What is morality very briefly. What's happened. The Essence of Core Moral Values

morality(or morality) is called the system of norms, ideals, principles accepted in society and its expression in the real life of people.

Morality is studied by a special philosophical science - ethics.

Morality as a whole manifests itself in understanding the opposition of good and evil. Good is understood as the most important personal and social value and correlates with a person's desire to maintain the unity of interpersonal relationships and achieve moral perfection. Good is the desire for harmonious integrity both in relations between people and in the inner world of the individual. If good is constructive, then evil- this is everything that destroys interpersonal ties and decomposes the inner world of a person.

All norms, ideals, prescriptions of morality are aimed at maintaining good and distracting a person from evil. When a person realizes the requirements of maintaining goodness as his personal task, we can say that he is aware of his duty - obligations to society. The fulfillment of duty is controlled externally by public opinion and internally by conscience. In this way, conscience there is a personal awareness of one's duty.

A person is free in moral activity - he is free to choose or not to choose the path of following the requirements of duty. This freedom of man, his ability to choose between good and evil is called moral choice. In practice, moral choice is not an easy task: it is often very difficult to make a choice between debt and personal inclinations (for example, donate money to an orphanage). The choice becomes even more difficult if different types of debt contradict each other (for example, the doctor must save the life of the patient and relieve him of pain; sometimes both are incompatible). For the consequences of a moral choice, a person is responsible to society and to himself (his conscience).

Summarizing these features of morality, we can distinguish the following of its functions:

appraisal - consideration of actions in the coordinates of good and evil
(as good, bad, moral or immoral);
regulatory- establishment of norms, principles, rules of conduct;
controlling - control over the implementation of norms based on public condemnation and / or the conscience of the person himself;
integrating - maintaining the unity of mankind and the integrity of the spiritual world of man;
educational- the formation of virtues and abilities of a correct and justified moral choice.

An important difference between ethics and other sciences follows from the definition of morality and its functions. If any science is interested in what eat in reality, ethics is that should be. Most scientific reasoning describes the facts(for example, "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius"), and ethics prescribes norms or evaluates actions(for example, "You must keep a promise" or "Betrayal is evil").

The specificity of moral standards

Moral norms are different from customs and.

Customs - it is a historically formed stereotype of mass behavior in a particular situation. Customs differ from moral norms:

following the custom implies unquestioning and literal obedience to its requirements, while moral norms imply meaningful and free person's choice;
customs are different for different peoples, eras, social groups, while morality is universal - it sets general rules for all mankind;
the observance of customs is often based on habit and fear of the disapproval of others, and morality is based on a feeling debt and supported by the feeling shame and remorse conscience.

The role of morality in human life and society

Thanks to and subject to moral assessment all aspects of social life - economic, political, spiritual, etc., as well as to give a moral justification for economic, political, religious, scientific, aesthetic and other goals, morality is included in all spheres of public life.

In life, there are norms and rules of conduct that require a person to serve society. Their emergence and existence is dictated by the objective necessity of the joint, collective life of people. Thus, it can be said that the very mode of human existence necessarily gives rise to people's need for each other.

Morality operates in society as a combination of three structural elements: moral activity, moral relations And moral consciousness.

Before revealing the main functions of morality, let us emphasize a number of features of the actions of morality in society. It should be noted that a certain stereotype, template, algorithm of human behavior is expressed in the moral consciousness, which is recognized by society as optimal at this 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. Thus, morality can be considered a manifestation of the collective will of people, which, through a system of requirements, assessments, rules, tries to reconcile the interests of individual individuals with each other and with the interests of society as a whole.

Unlike other manifestations ( , ) morality is not a sphere of organized activity. Simply put, there are no institutions in society that would ensure the functioning and development of morality. And therefore, probably, it is impossible to control the development of morality in the usual sense of the word (as it is to control science, religion, etc.). If we invest certain funds in the development of science, art, then after some time we have the right to expect tangible results; in the case of morality this is impossible. Morality is all-encompassing and at the same time elusive.

Moral requirements and assessments penetrate into all spheres of human life and activity.

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., it has the form of an imperative - a direct and unconditional command . People have long been convinced that the strict observance of moral rules does not always lead to success in life, nevertheless, morality continues to insist on strict observance of its requirements. This phenomenon can be explained in only one way: only on the scale of the whole society, in the total result, the fulfillment of one or another moral prescription acquires its full meaning and responds to a social need.

Functions of morality

Consider the social role of morality, i.e. its main functions:

regulatory;
appraisal;
educational.

Regulatory function

One of the main functions of morality is regulatory. Morality acts primarily as a way of regulating the behavior of people in society and self-regulating the behavior of the individual. As society developed, it invented many other ways of regulating social relations: legal, administrative, technical, and so on. However, the moral mode of regulation continues to be unique. Firstly, because it does not need organizational support in the form of various institutions, punitive bodies, etc. Secondly, because moral regulation is carried out mainly through the assimilation by individuals of the relevant norms and principles of behavior in society. In other words, the effectiveness of moral requirements is determined by the extent to which they have become the inner conviction of an individual, an integral part of his spiritual world, a mechanism for motivating his command.

Evaluation function

Another function of morality is estimated. Morality considers the world, phenomena and processes from the point of view of their humanistic potential- the extent to which they contribute to the unification of people, their development. Accordingly, she classifies everything as positive or negative, good or evil. The moral evaluative attitude to reality is its comprehension in terms of good and evil, as well as other concepts adjacent to them or derived from them (“justice” and “injustice”, “honor” and “disgrace”, “nobility” and “baseness” and etc.). At the same time, the specific form of expressing a moral assessment can be different: praise, consent, censure, criticism, expressed in value judgments; expression of approval or disapproval. A moral assessment of reality puts a person in an active, active attitude towards it. Assessing the world, we are already changing something in it, namely, changing our attitude to the world, our position.

educational function

In the life of society, morality performs the most important task of shaping the personality, it is an effective means. Concentrating the moral experience of mankind, morality makes it the property of each new generation of people. This is her educational function. Morality permeates all types of education insofar as it gives them the correct social orientation through moral ideals and goals, which ensures a harmonious combination of personal and social interests. Morality considers social ties as ties of people, each of which has a value in itself. It focuses on such actions that, while expressing the will of a given person, do not trample on the will of other people at the same time. Morality teaches to do every thing in such a way that it does not hurt other people.

Modern society cannot be imagined without ethical norms. Every self-respecting state draws up a set of laws that citizens are required to follow. The moral side in any business is a responsible component that cannot be neglected. In our country, there is the concept of moral damage, when the inconvenience caused to a person is measured in material terms in order to at least partially compensate for his experiences.

Morality- the norms of behavior accepted in society and ideas about this behavior. Morality is also understood as moral values, foundations, orders and prescriptions. If in society someone commits acts that are contrary to the designated norms, then they are called immoral.

The concept of morality is very closely related to ethics. Compliance with ethical ideas requires high spiritual development. Sometimes social attitudes run counter to the needs of the individual himself, and then a conflict arises. In this case, an individual with his own ideology runs the risk of being misunderstood, lonely among society.

How is morality formed?

morality of man largely dependent on himself. Only the individual is responsible for what happens to him. It depends on how ready she is to follow the established orders in society, whether a person will be successful, accepted by others. The development of morality, moral concepts occurs in the parental family. It is those first people with whom the child begins to interact in the early stages of his life that leave a serious imprint on his future fate. So, the formation of morality is significantly influenced by the immediate environment in which a person grows up. If a child grows up in a dysfunctional family, then from an early age he develops a wrong idea about how the world works and a distorted perception of himself in society is formed. As an adult, such a person will begin to experience tremendous difficulties in communicating with other people and will feel discontent on their part. In the case of raising a child in a prosperous average family, he begins to absorb the values of his immediate environment, and this process occurs naturally.

Awareness of the need to follow social prescriptions occurs due to the presence in a person of such a concept as conscience. Conscience is formed from early childhood under the influence of society, as well as individual inner feelings.

Functions of morality

Few people really have a question, why do we need morality? This concept consists of many important components and protects the conscience of a person from unwanted actions. For the consequences of his moral choice, the individual is responsible not only to society, but also to himself. There are functions of morality that help it to fulfill its task.

Evaluation function related to how other people or the person himself determines the actions committed by him. In the case when self-assessment occurs, a person is usually inclined to justify his own actions by some circumstances. It is much more difficult to bring actions to the public court, because society is sometimes inexorable when evaluating others.
Regulatory function helps to establish norms in society that will become laws designed for universal observance. The rules of behavior in society are assimilated by the individual at a subconscious level. That is why, getting into a place where there are a large number of people, most of us after some time begin to unmistakably follow the unspoken laws adopted in this particular society.
Controlling function is directly related to testing the extent to which an individual is able to follow the rules established in society. Such control helps to achieve a state of "clear conscience" and social approval. If an individual does not behave appropriately, then he will necessarily receive condemnation from other people as a feedback.
Integrating function helps to maintain a state of harmony within the person himself. Performing certain actions, a person, one way or another, analyzes his actions, “checks” them for honesty and decency.
educational function is to enable a person to learn to understand and accept the needs of other people, to take into account their needs, characteristics and desires. If an individual reaches the state of such an inner breadth of consciousness, then it can be said that he is able to take care of others, and not just about himself. Morality is often associated with a sense of duty. A person who has duties to society is disciplined, responsible and decent. Norms, rules and orders educate a person, form her social ideals and aspirations.

moral standards

Are consistent with Christian ideas about good and evil and what a real person should be.

