that the proximity of morality and religion in terms of a number of external features does not yet give full reason to talk about the appropriateness of using the concept of “religious morality” in scientific and propaganda literature as internally logical and theoretically adequately reflecting a well-known phenomenon.

In order to better understand the meaning of the interpretation of "religious morality", let's try to find out the meaning of "religious commandment" and "morality".

Religious commandments suggest that the believer considers only external expediency, which act as motives for religious behavior. It is clear that this kind of motivation is contrary to the very spirit of morality. Thus, the attitude towards goodness in religion seems to be very contradictory. On the one hand, good is declared the highest value, and good is done for its own sake. And this is an involuntary step towards morality, its involuntary half-recognition, which, however, cannot be recognized as a religion in its entirety, since then there would be no place left for religion itself.

In morality, in the specific nature of the motivation for following the moral norm, lies the peculiarity of the moral moment itself.

Thus, the conditionality of the so-called "religious-moral" norm by the idea of ​​God, the supernatural sanction of "religious morality" deprives it of its proper moral content. “Therefore, one should agree with the opinion of V.V. Klochkov that “the norms that are usually considered in our atheistic literature as “religious and moral” are actually specifically religious norms.” In other words, the point is that the same social relations can be regulated by different types of social norms, each of which affects them in its own, only her inherent ways. "

The sanctions and criteria of religious and moral norms are different, as well as the incentives for their implementation. Justification of the legitimacy of the use of the concept of "religious morality" cannot be based only on ascertaining a number of external similarities between morality and religion. “The concept of “religious morality” cannot be considered successful, because it mixes what should be different. It is no coincidence that G.V. Plekhanov took the concept of “religious morality” in quotation marks, and A. Bebel argued that “morality has absolutely nothing to do with either Christianity or religion in general.”

Moral principles and their role in guiding human moral behavior

Principles are the most general justification for existing norms and a criterion for choosing rules. Principles express universal formulas of behavior. If values, ideals are primarily emotional-figurative phenomena, and norms cannot be realized at all and act at the level of moral habits and unconscious attitudes, then principles are a phenomenon of rational consciousness. For example, the principles of justice, equality, sympathy, reflexivity of morality, mutual understanding and others are the conditions for a normal community of all people.

Here is another short definition:

Moral principle - any principle that should determine the moral will, such as joy (hedonism), happiness (eudemonism), utility (utilitarianism), satisfaction of natural impulses (ethical naturalism), perfection (euphonism), harmony, etc.

Of interest is the structure of morality from the point of view of the degree of complexity of the regulatory impact exerted by certain moral ideas. The simplest form of moral statements is the norm: “do not kill”, “do not steal”, “do this or that”. The norm determines behavior in some typical situations that have been repeated for thousands of years. Ways to solve them are communicated to us from childhood, usually we use them easily and without thinking. And only the violation of the norm attracts attention as a flagrant disgrace.In addition to external observance of the rules, morality must penetrate into the soul of a person, he must acquire moral qualities: prudence, generosity, benevolence, etc. The ancient Greek sages identified four basic virtues of a person: wisdom, courage, moderation, correctness. Of the qualities it manifests itself in a variety of ways in a variety of actions. When evaluating a person, we most often list these qualities. But it is clear that each of the people is not the embodiment of all perfections, and one merit may not atone for a bunch of shortcomings. It is not enough to have separate positive features, they must complement each other, forming a general line of conduct.Usually a person determines it for himself, formulating some moral principles. Such, for example, as collectivism or individualism, selfishness or altruism. By choosing principles, we choose a moral orientation in general. This is a principled choice, on which particular rules, norms and qualities depend. Loyalty to the chosen moral system (principality) has long been considered the dignity of the individual. It meant that in any life situation a person would not deviate from the moral path. However, the principle is abstract; once the intended line of conduct, sometimes begins to assert itself as the only correct one. Therefore, one must constantly check one's principles for humanity, compare them with ideals. The ideal is the ultimate goal towards which moral development is directed; it is either an image of a morally perfect person or a more abstract designation of everything “morally higher”. Can we turn the ideal into reality? After all, approaching it, we see that it is still far from perfect. However, one should not despair: the ideal is not a standard with which one must coincide, but a generalized image. The ideal inspires our actions, showing in today, in our today's soul, what they should be. As we improve, we also improve our ideals, blazing our own path to them. This is how an ideal develops a person. The loss of an ideal or its change turns out to be the most difficult test, for this means the loss of a moral perspective.

