ISBN 978-5-89428-391-3

This edition (book one) examines the main topics of the ethics course: the subject, features of moral regulation, the structure of moral consciousness, the history of morality, the ethical categories of good, evil, love, conscience, etc. Familiarity with ethical issues contributes to the development of a worldview and attitude that is morally oriented, aimed at self-improvement and self-development of the ability to do good, love, and conscientious self-control. The manual has a wide range of views and assessments of thinkers of world and domestic culture. For each topic, an ethical workshop has been developed, the tasks of which are designed primarily for individual work reader.

The author thanks the staff of the Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences for their careful and critical discussion of the work. Special thanks are expressed to N.S. Barkovskaya and A.G. Shamakhanov for moral and material assistance in the preparation of this publication.

Tutorial“Ethics” is intended for students, graduate students, young teachers, and teachers.

Editor: Dr. Philosopher, Science, Professor N.N. Shevchenko

Reviewers:

Doctor of Philosophy, Sciences, Professor N.N. Karpitsky

Doctor of Philosophy, Sciences, Professor N.A. Lurya

Professor S.I. Anufriev

Candidate of Philosophy, Sciences, Associate Professor L.V. Kotlikova

Part 1.

1. Ethics. Morality. Moral

2. Features of moral regulation

3. Individual, personality, individuality

4. Levels of moral consciousness

4.1. Egocentric consciousness

4.2. Group-centric consciousness

4.3. The actual moral level of consciousness

4.4. The highest (spiritual and religious) level of moral consciousness

Part 2. History of morality

1. Taboo is the oldest moral imperative

1.2. Mythological reconstruction of taboos

1.3. Current state taboo phenomenon

1.4. Taboo as a ban on murder

2. Pity, compassion as a source of morality

3. Ritual. Sacrifice

4. Giving.

6. The golden rule of morality

7. Ancient moral codes. Commandments of Moses

8. Christian commandment of love

9. Ethics of non-violence.

Part 3. Ethical categories

1. Good and evil

2. Ethical and philosophical reflection of evil. Dialectics of good and evil

3. Genealogy of evil. Non-philosophical approaches

3.1. The theory of the “selfish gene”

3.2. Evil as causing suffering

3.3. The source of evil is superanimals and suggestors

3.4. Evil comes from aggression

3.5. The nature of evil in the context of the phenomenon of power

3.6. Innate altruistic complex as the ability to do good deeds

5. Conscience

5.1. The concept of shame, torment and remorse, remorse

5. 2. Origin of conscience

Literature

Book prospectus plan two

PART 1

Subject and basic concepts of ethics

Ethics. Morality. Moral

If there is a science that is truly necessary for man, then this is the one that I teach - namely, how to properly take the indicated place in the world - and from which one can learn what one must be in order to be a man.

I. Kant

What am I and what is my relationship to the infinite world? ...how should I live, what should I always count, in front of everyone? possible conditions, good and what is always and under all possible conditions bad?

L.N. Tolstoy

All smart thoughts have already been changed.

The point, however, is that they are always necessary

rethink.

I. Goethe.

Ethics is the philosophical science of morality. Let us first give several definitions of ethics, and consider its philosophical nature later. The Enlightenment philosopher Holbach called ethics the science of relationships between people and the responsibilities arising from these relationships. Russian philosopher N. Lossky defines ethics as the science of moral good and evil and their implementation in human behavior. It examines the ultimate goal of a person's life and his behavior as it leads to the achievement of this goal or to deviation from it. These definitions will gain deeper meaning and understanding after becoming familiar with the most basic ethical concepts. Therefore, let us dwell on the content of the basic concepts: ethics, morality, morality.

The term “ethics”, which Aristotle introduced into scientific use, goes back to the Greek word “ethos”, which means a way of being, a unified code, order as an expression of cosmic order and order in the existence of a person, his life, in his home, finally. This is the law of existence of the ancient Greek both in the family and in the agora, the place of public life. Etymological roots lead to the designation by this concept of a home in general, a den, a place to live, etc. In modern science it with(custom, custom, character) is a generalized characteristic of the culture of a large social group or individual, expressed in a system of prevailing values ​​and norms of behavior. At all times, every nation has its own ethos. As an example, let us pay attention to the commandments of Moses, to parables, folklore; they always contain the rules by which people live. “Ethos is the recognition in the historically changing forms of human existence of a certain permanent, unchanging, regardless of the era, content what makes a person recognizable as a person. Ethos is a person’s inescapable need for communication, the need to be in a state of connection with other people, the ability to organize and maintain connections, i.e. regulate communication. The human world in this sense is endowed with a certain order, which in ethos is revealed in the form of moral norms and traditions.” We will have to refer more than once to this deep meaning - “ethos”; we note that many terms of modern science are associated with it: ethics, etiquette, ethology (the science of animal behavior), ethnos, ethosphere (we will get acquainted with this concept later).

Every science has an object of knowledge - this is the area of ​​phenomena that this science studies, and a subject that includes a set of questions and problems related to the nature of the phenomena being studied, the characteristics of their functioning, etc. In the process of searching for answers to these questions, they analysis there is a need for scientific concepts, with the help of which the main ideas of this science are expressed. Ethics studies the entire sphere of human relations that are subject to moral assessment. The subject of ethics is the issues of the emergence, development, functioning of morality or ethics - this is both the area of ​​phenomena in the world of human relations and the basic concepts of the science of ethics.

We define morality as a set of principles, norms, habits that regulate the relationships of people in society from the point of view of good and evil. L.N. Tolstoy in one of his letters to N.N. Miklouho-Maclay wrote that “morality is the science of how people can live, doing as much good as possible and as little evil as possible.” Morality can be considered synonymous with ethics. Russian word morality and the Latin mos - disposition, mores - morals - concepts that coincide in content. It is obvious that the concepts of morality and morality are etymologically related, but there is a tradition of distinction regarding their content in ethics as a philosophical science. Hegel in his work “Philosophy of Law”, in accordance with the logic of his philosophizing, distinguishes morality and morality as stages of development and self-expression of an absolute idea. In domestic ethical science, some researchers believe that morality is a set of principles and norms contained in the public consciousness of a cultural era, a large social formation; its principles and requirements depend on the state social groups in society, and morality is an area of ​​practice, the area of ​​individual human actions, an area of ​​a person’s personal world. It is in this area that the formation of an attitude, a motive (driver, from the Latin motive - to push), an assessment of activity occurs, which, in fact, are elements of the structure of an action. “Morality itself is life, or more precisely, the sphere of life associated with human affairs. A person does something and creates morality. He also creates it when he influences the actions of other people; here practice precedes theory.”

There is the position of the modern culturologist S. Averintsev, who refrained, in his words, from attempts to thoughtfully contrast “ethics”, “morality” and “ethics” with each other, believing that etymologically these are absolutely the same concept, only expressed first in Greek, then a Latin, and finally a Slavic root. “The Latin word has a taste of “intelligence” for the Russian ear,” says S. Averintsev. He connects morality with conscience and continues: “I would say this: conscience is not from the mind, it is deeper than the mind, deeper than everything that is in a person, but in order to draw the correct practical conclusions from the call of conscience, the mind is needed. Morality should be a mediator between conscience and mind. Conscience is depth, mind is light; morality is needed for light to clarify the depth.”