Prudence is an essential component of any strong person. It implies that an individual has the ability to adequately perceive the surrounding reality, build harmonious connections and relationships, make reasonable decisions, and act constructively in difficult situations.
Abstinence involves a ban on staring at persons of the opposite sex who are married. The ability to cope with one's desires, impulses is approved by society, unwillingness to follow spiritual canons is condemned.
Justice always implies that for all the deeds committed on this earth, sooner or later retribution or some kind of response will come. A fair treatment of other people is, first of all, to recognize their value as significant units of human society. Respect, attention to their needs also apply to this item.
Fortitude is formed due to the ability to endure the blows of fate, to endure the necessary experience for oneself and constructively get out of a crisis state. Perseverance as a moral norm implies the desire to fulfill one's destiny and move forward, despite difficulties. By overcoming obstacles, a person becomes stronger and can later help other people to go through their individual trials.
industriousness valued in every society. This concept is understood as a person's passion for some business, the realization of his talent or abilities for the benefit of other people. If a person is not ready to share the results of his work, then he cannot be called hardworking. That is, the need for activity should not be connected with personal enrichment, but with serving the consequences of one's work to as many people as possible.
Humility achieved through long suffering and repentance. The ability to stop in time, not to resort to revenge in a situation where you have been greatly offended, is akin to a real art. But a truly strong person has tremendous freedom of choice: he is able to overcome destructive feelings.
Politeness necessary in the process of human interaction with each other. Thanks to it, it becomes possible to conclude deals and agreements that are beneficial for both parties. Politeness characterizes a person from the best side and helps her constructively move towards a given goal.

moral principles

These principles exist, making significant additions to generally accepted social norms. Their significance and necessity is to contribute to the formation of general formulas and patterns adopted in a given society.

Talion principle clearly demonstrates the concept of uncivilized countries - "an eye for an eye." That is, if someone has suffered any loss through the fault of another person, this other person is obliged to compensate the first through his own loss. Modern psychological science says that it is necessary to be able to forgive, reconfigure yourself for the positive and look for constructive methods to get out of a conflict situation.
The principle of morality involves following Christian commandments and observing divine law. An individual does not have the right to harm his neighbor, to deliberately try to cause him any damage based on deceit or theft. The principle of morality most strongly appeals to the conscience of a person, makes him remember his spiritual component. The phrase “Treat your neighbor as you would like him to treat you” is the most vivid manifestation of this principle.
The principle of the "golden mean" expressed in the ability to see the measure in all matters. This term was first introduced by Aristotle. The desire to avoid extremes and move systematically towards a given goal will certainly lead to success. You cannot use another person as a way to solve your individual problems. In everything you need to feel the measure, to be able to compromise in time.
Principle of well-being and happiness It is presented in the form of the following postulate: "Act towards your neighbor in such a way as to bring him the greatest good." It doesn’t matter what deed will be done, the main thing is that the benefit from it can serve as many people as possible. This principle of morality implies the ability to predict the situation several steps ahead, to foresee the possible consequences of one's actions.
The principle of justice based on equal treatment among all citizens. It says that each of us must abide by the unspoken rules of dealing with other people and remember that a neighbor who lives with us in the same house has the same rights and freedoms as we do. The principle of justice implies punishment in case of unlawful acts.
The principle of humanism is the leading among all the above indicated. It assumes that each person has an idea of a condescending attitude towards other people. Humanity is expressed in compassion, in the ability to understand one's neighbor, to be of maximum use to him.

Thus, the importance of morality in human life is of decisive importance. Morality affects all spheres of human interaction: religion, art, law, traditions and customs. Sooner or later, questions arise in the existence of each individual individual: how to live, what principle to follow, what choice to make, and he turns to his own conscience for an answer.

Morality is aimed at the uniformity of the regulation of relations and the reduction of conflict in society.

The so-called "public morality" - the morality adopted by a particular society, as a rule, is endemic to a culture or historical period, sometimes even to a social or religious group, although different moral systems may be similar to a certain extent.

It is necessary to separate the ideal (propagated) and real moral systems.

Morality is formed mainly as a result of education, to a lesser extent - as a result of the action of the mechanism of empathy or the adaptation process. The morality of the individual, as an imperative subconscious mechanism, is difficult to conscious critical analysis and correction.

Morality serves as the subject of the study of ethics. A broader concept that goes beyond morality is ethos.

Sociology of morality and personality

One of the factors in the formation of morality is the public of a person, his ability to empathize with others (empathy) and altruistic urges. Following morality is also possible from selfish motives - in this case, a person expects that he will be treated within the framework of the same morality. . In this case, it leads to an improvement in reputation. An evolutionary approach to morality and extensive coverage of the issue of reputation in society is contained in Matt Ridley's book The Origin of Virtue.

The sociology of morals studies the patterns of both the formation of systems of moral values of various social groups and the interaction of these social groups, due to the action of existing moral systems. Sociology of morality studies the nature of the causes of conflicts between individuals and social groups caused by the mismatch of their moral values, as well as determining the fateful trends in the development of society in the context of solving moral problems. Morality manifests itself on a societal and personal level. The individual learns moral norms in the process of socialization, focusing on the virtuous - on the humane, kind, honest, noble, fair. A person acquires information about what decency, honor, conscience are. At the same time, morality changes in the process of rule-making by people who independently, with full responsibility for the morality of their choice, make decisions about the choice of goals and means.

Morality and the conflict of civilizations

Moral judgments can be justified within the framework of some normative system, but in the case when conflicting moral judgments from different normative systems collide, there is no reason to choose between them. Thus, it is incorrect to call some system of moral values good or bad without mentioning that it is evaluated from the standpoint of another moral system. With this understanding of morality, universal human values in theory impossible because of the diversity of moral norms. Practically in the world there is a constant struggle of different civilizations, one of the reasons for which, according to observers, is precisely the mismatch of moral values. According to another point of view, universal human values, in which tolerance is at the center, should become part of any moral system precisely in order to avoid such conflicts and accompanying violence.

In this regard, the words of Karl Marx are interesting:

The republican has a different conscience than the royalist, the possessor has a different conscience than the have-not, the thinker has a different conscience than the incapable of thinking.

morality and law

With the development of moral values in the world and the spread of the idea of the existence of universal morality, religion itself and its sacred texts began to be subjected to sometimes disappointing assessments from these somewhat different moral systems. For example, cruelty and injustice towards non-believers (see kafir, goy) and atheists, practiced in some religions, is often considered immoral.

Sometimes religion is criticized and proclaimed as a doctrine that carries immorality. In this case, the fact that some people use religion as a tool to achieve their own goals is often used as an argument. A similar opinion is sometimes expressed in the words of Sigmund Freud, saying that immorality at all times has found in religion no less support than morality.

The Old Testament god was characterized as immoral, for example, by such critics of religion as Mark Twain and Richard Dawkins:

“The Old Testament god is perhaps the most obnoxious character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, vindictive despot; a vindictive, bloodthirsty chauvinist assassin; intolerant of homosexuals, misogynist, racist, murderer of children, nations, brothers, cruel megalomaniac, sadomasochist, capricious, vicious abuser. For those of us who met him in early childhood, the susceptibility to his terrible deeds became dulled. But a beginner, especially one who has not lost the freshness of impressions, is able to see the picture in all its details.

Richard Dawkins

About the ancient Greek gods:

“How cruel you are, oh gods, how you have surpassed everyone with envy!” (Homer, "The Odyssey")

According to one study based on a representative morality survey, moving away from religiosity does not lead to an increase in immorality. “The resulting statistics show that atheists are no more immoral than believers. Religion leaves its mark on some of the answers, but this refers more to the peculiarities of the dogmas of various beliefs. In strictly moral and ethical questions, each person is guided by his own considerations, received during education from parents or innate, and it cannot be said that atheists are brought up worse than religious people. There are studies showing that atheists are in some ways kinder than believers.

Notes

Literature

Apresyan R. G. Moral // ETHICS: educational resource center. Ethical Encyclopedia.
Prokofiev A. Individual and social meaning of morality through the prism of F. Nietzsche's philosophy // Historical and Philosophical Yearbook. Institute of Philosophy RAS. - M.: Nauka, 2005. - S. 153-175.
Trotsky L. Their morals and ours
Vitaly Tepikin. Intelligentsia: cultural context. Ivanovo: IVGU, 2008.
Vladimir Mayakovsky What is good and what is bad?