In relation to all these levels of moral consciousness, the supreme regulator is the concept of the highest values ​​of morality as such. They usually include freedom, the meaning of life and happiness. Value concepts form the basis of our moral orientation, they fascinate consciousness, permeate it from top to bottom. So the components of morality are tied together in whimsical ways. Depending on the moral tasks being performed, they develop into ever new structures. Morality is not a fixed object to our eyes, but a functional formation. Morality is born from the movement of society and the individual, therefore it is in its functions that it truly reveals itself.

Loyalty to the chosen moral system (principality) has long been considered the dignity of the individual. However, the principle itself is abstract, therefore, the next step in the moral structure is values ​​and ideals as the ultimate goal towards which moral development is directed.

United morality and morality

The new society of the future should also be characterized by a new type of life activity. “Being determines consciousness” should be replaced by the concept of “consciousness determines being”. It is obvious that the new society will give rise to the New Man. But it can also be said differently that the New Man will also form the New Society.

A person of the New is a person with a different way of thinking, living in a different, higher dimension of consciousness, for he is armed with the knowledge of the One Law. He is consciousness. He is not devoid of knowledge accumulated by previous generations. His mind (one mind) is holistic, one. Being and consciousness in such a person live in harmony. His individual consciousness, being self-sufficient, lives in harmony with the public consciousness. Therefore, he does not need a special morality if he lives according to the Uniform Law, because the norms of morality coincide with the norms of being. But it can also be said that the man of the New professes the morality of the One Law. The main properties of such morality are described in the TSB:

“In a socialist society, the problem of the moral education of the masses and the individual, the fight against immorality, the construction of social relations in all spheres on the basis of moral principles has become one of the most important. The moral code of the builder of communism contained in the Program of the CPSU formulates the most important general principles of communist morality. Responding to the fundamental interests of man, communist morality in its actual implementation relies on people's own consciousness, is hostile to all formalism and dogmatism, and presupposes a deep conviction of everyone in the justice and humanity of the professed principles.

But the Uniform Law introduces new meanings into these statements. So, it is not the moral code of the builders of communism that forms the most important principles of communist morality, but the principles of higher democracy, the principles of new thinking, which are based on the principles of self-organization: self-sufficiency, self-regulation, self-reproduction, self-development and self-normalization (On New Thinking).

Knowledge of the unified laws of nature releases memory to comprehend more and more new laws of nature, which are a specific copy of the Unified Law in a particular area of ​​application, turning the mind into reason (One Mind).

Ignorance of the One Law corrupts, decomposes the mind, and, increasing the entropy of the mind, turns the mind into madness, meaning into nonsense, living into dead. This is how the mind self-destructs. This is how the “wisdom” of the modern mind is characterized in the Bible:

(1 Corinthians 3:19) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God, as it is written, He catches the wise in their guile."

Knowledge of the One Law, on the contrary, contributes to the formation of the One Mind, the One Will and the One Spirit, and, consequently, the One morality, as the religion of the One Law.

The man of the New is not guided by morality. He is guided by the One Law of the Universe and lives in harmony with it, as a single self-sufficient "particle" of everything that exists. The One Law reflects the highest standards of morality and morality.

This means that the concept of morality and morality should be mutually complementary.

Morality should determine the vector of mismatch between "being" and the Unified Law of the evolution of man and society, and morality should characterize the vector of the spiritual component of the evolution of man and society.

Laws have always carried a reflection of the morality and morality of society, i.e. laws were a consequence of morality and morality, which means that between the laws of society, morality and morality at all stages of evolution there were “scissors” characterizing the “defect” of their masses, with a plus or minus sign.

If this “defect” of the masses is equal to zero, then this will mean that a person lives in harmony with the Single Law, with its norms of morality and ethics.

Morality and morality of a person and society, the rules of relationships will change in accordance with the Single Law, there will simply be no contradictions at each stage of evolution between the laws and norms of morality, because they will resolve in the most natural way.

The norm is an elementary cell of morality

So, morality appeared - a manifestation of the collective will of people and the skills of reconciling the interests of individual individuals with each other and the interests of society as a whole, through a system of norms, rules and assessments. Morality is a code of conduct.

In order to exist in the social world, a person needs communication and cooperation with other people. But essential for the implementation of joint and purposeful action should be such a situation in which people have a general idea of ​​how they should act, in which direction to direct their efforts. In the absence of such a vision, concerted action cannot be achieved. Thus, a person, as a social being, must create a set of generally accepted patterns of behavior in order to successfully exist in society, interacting with other individuals. Such patterns of behavior of people in a society that regulate this behavior in a certain direction are called cultural norms. In the emergence of the latter, traditional and even subconscious moments play an important role. Customs and methods developed over thousands of years and passed down from generation to generation. In a revised form, cultural norms are embodied in ideology, ethical teachings, and religious concepts.