It seems to us that the difference between the concepts of morality and morality is as follows: within society, in social ties and relationships, moral norms and requirements, for example, codes, function, and where a person is thought of in all the “existential depth”, in the cosmic universe, in the future relationship with the Absolute (God), the concept of morality is applicable (as Hegel noted: in the language of morality, a person communicates with God).

So, ethics is a science, a field of knowledge, a philosophical tradition, a philosophical experience in the study of morality, its changeable forms, and the moral behavior of people. Ethics forms models of morality that should contribute to a good goal in the motives of human actions, explores the nature of moral requirements, the reason for the constant discrepancy between what a person does (existent) and what he should do (ought). Vl. Soloviev in the preface to his work “Justification of Good” means the goal of ethics is knowledge for action. He compares moral philosophy with a guidebook that describes remarkable places, but does not tell a person where to go, because the human being already has the primary foundations (conscience, pity, reverence) for determining the moral purpose of his actions. In this sense, ethics is ultimately a science. practical, it is needed precisely for life practice, first of all.

Ethics seeks answers to the questions: what is morality for? how and when did it arise? Do people's moral ideas change in the process? historical development and in which direction? In other words, is there moral progress, is the victory of good over evil possible or, on the contrary, is evil so deeply rooted in man that there is no basis for optimism?

Moral philosophy has always been the most painful part of any type of philosophizing, because the “damned” questions of the meaning, the value of the existence of each person and humanity as a whole are not fully understood; Every era, every philosopher, every person who thinks about himself has the right to choose his own point of view, to follow those whom he understands and shares. The Russian philosopher S. Frank writes in his work “The Meaning of Life” that “this question is not a “theoretical question”, not a subject of idle mental games, this question is a question of life itself, it is just as terrible and, in fact, much more terrible than in times of dire need the question of a piece of bread to satisfy hunger.” A special place in the system of ethical knowledge is occupied by the inner world of a person in inextricable connection with its mental and spiritual content, and therefore the study of “the conditions for the emergence of moral actions in the soul” (notes another Russian philosopher K.D. Kavelin) is included in the content of the subject of ethics.

Ethics arises in line with ancient philosophy and is its special substantive beginning. This great and significant philosophy until today was born precisely in connection with the formulation of ethical problems of meaning, value human life. “Philosophy is what called upon us to tirelessly lead science to wisdom, concepts to ideas, reason to reason. But for this to happen, love is necessary, and the most unselfish, pure, meek and holy - love for the truth. And such love is something moral. This means that philosophy is a moral matter, and everything that calls itself philosophy, but is not obsessed with a moral idea, is either false philosophy, or only a tool of philosophy, and not itself.” And again: “Philosophy is born in Greece in response to the moral need to critically evaluate the true dignity of man in the world.”

Almost all of the greatest thinkers in human history have been involved in ethics. If we follow the above position, then it is necessary to recognize that it is the ethical questions of the meaning of life that are worthy lifestyle were the source of philosophizing and have always co-present in any somewhat holistic philosophical system as value-orienting, meaning-giving knowledge. Let us take as an example Kant’s famous questions: “What can I know? What should I do? What can I hope for? A person answers these questions all his life and with his whole life, it is clear that with varying degrees of depth, but she herself the need to answer for oneself, for oneself inseparable from a person. The philosopher is “loaded” with these questions in their entirety - his teaching and his life become an answer to them.

Our domestic philosophy as a form of Russian self-awareness, which arose much later than the ancient and European ones, is most clearly characterized by the presence of deep moral content throughout the entire period of its existence. Philosopher N.O. Lossky said that the moral dominant of the Russian people was the “search for absolute good,” which determined not only the uniqueness of the moral and ethical creativity of Russian thought, but also the general view of the socio-historical meaning of life in general. “The Russian person,” emphasizes N.O. Lossky, “has a particularly sensitive distinction between good and evil; he vigilantly notices the imperfections of our actions, morals and institutions, never being satisfied with them and never ceasing to seek perfect good.”

Next (book 2, part 1) we will dwell on the characteristics of ethics as a science, the main task of which we see is designation of a moral way of life, in reflection from this point of view of life practice, and now let us consider in the most general form the meaningful meanings of morality (or morality).

When it is clear what true morality is, then everything else will be clear.

Confucius

Already in antiquity, the understanding of morality (what morality and ethics are) began as measures of a person’s dominance over himself, measures of his responsibility for his actions. The question of man's dominance over himself is, first of all, the question of the dominance of reason over passions. Morality, as can be seen from the etymology of the word (character, morals), is associated with character and temperament. If in human nature we distinguish body, soul and mind (spirit), then morality becomes qualitative characteristics souls, which Aristotle founded. At the same time, by soul he understood such an active active-volitional principle in a person, which contains rational and unreasonable parts and represents their interaction, interpenetration, synthesis.

The experience of ethical judgments arose long before the advent of the science of ethics, since people have always had the need to harmonize interests and actions, to determine responsibilities to other members of society; in compliance with certain standards of behavior. In other words, we can say that people have always felt the need for such forms of behavior, such rules that regulate the life of the human community from the point of view of its preservation and ensuring the possibility of development, both the life of an individual and the entire society.

Let us designate this need as a fundamental, system-forming characteristic of developing human existence. If we imagine human society as a dynamic, self-developing system, then we must find in it such regulatory mechanisms that support, on the one hand, its integrity, and on the other hand, mobility, the ability to change, and if the changes are directed, orderly, then the system will be capable of development. Regulatory mechanisms thus turn out to be the internal and necessary content of social processes, and each element public organization(system) is also necessarily included in regulatory processes, includes them in its internal nature. In modern science about self-organization (synergy) there is a concept - entropy. In social processes, entropy means measure of order and disorder in the behavior of elements in the system (from absolute order to chaos). Both turn out to be extreme, polar states of the system. Absolute states of chaos or order make the system unviable. Absolute chaos, disorder, and arbitrariness of the elements of a system simply fall apart, just as rigidly ordered elements complicate its development and self-movement - therefore, the system needs a certain measure of freedom of movement of individual elements. Therefore, the mechanisms that regulate entropic processes are called anti-entropic and turn out to be necessary; moreover, it is these mechanisms that provide a measure of orderliness and freedom, the arbitrariness of the behavior of the elements of the system.

In society, these are regulatory laws that ensure its existence, integrity and development, thanks to the presence of freedom of behavior of an individual and his compliance with the generally established order, rules, laws, finally. The regulatory components of society include: moral, religious, aesthetic, legal, economic, political laws, they are goal-setting and meaning-forming constructs human activity, social groups, the whole society. Human intelligence, cognition, technical equipment are the main facilities fight against entropy.

First of all, the actual regulatory mechanisms include morality and law. These are deeply interconnected forms of regulation of human behavior and relationships. If morality is an “internal” regulator of human behavior, based on conscience and personal responsibility, then law is an exclusively external regulator in relation to a person (ignorance of the law does not exempt a person from legal responsibility). Moral order, law is created by the subjective internal efforts of people, since a person is not an instrument, but has freedom of choice (this will be discussed in more detail below). Freedom is the main condition for a person to gain selfhood, independence, self-worth, and the right to the creativity of being. Let us emphasize once again that it is the presence of internal freedom that makes the system mobile and capable of development.