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

Synonyms:

Antonyms:

See what "Moral" is in other dictionaries:

- (from Latin moralitas, moralis, mores tradition, folk custom, later temper, character, morals) a concept by which customs, laws, actions, characters expressing the highest values and ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Morality- Morale ♦ Morale Let's imagine that we've been told that the end of the world is coming tomorrow. The information is accurate and beyond doubt. With this news, politics will die on the spot - it is not able to exist without a future. But morality? Morality in... ... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville

morality- and, well. morale m., morale f. German Moral lat. moralis. 1. outdated. Mood, morale. And if it must be necessary that in your physics he produced a new year, then guard yourself with luxury and laziness; and let there be no time for your morality ... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

- (lat. moralis doctrina; this. see moralist). Moral teaching, a set of rules recognized as true and serving as a guide in the actions of people. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. MORAL [fr. morale] ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

- (sittlichkeit) is translated on the basis of the works of Hegel as morality. Refers to ethical norms arising from the interaction of the subjective values of the individual and the objective values of public institutions. If these values... Political science. Dictionary.

MORAL, morality, pl. no, female (from lat. moralis moral). 1. Moral doctrine, a set of rules of morality, ethics (book). “It is necessary that the whole matter of upbringing, education and teaching of modern youth should be the education of the communist in it ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

See science ... Dictionary of Russian synonyms and expressions similar in meaning. under. ed. N. Abramova, M.: Russian dictionaries, 1999. morality morality, ethics; conclusion, science; racea, edification, teaching, instruction, preaching, instruction, ethical standards, ... ... Synonym dictionary

Modern Encyclopedia

- (from Latin moralis moral) 1) morality, a special form of social consciousness and the type of social relations (moral relations); one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society with the help of norms. Unlike simple... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

- (ironic) rule of morality; observance of it; moralizing. Wed Living according to strict morality; I have done no harm to anyone in my life. Nekrasov. Moral person. I. Wed. And now all minds are in a fog. Morality makes us sleepy ... A. S. Pushkin ... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

Morality- (from the Latin moralis moral), 1) morality, a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations (moral relations); one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society with the help of norms. Unlike… … Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

Morality(from lat. moralis - moral) - 1) a special type of regulation of people's behavior and relations between them on the basis of following certain norms of communication and interaction; 2) a set of norms approved by public opinion that determine the relations of people, their obligations to each other and to society.

17.1.2. The main contradiction of morality. A person is capable of breaking any moral rules. The gap between proper and real behavior is the main contradiction of morality.

17.1.3. How is morality different from morality? (three points of view).

1) Morality = morality.

2) Morality is the values and norms of consciousness, and morality is the implementation of these norms in life, the practical behavior of people.

Morality is the degree of assimilation of moral values by a person and practical adherence to them in everyday life, the level of real moral behavior of people.

3) Morality refers to the behavior of an individual - personal morality, and morality refers to the behavior of groups of people - public morality.

17.1.4.Ethics (Greek ethike, from ethos - custom, disposition, character) - a philosophical science that studies morality, morality.

The term was introduced by Aristotle. Central to ethics has been and remains the problem of good and evil.

17.2 . The structure of morality Keywords: ideals, values, categories, moral norms.

17.2.1. moral values.

Moral values (principles of morality)- 1) extremely broad requirements for the behavior of an individual, supported by the opinion of a social group or society as a whole (humanism, collectivism, individualism); 2) the initial provisions on the basis of which all morality, all moral behavior of a person is built.

The ancient sages considered prudence, benevolence, courage, and justice to be the main of these virtues. In Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the highest moral values are associated with faith in God and zealous reverence for him. Honesty, fidelity, respect for elders, diligence, patriotism are revered as moral values among all peoples. These values, presented in their impeccable, absolutely complete and perfect expression, act as ethical ideals.

Moral (ethical) ideal(French ideal - related to the idea) - 1) the idea of moral perfection; 2) the highest moral standard.

1)good(everything that is moral, morally proper) and evil;

2)duty(personal responsible adherence to moral values); conscience(the ability of a person to realize his duty to people);

3)honour And dignity personality (the presence of nobility in a person, readiness for selflessness);

4)happiness.

What such good And evil?

1) Hobbes: "Good and evil are names denoting our dispositions and aversions, which are different depending on the differences in the character, habits and way of thinking of people."

2) Nietzsche argued that Jesus' call to love his enemies showed that Christian morality is for the weak and cowardly, not for the strong and courageous. Jesus is an idealist detached from real life.

4) Cunning of the world mind ( Hegel).

“... so who are you, finally?

I am part of the power that is eternal

wants evil and always does good ... ".

(Goethe's Faust).

What is happiness?

Happiness- feeling and state of complete, supreme satisfaction; success, luck.

There are five levels of happiness: 1) joy from the very fact of life; 2) material well-being; 3) the joy of communication; 4) creativity; 5) make others happy.

eudemonism(from Greek. eudaimonia - bliss) - a direction in ethics that considers happiness, bliss to be the highest goal of human life; one of the basic principles of ancient Greek ethics, closely related to the Socratic idea of the inner freedom of the individual, its independence from the outside world.

17.2.2. Moral norms, regulations.

Moral norms, regulations- 1) forms of moral requirements that determine the behavior of people in various situations; 2) private rules that in an imperative form prescribe a generally binding order of conduct.

Moral (moral) norms are the rules of behavior focused on moral values.

Each culture has a system of universally recognized moral regulations, which, by tradition, are considered binding on everyone. Such regulations are the norms of morality.

The Old Testament lists 10 such norms - the “commandments of God”, written on the tablets that were given by God to the prophet Moses when he climbed Mount Sinai: 1) “Do not kill”, 2) “Do not steal”, 3) “Do not commit adultery " and etc.

The norms of true Christian behavior are the 7 commandments that Jesus Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount: 1) "Resist not evil"; 2) “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you”; 3) “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who offend you and persecute you,” etc.

« The Golden Rule of Morality"- a fundamental moral requirement: "(do not) act towards others as you (not) would like them to act towards you." The term "golden rule of morality" arose at the end of the 18th century. The first mention of Z.p.n. belong to ser. I millennium BC This rule is found in the Mahabharata, in the sayings of the Buddha. Confucius, when asked by a student whether it is possible to be guided by one word all his life, answered: “This word is reciprocity. Don't do to others what you don't want for yourself."

17.2.3. Values and norms.

Values are what justifies and gives meaning to norms. Human life is a value, and its protection is the norm. A child is a social value, the duty of parents to take care of him in every possible way is a social norm.

In society, some values may conflict with others, although both are equally recognized as inalienable norms of behavior. Not only norms of the same kind come into conflict, but also different types, for example, religious and patriotic: a believer who sacredly observes the norm “do not kill” is offered to go to the front and kill enemies.

Different cultures may give preference to different values (heroism on the battlefield, material enrichment, asceticism).

17.3 . The specifics of morality.

17.3.1. inclusiveness(regulates the activity and behavior of a person in all spheres of public life - in everyday life, work, politics, science and art, in personal family, intra-group and even international relations);

17.3.2. Autonomous regulation(moral behavior completely depends on the will of the subjects themselves, and not on special social institutions, for example, courts, churches);

17.3.3. Finality of Moral Values and Imperativeness of Moral Regulators.

The principles of morality are valuable in themselves. The purpose for which we follow moral principles is to follow them. Following moral principles is an end in itself, that is, the highest, final goal, ”and there are no other goals that we would like to achieve by following them.

Imperative(from lat. imperativus - imperative) - an unconditional requirement, command, duty. Kant introduced into ethics the notion of a categorical imperative - an unconditionally obligatory formal rule for the behavior of all people. Categorical imperative requires always to act in accordance with the principle, which at any time could become a universal moral law, and to treat every person as an end, and not as a means.

17.4 . Functions of morality.

1) Regulatory(regulates human activity in various social spheres).

2) Motivational function(moral principles motivate human behavior, that is, they act as causes and motives that cause a person to want to do something or, conversely, not to do it).

3) constitutive(from constitutus - established, established) function.

The principles of morality are the highest, dominating all other forms of regulation of people's behavior.

4) Coordinating function.

This function follows from the previous one. It consists in the fact that morality, by virtue of the priority of its principles, ensures the unity and coherence of the interaction of people in a wide variety of circumstances. Even without knowing either the character of a person, or his habits, skills, abilities, you can determine in advance what should and should not be expected from him.

17.5 . Origin of morality.

17.5.1. religious view.

3500 years ago, God Yahweh burnt moral commandments on the tablets to the prophet Moses.

2000 years ago, Jesus Christ proclaimed them on Mount Tabor (Sermon on the Mount).