So the norms of morality arise in the very practice of mass mutual communication between people. Moral norms are brought up daily by the force of habit, public opinion, assessments of loved ones. Already a small child, by the reaction of adult family members, determines the boundaries of what is “possible” and what is “impossible”. A huge role in the formation of cultural norms characteristic of a given society is played by the approval and condemnation expressed by others, the power of personal and collective example, and visual patterns of behavior (both described in verbal form and in the form of patterns of behavior). The normativity of culture is maintained in the course of interpersonal, mass relationships between people and as a result of the functioning of various social institutions. The education system plays a huge role in the transfer of spiritual experience from generation to generation. An individual entering into life acquires not only knowledge, but also principles, norms of behavior and perception, understanding and attitude to the surrounding reality.

The norms of culture are changeable, culture itself is open. It reflects the transformations that society undergoes with the joint activities of people. As a result, some norms cease to meet the needs of members of society, become inconvenient or useless. Moreover, outdated norms serve as a brake on the further development of human relations, a synonym for routine and inertia. If such norms appear in a society or in any group, people strive to change them in order to bring them into line with the changed living conditions. The transformation of cultural norms occurs in different ways. If some of them (for example, the norms of etiquette, everyday behavior) can be transformed relatively easily, then the norms that guide the most significant spheres of human activity for society (for example, state laws, religious traditions, etc.) are extremely difficult to change and their acceptance in an altered form by members of society can be extremely painful.

Various social groups and society as a whole are gradually forming a set of "workable" patterns of behavior that allow their members to best interact both with the environment and with each other. There are thousands of generally accepted patterns of behavior. Each time, from a huge number of options for possible behavior, the most “workable” and convenient ones are selected. Through trial and error, as a result of influence from other groups and the surrounding reality, the social community chooses one or more options for behavior, repeats, consolidates them and accepts them to meet individual needs in everyday life. Based on successful experience, such behaviors become ways of life of the people, everyday, everyday culture, or customs. Thus, customs are simply habitual, normal, most convenient, and fairly widespread ways of group activity.

There are two types of customs: patterns of conduct that are followed as an example of good manners and courtesy, and patterns of conduct that we must follow, because they are considered essential for the welfare of the group or society and their violation is highly undesirable. Such ideas about what should and should not be done, which are connected with certain social modes of existence of individuals, are called moral standards, or mores. Therefore, moral standards are ideas about right and wrong behavior that require the performance of some actions and prohibit others. People in social groups try to realize their needs together and look for different ways to do this. In the course of social practice, they find various acceptable patterns, patterns of behavior, which gradually, through repetition and evaluation, turn into standardized customs and habits. After some time, these patterns and patterns of behavior are supported by public opinion, accepted and legitimized. On this basis, a system of sanctions is being developed. The process of defining and fixing social norms, rules, statuses and roles, bringing them into a system that is able to act in the direction of satisfying some social need, is called institutionalization. Without institutionalization, without social institutions, not one modern society can exist. Institutions are thus symbols of order and organization in society.

While moral norms are based mainly on moral prohibitions and permissions, there is a strong tendency to combine them and reorganize them into laws. People obey moral standards, automatically believing that they are doing the right thing. With this form of submission, some are tempted to violate moral norms. Such individuals can be subordinated to existing norms by the threat of legal punishment. Consequently, the law is reinforced and formalized moral norms that require strict implementation. The implementation of the norms included in the laws is ensured by institutions specially created for this purpose (police, court, etc.)

Moral aspects of social behavior and personality activity

On the basis of a combination of a number of features, it makes sense to distinguish between public and individual behavior, on the one hand, and public and antisocial, on the other. In the first case, the external sign of social behavior becomes its mass character, a kind of multi-subjectivity. But this is only an external sign. The main thing is that the term "public" indicates the attitude to social norms, customs, traditions, system of values. In the second case, the term "public", as well as "anti-social", indicates the compliance or non-compliance of behavior with objectively existing systems of norms, values, i.e. taken in a positive or negative sense of the word. Thus, social behavior is understood as such typical mass human actions that are characterized by social significance, their relationship to social institutions, norms, moral values ​​and at the same time are conditioned by certain economic, political and other social motives.

If we focus on the dependence of the general on the individual, then here, first of all, the invariable dependence between the practical actions of individuals and their consciousness or its substructures: knowledge, beliefs, feelings, habits is striking. Behavior is made up of actions, although this is true only in the most general theoretical sense. As for mass behavior, it can be regarded as one of the essential features of a concrete historical way of life.