Legal regulation is based on an objectified, institutionally structured need for public order, in compliance by all members of the community with the norms of life. In contrast to the exclusively voluntary fulfillment of moral requirements, the implementation of legal norms is controlled by public authority (for example, the state) and relies on coercion. Law, as a product of cultural and civilizational development, “grows” from “customary law” - the historical stage of morality (for example, talion, which will be given a detailed description in the second part). Let us note that morality is “older” than law in its historical primogeniture. Moral regulation has always existed in society (taboo, talion, Golden Rule morality, etc.), since it is “the line separating the animal community from the human community” (C. Darwin), and in this sense is a generic, essential sign of man and humanity.

Ethical requirements for a person are much higher than legal ones, since they are focused on the moral ideal, on how it should be from the point of view of the highest justice. Legal norms fix the specific historical level of achieving the ideal. Morality condemns any manifestations of dishonesty, dishonesty, greed, etc., and law suppresses only the most malicious, socially dangerous manifestations of them. “The authority of moral laws is infinitely higher,” says Hegel. Let us outline Hegel's position on this matter.

In “The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate,” Hegel criticizes the social and legal practices of Jewish and Roman society: while recognizing the civilizing influence of socio-legal laws and institutions of power, he at the same time notes the formal lack of legislation, which consists in the universalization of private interest and the subordination individual to general. The moral imperfection of the law is manifested in the mechanism of crime and punishment. Fulfillment of the law not only does not restore justice, but also leads to its double violation: first, the criminal crosses the line of the law, and then the executioner rejects the highest commandment “thou shalt not kill,” encroaching on human life. Only love, forgiveness and reconciliation can restore moral justice.

Hegel wrote: “A person whose soul has risen above legal relations and is not subordinated to anything objective has nothing to forgive the offender, because he has not affected his rights in any way; as soon as someone encroaches on the object of the right, he immediately renounces this right. The soul of such a person is open to reconciliation, for he can immediately restore any living connection, re-enter into a relationship of friendship and love.” A misdemeanor requires a punishment, a crime requires an executioner. This is the game of social “justice”, which leaves no room for the restoration of human relations in society.

The more scrupulous the laws and the stronger the power structures, the more the volume of grievances and mutual claims will increase, the higher the level of social tension should become. It is important for us to emphasize this idea because any reasoning about legal society, about strengthening legal regulation should not obscure the ethical foundation in the system of regulation of human relations.

In Russian philosophy, there are two views on the relationship between law and morality. From one point of view, it is believed that law is “legally formalized morality”: the norms of law express, although not all, socially significant moral norms, therefore law is the “lowest limit” or “minimum of morality” (Vl. Soloviev). It is assumed that there should be no contradictions between legal norms and moral norms, although the moral space is wider than the legal one; not everything that is condemned by public opinion as an immoral act is an act that violates legal norms and is punishable accordingly.

Objecting to Vl. Solovyov, E.N. Trubetskoy writes: “There are many legal norms that not only do not represent a minimum of morality, but, on the contrary, are extremely immoral. Such are, for example, serfdom, laws establishing torture, executions, laws restricting religious freedom. In addition, there are many legal norms that do not contain any moral or immoral content, and are indifferent from a moral point of view: such are military regulations, rules on wearing orders, laws establishing the cut of uniforms for various departments. Finally, the very exercise of law is not always in accordance with morality: one and the same act can be impeccably legal, correct from a legal point of view and at the same time completely immoral... All that has been said is quite enough to see that law cannot at all be defined as a minimum of morality. All that can be said is that the law as a whole must serve moral purposes. But this is a requirement of an ideal, which reality does not always correspond to, and often directly contradicts.”

In our opinion, one cannot ignore the position of Vl. Solovyov and E. Trubetskoy, understanding that law itself appears as a form of protection of private property (Ancient Rome), it is at all times burdened with legitimate (legal) violence, it is more effective than “beautiful” morality. Constitutional state– a cultural and civilizational product, brought to life by the social need to restrain destructive processes in society. As the real history of the state shows, its main function– to regulate and protect the interests of each of its citizens, which quite often turns into the protection of a person’s inescapable desire for power and private property, which can be and often are deviant in nature from the point of view of the ideal of human coexistence. And therefore moral regulation, even less effective and defenseless than law, is always necessary in any society, in any state system as an expression of humanity, true humanity.

The relationship between law and morality can be depicted by two intersecting circles (similar to Euler’s circles in logic): they have a common part, where the norms of law and moral norms coincide, but, in addition, there is an area of ​​moral norms that is not reflected in legal laws, and an area legal norms that do not have any moral content or even immoral, but “legal” norms, legitimate, as reflected in the famous saying: dura lex, sed lex (the law is harsh, but such is the law).

Let us emphasize once again that in the relationship between the two most important regulatory systems (morality and law), one cannot underestimate (in the development and practice of legal regulation) the fact that “every law is based on a fundamental ethical requirement, on a truly visible value. Every right is an expression of ethical aspiration,” we add: we're talking about about ideal law, in practice it does not exist. The Russian philosopher and politician P.A. spoke more definitely. Kropotkin, who said that “it is better not to confuse the tasks of ethics with the tasks of legislation. The doctrine of morality does not even decide the question of whether legislation is necessary or not. ...Ethics does not indicate a strict line of behavior, because a person himself must weigh the value of the various arguments presented to him. The purpose of ethics is to set before people a higher goal - an ideal that, better than any advice, would lead their actions in the right direction."

When discussing the difference between moral regulation and other organizational and control spheres (law, politics), it should be noted that morality “has no material forms, is not materialized in administrative apparatuses, institutions of power, is deprived of control centers and means of communication and is objectified in language and speech, but, above all, in reflection, in the signs and properties of other phenomena.” In other words, morality virtual, exists as a form of consciousness. Being a special form of social and individual consciousness, morality is part of all areas of people’s spiritual activity and influences human life who thinks about what to do, plans, assumes the result and moral assessment of an action that has not yet been completed. Modern philosopher A.A. Huseynov, who devoted his entire scientific life to the study of ethics, defines the features of morality as follows:

a) it characterizes a person’s ability to live together and represents a form of relationships between people;

b) it is not subject to the law of causality and the principle of utility (note that only what is moral can be useful - this thesis will be developed in the topic of criticism of the principles of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice - T.T.);

c) the moral law does not allow the separation of the subject and the object of action, that is, declaring morality and practicing it yourself is a single, inseparable process;

d) morality is a heavy burden that a person voluntarily takes upon himself. Morality is a game in which a person puts himself at stake (the meaning and content, the quality of his life - T.T.). Socrates is forced to drink poison in order to remain true to his moral beliefs. Jesus Christ was crucified. Giordano Bruno was burned. Gandhi was assassinated. These are the highest stakes in this game.

Let us recall that morality regulates people’s behavior through the assessment of their actions, their actions towards other people from the point of view of good and evil. Before talking about the specifics of moral regulation, let us give the most general definition the most important ethical concepts of “good” and “evil”.

Good in itself and for itself is the absolute goal of the world and the duty of every subject, who must have an understanding of good, make it his intention (motive) and implement it in his activities

Hegel

The concepts of good and evil underlie the moral motivation of action and the assessment of people's behavior. We will give the most general definition of good, and its deeper characteristics will be presented in the third part of this publication. Good is an act the result of which is good not only for oneself, but also for others, for example, public good. What is good? In ethics and philosophy, good is defined as something that contains a certain positive meaning.