17.5.2. Cosmological explanation.

The cosmological explanation arises even in antiquity: the teaching of Heraclitus on morality as the law of a single logos, the Pythagorean ideas about heavenly harmony, Confucius's theory of the heavenly world, etc.

According to Confucius, heaven watches over justice on earth, stands guard over social inequality.

Moral qualities make up 5 interrelated principles, or constancy: "jen" - humanity, philanthropy; "sin" - sincerity, directness, trust; "and" - duty, justice; "li" - ritual, etiquette; "zhi" - mind, knowledge.

The basis of philanthropy - "zhen" - "respect for parents and respect for older brothers", "reciprocity" or "care for people" - the main commandment of Confucianism. "Don't do to others what you don't want for yourself."

17.5.3. Biological explanation.

Morality in human society is a kind of natural (general biological morality in the animal world). It is a system of prohibitions that serve the survival of the biological species. For example, in the struggle for territory, poisonous snakes push, but never only never bite each other, but do not even bare their poisonous teeth. In other observations of animals, prohibitions were found on attacking females, alien cubs, and an opponent who had adopted a “submissive posture”.

Peter Kropotkin considered the principle of sociability or the "law of mutual assistance" in the animal world as the initial beginning of the emergence of such moral norms as a sense of duty, compassion, respect for a fellow tribesman, and even self-sacrifice. “Nature can ... be called the first teacher of ethics, the moral principle for man”, “the concepts of “virtue” and “vice” are zoological concepts ...”.

Kropotkin Peter (1842-1921) - Russian revolutionary, one of the theorists of anarchism, geographer.

17.5.4. Anthropological explanation.

1)Utilitarianism(from Latin utilitas - benefit, benefit) - 1) the principle of evaluating all phenomena only in terms of their usefulness, the ability to serve as a means to achieve any goal; 2) based Bentham om a philosophical direction that considers utility the basis of morality and the criterion of human actions.

Bentham Jeremiah (1748 - 1832) - English philosopher and lawyer, founder of utilitarianism, ideological liberalism.

"New people" in Chernyshevsky's novel "What is to be done?" realize that their happiness is inextricably linked to social well-being.

Luzhin’s theory of “reasonable egoism” (Dostoevsky’s parody of the ideas of Bentham, Chernyshevsky and the utopian socialists), according to Raskolnikov, is fraught with the following: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it turns out that people can be cut ...”.

2) In the Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche(1844 - 1900) evaluates Christian morality as a form of power of the weak over the strong. This morality was formed in the minds of slaves who envied the strong and dreamed of revenge. Being weak and cowardly, they hoped for an intercessor-messiah who, at least in the next world, would restore justice and when the humiliated and offended on this earth would be able to enjoy the suffering of their strong offenders. Gradually, the Christian morality of slaves takes possession of the masters.

17.5.5. Socio-historical (sociological) explanation.

Morality arises during the period of decomposition of the primitive community in the process of social differentiation and the formation of the first state institutions.

According to another point of view, morality arises in the depths of the primitive community.

The whole point is whether we understand morality in general as any norms regulating relations between people (and such norms, indeed, are formed simultaneously with the formation of a person and the transition of a person from a state of savagery to barbarism) or special norms, the operation of which is based on individual and independent choice (such ways of regulating behavior are formed during the period of decomposition of the tribal community, during the transition from barbarism to civilization).

Taboo (polynesian.) - in a primitive society, a system of prohibitions on the commission of certain actions (the use of any objects, the pronunciation of words, etc.), the violation of which is punished by supernatural forces.

17.5.6. Modern ethics:

1) the period of primitive society (moral regulation is combined with other forms of regulation - utilitarian-practical, religious-ritual, etc.);

2) group morality as a system of prohibitions (taboos) in a tribal society;

3) at the third stage, internal individual moral values appear, which determined the beginning of civilization.

17.6 . Stages of formation of the moral culture of the individual.

Moral culture of the individual- this is the degree of perception by the individual of the moral consciousness and culture of society, an indicator of how deeply the requirements of morality are embodied in the actions of a person.

1) At the first stage, the child develops elementary morality. It is based on obedience and imitation. The child copies the behavior of adults and follows their instructions and requirements. Regulation of behavior comes from outside.

2) The second stage is conventional morality. There is a development of their own ideas about "what is good and what is bad." An important role is played by comparing oneself with others and an independent moral assessment of both one's own and other people's actions. A person is oriented to the public opinion of others.

3) At the third stage, autonomous morality is formed. A person replaces public opinion with his own judgment about the ethical or unethical nature of his actions. Autonomous morality is the moral self-regulation of one's behavior.

The main motive for moral behavior here is conscience. If shame is a feeling directed outward, expressing a person's responsibility to other people, then conscience is directed inward to the personality and is an expression of its responsibility to itself.

MORALITY

M. belongs to the number main types of normative regulation of human actions, such as customs, traditions and others, intersects with them and at the same time differs significantly from them. If in law and organization-zats. regulations, prescriptions are formulated, approved and carried out in specialist. institutions, the requirements of morality (as usual) are formed in the very practice of mass behavior, in the process of mutual communication of people and are a reflection of life-practice. and historical experience directly in collective and individual ideas, feelings and will. Moral norms are reproduced daily by the force of mass habits, decrees and assessments of societies. opinions, beliefs and motives brought up in the individual. The fulfillment of M.'s requirements can be controlled by all people without exception and by each individual. The authority of this or that person in M. is not connected with c.-l. official powers, real power and societies. position, but is a spiritual authority, i.e. due to his moral qualities (example) and the ability to adequately express morals. requirements in one way or another. In general, there is no separation of the subject and object of regulation, which is characteristic of institutional norms, in M..

Unlike simple customs, the norms of M. are not only supported by the power of an established and generally accepted order, by the power of habit and the cumulative pressure of others and their opinions on the individual, but "receive an ideological expression in general fixed ideas (commandments, principles) about how it should be done. The latter, reflected in societies. opinion, at the same time they are more stable, historically stable and systematic. M. reflects a holistic system of views on social life, containing this or understanding of the essence ("appointment", "meaning", "goals") society, history, man and his being. Therefore, the morals and customs prevailing at the moment can be evaluated by M. from the point of view of its general principles, ideals, criteria for good and evil, and the moral outlook can be critical. relation to the actual accepted way of life (which finds expression in the views of the progressive class or, on the contrary, conservative social groups). In general, in M., in contrast to custom, what is due and what is actually accepted does not always and not completely coincide. In class antagonism. society norms universal. morality has never been fulfilled entirely, unconditionally, in all cases without exception.

The role of consciousness in the sphere of moral regulation is also expressed in the fact that morals. (approval or condemnation of actions) has an ideal-spiritual character; it appears in the form of non-effectively material measures of societies. retribution (rewards or punishments), and the assessment that a person must realize, accept internally and accordingly direct his actions in the future. At the same time, it is not just someone's emotional-volitional reaction that matters. (outrage or praise), but the conformity of the assessment to the general principles, norms and concepts of good and evil. For the same reason, individual consciousness plays an enormous role in M. (personal beliefs, motives and self-esteem), which allows a person to control himself, internally motivate his actions, give them independently, develop his own line of behavior within the framework of a team or group. In this sense, K. Marx said that "... morality is based on the autonomy of the human spirit ..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, T. 1, from. 13) . In M. are evaluated not only practical. people's actions, but also their motives and intentions. In this regard, in the moral regulation, a special role is acquired by the personal, i.e. formation in each individual relatively independently determine and direct their line of behavior in society and without everyday ext. control (hence such concepts of M. as, a sense of personal dignity and honor).

Moral requirements for a person do not mean the achievement of some particular and immediate results in a certain way. situations, but general norms and principles of behavior. In a single case, practical actions can be different, depending on random circumstances; on a general social scale, in the total result, the fulfillment of a moral norm corresponds to one society or another. the needs displayed in a generalized form by this norm. Therefore, a form of expression of morals. rules are not rules ext. expediency (to achieve such and such a result, you need to do something like this), but an imperative requirement, an obligation, which a person must follow in the implementation of his most diverse goals. The moral norms reflect the needs of man and society not within the boundaries of the defined. private circumstances and situations, and on the basis of a huge historical. experience pl. generations; so with t. sp. of these norms can be evaluated both the special goals pursued by people, and the means of achieving them.

M. is separated from the originally undivided normative regulation into a special sphere of relations already in the tribal society, it takes a long time. the history of formation and development in a pre-class and class society, where its requirements, principles, ideals and assessments acquire meaning. least class character and meaning, although along with this, the general human being is also preserved. moral standards associated with common human conditions for all eras. hostels.