Quite often, the means of social control and the mechanisms of the internal self-consciousness of individuals are separated and contrasted on the grounds that the former are external in relation to the self-determination of a person, fetter his freedom and provide only adaptive behavior. Such a situation exists, but it is not universal, especially in a socialist society.

As for the social activity of the individual, it is a specific property of the form of the movement of matter; on the one hand, it is a generic concept in relation to activity, on the other hand, it means a measure of the intensity of social activity, a measure of its actual implementation.

An extremely important condition for a qualitative assessment of social activity is its direction. From an ethical point of view, this may be a collectivist or individualistic orientation, which is simultaneously the most general characteristic of social behavior and its subjects.

In general, the moral stimuli of the socio-political activity of the masses, of course, are: consciousness of public duty, a sense of responsibility, faith in justice.

Ideals and values: the upper tier of moral consciousness

The moral ideal is the ideal image or ultimate goal of moral development. Both the image of a morally perfect person and the morally generalized image of everything “morally perfect, beautiful, higher” can act as an ideal.

Moral value is not the most difficult phenomenon of value to understand. At least here its social nature is clearly visible. Only a religious consciousness can endow the phenomena of nature with a moral meaning, see in them the action of evil forces or a manifestation of divine punishment. We know that the realm of morality is entirely limited to the sphere of action of social laws.

However, where could the idea come from that moral evaluation is an act of direct discretion, seemingly “self-evident”. This may be the act of assessment of ordinary moral consciousness. A theoretical scientist approaches the analysis of moral phenomena and evaluates them from the point of view of their social significance. A person who experiences emotions on the subject of a certain act may not be aware of those social conditions and the complex interweaving of social ties that make the act he evaluates good or evil.

A very definite approach to a person is obvious in the conditions of private property interests, characteristic of the era of modern capitalism. Since the individual achieves his private goals only by serving the “public interest” of the company, private property egoism must be hidden in every possible way, only his service zeal, devotion and interest in the prosperity of a business that does not belong to him should be visible from the outside. The individual is no longer an egoist, but "a selfless servant of the common cause." This common and unofficial lie legalized in bourgeois society becomes the morality of the individual. It hovers in the form of common phrases, the approval of superiors, hypocritical assurances of one's own loyalty, and sporadic slander against others who do not show such loyalty.

Hence, values ​​are patterns of behavior and world relations, recognized as a guide, which are approved in the norms. When they say "be honest", they mean that honesty is a value. Human values ​​are hierarchical, i.e. there are lower and higher values. In relation to all these levels, the supreme regulator is the concept of higher values ​​(value orientations) of morality (freedom, the meaning of life, happiness).

The subject of the study, on which the stated conclusions are based, were the following categories of moral consciousness:

1. Axiology (theory of moral values) - occupies a key place in the system of philosophical concepts of moral consciousness. According to A.I. Titarenko: “Value orientation ensures the functional unity of the entire structure of moral consciousness.” In other words, in psychological terms, it is a system-forming factor.

In the history of philosophy and ethics, beauty, progress, social justice, public benefit, the interests of the people, class, etc. have been put forward for the role of criterial highest values. These criteria correspond to different - often hostile to each other - codes of morality, different systems of specific prescriptions and assessments.

2. Moral principles or maxims to a certain extent can carry a value modality, but often reveal only the features of the way to fulfill moral requirements. A classic example is the Golden Rule. Moral principles also include relativism, dogmatism. Although these principles do not justify any norms of behavior, they nevertheless determine the degree of obligation to follow the requirements.

3. Amoralism (evil in moral self-consciousness). The methodological principle of a comprehensive study of moral consciousness involves the study of moral and negative manifestations of personality no less than positive ones.

Thus, since we take moral values ​​as the basis of the study, the antipode, the problem of immorality, must also be included as an obligatory element.

"Amoralism" in "philosophical execution" is very diverse. Quite a lot of "immoral" arguments can be found in the history of ethics.

For example: F. Nietzsche: man is free by nature. Aristippus: pleasure is good, even if it is generated by the ugliest things. Callicles (sophist): morality is invented by the authorities for their own benefit. And the one who is strong to rise above the laws, he has the right to do so. Thrasymachus (sophist): what is useful to the stronger is fair (relationships of the institution-society type).

Thus, the justifications for amoralism described in the literature and independently formulated were used.

4. Moral conflict and choice. This problem stands apart in the philosophical concepts of moral consciousness. Of particular interest to researchers is the choice of a solution when a “good” goal must be achieved by “evil” means, the attitude to compromise between good and evil, goals and means.

For example, is it possible to steal medicine for a dying person? Torturing a terrorist to find out about the location of the bomb? Or, like Gleb Zheglov, put the evidence in the pocket of a thief who is difficult to catch "by the hand"?

Problem. What is considered a system-forming factor? Some factor that determines the whole structure as a whole. For example, one could assume that a person whose highest value is the good of society will strive to live for others in terms of thanatology, consider selflessness as virtues, in moral conflicts will choose an act that he considers important for the good of society. For example, he will torture a terrorist and slip a wallet on a criminal.

Thinking, morality, morality

In principle, a trivial truth is known from history - every nation during a certain historical stage has its own ideas about morality and morality. What is considered indecent among some peoples, on the contrary, is considered decent. And these "properties" and "obscenities" are reflected in folk traditions, superstitions, and even bear their imprint in religious teachings.

But today, when modern civilization has embarked on the path of globalism, there are processes of formation of a single space - time of the life of modern civilization on a planetary scale.

Modern civilization has already developed a single type of life activity:

"took resources - returned waste."

This is a pathological type of activity. It generates environmental problems in all spheres of human life, littering with its "waste" not only the surrounding nature, but also the person himself (consciousness, mind, society, ..).

At the same time, the main link of such life activity is generated by the economy. It is known that the production of any product is characterized by a chain of the form

"... commodity-money-commodity ...".

In this chain, money plays the role of an intermediary, they are a measure of the value of goods. Today this chain is turned inside out

"... money-goods-money .."

In this chain, money is a commodity, and a commodity becomes a measure of the value of money. And money begins to turn all the values ​​it touches into false values, into dust.

In general, the relationship between old and new thinking is reflected in the following identities

From the first identity, it is clear that production (creation, creation, ..) as such is absent in it.

Within the framework of this thinking, the evolution of the relationship between business and morality can be reflected in the following identity, in which the symbol "*" marks complementary categories. And the "cooler" a business is, the smaller the share in it is morality, morality, ethics, humanism, legality, etc. This identity reflects the essence of the "highest values" of modern democracy.

In contrast to this type of thinking, the second identity characterizes a new thinking that determines the type of life activity.

"took resources - return with a percentage",

"In order to get more (from society), you must first give more (to society)."

In this identity, the relationship between business and morality is already different.

From these identities it is clear that each of the above types of thinking is characterized by its own morality. In the first identity, morality is a category of "apparent", "virtual". It serves business. In the second identity, she is self-sufficient, she is the creator of a completely different business, a business that works for the benefit of the majority of society, and not for the benefit of the oligarchs who produce symbols of resources and buy real resources for them, so that they can be sold again, but much more expensive ... Here is the moral , morality, ethics, laws, are a commodity that can be bought and sold.

Unity of thought, morality and ethics

The unified law of evolution makes it possible to realize the purpose and purpose of morality and morality. Morality morality constitutes a single dual monad "morality-morality." If this monad is characterized by internal duality, then this will mean that morality and morality are characterized by perfect unity.

If this monad is characterized by external duality, then this means that there are differences between morality and morality. If these differences are of an antagonistic nature, then we will actually have a “morality-anti-morality” monad, and the “morality-anti-morality” monad will characterize a mutually complementary monad that characterizes the spiritual component.

But if the monad and morality are not antagonistic, but complementary, then we will get another family of "moral particles". All these particles will characterize the properties of all possible relationships between morality and morality.

Complementarity between morality and morality means that we have two complementary triads, the synthesis of which generates particles of the triadic family.

In this case, grouping the vertices of the resulting hexad by three, we will get the following particles.

1 - the original monad "morality-morality", as a single "particle" with internal duality, i.e. and from the position of an external observer, such a particle will seem unstructured, unified;

2-neutral triad particle (8+1+2)=(6+7+2);

3-negatively charged particle (1+2+3);

4-negatively charged particle (2+3+4);

5-neutral particle (3+4+5);

6-positively charged particle (4+5+6);

7-positively charged particle (5+6+7);

8-neutral particle with intrinsic duality (6+7+8).

It can be seen from the properties of the families that the vertices of different triads, when combined into a hexad, are always located opposite each other, as if demonstrating their complementarity.

Let's identify one triad with the consciousness, and the other with the subconscious. We will assume that the subconscious determines the existence of a person, and consciousness determines its spiritual component.

Since above we have already connected morality with human being, and morality with its spiritual component, now we get a natural relationship between being and morality.

Imagine that the triad "0.618 + 0.618 + 0.618" is associated with being, and the triad "0.382 + 0.382 + 0.382" - with consciousness, we will get the type of life activity "Being determines consciousness", because the subconscious triad has self-sufficiency (2/3 of 1). It dominates the relationship between being and consciousness. Naturally, with this type of life activity, the norms of morality prevail over the norms of morality.

And now let's assume that the triad of consciousness is self-sufficient ("0.618 + 0.618 + 0.618"). Then the subconscious triad will be characterized by the values ​​(“0.382 + 0.382 + 0.382”). And we will get a diametrically opposite type of life activity. Here already “consciousness determines being”, i.e. here already the norms of morality dominate over the norms of morality.

How does such a dominance of morality take place in the process of evolution of morality and morality? Self-sufficient morality serves a person like a beacon, pointing and illuminating the road on his Path. This is the ideal to which one should strive to “pull up” the opposite pole of the monad. But "pulling up" morality to morality will lead to the fact that morality will rise again, forming a qualitatively new ideal, to which morality will again be pulled up. Therefore, it can be said that, to a certain extent, the quality of morality achieved by a person, society, is always lower than the quality of morality, to which he (they, it) must come in the course of his evolution.

But since evolution takes place in accordance with the One Law, the evolution of morality and morality occurs synchronously with the evolution of society, and therefore the evolution of the “morality-morality” monad will also determine the evolution of the consciousness of society.

If the entropy of the monad will increase, then this will mean that the evolution of morality and morality of society is going down (regression). If evolution proceeds along an ascending line, then a more progressive society is being built, and if the entropy of the monad is equal to zero, then this means that morality and morality are one, that the perfect form of the monad has been achieved. So, assuming that the sum of the values ​​of the triad vertices on the diagonal of the hexad will be equal to 9, and the values ​​of vertices 1 and 8 are equal to 9, then we will get the following perfect code

This is the very “Code of the Beast”, about which so many “horror stories” (the Number of the Beast) have been written, but which, it turns out, is characterized by the most perfect form of the Uniform Law.

Only this code can have, as we found out above, different meanings.

If the type of life activity is determined by the formula “being determines consciousness”, then people will indeed give birth to the BEAST, which will destroy them, which, however, is not so far from the truth. If this code determines the self-sufficient consciousness of people, then this code of the beast will give birth in the soul of every person to the harmony of the rainbow, the harmony of the One Law.

Conclusion

So, having considered the structure of moral consciousness, the following conclusions will follow. Moral consciousness is generated by the need to regulate social relations and fulfills this purpose through the development of spiritual values, which together form an ideal model of proper behavior and relationships. , science and art, everyday life and personal relationships between people - all this is the object of its reflection, giving moral consciousness the character of essence everywhere.

Moral principles are of universal importance, they cover all people, they fix the foundations of the culture of their mutual relations, created in the long process of the historical development of society. Any act, human behavior can have a variety of meanings (legal, political, aesthetic, etc.), but its moral side, moral content is evaluated on a single scale. Moral norms are daily reproduced in society by the force of tradition, by the power of a universally recognized and supported by all discipline, by public opinion. Their implementation is controlled by all. The "golden rule" of morality, known since ancient times, is the following: "(do not) act towards others as you (would not) like them to act towards you."

Responsibility in morality has a spiritual, ideal character (condemnation or approval of actions), acts in the form of moral assessments that a person must realize, internally accept and, accordingly, direct and correct his actions and behavior. Such an assessment must comply with the general principles and norms accepted by all concepts of what is proper and not due, worthy and unworthy, etc.
Morality depends on the conditions of human existence, the essential needs of a person, but is determined by the level of social and individual consciousness. Along with other forms of regulating people's behavior in society, morality serves to coordinate the activities of many individuals, turning it into a collective mass activity subject to certain social laws.

Several studies have been conducted on different procedures. Having considered the ethnic features of moral consciousness, we can draw some conclusions.

Ethnic features of moral consciousness.

China. Almost everywhere, the Chinese more categorically deny the achievement of a good end by evil means. They are against (while the Russians are for) particulars in this matter: they do not want to behave immorally with scoundrels, to use force against them. At the same time, they are for a more severe (than is customary in Russia) punishment in case of serious consequences, and as a punishment, they can underestimate the student's mark for bad behavior. Obviously, it is no coincidence that the Chinese deny (with the Russians doubting) the forgiveness of insults and advocate revenge for the damage done.

The moral consciousness of the Russians is thus heterogeneous. Moral consciousness is strongly influenced by culture (religious, social factors, traditions, etc.). Although the Russians are distinguished by some anarchism and at the same time conformism in morality, they still observe the principle of forgiveness of insults, they do not want to take revenge.

USA. Gender differences. Moral consciousness is different in women and men. For example, the female image of a worthy person is much more focused on naturalness and ease in relationships. The female image of “virtue embodied” is also more inclined to show sincere concern for people, treats everyone equally, is more disinterested in relationships and does not use other people’s weaknesses for its own benefit. He is less vindictive, and does not seek to be extravagant, nor to flaunt his merits and merits.

Philogenesis of moral consciousness. For 5 years (from 1996-2001) the significance of the goal of living for other people has significantly decreased among students. The significance of a wide circle of contacts and a good family has fallen, although in absolute terms it remains at a very high level.

China. On the other hand, the importance of material wealth has increased; they want to become very rich more, although at the level of a trend. Self-worth has also increased; they are much more afraid of the degradation of themselves as individuals.

Thus, two clear trends are evident. First, the importance of social contacts and altruism in relationships is significantly reduced. Secondly, the opposite trend is outlined - in a certain sense, egoism as self-preservation (which, in fact, is not bad), but pragmatic (material) type of egoism. In terms of thanatology (the meaning of life), there is an individualization of moral consciousness.

Bibliography

1. Razin A.V. Ethics: A textbook for universities / A.V. Razin, Moscow, Academ. project, 2004.-622p.

2. Prokofieva G.P., Ethics, course of lectures / G.P. Prokofiev. Khabarovsk: DVGUPS Publishing House, 2007.-110p.

3. Huseynov A.A. Ethics: Textbook. Manual for universities / A.A. Huseynov, R.G. Apresyan.- M.: Gardarika, 1999.-472p.

4. Zolotukhina-Abolina, E.V. Modern Ethics: Origins and Problems: Proc. For universities / E.V. Zolotukhin-Abolin. - Rostov n / a.: March, 1998.-448s.

5. Schreider, Yu.A. Ethics: Textbook / Yu.A. Schrader.- M.: Text, 1998.-271p.

6. Zelenkova, I.L. Ethics: Textbook. A manual for university students / I.L. Zelenkova, E.V. Belyaev. - Minsk: TetraSystems, 2000.-268s.

7. Blyumkin V.A. Ethics and life. - M.: Politizdat, 1987. - 111p.

8. Bogolyubov L.N. Human and society. – 7th ed. - M .: Education, 2001. - 414 p.

9. Golovko N.A. Morality: consciousness and behavior. – M.: Nauka, 1986. – 208s.

10. Kuchinsky S.A. Moral man. - 2nd ed. - M.: Politizdat, 1987. - 303 p.

IS THERE A PROGRESS IN MORALITY AND MORALITY

The theme of the relationship between the ethical categories of morality and morality and progress in general is not new; it has attracted the attention of thinkers in all eras and has always caused numerous disputes. Caused controversy, first of all, the possibility of applicability of the concept of "progress" to ethical categories, and secondly, the reality and possibility of progress itself in the theoretical formulation and practical application of these categories.

That is, when analyzing the problem of progress in morality and morality, one should single out the issue of progress in ethical teachings and progress in the general moral state of society and in the personal code of conduct of an individual representative of this society.

Before attempting to deal with the question of the applicability of progress to the concepts of morality and morality, a distinction must be made between them. It is all the more difficult to do this because quite often, not only in philistine conversation, but also in scientific and philosophical literature, the concepts of "ethics", "morality" and "morality" are taken as synonyms. But still, it is worth recognizing that since there are different terms, then they are used to refer to different concepts.

Taking into account the above, we can define ethics as a consolidated philosophical discipline responsible for the harmonious integration of the formulated norms of behavior, their practical application and historical development. Accordingly, the generally accepted system of views and norms regarding good and evil is closer to the understanding of morality, generally accepted to a certain extent for all mankind, but can also be accepted for a limited group of people on professional, confessional, ethnic and other grounds. But every group and every community consists primarily of people for whom there is also their own understanding of good and evil and the practical implementation of this understanding, called morality. At the same time, the moral component of the worldview of an individual to one degree or another correlates with the morality accepted in society. Even the denial of generally accepted moral norms occurs along the lines of reflecting them.

If we assume the existence of progress, that is, a positive progressive change in the implementation of public morality and human morality, then it follows from this that we also assume the existence of criteria by which it is possible to assess the progressiveness of changes, if they occur. These should be such criteria, the significance of which would be preserved throughout the existence of society. And in general, is there a mandatory progressive change in morality and ethics?

In order to try to answer the questions posed, it is necessary to present the history of mankind as a certain, on the whole, a single process, stretched out in time. At the same time, the obligatory conditions also include the fact that humanity as a whole has been united throughout its history, but nevertheless consisting of, to one degree or another, autonomous social communities, in which, in turn, one can see the presence of a wide variety of groups, the degree of unity of which among themselves also differs greatly.

Awareness of the ethical side of relationships between people takes place at the most remote stage of history from our time and is connected, I think, with the need for joint activity, and joint activity here should be understood as almost all aspects of joint existence: getting food, giving birth and raising children, even the attitude to deceased relatives. Information about the moral attitudes and morality of behavior in this era is mostly conjectural and is partly based on data from archeology and physical anthropology, as well as on the basis of modeling based on ethnographic data of societies that have retained the primitive structure almost to the present. It is not yet timely to talk about any developed ethical doctrine in relation to such a society, but its moral principles were clearly systemic in nature, although the rationale for certain norms for a modern person may seem very strange.

With the beginning of written history, one can already quite definitely judge not only the development of ethical teachings, but also their implementation through transformation into moral norms, and, moreover, in connection with the moral state of society. In parallel, another regulatory system is developing - the law reflected in the legislation. And the basis for the formation of legal normative systems, in addition to the imperious will of the rulers and the economic and political interests of the elite, is the public morality formulated by the priestly class or worldly sages (philosophers). Moreover, formulated means not so much composed anew as recreated from tradition.

And in this regard, the question of the basis on which fundamental moral norms can be set is actualized. In this regard, already in ancient civilizations, the idea of ​​the universality of the basis for formulating ethical norms appears. In different parts of the planet, in conditions of almost complete isolation of each other, such universal concepts as justice, honor, kindness and others arise and develop. Examples of this are Ancient China with its Confucianism and theories of the path, Ancient Greece, where the very concept of ethics was formulated by Aristotle. True, the Romans, who replaced the Hellenistic powers, contributed practically nothing to the development of morality and morality, even their system of law was based to a greater extent on an undeveloped religious tradition, more like a trading system. The desire to reach a compromise with all possible forces operating in the surrounding world, avoiding ethical assessments, did not contribute to the improvement of the heritage of the Hellenistic world. To a certain extent, independently of Roman domination, a crisis of foundation arose for the formulation of morality. The conclusion of the ancient Greek philosophers that the necessity of a certain behavior is due to the very reasonableness of such behavior did not sound very convincing to the majority.

At the philistine level, moral norms acted more consecrated by tradition than by reasonable justifications. The elite periodically fell into an ideological crisis, accompanied by a decline in morals.

The solution of the problem with the justification of the origin (justification) of ethical norms was outlined as well as possible with the spread of monotheistic religions. Of course, even in former social communities, morality was justified to a large extent by religious ideas, but the presence within one polytheistic religion of several almost autonomous cults, and even the state or ethnic binding of mythology, with the development of empires, it was more and more leveled. The change of empires partly influenced the change in the religious and mythological content of moral norms, as, for example, in the era of Hellenism in Egypt. And any change in the fundamental social attitudes did not particularly contribute to the preservation of their value.

Monotheism, on the other hand, made moral norms immutable, given once and for all. The Jewish religion has not coped with the task of spreading its ideas within the framework of the familiar world, including its ethics through the institution of proselytes. But on the other hand, Christianity that came to replace it was able to make its ethics truly universal. Even the main and most powerful schism that took place in 1054 (the exchange of anathematizations between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople) was not enough to create several instead of one Christian morality. Christianity was divided on dogma, but not on ethics. At the same time, within the framework of the Christian worldview, such an ethical complex of moral norms and a moral way of life has developed that another monotheistic religion, Islam, could not surpass, despite a fair amount of rigor compared to the religion of Christ.

The processes taking place at the same time in the East could not reach the same level in terms of a transparent justification of morality, carried away by pluralism, and often this enthusiasm turned out to be so strong that moral perfection was actually replaced by the formation of certain physical skills and abilities (the practice of Buddhism, especially in zen).

The crisis was outlined only when, under the influence of first secularism, and then open atheism, it became necessary to look again for the basis for the existence of moral norms and values. The concepts of “humanism”, “human rights” and “universal values” fixed in the terminological set, in reality, cannot serve as a justification for morality, since they themselves constantly require clarification, an absolute that could be relied upon is not found in secular ethics. In fact, non-religious ethics do not set norms, but state the way of thinking and behavior that has already been adopted by society, whether it is good or bad.

The results of the moral order were not long in coming - on the ethical plane, such concepts are gradually being established that for thousands of years within the framework of civilization were considered forbidden and contrary to morality - perversion, suicide and murder, not to mention the de facto established ethics of lies. At the same time, negatively deviant behavior tends to take the place of the norm.

Thus, progressive linear progress in morality and morality turned out to be a chimera. It would not be entirely correct to talk about progress in the field of morality and morality; rather, modern society has entered the stage of regression of moral norms and values ​​and their reflection in morality as a system of behavior.