In ancient ethics, good was interpreted differently depending on the philosophical school or the views of individual philosophers: as pleasure (Cyrenian school, Epicureanism) or abstinence from passions (Cynicism), as virtue in the sense of the dominance of a higher, rational nature over a lower one (Aristotle, Stoicism). Aristotle distinguishes goods of three kinds: bodily (health, strength, etc.), external (wealth, honor, fame, etc.), and mental (mental acuity, moral virtue, etc.). In Plato and in ancient Platonism, good is identified with the highest level of the hierarchy of being. Plato defines good as the unity of truth, goodness and beauty.

In medieval scholasticism, God, who is the source of all goods and the ultimate goal of human aspirations, acts as the highest good. New European philosophy emphasizes the role of the subject in defining something as good (Hobbes, Spinoza: good is what a person strives for, what he needs). A characteristic feature of new European ethics is the utilitarian interpretation of the good, reducing it to utility. Subsequently, the concept of good loses its significance as the main ethical category and in the mid-19th century it is replaced by the concept of value.

Good is the property of things, relationships, ideas to satisfy human needs. What a person needs, what is useful to him, can be called good. Any things and relationships, any actions, ideas, etc. that satisfy reasonable human needs and contribute to a full, harmonious human life are goods. It is clear that the good for an individual is not only food, home, creative work, but also the existence of other people; a person by origin, by way of being, is social, connected with other people, depends on the state of the community in which he resides, his actions, in turn, influence other people, society as a whole. In the strictly ethical sense of the word, the concept benefits synonymous with the concept of good.

Good can be understood as a benefit, i.e. such morally positive content and result of human activity that are necessary for the existence of man and society. Good is the good that ensures life itself, and evil is what destroys the good, a certain order of their distribution, which does not correspond to the laws of existence, in other words, it does not ultimately contribute to the provision and preservation of life. Good can be defined as such human activity as a result of which good is accomplished. In the most general approximation, good can be considered good, useful to people activity, in general form goodness is a way of preserving and increasing the wealth of life and life itself. There is evil destruction of good, the result of evil is lack, harm, suffering, etc.

So, we have identified three main concepts: moral, or individual behavioral attitudes of a person (good, evil); morality, or socio-behavioral attitudes of human communities, regulations oriented toward good or evil behavior, and ethics- a science whose subject is morality, ethics, which regulate relationships between people from the point of view of good and evil. Ethics, morality, morality have their own language, their own concepts and categories. The content of ethical categories will be revealed in the third part of this publication, and here we will give a brief summary of the most important ethical concepts with the help of which moral communication between people is carried out and moral rules of community life are formulated. Let us note that they are the result of selection, recording of human experience and its reflection as the most important function of culture.

Requirement(moral) – simplest element moral relations (from the point of view of good and evil) in which there are people connected by many social and social connections. The requirement has an imperative (imperative) meaning in morality. Everyone knows the following requirements: be kind, do not do evil, fulfill your duty towards your family, work collective, state, etc.

Norm(lat. - rule, sample) one of the simplest forms of moral requirements. This is an element of moral relations that must correspond to moral necessity, and at the same time, it is a form of moral consciousness in the form of rules and commandments. A moral norm is an expression of the concrete historical form of society’s need for regulation. We evaluate our actions and the actions of other people, first of all, as meeting a moral standard or as violating it.

Principles – the most general form of moral requirement, which reveals the content of a particular moral system. Moral principles are the basis for the development and analysis of moral standards.

Ideals – the concept of moral consciousness, containing the highest moral requirements-absolutes, is a projection onto the moral improvement of the individual and social relations. Without the recognition of moral absolutes, no imperatives (commands) are effective, because moral relativism is inevitable - moral principles begin to adapt to constantly changing circumstances, which contributes to a decrease in moral assessments, makes moral regulation ineffective, and, ultimately, threatens a person’s decent life and society.

Ethical workshop

1. Give an analysis of the following judgment by K. Wojtyla: “The truth about good is based on an understanding of the nature of man and his goals, for good is that which corresponds to this nature and goal of being itself.”

2. Russian philosopher K.D. Kavelin believed that the main content of the subject of ethics was the study of “the conditions for the emergence of moral actions in the soul.” Do you agree with this understanding of the subject of ethics? Compare this definition with others known to you.

3. Give an analysis of the following judgment about the morality of A.A. Huseynov from the book “Great Moralists”: “Morality illuminates the path of human life... It is this-worldly... Its mission... is to give a certain direction to historical existence itself. Morality is the truth of earthly life and outside of concrete fulfillment, outside of connection with the thirst for happiness, it does not exist. “Morality is responsible for the meaningfulness of a person’s life.”

4. Give examples to confirm the following statement: “The main thing in morality, the main thing in it, is not reflection, not reasoning, but action, deed. Morality is the ability to act wisely."

5. In what sense can we agree with the statement of the Soviet ethicist Milner-Irinin that “law is ossified morality”?

The study of human society is a very multi-layered and difficult task. The basis, however, is always the behavior of each individual and the entire group as a whole. The further development or degradation of society depends on this. In this case, it is necessary to determine the relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality” and “morality”.

Morality

Let's consider the terms ethics, morality and morality sequentially. Morals are the principles of behavior accepted by the social majority. IN different times morality appears in different guises, just like humanity. From here we conclude that morality and society are inextricably linked, which means they should be considered only as one whole.

The very definition of morality, as a certain form of behavior, is very vague. When we hear about moral things or have little idea of ​​specific things. This is due to the fact that behind this concept there is only a certain basis for morality. Not specific instructions or clear rules, but only general directions.

Moral standards

Moral standards are precisely what the concept itself contains. Some general instructions, often not particularly specific. For example, one of higher forms Thomas Aquinas' morality: "Strive for good, avoid evil." Very vague. The general direction is clear, but the specific steps remain a mystery. What is good and evil? We know that there is not only “black and white” in the world. After all, good can cause harm, but evil sometimes turns out to be useful. All this quickly leads the mind into a dead end.

We can call morality a strategy: it outlines general directions, but omits specific steps. Let's say there is a certain army. The expression “high/low morality” is often applied to it. But this does not mean the well-being or behavior of each individual soldier, but the condition of the entire army as a whole. General, strategic concept.

Moral

Morality is also a principle of behavior. But, unlike morality, it is practically directed and more specific. Morality also has certain rules that are approved by the majority. They are the ones who help in achieving high moral behavior.

Morality, as opposed to morality, has a very specific concept. These are, one might say, strict regulations.

Rules of morality

The rules of morality are the core of the whole concept. For example: “you can’t deceive people,” “you can’t take someone else’s property,” “you should treat all people politely.” Everything is concise and extremely simple. The only question that arises is why is this necessary? Why is it necessary to adhere to moral behavior? This is where morality comes into play.

While morality is a general development strategy, morality explains specific steps and suggests tactics. On their own they do not function correctly. If we imagine that clear actions are carried out aimlessly, then, obviously, all meaning disappears in them. The opposite is also true; a global goal without specific plans is doomed to remain unfulfilled.

Let us recall the analogy with the army: if morality appears as the general state of the entire company, then morality is the quality of each individual soldier.