In an era of social and economic crisis. formations arises as one of his expressions of the dominant M. Moral crisis bourgeois society is part of the general crisis of capitalism. The crisis of tradition values bourgeois M. is found in the "loss of ideals", in the narrowing of the sphere of moral regulation (amoralism bourgeois politics, the crisis of family and marriage relations, the growth of crime, drug addiction, corruption, "escapism" and "rebellion" of youth).

span. M., different historical. optimism, preserves and develops genuine moral values. As the socialist relations, the new M. becomes the regulator of everyday relationships between people, gradually penetrating into all spheres of society. life and shaping the consciousness and morals of millions of people. For the communist morality is characterized by succession. implementation of the principle of equality and cooperation between people and nations, internationalism and respect for the individual in all spheres of his societies. and personal manifestations based on the principle - "... the freedom of each is a condition for the free development of all" (Marx K. and Engels F., ibid., T. 4, from. 447) .

Communist morality becomes unified already within the framework of the socialist. society, but its class character is preserved until the complete overcoming of class contradictions. “A morality that stands above class oppositions and any memories of them, truly human morality, will become possible only at such a stage in the development of society when the opposition of classes will not only be overcome, but also forgotten in life practice” (Engels F., ibid., T. 20, from. 96) .

Lenin V.I., On the Communist. morality. [Sb.], M., 19752; Kon I. S., M. communist and M. bourgeois, M., I960; Bek G., On Marxist Ethics and Socialist. M., per. from German M., 1962; Selzam G., Marxism and M., trans... s English, M., 1962; X and y k and n Ya. 3., Structure of both moral and legal systems, M., 1972; Gumnitsky G. N., Osn. problems of theory M., Ivanovo, 1972; Moral regulation and personality. Sat. Art., M., 1972; Drobnitsky O. G., Concept M., M., 1974; Titarenko A. I., Structures of morals. consciousness, M., 1974; M. and ethical. theory, M., 1974; Huseynov A. A., Social morality, M., 1974; Rybakova N.V., Moral relations and them, L., 1974; M. developed socialism, M., 1976; morals. and personality, Vilnius, 1976; Social, structure and functions M., M., 1977; Petropavlovsky R.V., Dialectics of progress and its morality, M., 1978; Anisimov S. F., M. and behavior, M., 1979; Shishkin A. F., Chelovech. nature and morality, M., 1979; Moralny, M., 1980; Fundamentals of the communist M., M., 1980 ; The definition of morality, ed. G. Wallace and A. D. M. Walker, L., ;

O. G. Drobnitsky.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .

MORALITY

(from lat. moralis - moral)

that area from the realm of ethical values (cf. Ethics), which is recognized above all by every adult. The size and content of this sphere change over time and are different for different peoples and strata of the population (many morals and unity of ethics). Main problems in morality are questions about what is a “good custom”, what is “decent”, what makes possible the life of people together, in which everyone refuses the full implementation of life values (food consumption, sexuality, the need for security, the desire for significance and to possession) in favor of the implementation (least of all by virtue of understanding what is considered right) social values (recognition of the rights of another person, justice, truthfulness, trustworthiness, fidelity, tolerance, politeness, etc.); cm. Rule. The dominant morality of all peoples and at all times, in addition to social values, also includes those that are regarded by religion as good behavior (love of neighbor, charity, hospitality, veneration of ancestors, religious worship, etc.). Morality is an integral part of the individual microcosm, it is one of the moments that determine the picture of the world for the individual.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

MORALITY

(from lat. moralis - moral) - a form of society. consciousness, a set of principles, rules, norms, by which people are guided in their behavior. These norms are an expression of the definition. real relations of people to each other and to various forms of human. community: to the family, work collective, class, nation, society as a whole. The most important specific trait M. is morals. actions and motivations. The basis of such an assessment is the ideas that have developed in society, among this class, about good and evil, about duty, justice and injustice, about honor and dishonor, in which the demands on the individual from society or class, societies are expressed. or class interests. Unlike law, the principles and norms of M. are not fixed in the state. legislation; their implementation is based not on the law, but on the conscience and society. opinion. M. is embodied in mores and customs. Stable, firmly entrenched norms of morals. behaviors that pass from generation to generation constitute morals. tradition. The content of M. also includes morals. beliefs and habits that together form morals. personality consciousness. M. manifests itself in the actions of people. morals. behavior is characterized by the unity of consciousness and action.

According to the historical materialism, M. is one of the elements of the ideological. superstructure of society. Social M. is to contribute to the preservation and strengthening of existing societies. relations or contribute to their destruction - through morals. approval or condemnation. actions and societies. orders. The basis for the formation of M.'s norms is social, those relations, to which people are connected with each other in society. Among them, manufacturing plays a decisive role. relationships. People develop certain moral norms primarily in accordance with their position in the system of material production. That is why in a class society M. has a class character; Everyone develops their own moral principles. In addition to production. relations, M. is also influenced by historically established nat. traditions and life. M. interacts with other components of the superstructure: the state, law, religion, lawsuit.

Moral views of people changed following the changes in their social life. In each era as a whole or its constituent antagonistic. worked out such criterion M., to-ry with objective necessity followed from their material interests. None of these criteria could claim to be universally valid, since in a class society there did not exist and could not exist the unity of the material interests of all people. However, in M. advanced societies. forces contained universal. M. of the future. They are inherited and developed by the , designed to forever end the exploitation of man by man and create a society without classes. “Truly human morality,” wrote Engels, “standing above class contradictions and any recollection of them, will become possible only at such a stage in the development of society, when not only the opposition of classes will be destroyed, but its trace in practical life will also be erased” (“Anti- Dühring", 1957, p. 89).

Progress in the development of society naturally led to progress in the development of mathematics. "... In morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, progress is generally observed" (ibid.). In every historical epoch of a progressive nature were those moral norms, to-rye met the needs of societies. development, contributed to the destruction of the old, obsolete societies. building and replacing it with a new one. The bearers of morality. progress in history has always been revolutionary. classes. Progress in the development of M. lies in the fact that with the development of society, such norms of M. arose and became more widespread, to-rye raised the dignity of the individual, socially useful labor, brought up in people the need to serve society, between fighters for a just cause.

M. is the oldest form of society. consciousness. It originated in a primitive society under the direct. the influence of the process of production, to-ry required the coordination of the actions of members of the community and the subordination of the will of the individual to common interests. The practice of relationships, which developed under the influence of a fierce struggle for, was gradually fixed in customs and traditions, which were strictly observed. The basis of morality was primitive and primitive collectivism characteristic of tribal society. The man felt his inseparable from the team, outside of which he could not get food and fight against numerous enemies. "The security of an individual depended on his kind; ties of kinship were a powerful element of mutual support; to offend someone meant to offend him" (Archive of Marx and Engels, vol. 9, 1941, p. 67). Selfless devotion and fidelity to one's clan and tribe, selfless protection of relatives, mutual assistance, in relation to them were the indisputable norms of M. of that time, and in the clan its members showed diligence, endurance, courage, contempt for death. A sense of duty was laid in joint work, a sense of justice was born on the basis of primitive equality. The absence of private ownership of the means of production made M. one for all members of the clan, for the entire tribe. Each, even the weakest member of the clan felt its collective strength behind him; this was the source of the self-esteem inherent in the people of that time.

The classics of Marxism-Leninism pointed to the high level of M. in a tribal society, where, according to Lenin, the general connection, the society itself, the work schedule were kept "... by force of habit, traditions, authority or respect enjoyed by the elders of the clan or women, in at that time, they often occupied not only an equal position with men, but often even a higher one, and when there was no special category of people - specialists to govern" (Soch., vol. 29, p. 438).

At the same time, it would be wrong to idealize the M. of the primitive communal system and not see its historically determined limitations. Harsh life, an extremely low level of development of production, the impotence of man in front of the still unknown forces of nature gave rise to superstitions and extremely cruel customs. In the genus, the ancient custom of blood feud got its start. Only gradually did the wild custom of cannibalism disappear, which had been preserved for a long time during military clashes. Marx in the synopsis of the book "Ancient Society" indicated that both positive and some negative ones developed in a tribal society. morals. quality. "At the lowest stage of barbarism, the highest qualities of man began to develop.

Personal dignity, eloquence, religious feeling, frankness, courage, bravery have now become common traits of character, but cruelty, betrayal and fanaticism have appeared along with them "(Archive of Marx and Engels, vol. 9, p. 45 ).

M. primitive communal system - ch. arr. M. blind obedience to the indisputable requirements of custom. The individual is still merged with the collective, he is not conscious of himself as a personality; there is no distinction between "private" and "public". Collectivism is limited. character. “Everything that was outside the tribe,” says Engels, “was outside the law” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 99). The further development of society required the expansion of people's communication and should naturally lead to the expansion of the framework within which moral norms operate.

With the advent of the slave Society began the period of the existence of class M. Private undermined and then destroyed the collectivism of tribal society. Engels wrote that the primitive community "... was broken under such influences that directly appear to us as a decline, a fall in comparison with the high moral level of the old tribal society. robbery of the common property - are the heirs of a new, civilized, class society; the most vile means - theft, deceit, treason - undermine the old classless tribal society and lead to its death "(ibid.). Private property freed slave owners from the need to work; produces. was considered unworthy of a free man. In contrast to the customs and mores of a tribal society, M. slave owners considered social inequality as a natural and fair form of humanity. relations and defended private ownership of the means of production. Slaves, in essence, stood outside M., they were considered as the property of the slave owner, "speaking".

Nevertheless, the new M. was a reflection of a higher level of development of society and, although it did not apply to slaves, it covered a much broader people than or a tribe, namely, the entire free population of the state. Morals remained extremely cruel, but the prisoners, as a rule, were not killed. Subjected to morals. condemnation and cannibalism disappeared. Individualism and associated with it, to-ry came to replace primitive collectivism and from the time of the slave owners. Mentalism underlies the morality of all exploiting classes and was at first a necessary form of self-affirmation of the individual (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 236). At the same time, the best that was created in morals. consciousness of the tribal system, did not die at all, but received a new life under new conditions. Many of the simple norms of morality and justice that originated in tribal society continued to live among the free artisans and peasants of the era of slavery. Along with the militancy of the slave-owners and its variety for the oppressed—the slavish militia of humility and obedience—arose and developed among the masses of slaves the militia of the protest of the oppressed against oppression. This militancy, which aroused indignation at the inhuman conditions of the slave-owning system and developed especially in the era of its decline, reflected the contradictions that led to the collapse of the slave-owning society and accelerated its collapse.

In the era of feudalism, a characteristic feature of spiritual life was religion, the church, which acted "... as the most general synthesis and the most general sanction of the existing feudal system" (Engels F., see Marx K. and Engels F., Soch. , 2nd ed., vol. 7, p. 361). The dogmas of the church had a great influence on morality and, as a rule, they themselves had the force of morality. norms. M., who preached Christ. church, aimed at protecting the feud. relations and reconciliation of the oppressed classes with their position in society. This M. with her preaching of religions. intolerance and fanaticism, sanctimonious rejection of worldly goods, Christ. equality of people before God and humility before those in power outwardly acted as a single M. of the whole society, but in reality served as a hypocritical cover for immoral practices and the wild arbitrariness of spiritual and secular feudal lords. For the M. of the ruling exploiting classes, an ever-increasing divergence between the official M. and the practical one is characteristic. M. or real morals. relationships (morals). A common feature of the practical M. spiritual and secular feudal lords had contempt for the physical. labor and the working masses, cruelty towards dissidents and all those who encroached on the feud. orders, clearly manifested in the activities of the "holy inquisition" and in the suppression of the cross. uprisings. The peasant "... was treated everywhere like a thing or a beast of burden, or even worse" (ibid., p. 356). Real morals. relations were very far from certain norms of Christ. M. (love for one's neighbor, mercy, etc.) and from the chivalric code of that time, which ordered the feudal lord to show loyalty to the overlord and "lady of the heart", honesty, justice, selflessness, etc. The prescriptions of this code played, however, determined. positive role in moral development. relations.

M. ruling classes and estates of the feud. society was opposed primarily by the militancy of serfs, which was distinguished by its extreme inconsistency. On the one hand, centuries of feud. exploitation, political lawlessness and religion. intoxication in feudal conditions. isolation developed among the peasants and humility, the habit of submission, a servile view of the spiritual and secular feudal lord as a father, determined by God. Engels wrote that "... the peasants, although embittered by the terrible oppression, were still difficult to rouse to revolt.

Int. inconsistency and exploitative essence of bourgeois. Mathematics manifested itself when the newcomer to power found herself face to face with the proletariat rising up to fight. Promised bourgeois. Enlighteners, the realm of reason and justice turned out to be in fact the realm of the money bag, which increased the poverty of the working class and gave rise to new social disasters and vices (see F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1957, p. 241). Burzh. M., with her claim to and eternity, turned out to be narrow, limited, and self-serving M. bourgeois.

Main bourgeois principle. M., determined by the nature of the bourgeoisie. societies. relations, is the principle of sanctity and inviolability of private property as the "eternal" and "unshakable" foundation of all societies. life. From this principle follows the moral justification of the exploitation of man by man and the whole practice of bourgeois. relations. For the sake of wealth, money, profit, the bourgeois is ready to violate any moral and humanistic ideals. principles. The bourgeoisie, having achieved dominance, "... left no connection between people, except for naked interest, a heartless "chistogan". In the icy water of selfish calculation, it drowned the sacred awe of religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, petty-bourgeois sentimentality. It turned the personal into an exchange value. .." (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 426).

In the bourgeois M. received its finished expression inherent in one way or another M. of all exploiting classes and selfishness. Private property and competition divide people and put them in hostile relations with each other. If in the struggle against feudalism bourgeois. individualism still contributed to a certain extent to the formation of personality, its liberation from feuds. and religious fetters, then during the period of the domination of the bourgeoisie it became a source of hypocritically masked or open immorality. Individualism and egoism lead to the suppression of the truly human. feelings and attitudes, to the neglect of societies. debt, suppress and mutilate the development of personality.

An integral feature of the bourgeoisie. M. is hypocrisy, hypocrisy, duplicity. The source of these vices is rooted in the very essence of capitalism. relations that make every bourgeois personally interested in the violation of officially proclaimed moral norms and in the fact that these norms are respected by the rest of society. According to the figurative remark of Engels, the bourgeois believes in his morals. ideals only with a hangover or when he went bankrupt.

The closer the capitalist system to its death, the more anti-people and hypocritical becomes the militia of the bourgeoisie. Especially reaction. She took on a character in modern times. era - the era of the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of communism. Deep moral decay has gripped to the greatest extent the top of the capitalist. societies are monopolistic. bourgeoisie. It has become a superfluous class both in the process of production and in societies. life. For modern the bourgeoisie is characterized by the absence of genuine morals. ideals, disbelief in the future, and cynicism. Burzh. society is experiencing a deep ideological and morals. the crisis. The moral degradation of the bourgeoisie has a particularly detrimental effect on young people, among whom crime and crime are growing. Historical the doom of the bourgeoisie is perceived by the bourgeoisie. consciousness as the impending death of the whole society, is a source of degradation of all moral values of the bourgeoisie. society. In order to delay its death, the bourgeoisie resorts to the preaching of anti-communism, in Krom it means. takes slander on the heroic. M. advanced fighters for and progress.

Already in the early stages of the development of bourgeois. society in the working class is born span. M. It arises and develops in the struggle, which leads the class against the bourgeoisie, against lack of rights and oppression, and is then formed under the influence of scientific, dialectical-materialistic. worldview. Marxist-Leninist theory for the first time gave scientific. substantiation of the goal that all the oppressed classes aspired to - the destruction of exploitation - and opened up ways and means to achieve this goal. Main span features. M, follow from the features and historical. the role of the proletariat.

In the communist M. receives the further development of the socialist. collectivism, mutual assistance of members of the socialist. society in labor, in societies. undertakings, in study and life. This one, which is developing in all directions during the period of extensive construction of communism, is based on the genuine collectivism of societies. relations. Thanks to the dominance of the socialist ownership of the means of production is the property of morals. the consciousness of members of society becomes that simple that "..., the good, the happiness of each individual is inextricably linked with the good of other people" (Engels F., see Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 535).

Contrary to the slander bourgeois claims. ideologues, communist M. does not require the dissolution of the individual in the team, the suppression of the individual. On the contrary, the principles of the communist M. open wide scope for the all-round development and flourishing of the personality of every working person, because only under socialism "... the original and free development of individuals ceases to be a phrase ..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed. ., vol. 3, p. 441). One of the conditions for the development of high morals. personality traits (a sense of dignity, courage, integrity in beliefs and actions, honesty, truthfulness, modesty, etc.) is an individual in the socialist. team. In the owls society building communism, pl. millions of workers participate in the management of the state. deeds, show creativity, initiative in the development of socialist. production, in the struggle for a new life.

For morals. socialist relations. society is characterized by a new society.-useful labor, to-ry is estimated by society. opinion as high morals. business (see Communist Labor). morals. the quality of owls. people became about societies. good, high consciousness of societies. debt. Owls. people are peculiar to the socialist. Homeland and socialist. internationalism.

The victory of socialism approved new morals. relationships in the everyday life of people, in their family life, put an end to the oppressed position of women.

Family relations in the socialist. In society, they are freed from material calculation; love, mutual respect, and the upbringing of children become the basis of the family.

Communist M. socialist. society building communism is a coherent system of principles and norms that have found a generalized expression in the moral code of the builder of communism. These principles and norms are affirmed in the life of owls. society in the fight against the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people, with alien owls. societies. I build the moral norms of the old society, which are kept by the force of habit, tradition and under the influence of bourgeois. ideology. Communist the party is considering the fight against manifestations of the bourgeoisie. morality as an important task of the communist. education and considers it necessary to achieve new morals. norms have become internal. the need of all owls. of people. New moral norms are generated by the very life of the socialist. society and are a reflection of new social relations. But in order for them to become the property of the whole people, persistent, purposeful ideological and organizational work of the party is necessary.