Education of morals and ethics

Based on life experience, we understand that moral education is necessary for life in society. If human nature were not limited by the laws of decency and each individual was guided only by basic instincts, then society as we know it today would quickly come to an end. If we put aside the laws of good and evil, right and wrong, then ultimately we are faced with the only goal - survival. And even the most lofty goals pale before the instinct of self-preservation.

In order to avoid general chaos, it is necessary to cultivate in a person the concept of morality with early age. Various institutions serve this purpose, the main one being the family. It is in the family that a child acquires those beliefs that will remain with him throughout his life. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of such upbringing, because it actually determines a person’s future life.

A slightly less important element is the institution of formal education: school, university, etc. At school, the child is in a close group, and therefore is forced to learn how to interact correctly with others. Whether the responsibility for education lies with teachers or not is another question; everyone thinks differently. However, the very fact of having a team plays a leading role.

One way or another, all education comes down to the fact that a person will be constantly “examined” by society. The task of moral education is to ease this test and guide along the right path.

Functions of morality and ethics

And if so much effort is invested in the education of morality, then it would be nice to examine it in more detail. There are at least three main functions. They represent the relationship between ethics, morality and ethics.

1. Educational.
2. Controlling.
3. Estimated.

Educational, as the name suggests, educates. This function is responsible for forming correct views in a person. Moreover, often we are talking not only about children, but also about fully grown and conscientious citizens. If a person is observed to behave inappropriately to moral laws, he is urgently subjected to education. It comes in different forms, but the goal is always the same - calibration of the moral compass.

The controlling function monitors human behavior. It contains habitual norms of behavior. They, with the help of the educational function, are cultivated in the mind and, one might say, control themselves. If self-control or education is not enough, then public censure or religious disapproval is applied.

The evaluation helps others at the theoretical level. This function evaluates an action and labels it as moral or immoral. The educational function teaches a person based precisely on value judgments. It is they who represent the field for the work of the control function.

Ethics

Ethics is the philosophical science of morality and ethics. But no instructions or teachings are intended here, only theory. Observing history, studying current norms of behavior and searching for absolute truth. Ethics, as the science of morality and morality, requires painstaking study, and therefore the specific description of behavior patterns is left to “colleagues.”

Objectives of ethics

The main task of ethics is to determine the correct concept, the principle of action according to which morality and ethics should work. In fact, it is simply a theory of a certain doctrine within the framework of which everything else is described. That is, we can say that ethics - the doctrine of morality and ethics - is primary in relation to practical social disciplines.

Naturalistic concept

There are several basic concepts in ethics. Their main task is to identify problems and solutions. And if they are unanimous in the highest moral goal, then the methods differ greatly.

Let's start with naturalistic concepts. According to such theories, morality, morality, ethics and the origin of morality are inextricably linked. The origin of morality is defined as the qualities originally inherent in a person. That is, it is not a product of society, but represents somewhat complicated instincts.

The most obvious of these concepts is the theory of Charles Darwin. It argues that what is generally accepted in society is not unique to human species. Animals also have concepts of morality. A very controversial postulate, but before we disagree, let's look at the evidence.

The entire animal world is given as an example. The same things that are elevated to the absolute level by morality (mutual aid, sympathy and communication) are also present in the animal world. Wolves, for example, care about the safety of their own pack, and helping each other is not at all alien to them. And if you take their close relatives - dogs, then their desire to protect “their own” is striking in its development. In everyday life, we can observe this in the example of the relationship between a dog and its owner. The dog does not need to be taught devotion to a person; you can only train certain moments, such as the correct attack, various commands. From this it follows that loyalty is inherent in a dog from the very beginning, by nature.

Of course, among wild animals mutual assistance is associated with the desire to survive. Those species that did not help each other and their own offspring simply died out and could not withstand the competition. And also, according to Darwin's theory, morality and morality are inherent in man for the purpose of undergoing natural selection.

But survival is not so important to us now, in the age of technology, when most of us have no shortage of food or a roof over our heads! This is certainly true, but let's look at natural selection a little more broadly. Yes, in animals this means struggle with nature and competition with other fauna. Modern man has no need to fight with either one or the other, and therefore he fights with himself and other representatives of humanity. This means that natural selection in this context means development, overcoming, and struggle not with an external, but with an internal enemy. Society develops, morality strengthens, which means the chances of survival increase.

Concept of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism involves maximizing benefits for the individual. That is, the moral value and level of morality of a particular act directly depend on the consequences. If, as a result of some actions, people’s happiness has increased, these actions are correct, and the process itself is secondary. In fact, utilitarianism is a prime example of the expression: “the end justifies the means.”

This concept is often misinterpreted as being completely selfish and "soulless." This, of course, is not true, but there is no smoke without fire. The thing is, utilitarianism between the lines presupposes a certain degree of selfishness. This is not said directly, but the principle itself - “maximize the benefits for all people” - implies a subjective assessment. We cannot know how our actions will affect others; we can only guess, which means we are not completely sure. The most accurate forecast is given to us only by our own sensations. We can more accurately say what we will like than trying to guess the preferences of people around us. It follows from this that we will primarily be guided by our own preferences. It is difficult to directly call this selfishness, but the bias towards personal gain is obvious.

The very essence of utilitarianism is also criticized, namely the neglect of the process due to the result. We are all familiar with how easy it is to deceive ourselves. Invent something that doesn't actually exist. Also here: a person, when calculating the usefulness of an action, tends to deceive himself and adjust the facts to suit his personal interests. And then such a path becomes very slippery, because it actually provides the individual with a tool to justify himself, regardless of the action committed.

Creationist theories

The concept of creationism places divine laws as the basis for moral behavior. The commandments and instructions of saints play the role of sources of morality. One should act in accordance with the highest postulates and within the framework of a certain religious denomination. That is, a person is not given the opportunity to calculate the benefits of an action or think about the correctness of a particular decision. Everything has already been done for him, everything is written and known, all that remains is to just take it and do it. After all, man, from the point of view of religion, is an extremely unreasonable and imperfect creature, and therefore allowing him to decide for himself about morality is like giving a newborn child a textbook on space engineering: he will tear everything up, he will be tormented, but he will not understand anything. So in creationism, only an act that agrees with religious dogmas is considered the only correct and moral one.

Conclusion

From what was written above, we can clearly trace the relationship between morality and morality. Ethics provides the basis, morality defines the highest goal, and morality backs everything up with concrete steps.

An etymological analysis of the word “ethics” suggests that the term “ethics” comes from the ancient Greek word “ethos”, which meant “custom”, “temperament”, “character”. Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) from the term “ethos” formed the adjective “ethicos” - ethical. He identified two types of virtues: ethical and intellectual. Aristotle included such positive qualities of a person’s character as courage, moderation, generosity, etc. as ethical virtues. He called ethics the science that studies these virtues. Later, ethics was assigned to designate the content of the science of morality. Thus, the term "ethics" originated in the 4th century BC.

The term "morality" originated in the conditions of Ancient Rome, where Latin there was a word similar to the ancient Greek "ethos" and this word is "mos", meaning "character", "custom", that is, almost the same as the ancient Greek word "ethos". Roman philosophers and among them Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) formed the adjective “moralis” from the term “mos”, and from it then the term “moralitas” - morality. By etymological origin, the ancient Greek term “ethics” and the Latin “morality” are the same.

The term "morality" comes from the ancient Slavic language, where it comes from the term "mores", denoting customs established among the people. In Russia, the word “morality” is defined in its use in print in the “Dictionary of the Russian Academy”, published in 1793.

What is the difference between ethics and morality?

It is well known that the words “ethics” and “morality” are close in meaning, interchangeable and often complementary (as, for example, in the clerical-ideological phrase “moral-ethical”); in any case, the lack of a clear distinction between them does not lead to any significant misunderstandings in ordinary communication. Another thing is a specialized philosophical and scientific context: the need for a clear distinction between ethics and morality is due here not only general installation theoretical consciousness to give key terms the most precise and individual (not intersecting with other terms) meaning, but also because the blurring of semantic boundaries between these terms hides a number of unresolved (and sometimes simply not identified) methodological problems that impose ultimately printing on all specific problems of the relevant field of research. Therefore, in this case, clarification of terms, i.e. some streamlining of research tools is also associated with the formulation and justification of a certain approach to solving problems of a more general nature (knowledge is a value, the structure of ethics, the specifics of morality, etc.).

Of course, the broad synonymy of ethics and morality that persists both in common use and in theory is not accidental; it has its own historical reasons: these terms have common, or rather, closely intertwined Greco-Latin roots: Latin word moralis is a copy of the Greek adjective "ethical". Nevertheless, behind the formal identity of the terms under consideration, from the very beginning one can notice some - very significant - difference in the content and method of using the terms under consideration. This difference was expressed in the fact that “ethics” and “morality” were actually used to reflect different aspects of that broad and multifaceted area of ​​human existence, which the Greeks and Latins called, respectively, “ethos” and “mos” (“mores”) and which in in the Russian language it is most closely conveyed by the words “mores”, “customs”, “characters”, etc. From the moment of its appearance, “ethics” (if we take Aristotle’s “Ethics” as a starting point) has been understood as a special specialized, rational-reflective, mental activity within (and about) the existing “ethos”, and the activity is not just cognitive (i.e. describing and explaining real morals), but also critically instructive, or value-oriented, to use later terminology; in this case, evaluative dichotomies such as “good - bad”, “virtuous - vicious”, “fair - unfair”, etc. were used. Actually, “morality” was initially associated with norms, assessments, principles, maxims expressed in these concepts; however, if for “morality” these specific norms, ideals, etc., formed in the structure of ethos and regulating to a certain extent human behavior, constituted its very body, then “ethics” developed precisely as a special philosophical discipline, as a practical philosophy, it operated with norms and ideals, built from them systems or codes based on a few common principles or sources, and proclaimed these systems as different life programs competing with each other.

Thus, the first (in time and in essence) demarcation of the concepts of ethics and morality was associated with the distinction, on the one hand, between doctrinally and (or) disciplinary life teachings (received the name ethics), and on the other, a set of special regulatory norms and principles, constituting the content of ethical teachings and (or) spontaneously formed and functioning in real societies (i.e., everything that is most often denoted by the word “morality”).

Thus, speaking about the relationship between ethics and morality, we must first clarify the concept of ethics, because one part of the conglomerate that is usually called by this word is part of morality itself, while the other component is knowledge (or science) about the phenomenon of morality. The fact that historically established ethics includes these two parts is expressed in modern definitions of ethics, fixing its dual status as “practical philosophy” and “moral science” (3). Such definitions, in my opinion, are “additive” in nature, i.e. here are summed up incompatible features that essentially belong to different disciplines, only externally - due to a long tradition - united common name ethics, but actually shared her inheritance. “Practical philosophy” and “moral science” are not different branches, or aspects, or functions of the same “ethics”; the boundary between them is determined by the criteria by which the demarcation of two forms of consciousness is made - value and cognitive, respectively.

There are other theoretical perspectives in which ethics and morality can be compared. Thus, in the Anglo-American one-volume encyclopedia on ethics, in a special article devoted to the issue under consideration, the difference between ethics and morality is seen in the fact that the former includes universal, fundamental, unchangeable principles expressing the most important values ​​and beliefs of the individual and society, while the second contains more specific and variable rules through which these general principles are implemented (4). But if the interpretation of morality as an expression of “higher values” in social norms and human actions is indeed one of the accepted ways of defining this concept, then linking ethics precisely and only with these highest values ​​seems quite arbitrary. Obviously, the author of the article “Ethics/morality distinction” had in mind the fact that classical ethics always started from one or another higher principle, on the basis of which the corresponding life teaching was built; However, it does not at all follow from this fact that ethics is identical to these initial principles themselves, and morality is only their concretization.

A more in-depth interpretation of the relationship between ethics and morality is given in another English-language encyclopedia, which also contains an article on this topic (6). The article states that "ethics is a broader concept" than morality and "includes much that is not contained in morality." In this sense, “ethics (especially ancient) forms an alternative to morality: it does not have the characteristic narrow features of morality, although it still touches on moral issues, namely, how we should live and what we should do.”

The rational meaning of the above statement consists, in my opinion, in stating the fact that the historical paths of ethics and morality have diverged over time: “ethics” (if we leave aside its additional functions of describing and explaining a moral phenomenon mentioned above) is still understood as practical philosophy, life science, i.e. preaching and defending certain positive values, denoted by the words “good”, “duty”, “happiness”, “love”, etc.; the concept of morality has been narrowed and specified, so that not everything “good” and “ought” has the status of morally good and proper. Thanks to Kant, the difference between the specifically moral “categorical” imperative and the “hypothetical”, non-moral imperatives that are full of traditional ethics from antiquity to our time was realized. In other words, this or that ethical teaching may not be moral in its value orientation; it may declare some extra-moral values, including those that contradict generally accepted moral norms. Another thing is that such a possibility was never realized in its pure form, and even hedonistic-eudaimonic life programs and Nietzschean invective towards universal morality were accompanied by explicit or, more often, implicit justifications and justifications from the standpoint of the same universal moral values.

Of course, already ancient thinkers, as is clear from the texts that have reached us, noticed the special position of those values ​​that we now call “moral”, among other value systems, but this special status was not conceptually and terminologically formalized, the boundaries between the strictly moral (in in the later understanding of this word) and other values ​​were vague and easily violated. Therefore, the value spectrum of ethical teachings has always been (and remains to this day) much richer and more diverse than the actual differences of philosophers in their moral positions (especially if we mean differences not in specific moral assessments and norms, but in the interpretation general principles morality).

Preserved in modern language philosophy and science, the excessive substantive similarity of the concepts of “ethics” and “morality”, manifested, in particular, in the fact that “ethics” is almost always defined through “morality”, leads, on the one hand, to an unjustified narrowing of the subject of ethics, and on the other - to an equally unjustified broad interpretation of morality, to the erosion of its specificity.

Always, if there is a term, it means there is something that it should mean. The same is true with the concepts of morality and ethics. What are morals and ethics? By morality we usually mean certain socially established norms of behavior or ideas about “good” and “bad.” These concepts can differ significantly at different times and in different cultures, so we can talk about the “high” or “low” moral level of a person or society. In other words, morality is a concept that characterizes the moral level, but it is to a certain extent relative.

Unlike morality, ethics is an objective concept. Ethical principles are immutable criteria of morality, based on the true laws of the universe or cosmic principles, and are a necessary condition for the existence of a highly spiritual, intelligent being. They are a reflection of the truth, and therefore unchangeable under any conditions.

Now let's pay attention to the fact that the concepts of morality and ethics are associated only with a person, only with his activities. We cannot apply these criteria to any other living being. This means that this is something that distinguishes a person from everything else, his unique feature. Only a person can choose what is closer to him - showing harshness or mercy, greed or selflessness, envy or condescension, committing murder or forgiveness. Everything depends only on his desire.

The lack of morality, the lack of ethical foundations makes a person similar to other living beings, but not “man”. Without the existence of a certain level of morality in society, humanity is not “humanity.” In such a case, it cannot comply with the principles defined for it.

The glory and decline of empires is determined by morality

The concepts of morality and ethics are closely related to spiritual teachings or the teachings of the sages. These instructions pass through centuries and remain unchanged because they are eternal and correspond to the inner nature of man. A person preserves them because he understands that this is his foundation, and if he loses it, he will cease to be himself. Despite the fact that they are expressed from different points of view, they still direct attention to one thing - the human heart. Pay attention to the criteria imposed on a person by God, Heaven, Buddha, the Universe, Nature or Tao.

However, in different eras we can find both positive and negative examples of compliance with moral principles by different cultures or specific people. For example, the glory and decline of great empires have always been correlated with the level of moral standards existing in society. The Roman Empire was the greatest civilization, the guardian of culture and high scientific achievements. She also inherited the wisdom of the great ancient philosophers. She was accompanied by splendor and glory, as long as the standards of morality and ethics were high.

However, over time, moral standards in Ancient Rome gradually declined, such alarming symptoms as homosexuality, cruelty, depraved behavior and wastefulness arose, which became the norm in society. The Colosseum attracted more and more spectators demanding gladiator fights or baiting people with animals. The more people wanted “bread and circuses,” the more they moved away from human standards. If we evaluate the state of morality and ethics in Roman society at the time of the transition to our era, we can detect a sharp decline in morality.

As they say, “the fish rots from the head.” The Emperor is the head of state, responsible for everything that happens in it. Does this concern the well-being of citizens (material things) or the level of morality (the soul of the nation). Take, for example, Caesar Nero (50 - 54). During his reign, many stupid, cruel and vicious things were done. It was noted in historical records that at times he fell into fits of madness, and staged crazy, disgusting games. Sometimes he pretended to be gods or goddesses.

The Romans hated him, feared him and cursed him. During his reign many troubles and misfortunes happened. The plague alone wiped out 30 thousand Romans in a few months. There was also a decline in morality in society. One day, a comet appeared in the sky and was visible for three nights in a row. This was a bad omen: the appearance of a “tailed monster” always threatened with terrible disaster.

Not disdaining to commit all sorts of vicious acts, Nero decided on the most disgusting, unprecedented thing in the village. During his reign, persecution of followers of the emerging spiritual teaching began. These were the first Christians.

As you know, the Roman Empire was destroyed by barbarians who came from the northern lands. This is one example of the fact that if the morality of a society is low and the morality of people does not meet the standards, then there is nothing that can save the state from destruction.

Ancient China - the birthplace of people of great morality

The prosperity of society directly depends on the level of morality and ethics, and here is evidence from another part of the world. In ancient China, there were three spiritual teachings that laid a strong foundation of moral principles in society. These are Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, which existed independently of each other. They enriched Chinese culture with the concepts of mercy, virtues, nobility, the principle of retribution for what was done (karma), as well as the need to follow the Tao to achieve harmony with nature and the Universe. In the East they say “for good you will receive good, but for evil there will be punishment.”

Thus, dynasties succeeded one after another, and historians painstakingly recorded all the vicissitudes of life situations, clearly illustrating the principle of the relationship of morality and ethics with stability in the state. An emperor who followed the principles of Tao and observed the will of heaven certainly led his people to prosperity, allowing peace and tranquility to fill the Celestial Empire.

When droughts, crop failures or natural disasters occurred, noble emperors sought advice from sages and were the first to repent to Heaven for their mistakes. Since it was believed that in the state the emperor, then the officials, had the least value, and the people were considered the most valuable, therefore the great rulers considered their responsibility for everything that happened in the country to be paramount. They paid attention to morals and ethics, created schools and taught by their own positive example, holding themselves strictly.

Those same rulers who, in pursuit of fame and wealth, exhausted the people with wars and oppressed them with cruel prohibitions, were called “headless emperors without Tao.” Such government policy necessarily led to unrest and destruction, and society split and uprisings arose.

Over thousands of years, history has provided us with many examples that paying attention to morality can achieve prosperity in society, while immoral behavior of people threatens unrest and destruction. Thus, morality and ethics represent the foundations that maintain the state in a stable state.

Heraclitus on morality, ethics and human vices

Heraclitus came from a royal family and was supposed to take the throne of the ruler of Ephesus, in Asia Minor. But when his time came to ascend the throne, he renounced it and, retiring, devoted himself to knowledge. Heraclitus' contemporaries called him the "crying" philosopher because he often expressed his pity for people who were wasting their years aimlessly. Like any sage, Heraclitus sought to revive the norms of ethics and morality in society.

Heraclitus (540 - 480 BC) devoted his life to studying the principles of nature and studying the unshakable truths of the universe. He called his main work “On Nature.” However, it was written in such complex language that most people were unable to understand it. For which Heraclitus received another nickname - “dark”. Although, most likely, the philosopher did this deliberately, probably hiding what he knew from the majority. He wrote several more essays. All of them were bequeathed to the temple of Artemis of Ephesus. Unfortunately, his records have reached us only in fragments. In his writings, Heraclitus called on people to pay attention to the main thing in human life: morality, ethics, and called on them to renounce vices.

Every desire is bought at the price of the psyche

Seeing that the Greek society of that time was guided by desires and forgot about morality and ethics, Heraclitus was very worried. He knew that desires deplete the soul and said: “It is difficult to fight with your heart: every desire is bought at the price of the psyche (soul).” The philosopher believed that in order to achieve wisdom and knowledge of the truth, a person must get out of the everyday bustle of the world and take the position of an outside observer. “In all the speeches I have heard, no one comes to the point of understanding that the wise is separate from everyone else.”

To free himself for knowledge, Heraclitus renounces the royal throne. Having transferred the “royal dignity” and the reins of government of Ephesus to his brother, he completely withdrew from state affairs and political life. Heraclitus finds a place for himself in the temple of Artemis, where he spends his time carefree playing dice with the children. One day the Ephesians gathered around him and began to wonder how he could do this. Their speeches upset the sage so much that he said in his hearts: “Why are you wicked ones surprised? Isn’t it better to do this than to conduct state affairs with you?” Seeing that people did not listen to his instructions about morality, he became disappointed , retired to the mountains, where he ate herbs.

The principles of Logos are unshakable

Heraclitus believed that the system of moral and ethical principles should be based on divine unity - Logos (from Greek - word) or “fire”, the rational principle that governs the whole world. It manifests itself in the principles of the Cosmos and is a thing that exceeds everything ordinary. According to Heraclitus, Logos is the principle of the existence of nature, by knowing and following which a person can demonstrate his virtue.

Like the Universe, man also consists of a “fiery principle,” soul, and body. If a person’s soul is not burdened by satiety and intoxication, it becomes “the best and wisest,” otherwise the soul becomes weak. Therefore, Heraclitus believed that those who act in accordance with the Logos and pay attention to morality, follow ethics, can gradually rise and become purified. Having learned the law, a person can become a soothsayer, a hymn singer, a doctor or a king, and then ascend to the Gods.

The most valuable virtue of man is chastity - speaking the truth and acting in accordance with nature. He considered it wisdom to see not the particular, changeable, but the eternal - “to know everything as one” and live with a sound mind. Therefore, Heraclitus, in his speeches and writings, criticized “many knowledge” that does not “teach the mind.”

It would not be better for people if everything they desire were fulfilled...

Heraclitus was very upset when he saw how low morality had fallen in Greek society, and the principles of ethics gave way to bodily and sensory pleasures. Clearly understanding this, Heraclitus often cried in the squares during speeches, for which he was nicknamed the “crying” philosopher. “Oh, people! Do you want to know why I never laugh? Not because I hate people, but because I hate their vices... (I cry) Looking at virtue, placed in second place after vice!

The philosopher did not consider people themselves bad, but saw their weakness in the fact that they cannot resist bad aspirations. People, being in error, do not want to hear from him true knowledge and principles of ethics. “For what kind of mind or understanding do they have? They believe in folk singers, and their teacher is the crowd. For they do not know that there are many bad people and few good ones.” Finally, seeing that morality and ethics are no longer restraining factors for people, Heraclitus compares them to animals: “Beasts, living with us, become tame, and people, treating each other, become wild.”

2500 years have passed since Heraclitus called on the inhabitants of Ephesus to follow the Logos and improve virtue. After him there were other sages and saints. But the situation in society not only did not improve, but became much worse. The words of Heraclitus were a merciful reminder and a formidable warning to the entire Greek civilization, mired in vice. But they didn’t hear him. Several hundred years later, the once great Greek civilization decomposed from the inside, and the Romans in the 2nd - 1st centuries. BC. tried in every possible way to limit contacts with them. For only morality and ethics are factors of stability for society and determine development and prosperity.

Introduction

Ethics can be called a science, field, knowledge, intellectual tradition, and “morality” or “morality”, using these words as synonyms, is what is studied by ethics and its subject.

Reflections on morality turn out to be in various ways morality itself is not at all accidental. Morality is not just what it is. She rather is what should be. Morality in relation always acts as moderation; it is closer to antiquity, the ability of a person to limit himself, to impose, if necessary, a ban on his natural desires.

Morality cannot be identified with arbitrariness. It has its own logic, no less strict and binding than the logic of natural processes. It exists in the form of law and does not allow exceptions. But this is a law that is established by the individual himself, by his free will. In morality, man is subject, in the exact words of Kant, “only to his own and nevertheless universal legislation.”

Morality and morality are interconnected. A moral rule is essentially a thought experiment designed to reveal the reciprocity and mutual acceptance of norms for subjects of communication.

ethics morals prohibition

Ethics morality and ethics

The term “ethics” comes from the ancient Greek word “ethos” (“ethos”). Initially, ethos was understood as a habitual place of living together, a house, a human dwelling, an animal’s lair, a bird’s nest. Subsequently, it began to primarily denote the stable nature of a phenomenon, custom, custom, character; Thus, in one of the fragments of Heraclitus it is said that the ethos of man is his deity. The change in meaning is instructive: it expresses the connection between a person’s social circle and his character. Starting from the words “ethos” in the meaning of character, Aristotle formed the adjective “ethical” in order to designate a special class of human qualities, which he called ethical virtues. Ethical virtues are properties of a person’s character and temperament; they are also called spiritual qualities. They differ, on the one hand, from dianoetic virtues as properties of the mind. For example, fear is a natural affect, memory is a property of the mind, and moderation, courage, generosity are properties of character. To designate the totality of ethical virtues as a special subject area of ​​​​meaning and to highlight this knowledge itself as a special science, Aristotle introduced the term “ethics”.

To accurately translate Aristotle's concept of the ethical from Greek language In Latin, Cicero coined the term “moralis” (moral). He formed it from the word “mos” (mores - the Latin analogue of the Greek “ethos”, denoting character, temperament, fashion, cut of clothing, custom. Cicero, in particular, spoke about moral philosophy, understanding by it the same field of knowledge that Aristotle called ethics.In the 4th century AD, the term “moralitas” (morality) appears in Latin, which is a direct analogue of the Greek term “ethics”.

Both of these words, one Greek, the other Latin origin, are included in the modern European languages. A number of languages ​​have their own words denoting the same reality, which is summarized in the terms “ethics” and “morality”. This is “morality” in Russian. As far as one can judge, they repeat the history of the emergence of the terms “ethics” and “morality”: from the word “temper” (sitte) the adjective “moral” (sittlich) is formed and from it a new noun “morality” (Sittlichkeit).

IN original meaning“ethics”, “morality”, “morality” are different words, but one term. Over time, the situation changes. In the process of cultural development, in particular, as the uniqueness of ethics as a field of knowledge is revealed, different meanings begin to be assigned to different words: ethics mainly means the corresponding branch of knowledge, science, and morality - the subject studied by it. There are also various attempts to separate the concepts of morality and morality. According to the most common of them, going back to Hegel, morality is understood as the subjective aspect of the corresponding actions, and morality is the actions themselves in their objectively expanded completeness: morality is how actions are seen by the individual in his subjective assessments, intentions, experiences of guilt, and morality - what a person’s actions actually are in the real experience of life of a family, people, state. We can distinguish a cultural and linguistic tradition that understands morality as high fundamental principles, and by morality - mundane, historically changing norms of behavior; in this case, for example, the commandments of God are called moral, instructions school teacher- moral.

In general, attempts to assign different substantive meanings to the words “ethics,” “morality,” and “morality” and, accordingly, give them different conceptual and terminological status have not gone beyond the scope of academic experiments. In general cultural vocabulary, all three words continue to be used interchangeably. For example, in the living Russian language, what is called ethical norms can just as rightly be called moral norms or ethical norms. In language that claims scientific rigor, significant meaning is attached mainly to the distinction between the concepts of ethics and morality (morality), but this does not fully hold up. Sometimes ethics as a field of knowledge is called moral philosophy, and the term ethics (professional ethics, business ethics) is used to denote certain moral phenomena.

Ethics should be called science, a field of knowledge, an intellectual tradition, and “morality” or “morality”, using these words as synonyms, is what is studied by ethics, its subject.

What is morality? This question is not only the original, the first in ethics; throughout the history of this science, covering about two and a half thousand years, it remained the main focus of its research interests. Different schools and thinkers give different answers to this question. There is no single, indisputable definition of morality, which is directly related to the uniqueness of this phenomenon. It is no accident that reflections on morality turn out to be different images of morality itself. Morality is more than a set of facts that can be generalized. It simultaneously acts as a task that requires, among other things, theoretical reflection for its solution. Morality is not just what it is.

Rather, it is what should be. Therefore, an adequate relationship between ethics and morality is not limited to its reflection and explanation. Ethics is also obliged to offer its own model of morality: moral philosophers in this respect can be likened to architects, whose professional calling is to design new problems.

These definitions are largely consistent with popular views of morality. Morality appears in two interrelated, but nevertheless different differences: a) as a characteristic of a person, a set of moral qualities, virtues, for example, truthfulness, honesty, kindness; b) as a characteristic of relationships between people, a set of moral norms (demands, commandments, rules), for example, “don’t lie,” “don’t steal,” “don’t kill.”