Its full development of the communist. M. will receive in the communist. society where morals. relations will play the role of ch. human regulator. behavior. Together with the improvement of the communist societies. relations will be constantly improved and communistic. M., will increasingly reveal truly human moral relations.

V. Morozov. Moscow.

Lit.: Marx K., Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4; Engels Φ., Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; his, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, ibid., vol. 21; his, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, ibid., vol. 21; V. I. Lenin about morality, M.–L., 1926; V. I. Lenin on communist morality, 2nd ed., M., 1963; Lenin V. I., Tasks of youth unions, [M. ], 1954; Program of the CPSU (Adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU), M., 1961; Moral as communists understand it, [Documents, letters, statements], 2nd ed., M., 1963; Schopenhauer A., Free will and foundations M., 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1896; Bertelo M., Science and morality, M., 1898; Letourno Sh., Evolution M., 1899; Brunetier F., Art and morality, St. Petersburg, 1900; Ηitsche F. V., The origin of morality, Sobr. soch., v. 9, M., ; Kautsky K., Origin M., M., 1906; Krzhivitsky L.I., Origin and development of morality, Gomel, 1924; Lunacharsky A. V., M. from a Marxist point of view, X., 1925; Marxism and ethics. [Sat. Art. ], 2nd ed., [K. ], 1925; Yaroslavsky E., M. and the life of the proletariat in the transitional period, "Young Guard", 1926, book. 5, p. 138–53; Lafargue P., Studies on the origin and development of ideas: justice, goodness, soul and God, in the book: Lafargue P., Economic. Karl Marx, 2nd ed., M.–L., ; Morgan L. G., Ancient society, 2nd ed., L., 1935; Kalinin M.I., On the moral character of our people, 2nd ed., M., 1947; Kareva MP, Law and morality in the socialist. society, M., 1951; Volgin V.P., Humanism and, M., 1955; Shishkin A.F., Fundamentals of the Communist. M., M., 1955; his own, Fundamentals of Marxist Ethics, M., 1961; Buslov K., V. I. Lenin on the class essence of morality, "Communist of Belarus", 1957, No 6; Kolonitsky P. F., M. and, M., 1958; Mukhortov N. M., Some questions of communist M. in connection with the problem of necessity and freedom, "Proceedings of Voronezh University", 1958, v. 69, p. 187–201; Kon I. S., M. communist. and M. bourgeois, M., 1960; Bakshutov VK, Moral incentives in human life, [Sverdl. ], 1961; Εfimov B. T., Kommunizm i M., K., 1961; Prokofiev V.I., Two M. (M. religious and M. communist.), M., 1961; Shtaerman E. M., M. and religion of the oppressed classes of the Roman Empire, M., 1961; Marxist ethics. Reader, comp. V. T. Efimov and I. G. Petrov. Moscow, 1961. Baskin M.P., Crisis bourgeois. consciousness, M., 1962; Bök G., On Marxist Ethics and the Socialist. M., trans. from German, M., 1962; Everything in a person should be perfect. [Sat. Art. ], L., 1962; Kurochkin P.K., Orthodoxy and humanism, M. , 1962; Oh communist. ethics. [Sat. Art. ], L., 1962; Selsam G., Marxism and M., trans. from English, M., 1962; Utkin S., Essays on Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, M., 1962; Khaykin Ya. Z., Rules of law and M. and their connection during the transition to communism, "Uch. Zap. Tartu University", 1962, no. 124, Tr. in Philosophy, vol. 6, p. 94–123; Drobnitsky O. G., Justification of immorality. Critical essays on contemporary bourgeois ethics, M., 1963; Zhuravkov M. G., The most important principle of communist morality, "Problems of Philosophy", 1963, No 5; Ivanov V. G. and Rybakova N. V., Essays on Marxist-Leninist ethics, [L. ], 1963; Sadykov F. B., Communist. morality, [Novosib. ], 1963; Shvartsman K. A., "Psychoanalysis" and questions M., M., 1963; Zlatarov A., Moral and, in the book: Zlatarov A., Essays on biology, Sofia, 1911, pp. 46–105; Schweitzer A., Civilization and ethics, 3 ed., L., 1946; Oakley H. D., Greek ethical thought from Homer to the stoics, Bost., 1950; Draz M. A., La morale du Koran, P., 1951; Lottin D. O., Psychologie et morale aux XII et XIII siècles, t. 2–4, Louvain–Gembloux, 1948–54; Carritt E. F., Morals and politics. Theories of their relation from Hobbes and Spinoza to Marx and Bosanquet, Oxf., .

L. Azarch. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

MORALITY

MORAL (lat. Moralitas) - the concept of European philosophy, which serves for a generalized expression of the sphere of higher values and obligation. Morality summarizes that section of human experience, the different sides of which are designated by the words “good” and “evil”, “virtue” and “vice”, “right” and “wrong”, “duty”, “conscience”, “justice”, etc. e. Ideas about morality are formed in the process of understanding, firstly, the correct behavior, proper character (“moral character”), and secondly, the conditions and limits of a person’s will, limited by his own (internal) duty, as well as the limits of freedom in conditions from outside the given organizational and (or) normative orderliness.

In the world history of ideas, it is possible to reconstruct antinomic ideas about morality as a) a system (code) imputed to a person in fulfillment of norms and values (universal and absolute or particular and relative) and b) the sphere of individual self-assertion of a person (free or predetermined by some external factors) .

According to one of the most common modern approaches, morality is interpreted as a way of regulating (in particular, normative) behavior of people. Such an understanding is formed by J.S. Mill, although it was formed earlier - the idea of morality as a certain form of imperativeness (in contrast to the understanding of morality as predominantly a sphere of motives that dominated in enlightenment thought) is found in different versions by Hobbes, Mandeville, Kant. Several approaches and levels are distinguishable in the perception and interpretation of the imperativeness of morality. Firstly, a nihilistic attitude to morality, in which imperativeness is not accepted as such: any ordering of individual manifestations, in the form of everyday rules, social norms or universal cultural principles, is perceived as a yoke, suppression of the individual (Protagoras, Sade, Nietzsche). Secondly, a protest against the external coercion of morality, in which morality itself can also be expressed - an individualized attitude to existing mores or a denial of external, official, hypocritical submission to social norms; the inherent value of morality is interpreted as its insubordination from outside to given and self-reliant norms and rules (S. L. Frank, P. Janet). Thirdly, the interpretation of the imperativeness of morality as an expression of the need for expedient interaction in society. Understanding morality as a set of “rules of conduct” (Spencer, J.S. Mill, Durkheim) will place it in a more general system (nature, society) and the criterion for the morality of actions is their adequacy to the needs and goals of the system. In line with this understanding of imperativeness, morality is interpreted not as the power of supra-individual control over the behavior of citizens, but as developed by the people themselves and fixed in the “social contract” of interaction between people (sophists, Epicurus, Hobbes, Rousseau, Rawls), a system of mutual obligations that people as citizens of one community take over. In this sense, morality is conventional, variable, prudential. Fourthly, consideration of moral imperativeness from the point of view of its specificity, which lies in the fact that it is more motivating than prohibitive: moral sanctions addressed to a person as a conscious and free subject are ideal (Kant, Hegel, Hare). Fifthly, the understanding of the mutual and self-limitations imputed by morality, as indicating that its peculiarity is that morality sets the form of volition; the fulfillment of the requirement directly depends on the person, fulfilling the requirement, he, as it were, proclaims it himself. Such is the peculiarity of non-institutionalized forms of regulation of behavior. Related to this is the fact that the morality of actions is determined both by the content and result of the action performed, and to no lesser extent by the intention with which it was committed, which significantly distinguishes morality from law-abidingness, opportunism, servility or diligence. The “internally motivating” nature of the imperativeness of morality was reflected in the special concepts of duty and conscience. However, the imperativeness of morality is perceived as “internal”, that is, coming from the individual (as autonomous, self-determining and creative), with a certain, namely social or socio-communitarian point of view on morality, according to which morality is the norms existing in the Community, and the personality in its activity is conditioned by those dependencies in which it, as a member of the community, is included. With the assumption of variously interpreted transcendental principles of human activity and, accordingly, when considering a person not only as a social or socio-biological, but also as a generic, spiritual being capable of volitional and active change in external circumstances, as well as himself (see Perfection), - the source of moral imperative is treated differently. A person broadcasts, and so on. represents value content in society (in relation to society). From this arises the idea of virtue or moral phenomena in general as having a value in itself, not conditioned by other vital factors. Such are the various ideas about the imperativeness of morality, which reflected (in one form or another) its inherent role of harmonizing separate interests, but also ensuring individual freedom and resisting arbitrariness - by limiting willfulness, streamlining the individual (as tending to atomization, alienation) behavior, clarification of the goals to which the person aspires (in particular, to achieve personal happiness), and the means that are used for this (see Purpose and Means).

In comparison with other regulations (legal, local group, administrative-corporate, confessional, etc.), moral regulation has features arising from its specificity. In terms of content, moral requirements may or may not coincide with other types of institutions; at the same time, morality regulates the behavior of people within the framework of existing institutions, but with respect to what these institutions do not cover. Unlike a number of tools of social discipline, which ensure that a person as a member of a community is opposed to natural elements, morality is designed to ensure the independence of a person as a spiritual being (personality) in relation to his own inclinations, spontaneous reactions and external group and social pressure. Through morality, arbitrariness is transformed into freedom. Accordingly, according to its internal logic, morality is addressed to those who consider themselves free. Proceeding from this, it can be spoken of as a social institution only in the broadest sense of the word, i.e., as a set of certain culturally shaped (codified and rationalized) values and requirements, the sanctioning of which is ensured by the very fact of their existence. Morality is non-institutional in the narrow sense of the word: to the extent that its effectiveness does not need to be ensured by any social institutions and to the extent that its coercion is not due to the presence of a force external to the individual authorized by society. Accordingly, the practice of morality, being predetermined (set) by the space of arbitrary behavior, in turn sets freedoms. This nature of morality makes it possible to appeal to it when assessing existing social institutions, as well as to proceed from it when forming or reforming them.

On the question of the relationship between morality and sociality (social relations), there are two main points of view. According to one, morality is a kind of social relations and is conditioned by basic social relations (Marx, Durkheim); according to another, differently expressed, morality does not directly depend on social relations; moreover, it is predetermined by sociality. The duality in this question is related to the following. Morality is undoubtedly woven into social practice and in its reality is mediated by it. However, morality is heterogeneous: on the one hand, these are principles (commandments), which are based on an abstract ideal, and on the other hand, practical values and requirements, through which this ideal is realized in various ways, displayed by a separate consciousness and included in the regulation of the actual relations of people. The ideal, the highest values and imperatives are perceived and comprehended by various social actors who fix, explain and justify them in accordance with their social interests. This feature of morality as a value consciousness was already reflected in the statements of the sophists; quite clearly it was fixed by Mandeville, reflected in its own way by Hegel in the distinction between “morality” (Moralitat) and “morality” (Sittlichkeit); in Marxism, the idea of morality as a form of class ideology, that is, a transformed consciousness, was developed. In modern philosophy, this internal heterogeneity is reflected in the concept of "primary" and "secondary" morality, presented in the early works of A. Macintyre (A. Macintayre), or in E. Donaghan's distinction between first and second order moral requirements.

). Through the utopian socialist, this view was adopted by Marxism, where morality is also interpreted as a form of ideology, and through Stirner influenced the interpretation of morality by Nietzsche. As in Marxism, in Durkheim's social theory, morality was presented as one of the mechanisms of social organization: its institutions and normative content were set in relation to actual social conditions, and religious and moral ideas were considered only as economic states, appropriately expressed by consciousness.

In modern European philosophy (thanks to Machiavelli, Montaigne, Bodin, Bayle, Grotius) there is also a different idea of morality - as an independent and not reducible to religion, politics, economic management, learning, a form of managing people's behavior. This intellectually secularized area of morality became the condition for a more particular process of formation and development in the 17th and 18th centuries. the philosophical concept of morality. The idea of morality as such is formed as an idea of autonomous morality. This approach was first developed in a systematic way by the Cambridge Neoplatonists of the 17th century. (R. Cudworth, G. Moore) and in ethical sentimentalism (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson), where morality is described as a person's ability to sovereign and independent of external influence judgment and behavior. In Kant's philosophy, the autonomy of morality, as the autonomy of the will, was also affirmed as the ability of a person to make universalizable decisions and be the subject of his own legislation. According to Kant, appeals not only to society, but also to nature, to God, characterize heteronomous ethics. Later, J.E. Moore sharply strengthened this thesis by pointing out the inadmissibility of references to extramoral qualities in the theoretical justification of morality (see Naturalistic error. Ethics). However, the following needs attention. 1. The concept of morality, developed in European philosophy since the 17th century, is a concept that is adequate precisely to the new European, i.e., secularizing society, which developed according to the model of "civil society. In it, autonomy is an unconditional social and moral value, against the background which many values of a society of a traditional type, for example, the value of service, fade into the background, if not completely lost sight of. understood as autonomous morality. An essential feature of morality in its special philosophical understanding is universality. In the history of ethical and philosophical thought, there are three main interpretations of the phenomenon of universality: as general prevalence, universalizability and general addressability. The first draws attention to the very fact of the existence of certain moral ideas, actually different in content, all peoples in, in all cultures. The second is a specification of the golden rule of morality and assumes that any moral action or any individual is potentially explicable for every decision, action or judgment in a similar situation. The third concerns ch. about. imperative side of morality and indicates that any of its requirements is addressed to every person. The principle of universality reflected the properties of morality as a mechanism of culture that sets a person a timeless and supra-situational criterion for evaluating actions; through morality the individual becomes a citizen of the world.

The described features of morality are revealed when it is conceptualized from the point of view of imperativeness - as a system of norms. In a different way, morality is conceptualized as a sphere of values defined by the dichotomy of good and evil. With this approach, which took shape as the so-called. ethics of the good and dominating in the history of philosophy, morality appears not from the side of its functioning (how it works, what is the nature of the requirement, what social and cultural mechanisms guarantee its implementation, what should be a person as a subject of morality, etc.), but in aspect of what a person should strive for and what to do for this, what results his actions lead to. This raises the question of how moral values are formed. In modern literature (philosophical and applied), the difference in fundamental approaches to the interpretation of the nature of morality is associated - on the basis of a generalization of late modern European philosophical experience - with the traditions of "Kantianism" (understood as ) and "utilitarianism". A more definite concept of morality is established on the path of correlating good and evil with those common goals-values that a person is guided by in his actions. This is possible on the basis of a distinction between private and common good and an analysis of the divergent interests (inclinations, emotions) of a person. Then morality is seen in the limitation of selfish motivation by a social contract or reason (Hobbes, Rawls), in a reasonable combination of selfishness and benevolence (Shaftesbury, utilitarianism), in the rejection of selfishness, in compassion and altruism (Schopenhauer, Solovyov). These distinctions are continued in the metaphysical clarifications of the nature of man and the essential characteristics of his being. Man is dual by nature (this can be expressed in conceptually different forms), and the space of morality opens up on the other side of this duality, in the struggle between the immanent and the transcendent principles. With this approach (Augustin, Kant, Berdyaev), the essence of morality is revealed, firstly, through the very fact of the internal contradiction of human existence and through how this fact turns into the possibility of his freedom, and secondly, through how a person in specific actions regarding particular circumstances can realize the ideal principle of morality, how in general a person joins the absolute. In this regard, the peculiarity of morality as one of the types of value consciousness among others (art, fashion, religion) is revealed. The question is posed either in such a way that moral values are of the same order with others and differ from them in their content and mode of existence (they are imperative, they are imputed in a certain way), or in such a way that any values, to the extent that they correlate decisions, actions and assessments of a person with meaning-life foundations and an ideal, are moral.

Another, adjacent to the previous one, conceptualization of the concept of morality is possible when building ethics as a theory of virtues. The tradition of this approach comes from antiquity, where it is represented in the most developed form by Aristotle. Throughout the history of philosophy, both approaches - the theory of norms and the theory of virtues - somehow supplemented each other, as a rule, within the same constructions, although it was the ethics of virtues that prevailed (for example, in Thomas Aquinas, B. Franklin, V, S. Solovyov or McIntyre). If the ethics of norms reflects that side of morality that is associated with forms of organization or regulation of behavior, and the ethics of values analyzes the positive content, through the norms imputed to a person in execution, then the ethics of virtues indicates the personal aspect of morality, what a person should be in order to realize proper and proper conduct. Medieval thought recognized two fundamental sets of virtues, the "cardinal" and the "theological virtues." However, along with this distinction in the history of ethics, such an understanding of morality is being formed, according to which the virtues of justice and mercy are cardinal in the proper sense of the word. In terms of a theoretical description, these different virtues indicate two levels of morality - the morality of social interaction (see the Golden Rule of morality - (Latin moralis doctrina; this. See moralist). Moral teaching, a set of rules recognized as true and serving as a guide in people's actions A dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language Chudinov A.N., 1910. MORAL [French morale] ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

What is morality very briefly. What's happened. The Essence of Core Moral Values

The specificity of moral standards

The role of morality in human life and society

Functions of morality

Regulatory function

Evaluation function

educational function

How is morality formed?

Functions of morality

moral standards

moral principles

Sociology of morality and personality

Morality and the conflict of civilizations

morality and law

Notes

see also

Links

Literature

See what "Moral" is in other dictionaries: