Moral principles and norms in substantive law

In criminal proceedings, the court, the investigating authorities, the inquiry, the prosecutor's office apply the norms of various branches of law. However, in any criminal case, the application of criminal law is central. Therefore, it is advisable to consider the moral characterization of criminal law, and only some of its institutions, since the ethical foundations and content of criminal law as a whole require an in-depth and detailed independent scientific study *.

* Among the works devoted to these problems, see, in particular: Kuznetsova N. F. Criminal law and morality. M., 1967; Karpets I.I. Criminal law and ethics. M., 1985.

Criminal law serves the task of protecting a person and society from socially dangerous acts, determining what constitutes a crime, establishing criminal penalties and the rules for their application to persons guilty of a crime. The history of criminal law in the past is the history of bloody, painful, humiliating punishments. Moving along the path of progress, humanity is gradually getting rid of the death penalty and humanizing criminal law.

The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996 refers to the number of principles on which the Code is based, legality, equality of citizens before the law, the principle of guilt, justice and humanism. The principles of criminal law express the fundamental ideas in accordance with which this branch of law is created and functions.

So, among the principles of Russian criminal law are the principles of humanism and justice, reflecting the fundamental requirements of ethics.

In criminal law, the definition of the concept of crime is of fundamental importance, and one of the complex and important problems for society is the criminalization and decriminalization of certain acts. When solving this problem, we observe the inextricable link between criminal law and morality.

A crime that infringes on the rights and freedoms of a person, on the interests of society, is a violation of not only legal, but also moral norms. Therefore, the assignment of certain acts to the number of crimes, the establishment of criminal liability for them is based on their moral condemnation by society, the recognition of their evil in the public mind. “In principle, every act, before becoming a crime in the eyes of the population, at least the vast majority of it, is considered immoral. In cases where the legislator establishes criminal liability for a particular act that is not condemned by morality, the creation of an appropriate criminal law is erroneous or premature.

* Kovalev M.I. The role of legal awareness and legal technique in the development of criminal law//Soviet state and law. 1985. No. 8. S. 74.

On the other hand, the exclusion from the number of crimes of certain acts that are contrary to public morality, deeply immoral, should be carried out carefully, taking into account the consequences of both a legal and moral nature.

The question of including a sign of immorality in the very concept of a crime, defined by law, caused a discussion between scientists. So, A. A. Piontkovsky believed that “although any crime in our society is at the same time not only an illegal action, but also immoral, this last sign does not need to be specially introduced into the definition of the concept of crime, since the concept of the illegality of an act thereby implies its contradiction communist morality" *. A. A. Herzenaon, on the other hand, believed that the definition of the concept of crime should reflect a negative moral and political assessment**. I. I. Karpets supported the position of A. A. Gertsenzon and believed that “the ethical element should be singled out in the definition of a crime” ***.

* The course of Soviet criminal law. In 6 vols. T. II. M., 1970. S. 28.

** Cm.: Gertsenzon A. A. The concept of crime in Soviet criminal law. M., 1955. S. 51-52.

*** Karpets I.I. Decree. op. S. 91.

As you can see, none of the experts in the field of criminal law denies that a crime is not only an illegal act, but also immoral. The view of those who recognize the immorality of any crime and at the same time object to the inclusion of a sign of immorality in the legislative definition of the concept of crime is hardly consistent.

A sign of immorality, moral condemnation of an act characterizes each element of a crime, all crimes without exception are immoral *.

* See: Problems of Judicial Ethics / Ed. M.S. Strogovich. WITH. 33; Kuznetsova N. F. Decree. op. S. 50.

However, Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of 1996 did not include the sign of immorality in the definition of the concept of crime.

Following the international legal norms of Art. 54 of the Constitution of Russia currently establishes the humane principle of criminal law - nullum crimen sine poena, nulla roepa sine lege - "no one can be held responsible for an act that was not recognized as an offense at the time it was committed." If, after the offense has been committed, liability for it has been eliminated or mitigated, the new law shall apply. At the same time, the law establishing or aggravating liability does not have retroactive effect.

The last provision, which is extremely important for criminal law, is morally due to the same reasons as the rejection of analogy. A person who is punished for actions that were not considered criminal when they were committed becomes a victim of arbitrariness, an object of reprisal.

A whole complex of moral problems is associated with criminal punishment. Among them, the goals of punishment deserve attention first of all. Historically, the goals and moral justification of criminal punishment have received different interpretations. Explanations of the nature and purpose of punishment were given by various theories: the theory of retribution, the theory of intimidation, the theory of expediency, the theory of psychological coercion, the theory of making amends, etc.*.

* See, for example: Karpets I.I. Decree. op. pp. 156-199.

The recognition of deterrence as the purpose of criminal punishment, which apparently arose along with criminal law and persists to this day in ordinary public consciousness, entails a toughening of criminal responsibility, dehumanization of criminal law. The experience of medieval states, with their amazing ingenuity in tormenting a person, the variety of types of death penalty and the tortures that preceded it, indicates that punishment, the purpose of which is intimidation, is not only inhumane, but also does not achieve the goals pursued by the legislator.

Punishment as retribution was considered by Aristotle, who wrote that “people try to repay evil with evil, and if such a retribution is impossible, then such a state is considered slavery” * Kant also considered punishment as retribution and, like many others, supported the idea of ​​talion. Retribution is retribution, punishment for the wrong done. Acceptance of the idea of ​​punishment as retribution, with all its modifications, leads logically to the recognition of the talion. Talion was characteristic of the distant past, when retribution for a crime had to be exactly equal in strength to the harm done (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”). The recognition of retribution as the goal of punishment entails the recognition that the most severe punishments are most effective, and the need to reanimate the idea of ​​a talion, which is incompatible with ideas about the rule of law in a modern civilized society.

* Aristotle. Ethics. SPb., 1908. S. 89.

The development of new criminal legislation actualized the problem of the moral justification of the system of criminal penalties. Here, the greatest difficulty is justifying the retention of the institution of the death penalty in national legislation. Without going into the arguments of active opponents and supporters of the death penalty, we will only note that the death penalty is the murder of a person at the will of the state on the basis of the decision of other people who are entrusted with judicial power. The death penalty can never be humane. But at the same time, in specific circumstances, if there are legal grounds, it can be considered a just punishment in relation to an individual. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that a judicial error here is irreparable: judicial murder is the most extreme and cruel injustice against a person that a state can allow.

The system of criminal penalties in Russia has undergone changes and, presumably, will undergo new serious transformations. It is important that these changes do not lead to a toughening of the system of punishments, and that the punishments themselves do not humiliate the human dignity of the convicts.

An analysis of the moral side of other institutions of criminal law related to punishment would require a lot of research. It is only appropriate to note here that the articles of the Criminal Code, which define the general principles of sentencing, provide for the individualization of criminal liability as a manifestation of justice in its distributive aspect: a person who has committed a crime must be given a fair punishment.

Moral content of criminal procedural legislation

* Strogovich M.S. The course of the Soviet criminal process: In 2 vols. T. I. M., 1968. P. 178.

But if we consider the legislation on criminal proceedings and criminal procedural activity as a single functioning system, then the moral principles of criminal proceedings are revealed quite clearly.

The criminal procedural legislation and the procedural activity based on it are imbued with moral content.

A feature of criminal procedural law that characterizes it as a whole is humanism, focus on creating a system of guarantees for the individual.

The Italian lawyer Ferri (1856-1929), emphasizing the specifics of criminal procedure law, argued that the criminal code is written for criminals, and the criminal procedure code is written for honest people. This aphorism is not devoid of rational grain. In criminal law, the punitive principle dominates, in the legislation on legal proceedings, the leading role belongs to the guarantees of the individual and justice.

Criminal procedure law is designed to ensure fairness in the investigation and resolution of criminal cases.

The requirement of justice means in the criminal process the exclusion of cases of condemnation of the innocent, bringing them to criminal responsibility. A guilty verdict against an innocent person is a manifestation of injustice, a violation of the rights, freedoms, dignity of a person by the very state power that is obliged to protect them.

Fairness in the criminal process means solving crimes and bringing the perpetrators to justice. The situation in which about half of the crimes, and for some types of them the predominant part remains unsolved, contradicts the requirement of justice. The evil caused by the criminal remains without due retribution, and the criminal himself gets the opportunity to commit new crimes.

Justice in criminal justice is expressed in strict observance of the principle of individualization of responsibility, the requirements of the criminal law on sentencing, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the identity of the perpetrator. The criminal procedure law includes among the tasks of criminal proceedings the fair punishment of those guilty of a crime. It is with the proportionality of punishment that the current Code of Criminal Procedure connects the concept of the fairness of the sentence (Article 347).

Justice obliges in the criminal process to provide compensation for the harm caused by the crime, to restore in full or to the maximum extent the damage caused to the victim. Note that where the crime remains unsolved, compensation for the damage caused by the crime in accordance with Art. 52 of the Constitution of Russia is provided by the state.

Fairness in the criminal process means, further, ensuring the equality of all citizens before the law and the court, the prohibition of any discrimination or any privileges depending on the difference between people in their origin or position in society and on other grounds.

The fundamental legal principles of justice are imbued with moral content. They are based on the moral requirements of justice, humanity, protection of the honor and dignity of a person.

Art. 15 of the Constitution of Russia establishes the principle of legality. Organs state power, local self-government bodies, officials, citizens and their associations are obliged to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws. The principle of legality in criminal proceedings means strict observance of substantive and procedural law, all guarantees of personality and justice. Neither the investigator, nor the prosecutor, nor the court has the right to deviate from the requirements of the law under the pretext of any supposedly good goals (in the interests of strengthening the fight against crime, expediency, economy, etc.).

Art. 120 of the Constitution of Russia provides for the right and duty of the court, which, when considering a case, has established that an act of a state or other body does not comply with the law, to make a decision in accordance with the law.

The moral side of the principle of legality in criminal proceedings is to comply with the moral requirements embodied in the law, the prohibition to act arbitrarily, subjective discretion in relation to a person, which inevitably follows the relaxation of the regime of legality in criminal proceedings. Compliance with the law is a moral, and not only a legal duty of a judge, investigator, prosecutor, lawyer.

Violation of the law by a judge, law enforcement officer is always immoral. If this violation is done deliberately, then it can develop into a malfeasance. If the law is violated by a justice worker due to a low level of professionalism, poor legal training, carelessness, etc., then such actions and decisions are also immoral.

The moral characterization of the principle of equality before the law and the court as an indispensable condition for the implementation of the requirement of justice in its leveling aspect is obvious. The problem is that this principle of justice, declared by the Constitution, be implemented in life, so that in reality there is no inequality in protection from crimes and responsibility for them between people of different nationalities, property and social status, etc.

The principle of the independence of judges and their subordination only to the law means not only the prohibition of interference in the judicial activities of anyone. This principle simultaneously imposes personal moral responsibility on judges for the fairness of their decisions. A judge who is guaranteed independence is not entitled to shift his responsibility for the performance of his professional duty to someone else. This idea is quite clearly expressed in the "Basic principles of the independence of the judiciary" adopted by the VII UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders on September 6, 1985. In paragraph 6 of the “Basic Principles. ” states: “The principle of the independence of the judiciary gives the judiciary the right and requires them to ensure the fair conduct of the trial and respect for the rights of the parties.”

Irremovability and inviolability of judges, provided for in Art. 121 and 122 of the Constitution of Russia, serve to protect the independence of the judiciary. At the same time, they oblige the judge to honestly fulfill his duty, guided only by the law and his own conscience, to be objective and impartial.

Art. 123 of the Constitution of Russia establishes the principle of competition in legal proceedings. The core of the competitiveness in the criminal process is the equality of the procedural rights of the parties to the prosecution and defense. Thus, in justice in criminal cases, the demand for justice in its leveling aspect finds its real expression.

Along with the general fundamental provisions of the criminal procedural legislation, which give the procedural activity and procedural relations a moral character, there is also a system of individual specific norms aimed at protecting moral values in the course of production at various stages of the process, in the performance of investigative and judicial actions and in the adoption of decisions.

Thus, the criminal procedural legislation prohibits the disclosure of information about the circumstances of intimate life during the production of investigative and judicial actions (see Articles 18, 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). A personal search may be carried out only by a person of the same sex as the person being searched and in the presence of attesting witnesses of the same sex (Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The investigator is not present during the examination of a person of the opposite sex, if it is accompanied by the exposure of this person. In these cases, the examination is carried out in the presence of witnesses of the same gender as the person being examined (Article 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The production of an investigative experiment is allowed if the dignity and honor of the persons participating in it and those around them are not humiliated (Article 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

When an accused or suspect is taken into custody, if the detainee has underage children left unattended, the body of inquiry, the investigator, the prosecutor and the court are obliged to transfer them to the care of relatives or other persons or institutions (Article 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Detention and detention as a preventive measure may be applied to juvenile accused and suspected persons only in exceptional cases, when this is caused by the gravity of the crime committed (Article 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). When deciding on a sanction for the arrest of a minor, the prosecutor is obliged in all cases to personally interrogate the accused or suspected minor.

The court has the right to remove the juvenile defendant from the courtroom for the time of investigation of the circumstances that could adversely affect him (Article 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Seizure of correspondence and its seizure in postal and telegraph institutions can be carried out only with the sanction of the prosecutor or by court order on the basis of a reasoned decision of the investigator (Article 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

In the event of seizure of property, items necessary for the accused himself and his dependents must be excluded from it. The list of such items is established by law (Article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

When the defendant is acquitted or released from punishment or from serving a punishment, or if he is sentenced to a punishment not related to deprivation of liberty, the court, if the defendant is in custody, releases him immediately in the courtroom (Article 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

Until the judgment of conviction is brought to execution, the close relatives of the convict held in custody shall, at their request, be granted a meeting with him. The family of a convict sentenced to deprivation of liberty is informed of where he is going to serve his sentence (Article 360 ​​of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

In the event of a serious illness of the convict that prevents the serving of the sentence, the court may defer the execution of the sentence (Article 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), and if the convicted person, while serving the sentence, fell ill with a chronic mental or other serious illness that prevents the serving of the sentence, the court may release him from further serving the sentence ( article 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

The highly moral, humane meaning of the above and many other norms of criminal procedural law fills all criminal procedural relations and procedural activities at the pre-trial stages with moral content. At the same time, criminal procedure law, like all Russian law, is developing in the direction of consistent humanization, expanding the guarantees of justice, and respect for the dignity of the individual.

Art. 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia, which determines the position of the judge presiding over the case, imposes on him the leadership of the court session, the obligation to take all measures provided by law for a comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances of the case and the establishment of the truth. He is obliged to remove from the trial everything that is not relevant to the case, and to ensure the educational impact of the trial. The solution of all these problems requires strict observance of both legal and moral standards. The search for truth cannot be successful if the judge is biased, biased, inclined to accept one version in advance. A comprehensive, complete and objective study of the circumstances of the case, its fair resolution is the duty of the court, the activities of which are managed by the presiding judge, and the judge who single-handedly considers the criminal case.

The educational impact of the trial process also includes moral education, which is achieved to a large extent by the impeccable observance of moral norms in the trial by judges and all professional participants in criminal proceedings.

Among the guarantees of justice is the equality of the rights of the parties. The accuser, the defendant, the defender, as well as the victim, the civil plaintiff, the civil defendant and their representatives enjoy equal rights to present evidence, participate in the examination of evidence and file petitions. The competitiveness of the trial contributes to the establishment of the truth in the case. At the same time, it reflects the humane beginnings of judicial activity, when the defendant is considered by law not as an object of research, but as an active participant in the trial, when the parties to the dispute are equal in their legal opportunities.

The higher court has no right to worsen the position of the defendant who filed a complaint against the sentence (Articles 340, 341, 350, 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

A number of other procedural norms regulating individual procedural actions in their moral aspect will be discussed below. But it is indisputable that all legislation regulating the activities of the court requires strict observance of moral standards.

The whole set of basic concepts, interconnected and interdependent, form the so-called system of moral regulation. The system of moral regulation usually includes: norms, higher values, ideals, principles. Let's briefly consider each of the elements.

> norms-a command, prescription, certain rules of behavior, thinking and experience, which should be inherent in man.

Moral norms are social norms that regulate a person's behavior in society, his attitude towards other people, towards society and towards himself.

Unlike simple customs and habits, moral norms are not simply fulfilled due to the established social order, but find an ideological justification in a person’s idea of ​​good and evil, proper and condemned, and in specific life situations.

The fulfillment of moral norms is ensured by the authority and strength of public opinion, the consciousness of the subject, employee about worthy or unworthy, moral or immoral, which determines the nature of moral sanctions.

Moral norms can be expressed both in a negative, prohibitive form (for example, the Laws of Moses - ten commandments in the Old Testament: do not kill, do not steal, etc.) and in a positive (be honest, help your neighbor, respect elders, take care of honor from a young age ).

Moral norms indicate the boundaries beyond which behavior ceases to be moral and turns out to be immoral (when a person is either not familiar with the norms or ignores known norms).

The moral norm, in principle, is designed for voluntary execution, but its violation entails moral sanctions, negative assessments and condemnation of the employee's behavior. For example, if an employee lied to his boss, then this dishonorable act, in accordance with the severity, on the basis of the charters, will be followed by an appropriate reaction (disciplinary) or punishment provided for by the norms of public organizations.

Positive norms of behavior, as a rule, require punishment: firstly, activity on the part of the subject of morality - a police officer; secondly, a creative interpretation of what it means to be prudent, to be decent, to be merciful. The range of understanding of these calls can be very wide and varied. Therefore, moral norms are, first of all, prohibitions, and only then - positive calls.

> Values, in essence, are the content that is approved in the norms.

When they say “be honest”, they mean that honesty is a value that is very important and significant for people, society, social groups, including teams of police officers.

That is why values ​​are not just patterns of behavior and world relations, but patterns isolated as independent phenomena of nature and social relations.

In this regard, justice, freedom, equality, love, the meaning of life, happiness are values ​​of the highest order. Other applied values ​​are also possible - courtesy, accuracy, diligence, diligence.

There are significant differences between norms and values, which are closely related.

First, the implementation of norms is approved, while the service of values ​​is admired. Values ​​make a person not just follow the standard, but strive for the highest, they endow reality with meaning.

Secondly, the norms make up a system where they can be implemented immediately, otherwise the system will turn out to be contradictory, not working.

Values ​​are built into a certain hierarchy, and people sacrifice some values ​​for the sake of others (for example, prudence for the sake of freedom or dignity for the sake of justice).

Thirdly, the norms quite rigidly set the boundaries of behavior, so we can say about the norm that it is either fulfilled or not.

Serving values ​​can be more or less zealous, it is subject to gradation. Values ​​don't completely change. They are always greater than her, because they retain the moment of desirability, and not just duty.

From these positions, the moral value can be the possession of various personal qualities (courage, sensitivity, patience, generosity), involvement in certain social groups and institutions (family, clan, party), recognition of such qualities by other people, etc.

At the same time, the highest values ​​are those values ​​for which people sacrifice themselves or in difficult conditions develop such qualities of the highest value as patriotism, courage and selflessness, nobility and self-sacrifice, fidelity to duty, skill, professionalism, personal responsibility for protecting life, health, rights. and freedoms of citizens, the interests of society and the state from criminal and other unlawful encroachments.

> ideal-the highest values ​​addressed to the individual and acting as the highest goal of personal development.

The moral ideal is an important landmark, like a compass needle indicating the right moral direction. In the most diverse, sometimes even in conflict situations, not abstract, abstract ideas are needed, but a specific example of behavior, a role model, a guide for action. In the most generalized form, such an example is expressed in a moral ideal, which is a concretization of historical, social ideas about good and evil, justice, duty, honor, the meaning of life and other valuable concepts of morality.

Moreover, a living historical figure or a hero of a work of art, sacred semi-mythical figures, moral teachers of mankind (Confucius, Buddha, Christ, Socrates, Plato) can act as an ideal.

IN modern conditions young people have an urgent need for a worthy and authoritative ideal, which to a large extent determines the content of the moral values ​​of a particular person. Therefore, one can notice: what is a person's ideal, such is he himself. Isn't the heroic deed of Senior Lieutenant A. V. Solomatin, for example, worthy of honor, respect and ideal in modern conditions? In December 1999, a reconnaissance group of 7 people in Chechnya discovered an ambush, 600 militants, the group accepted the battle, Alexander lost his arm in battle, but continued to shoot. And when the militants decided to take him alive, he stood up to his full height and went to them, not letting go of his machine gun, and then reached for a grenade and blew himself up along with the bandits.

A small reconnaissance group saved the regiment. This is what warriors do who have comprehended the essence of the ideal in the process of forming themselves as a highly moral person. This is evidenced by the diary of A. V. Solomatin, in which there are such lines: “I swear, I will do everything so that the Russian nation rises and becomes worthy of its heroic deeds. Everything remains for people, beautiful words. You can't take anything with you there. You have to leave a mark on your life. Look back: what have you done for the people, Motherland, land? Will they remember? That's what you have to live for."

The ideal by its nature is not only the sublime, but also the unattainable. As soon as an ideal lands, becomes feasible, it immediately loses its functions of a “beacon”, a landmark. And at the same time, it should not be completely inaccessible.

Today in society, voices are often heard about the loss of a moral ideal. But does it follow from this that our state, despite the complexity of the crime situation, has lost its moral guidelines? Rather, we can talk about finding ways, means of embodying moral values ​​in a new social environment, which implies a serious moral cleansing of Russian society from top to bottom. At the same time, it should always be taken into account that since the time of Plato, attempts have been made to create a scheme of an ideal society (state), to construct various utopias (and anti-utopias). But social ideals can count on a true, and not temporary embodiment, if they are based on eternal values ​​(truth, goodness, beauty, humanity) that are consistent with moral ideals.

Principles. Moral principles - one of the sides of the expression of moral requirements.

> The principle is the most general justification for existing norms and the criterion for choosing rules.

The principles clearly express the universal formulas of behavior. If values, higher ideals are emotionally figurative phenomena, if norms may not be realized at all and act at the level of moral habits and unconscious attitudes, then principles are a phenomenon of rational consciousness. They are clearly perceived and cast into precise verbal characteristics. Among the moral principles are such moral principles as humanism - the recognition of man as the highest value; altruism - selfless service to one's neighbor; mercy - compassionate and active love, expressed in readiness to help everyone in need of something; collectivism - a conscious desire to promote the common good; rejection of individualism (opposition of the individual to society), and selfishness (preference of one's own interests to the interests of others).

The Law of the Russian Federation "On the Police" also defines the principles of its activities: observance and respect for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, legality, impartiality, openness and publicity. Strict observance of these principles is an indispensable condition for the successful practical activities of law enforcement officers.

"The golden rule of morality", formed in society since ancient times

In the system of moral norms of human society, a rule gradually emerged, which became a generalized criterion for the morality of people's behavior and actions. It has been called the "golden rule of morality". Its essence can be formulated as follows: do not do to another what you do not want them to do to you. Based on this rule, a person learned to identify himself with other people, his ability to adequately assess the situation developed, ideas about good and evil were formed.

The Golden Rule is one of the oldest regulatory requirements expressing the universal content of morality, its humanistic essence.

The "Golden Rule" is already found in the early written monuments of many cultures (in the teachings of Confucius, in the ancient Indian "Mahabharata", in the Bible, etc.) and is firmly included in the public consciousness of subsequent eras up to our time. In Russian, it was fixed in the form of a proverb: “What you don’t like in others, don’t do it yourself.”

This rule, which has developed in relations between people in society, was the basis for the emergence of legal norms of the emerging society in the conditions of statehood. Thus, the norms of criminal law that protect the life, health, honor and dignity of the individual embody the principles of the "golden rule of morality", humane attitude and mutual respect.

This rule is of great importance, especially in investigative, operational work, because it highlights the norms of criminal procedure law, which prohibit obtaining evidence by violence, threats and illegal measures. This path only leads to a decrease in the prestige of law enforcement agencies.

The morality of modern society is based on simple principles:

1) Everything is allowed that does not directly violate the rights of other people.

2) The rights of all people are equal.

These principles stem from the tendencies described in the Progress in Morals section. Since the main slogan of Modern society is “maximum happiness for the maximum number of people”, then moral norms should not be an obstacle to the realization of the desires of this or that person - even if someone does not like these desires. But only as long as they do not harm other people.

It should be noted that from these two principles a third follows: "Be energetic, achieve success on your own." After all, each person strives for personal success, and the greatest freedom gives the maximum opportunity for this (see the subsection “The Commandments of Modern Society”).

It is obvious that the need for decency follows from these principles. For example, deceiving another person is, as a rule, causing damage to him, which means it is condemned by Modern morality.

The morality of modern society in a light and cheerful tone was described by Alexander Nikonov in the corresponding chapter of the book “Monkey Upgrade”:

From all today's morality tomorrow there will be one single rule: you can do whatever you like without directly infringing on the interests of others. Here keyword- "immediately".

Morality is the sum of unwritten norms of behavior established in society, a collection of social prejudices. Morality is closer to the word "decency". Morality is harder to define. It is closer to such a concept of biology as empathy; to such a concept of religion as forgiveness; to such a concept of social life as conformism; to such a concept of psychology as non-conflict. Simply put, if a person internally sympathizes, empathizes with another person and, in this regard, tries not to do to another what he would not like himself, if a person is internally non-aggressive, wise and therefore understanding - we can say that this is a moral person.

The main difference between morality and morality is that morality always involves an external evaluating object: social morality - society, crowd, neighbors; religious morality - God. And morality is internal self-control. A moral person is deeper and more complex than a moral person. Just as an automatically working unit is more complicated than a manual machine, which is put into action by someone else's will.

Walking naked on the streets is immoral. Splashing saliva, yelling at a naked man that he is a scoundrel is immoral. Feel the difference.

The world is moving towards immorality, it's true. But he goes in the direction of morality.

Morality is a subtle, situational thing. The moral is more formal. It can be reduced to certain rules and prohibitions.

4 Question Moral values ​​and ideals.

Morality is a Russian word derived from the root "nature". It first entered the dictionary of the Russian language in the 18th century and began to be used along with the words "ethics" and "morality" as their synonyms.

Morality is the acceptance of responsibility for one's actions. Since, as follows from the definition, morality is based on free will, only a free being can be moral. Unlike morality, which is an external requirement for the behavior of an individual, along with the law, morality is an internal attitude of an individual to act in accordance with his conscience.

Moral (moral) values- this is what the ancient Greeks called "ethical virtues". 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. And although in life people do not always show such qualities, they are highly valued by people, and those who possess them are respected. These values, presented in their impeccable, absolutely complete and perfect expression, act as ethical ideals.

Moral values ​​and norms: humanism and patriotism

The simplest and historically the first forms of moral reflection were the norms and their totality, forming the moral code.

Moral standards are. single private prescriptions, for example, "do not lie", "respect elders", "help a friend", "be polite", etc. The simplicity of moral norms makes them understandable and accessible to everyone, and their social value is self-evident and does not need additional justification. At the same time, their simplicity does not mean ease of execution and requires moral composure and strong-willed efforts from a person.

Moral values ​​and norms are expressed in moral principles. These include humanism, collectivism, conscientious fulfillment of public duty, diligence, patriotism, etc.

Thus, the principle of humanism (humanity) requires a person to follow the norms of benevolence and respect for any person, readiness to come to his aid, protect his dignity and rights.

Collectivism requires a person to be able to correlate their interests and needs with common interests, respect comrades, build relationships with them on the basis of friendliness and mutual assistance.

Morality requires a person to develop in himself the ability to fulfill its requirements. In classical ethics, these abilities of the individual were called somewhat pompously, but very accurately - virtues, that is, the ability to do good. In terms of virtues (moral qualities of a person), the value representations of moral consciousness about good and bad, righteous and sinful in the characteristics of the person himself are concretized. And although a lot of both good and bad is mixed in every person, moral consciousness seeks to single out the most valuable moral characteristics of a person and combine them in a generalized Ideal image of a morally perfect person.

Thus, in the moral consciousness, the concept of the moral ideal of the individual is formed, the embodiment of the idea of ​​a morally impeccable person who combines all conceivable virtues and acts as a role model. For the most part, the ideal finds its embodiment in mythological, religious and artistic images - Ilya Muromets, Jesus Christ, Don Quixote or Prince Myshkin.

At the same time, awareness of the dependence of a person's moral characteristics on the conditions of social life causes, in the moral consciousness, the dream of a perfect society, where conditions will be created for the education of morally perfect people. Therefore, following the personal moral ideal, the concept of the moral ideal of society is created in the moral consciousness. Such are religious hopes for the coming "Kingdom of God", literary and philosophical utopias ("The City of the Sun" by T. Campanella, "The Golden Book of the Island of Utopia" by T. Mora, theories of utopian socialists).

The social purpose of morality lies in its extremely important role in the process of the historical development of society, in the fact that morality serves as a means of its spiritual consolidation and improvement through the development of norms and values. They allow a person to navigate life and consciously serve society.

Good and evil are the most general concepts of moral consciousness, serving to distinguish and oppose moral and immoral, good and bad. Good is everything that is positively assessed by moral consciousness when correlated with humanistic principles and ideals, contributing to the development of mutual understanding, harmony and humanity in a person and society.

Evil means a violation of the requirement to follow the good, the neglect of moral values ​​and requirements.

Initially, ideas about the good were formed around the idea of ​​goodness, utility in general, but with the development of morality and man, these ideas are filled with more and more spiritual content. The moral conscience considers the true good to be that which serves the development of humanity in society and man, sincere and voluntary unity and harmony between people, their spiritual cohesion. These are benevolence and mercy, mutual assistance and cooperation, following duty and conscience, honesty, generosity, politeness and tact. All these are precisely those spiritual values ​​that in some cases may seem useless and inexpedient, but on the whole constitute the only solid spiritual foundation for a meaningful human life.

Accordingly, the moral consciousness considers evil everything that prevents the unity and harmony of people and the harmony of social relations, is directed against the requirements of duty and conscience for the sake of satisfying egoistic motives. This is self-interest and greed, greed and vanity, rudeness and violence, indifference and indifference to the interests of man and society.

The concept of moral duty expresses the transformation of moral requirements and values ​​into a personal task of a person, his awareness of his duties as a moral being.

The requirements of moral duty, expressing the values ​​of morality through the inner mood of the individual, often diverge from the requirements of a social group, team, class, state, or even simply with personal inclinations and desires. What a person prefers in this case - respect for human dignity and the need to affirm humanity, which are the content of duty and goodness, or prudent profit, the desire to be like everyone else, to fulfill the most convenient requirements - will characterize his moral development and maturity.

Morality, as an internal regulator of human behavior, assumes that the person herself is aware of the objective social content of her moral duty, focusing on more general principles morals. And no references to common and widespread forms of behavior, mass habits and authoritative examples can remove the responsibility from the individual for misunderstanding or neglecting the requirements of moral duty.

Here, conscience comes to the fore - the ability of a person to formulate moral obligations, demand their fulfillment from himself, control and evaluate his behavior from a moral point of view. Guided by the dictates of conscience, a person takes responsibility for his understanding of good and evil, duty, justice, the meaning of life. He himself sets for himself the criteria of moral evaluation and makes moral judgments on their basis, primarily evaluating his own behavior. And if the supports of behavior external to morality - public opinion or the requirements of the law - can be bypassed on occasion, then it turns out to be impossible to deceive oneself. If this is possible, then only at the cost of abandoning one's own conscience and loss of human dignity.

Life, according to conscience, the desire for such a life, increase and strengthen the high positive self-esteem of the individual, her self-esteem.

The concepts of human dignity and honor in morality express the idea of ​​the value of a person as a moral person, require a respectful and benevolent attitude towards a person, recognition of his rights and freedoms. Along with conscience, these representations of morality serve as a way of self-control and self-awareness of the individual, the basis of a demanding and responsible attitude towards oneself. They involve a person committing acts that provide him with public respect and high personal self-esteem, the experience of moral satisfaction, which in turn do not allow a person to act below his dignity.

At the same time, the concept of honor is more associated with the public assessment of a person's behavior as a representative of some community, team, professional group or estate and the merits recognized for them. Therefore, honor focuses more on external evaluation criteria, requires a person to maintain and justify the reputation that applies to him as a representative of the community. For example, the honor of a soldier, the honor of a scientist, the honor of a nobleman, a merchant or a banker.

Dignity has a broader moral meaning and is based on the recognition of the equal rights of each person to the respect and value of the individual as a moral subject in general. Initially, the dignity of the individual was associated with generosity, nobility, strength, class affiliation, later - with power, might, wealth, that is, it was based on non-moral grounds. Such an understanding of dignity can distort its moral content to the exact opposite, when the dignity of a person begins to be associated with a person’s prosperity, the presence of “necessary people” and “connections”, with his “ability to live”, and in fact, the ability to humiliate himself and curry favor with those on whom it depends.

The moral value of the dignity of the individual is oriented not to material well-being and prosperity, not to external signs of recognition (this can rather be defined as vanity and swagger), but to the internal respect of the individual for the principles of true humanity, free voluntary adherence to them despite the pressure of circumstances and temptations.

Another important value orientation of moral consciousness is the concept of justice. It expresses the idea of ​​the correct, proper order of things in human relationships, which corresponds to ideas about the purpose of a person, his rights and duties. The concept of justice has long been associated with the idea of ​​equality, but the understanding of equality itself has not remained unchanged. From primitive equalizing equality and full compliance of deeds and retribution on the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", through the forced equalization of everyone in dependence and lack of rights before the authorities and the state to formal equality in rights and obligations before the law and morality in a democratic society - this is the path of the historical development of the idea of ​​equality. More precisely, the content of the concept of justice can be defined as a measure of equality, i.e., the correspondence between the rights and duties of people, the merits of a person and their public recognition, between deed and retribution, crime and punishment. Inconsistency and violation of this measure is evaluated by moral consciousness as an injustice unacceptable for the moral order of things.

5 Question Moral consciousness, its structure and levels.

Morality is a system with a certain structure and autonomy. The most important elements of morality are moral consciousness, moral relations, moral activity and moral values. Moral consciousness is a set of certain feelings, will, norms, principles, ideas through which the subject reflects the world of values ​​of good and evil. In moral consciousness, two levels are usually distinguished: psychological and ideological. At the same time, it is necessary to immediately distinguish various types of moral consciousness: it can be individual, group, public.

The psychological level includes the unconscious, feelings, will. The remnants of instincts, natural moral laws, psychological complexes and other phenomena appear in the unconscious. The unconscious is best studied in psychoanalysis, the founder of which is the outstanding psychologist of the 20th century, Sigmund Freud. There is a large specialized literature devoted to the problem of the relationship between psychoanalysis and ethics. The unconscious for the most part has an innate character, but it can also appear as a whole system of complexes already formed by life, which to a large extent influence the choice of evil. Psychoanalysis identifies three levels in the human psyche: “I” (“Ego”), “It” (“Id”) and “Super-I” (“Super-Ego”), the last two levels are the main elements of the unconscious. The “It” is often defined as the subconscious, and the “Super-I” as the superconscious. The subconscious often appears as a subjective basis for choosing evil. A very important role in morality is played by moral feelings. Moral feelings include feelings of love, compassion, reverence, shame, conscience, hatred, malice, etc. Moral feelings are partly innate, i.e. inherent in man from birth, given to him by nature itself, and in part they are socializable, educated. The level of development of the moral feelings of the subject characterizes the moral culture of the subject. The moral feelings of a person must be sharpened, sensitively and correctly reacting to what is happening. Shame is a moral feeling through which a person condemns his actions, motives and moral qualities. The content of shame is the experience of guilt. Shame is the initial manifestation of moral consciousness and, unlike conscience, has a more external character. As an elementary form of moral consciousness, shame, first of all, expresses a person's attitude to the satisfaction of his natural needs. Conscience is a moral and psychological mechanism of self-control. Ethics recognizes that conscience is a personal consciousness and personal experience regarding the correctness, dignity, honesty and other good values ​​of everything that has been done, is being done or is planned to be done by a person. Conscience is a link between the moral order in the human soul and the moral order of the world in which a person lives. There are different concepts of conscience: empirical, intuitive, mystical. Empirical theories of conscience are based on psychology and try to explain conscience through the knowledge acquired by a person, which determines his moral choice different types, - distinguish between “good and perfect conscience”, “faded and imperfect conscience”. In turn, the "perfect" conscience is characterized as active and sensitive, "imperfect" - as calm, or lost, biased and hypocritical. Will as a subjective ability to self-determination is very essential for human morality, because it characterizes human freedom in choosing good or evil. On the one hand, ethics proceeds from the premise that the will of a person is initially distinguished by its free character in choosing good and evil. And this is the distinctive feature of man, which distinguishes him from the animal world. On the other hand, morality contributes to the development of this ability, forms the so-called positive freedom of a person, as his ability to choose good and despite his own predilections or external coercion. In ethics, there were attempts to consider the will as a whole as the basis of morality. The ideological level of moral consciousness includes norms, principles, ideas, and theories.

6 Question Moral relations.

moral relations- these are the relationships that develop between people in the implementation of their moral values. Examples of moral relations are relations of love, solidarity, justice, or, on the contrary, hatred, conflict, violence, etc. The peculiarity of moral relations is their universal character. They, unlike law, cover the entire sphere of human relations, including the relationship of a person to himself.

As already noted, it is pointless from a legal point of view to judge a suicide, but from a moral point of view, a moral assessment of a suicide is possible. There is a Christian tradition to bury suicides outside the cemetery behind its fence. The problem for ethics is the moral attitude to nature. The problem of nature in ethics appears as a scandal. By the "ethical problem of nature" we mean the problem of analyzing what constitutes morality, the goodness of nature itself, as well as the problem of analyzing the moral attitude to nature, in general, everything that is connected in morality and ethics with the natural factor. Beginning with Aristotle, the proper ethical analysis of morality had as its main subject a person, his virtues, his behavior and attitudes. And therefore it is logical that for such a "properly ethical" approach, nature at best could be perceived as certain natural moral feelings, as innate transcendental imperatives of the mind. Nature in itself, as well as our living smaller brothers, turned out to be of no interest for ethics, the attitude towards nature seemed adiaphoric. But such an attitude towards nature is contrary to our moral feelings, our intuition of good and evil. We will always see a certain meaning in Eastern ethical teachings that preach love for all living things, the Christian prayer “Let every breath praise the Lord”, in the noble principle of “reverence for life”. It is impossible not to recognize the evidence of truth expressed in the following beautiful words: “A man is truly moral only when he obeys the inner impulse to help any life that he can help, and refrains from doing any harm to the living. He does not ask how much this or that life deserves his efforts, he also does not ask whether and to what extent she can feel his kindness. For him, life is sacred. He will not pluck a leaf from a tree, he will not break a single flower, and he will not crush a single insect. When he works at night by a lamp in the summer, he prefers to close the window and sit in stuffiness so as not to see a single butterfly that has fallen with burned wings on his table. If, walking down the street after rain, he sees a worm crawling along the pavement, he will think that the worm will die in the sun if it does not crawl to the ground in time, where it can hide in a crack, and transfer it to the grass. If he passes by an insect that has fallen into a puddle, he will find time to throw a piece of paper or a straw to him to save him. He is not afraid of being ridiculed for being sentimental. Such is the fate of any truth, which is always the subject of ridicule before it is recognized.” It is also necessary to comprehend the fact of the beneficial influence of nature on man. Forest, mountains, sea, rivers, lakes not only physiologically, but also spiritually heal a person. A person finds comfort and relaxation, inspiration in nature, in communion with it. Why do our favorite places in the forest or on the river bring us such joy? Obviously, this is connected not only with associations and previous impressions that awaken in the mind with familiar images, but the familiar paths, groves, glades, steeps that we perceive, bring peace to our soul, freedom, spiritual strength. If there is no positive moral value in nature itself, in its creations, then such a fact of its spiritual and healing function remains rationally inexplicable. Another fact that we believe indirectly testifies to the morality of nature is the ecological problem.

But, similarly, the environmental explosion became a reality because initially the moral value of nature itself was “destroyed” in the minds of people. Man ceased to realize that in nature there is both good and evil. Ethics also has a certain fault in this, which, striving for scientificity, also shared the shortcomings of science, in particular the one that “science always encounters only what is allowed as an accessible subject by its way of representation.” This is the limitation of any ecological analysis. Ecology studies nature by methods accessible to it, and, above all, by empirical ones, but for which the transcendence of nature itself is inaccessible. This in no way means that environmental studies are not needed - no, they are necessary both from a theoretical and practical point of view. However, they can and should be supplemented with philosophical, ethical studies addressed to a different, axiological layer of natural existence, which are also naturally limited in their own way. The choice of a person as a conscious emotional being is always of an interested, valuable nature, and what has no value for a person cannot move him to action. Environmental data to become imperative human behavior, must themselves "become" values, the subject must still see their value aspect. Ethics, starting from concrete scientific material, should help a person to realize the value of the world around him. It is possible and necessary to talk about the morality of nature, living and inanimate, as the totality of its moral values, about the moral attitude of man to nature, but it is pointless to raise the question of the morality of nature itself, meaning by the latter a system of certain values ​​of good and evil, coupled with a certain consciousness, relationships, actions. Nature is not a living being, it is not spiritualized, it has no freedom of choice either in good or in evil. Man seems to be morally undeveloped precisely in relations with nature. And this is already manifested in our modern language, in which there are simply no words to designate the values ​​of inanimate and living nature. There is a very important problem of improving the language through the development in it of the "language of morality", which can reflect the whole world of moral values. And here it is possible and necessary to use the language of our ancestors, who were closer to nature, perceived it more syncretically, through the unity of sensual, rational and intuitive forms. We must turn to the experience of the peasants, who are not as alienated from nature by rational culture as modern man. But this appeal must be critical, taking into account the moral discoveries of culture. It is impossible not to admit that "inanimate nature" has "revealed" and will still "reveal" to man the infinite variety of its objects, their connections, although the limitations of this uniqueness and unity are undeniable. Infinite diversity here appears as a boring monotony, deadening, evoking melancholy and even horror in its similarity to an undeveloped, small individuality. So boring is the gray desert, blinding with light and suffocating with heat, although its billions of yellow grains of sand do not absolutely repeat each other. Just as majestic, but also boring is the snow-covered tundra, monotonous in the white color of its myriads of sparkling snowflakes, between which there are also no identical ones. Majestic, but boring dead calm mirror of the sea. It seems that the endless, black expanse of space, in which small bright points of stars twinkle at great distances, is also boring, although majestic.

This boredom of "inanimate nature" is associated with its inexpressive individuality, attached to the good and majesty of infinity, primarily through quantity. But the truth is that nowhere is it more clear and complete for a person to realize the infinity and transcendence of the very value of being, as in the same monotonous, monotonous cosmos, sea, desert. It is more difficult to see, to feel the uniqueness of everything that exists here and the unity that also takes place here, including the unity of one’s own human “I”, i.e. living and rational being, with inanimate and unreasonable, it is more difficult to realize oneself as a creative subject of the noosphere. Life and mind "inanimate nature" are not rejected, not destroyed, they have the opportunity to assert themselves. And the living mind itself can either realize or destroy this possibility, stepping on the path of confrontation. To educate morally a person who would be able to realize the morality of nature and consciously create the noosphere, the ecosphere is the most important task of culture. The next most important element of morality is moral activity.

7 Question Moral activity.

moral activity there is a practical realization of the values ​​of good and evil, realized by man. The “cell” of moral activity is an act. An act is an action that is subjectively motivated, implies freedom of choice, has a meaning and therefore evokes a certain attitude towards itself. On the one hand, not every action of a person is a moral act, on the other hand, sometimes a person’s inaction appears as an important moral act. For example, a man does not stand up for a woman when she is insulted, or someone keeps silent in a situation where you need to express your opinion - all such inactions are negative moral deeds. On the whole, one can not single out so much human actions that are not moral deeds, but simply actions-operations. A moral act presupposes free will. Free will manifests itself as an external freedom of action and as an internal freedom of choice between different feelings, ideas, assessments. It is precisely where there is no freedom of action or freedom of choice that we have actions-operations for which a person does not bear moral responsibility. If there is no freedom of action or freedom of choice, then a person does not bear moral responsibility for his actions, although he can emotionally experience them. So, the driver is not responsible for the fact that he knocked down a passenger who violated the rules of the road, when it was physically impossible to stop the car due to its inertia. The driver himself, as a human being, can very deeply experience the tragedy that has happened. The totality of actions is a line of behavior with which a way of life is associated. These relationships indicate the meaning of actions for a person.

8 Question Fairness.

Justice- the concept of due, which contains the requirement of conformity of deed and retribution: in particular, conformity of rights and obligations, labor and remuneration, merits and their recognition, crime and punishment, conformity of the role of various social strata, groups and individuals in the life of society and their social positions in it; in economics - the requirement of equality of citizens in the distribution of a limited resource. The lack of proper correspondence between these entities is assessed as unfair.

It is one of the main categories of ethics.

two kinds of justice:

Equalizing- refers to the relations of equal people about objects (“equal - for equal”). It refers not directly to people, but to their actions, and requires equality (equivalence) of labor and pay, the value of a thing and its price, harm and its compensation. Relations of egalitarian justice require the participation of at least two persons.

Distribution- requires proportionality in relation to people according to one or another criterion (“equal - equal, unequal - unequal”, “to each his own”). A relationship of distributive justice requires the participation of at least three people, each acting to achieve the same goal within an organized community. One of these people distributing is the "boss".

Equal justice is a specific principle of private law, while distributive justice is a principle of public law, which is a set of rules of the state as an organization.

The requirements of egalitarian and distributive justice are formal, not specifying who is to be considered equal or different, and not specifying which rules apply to whom. Different answers to these questions give different conceptions of justice, which supplement the formal concept of justice with substantive requirements and values.

9 Question Moral duty.

Duty as an embodied claim to absoluteness, unconditional categoricalness of one's own requirements is such an obvious feature of morality that it cannot but be reflected in ethics even in cases where the latter is built on an experimental basis (as, for example, the ethics of Aristotle) ​​or even disputes this very claim (such as the skeptical ethic). Democritus talked about debt.

This concept acquired a categorical status in the ethics of the Stoics, who designated it by the term "to kathakon", understanding by it the proper, proper. It (mainly thanks to Cicero, in particular, his treatise "On Duties") also entered Christian ethics, where it was predominantly designated by the term "officium". In the German Enlightenment, debt is considered as the main moral category. This line was continued by Kant and Fichte. The problem of the absoluteness of morality in its applied aspect, which could not be bypassed by any ethical system, becomes the subject of a comprehensive and focused analysis in moral philosophy of Kant. Kant raised the concept of dollar to the ultimate theoretical and normative height, linking with it the specifics of morality.

"Foundation to the metaphysics of morals" - the first work of Kant, specially devoted to moral problems. In it, Kant formulated and substantiated the main discovery of his ethics: to his own and yet universal legislation and that he is obliged to act only in accordance with his own a will which, however, lays down universal laws.

The necessity of action out of respect for the moral law Kant calls duty. Duty is the manifestation of the moral law in the subject, the subjective principle of morality. It means that the moral law in itself, directly and immediately becomes the motive of human behavior. When a person performs moral deeds for the sole reason that they are moral, he acts out of duty.

There are several different types of worldview that differ in the understanding of the idea of ​​a person's moral duty.

When the moral duty of the individual extends to all members of the group, we are dealing with sociocentrism.

If it is believed that a person should protect all rational beings on earth, this kind of ethics is called pathocentrism.

If the focus is on a person and his needs, it is recognized that only a person has value and, therefore, a person has a moral duty only to people, then such a philosophical concept is called anthropocentrism.

If, finally, it is recognized that a person has a moral duty to all living beings on earth, is called upon to protect all living things, animals and plants, then this kind of worldview is called biocentrism, i.e. the focus is on "bios" - life, living.

Anthropocentrism has been the dominant worldview of mankind for many centuries. Man was opposed to all other creatures on earth and it was taken for granted that only the interests and needs of man were important, all other creatures had no independent value. This worldview is conveyed by the popular expression: "Everything is for a person." Philosophy, religion of the West supported the belief in the uniqueness of man and his place in the center of the universe, in his rights to the life of all other living beings and the planet itself.

Anthropocentrism proclaimed the human right to use the surrounding world, animate and inanimate, for their own purposes. The anthropocentric conception of the world has never considered the possibility of a person having a duty to anyone.

The emergence of anthropocentrism as a worldview concept dates back to the ancient era. In ancient Greece, there were several philosophical schools, one of which, founded by Aristotle, recognized the legitimacy of inequality between people, in particular slavery, and saw an abyss between people and animals; It was believed that animals were created for the benefit of man. This teaching of Aristotle was expounded in a more primitive form by Aristotle's follower Xenophon and others. The anthropocentrism of Xenophon was a convenient philosophy, freeing man from remorse about the fate of other beings, and gained great popularity. This doctrine received significant support in the person of the 13th-century Catholic religious philosopher Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argues that plants and animals exist not for their own sake, but for man's; dumb animals and plants are devoid of reason and therefore it is natural that they are used by man for his benefit.

At present, anthropocentrism is beginning to be seen as a negative form of worldview. Anthropocentrism proved to be untenable both as a philosophy and as a scientific approach to determining the status of a person in the natural environment, and as a practical guide to action that justified any actions of a person in relation to other living forms.

Thus, debt is a set of requirements presented to a person by society (collective, organization), which appear before him as his duties and compliance with which is its internal moral need.

This definition, which reveals the essence of debt, includes two sides: objective and subjective.

The objective side of duty is the very content of its requirements, arising from the specifics of those roles that a person performs and which depend on what he occupies in society ecta. The objectivity of these requirements should be understood in the sense of independence from the desires of an individual person.

The subjective side of duty is the recognition by an individual of the requirements of society, the team as necessary, in relation to himself as a performer of a certain social role, as well as internal readiness and even the need to fulfill them. This side of duty depends on the person, his individuality. It shows the general level of moral development of this or that person, the level and depth of understanding by him of his tasks. The individual acts here as an active bearer of certain moral obligations to society, which recognizes them and implements them in its activity.

Duty is the moral necessity of action. To act morally means to act according to duty. To do something according to duty means to do it because morality prescribes it.

Debt can be understood narrowly - as the need to return what you received from friends. Then everyone will strive not to miscalculate and not to give more than he received. But duty can be understood broadly as the need to improve reality and oneself without regard to immediate material reward. This will be the true understanding of duty. It was shown by the Soviet soldiers during the Great Patriotic War, when they stopped the tank attacks of the Nazis, tying themselves with grenades and lying down under the tanks. They did this not out of desperation and fear, but with a cold-blooded calculation to stop for sure. If it were possible to ask a person why he is going to certain death, he would probably answer that it is impossible to do otherwise. Not because there is physically no other way out. It is impossible to do otherwise for moral reasons - this is not allowed by one's own conscience.

We often do not notice what a great power is hidden in the simple word "must". Behind this word is the greatness of the power of the moral abilities of a person. People who make personal sacrifices, and in cases of necessity even to death out of a sense of duty, having said: "If not me, then who?", represent the color of man and dos secrets of the greatest respect. Who never in his life understood the stern beauty of the word "should", he does not have moral maturity.

As a moral need of a person, duty in different people has a different level of individual development. One person fulfills the prescriptions of public duty, fearing the condemnation of society or even punishment from its side. He does not break it because it is not profitable for him himself ("I act in accordance with duty - otherwise you will not get a sin").

Another - because he wants to earn public recognition, praise, reward ("I act in accordance with the dollar - perhaps they will notice, thank you"). The third - because I am convinced: even if it is difficult, but still an important and necessary duty ("I act in accordance with a long sweat, which is so necessary").

And, finally, for the fourth, the fulfillment of duty is an internal need that causes moral satisfaction ("I act in accordance with the long sweat that so I want - I want to serve people"). The last option is the highest fully mature stage in the development of moral duty, the internal need of a person, the satisfaction of which is one of the conditions for his happiness i.

Moral duty is a rule, but a purely internal rule, understood by reason and recognized by conscience. This is a rule from which no one can free us. Moral qualities are the requirements of the individual to himself, reflecting the desire for good. Moral duty is the desire for self-improvement in order to affirm the human in a person.

Duty is a moral obligation to oneself and others. Moral duty is the law of life, it must guide us, both in the last trifles and in high deeds.

Moral need: being faithful to duty is a great strength. However, duty alone cannot regulate the entire moral practice of people. Duty orients towards the fulfillment of such moral norms, which represent, as it were, from the outside, a program of behavior proposed by a person; it acts as a duty of a person to society, a team. In the requirements of debt it is impossible to foresee and take into account all the richness of tasks and situations born by life. Real morality is broader, more diverse, many-sided.

Many relationships between people concern only themselves; they are hidden from society and therefore can neither be guided nor regulated by them. In the collision of different levels of debt between himself, a person is forced to independently evaluate each of them and make the right decision. Situations in the behavior of people are so diverse that society is able to develop requirements for all occasions of life.

Finally, for a morally developed person, the need arises to do good not only at the behest of society, but also from internal needs. For example, a person, saving another, dies himself. Duty - to help others in trouble - exists. But society does not oblige a person to die helping another. What makes a person go to such a feat?

Often people, wishing to say that they did nothing more than what was required of them by this role in a particular situation, say: "We were just doing our duty." And they say about someone that he is a man of duty - this is a great honor, praise, testifying that this person is reliable, that you cannot rely on, that he will do whatever is required of him. To be a man of dollars is valuable, honorable, important.

And yet a person often does more than is contained in the demands of debt, does what, it would seem, he is not obliged to. Who makes a person do good beyond his duties?

The moral life of society has developed institutions that operate and regulate human behavior where it should become insufficiently effective. Among such regulators, an important place belongs to conscience.

Conscience is the consciousness and feeling of a person's moral responsibility for his behavior towards himself and the internal need to act fairly.

Violating one's moral duty with impunity is impossible, since the punishment for violating moral duty depends entirely on the most strict and inexorable judge - our own conscience. Anyone who acts against conscience loses the right to be called an honest person, and at the same time the respect of all honest people. Man's inner duty is left to his free will; remorse, this guardian of inner honesty, warns and maintains a sense of duty.

10 Question Conscience and shame.

Conscience- the ability of a person to independently formulate his own moral duties and exercise moral self-control, demand from himself their fulfillment and evaluate his actions; one of the expressions of the moral self-consciousness of the individual. It manifests itself both in the form of rational awareness of the moral significance of the actions performed, and in the form of emotional experiences, the so-called. "remorse"

Shame- a negatively colored feeling, the object of which is any act or quality of the subject. Shame is associated with a sense of social unacceptability of what one is ashamed of.

11 Question The concept, types and features of professional ethics.

Humanism (lat. himapis - human) - the principle of worldview (including morality) which is based on the belief in the infinity of human possibilities and his ability to owls improvement, the demand for freedom and the protection of the dignity of the person, the idea of ​​the human right to happiness and that the satisfaction of his needs and interests should be the ultimate goal of society.

The principle of humanism is based on the idea of ​​a respectful attitude to another person, fixed since ancient times. It is expressed in the golden rule of morality "treat others in the same way as you would like them to act toward you" and in Kant's categorical and the imperative "always act in such a way that the maxim of your conduct may become a universal law."

However, the golden rule of morality contains an element of subjectivism, because what some individual person wants in relation to himself is not at all necessary ce others. The categorical imperative looks more universal.

Humanism, represented by its imperative side, acting as a practical normative requirement, undoubtedly, proceeds from the primacy of the individual over other values. Therefore, the content of humanism correlates with the idea of ​​personal happiness.

However, the latter is not independent of the happiness of other people and, in general, of the nature of the tasks solved by society at this stage of its development. After all, true happiness presupposes fullness, emotional saturation of life. It can be achieved only in the process of self-realization of the personality, one way or another carried out on the basis of goals and values ​​shared with other people.

It is possible to identify three main meanings of humanism:

1. Guarantees of basic human rights as a condition for preserving the humane foundations of his existence.

2. Support for the weak, going beyond the usual ideas of this society about justice.

3. The formation of social and moral qualities that allow individuals to carry out self-realization on the basis of public values.

To the co -rejoice of the lamination of the Gymeanic thought of the Mozhno, the entry of the same, inherent in the Cydbam of the Cydba, Innication of the same - the altogether for the same to eat in the currently scenting follars, the fuel of the miracle of the miracle. Yabhevniy ". Oizerman T.I. Reflections on real humanism, alienation, utopism and positivism // Questions of Philosophy 1989 No. 10 C. 65.

In the modern world, the ideas of non-violence have had a great success, allowing in practice to liberate many peoples from colonial dependence, overthrow totalitarian regimes, excite public opinion is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the continuation of underground nuclear tests, etc. In the center of attention of humanistic thought are also environmental problems, global alternatives associated with a certain decrease in the pace of development of production, limiting m consumption, the development of waste-free production. All this is possible only with a high level of moral consciousness of people who are ready to make certain sacrifices for the survival of mankind. Therefore, along with pragmatic, technological, expedient principles, it is supposed to establish the cult of mercy, the development of higher spirituality as opposed to coarse forms of donism. Hedonism- the principle of morality, prescribing to people the desire for earthly joys. Hedonism reduces all the content of various moral requirements to a common goal - to obtain pleasure and avoid suffering. However, it cannot be considered a scientific principle of ethical theory.

By means of the formal principle, it is impossible to solve specific questions about the humane attitude of one person to another, and real humanism, apparently, represents some balance in the combination of different principles, the degree of connection of the freedom of expression of the individual with the requirements for its behavior, set by the culture of this society.

MERCY - compassionate and active love, expressed in the readiness to help every needy and extending to all people, and in the limit - to all living things. In the concept of mercy, two aspects are combined - spiritual and emotional (experiencing someone else's pain as one's own) and specifically practical (an impulse for real help): without the first, mercy degenerates into cold new philanthropy Philanthropy- charity, a specific form of humanism; a set of moral ideas and actions aimed at helping the disadvantaged. , without the second - into empty sentimentality.

The origins of mercy as a moral principle lie in the apex tribal solidarity, which strictly obliges, at the cost of any sacrifices, to rescue a relative from trouble, but excluding "strangers". True, tribal solidarity can partially extend to those who are outside the circle of "their own", but somehow connected with it (obligations to the guest, prescribed in the Old Testament attitude towards non-free persons and "aliens", etc.).

However, one can speak of mercy only when all the barriers between "ours" and "them" are, if not in everyday practice, then in the idea and in certain heroic moral acts, and But suffering ceases to be just an object of cold descent.

Religions such as Buddhism and Christianity were the first to preach mercy. In Christian ethics, a caring attitude towards one's neighbor is defined as mercy, which is one of the main virtues. The essential difference between mercy and friendly love-attachment is that, according to the commandment of love, it is mediated by an absolute ideal - love for God. Christian love for one's neighbor is not limited to loved ones, it extends to all people, including enemies.

In the Soviet ethical science, the concept of mercy for a long time did not receive adequate understanding and evaluation, it was even rejected as unnecessary, not only because it was bad o answered the immediate needs of the class and political struggle, but also because the idea of ​​such a happy order of things was associated with social transformations where mercy is simply not needed by anyone.

Experience has shown that this is not so. Even in cases of rejection of property inequality, loneliness, old age, ailments and other sufferings requiring not only public care, but also more elitist individual mercy. In our time, the process of the full return of the term "mercy" into the lexicon of our society is gradually taking place, and activities aimed at specific assistance are being activated people in need of mercy.

PABEHCTBO (in morality) - a relationship between people, within which they have the same rights to develop creative abilities for happiness, respect for their personal dignity. Along with the idea of ​​the necessity of fraternal unity between people, equality is the key idea of ​​morality, which historically arises as an alternative to blood-related closure and social isolation of people, their actual economic and political inequality. The most adequate expression of the principle of equality in morality is the golden rule, from the formulation of which follows the universality (generality) of moral requirements, their distribution to all people her, regardless of their social status and living conditions, and the universality of moral judgments, which consists in the fact that when evaluating the actions of others people, a person proceeds from the same grounds as when evaluating his own actions.

The idea of ​​equality receives a normative expression in the principle of altruism and the corresponding requirements of compassion (pity), mercy, co-participation.

As historical experience shows, moral equality can be practically realized only with a certain socio-political and cultural status of people, which characterizes eco nomic and political independence, the possibility of raising the educational and professional level, spiritual development with an indispensable responsibility each member of the society for the results of their activities .

ALTRUISM (from Latin altego - another) is a moral principle that prescribes compassion for other people, selfless service to them and readiness for self-denial in the name of their good and happiness. In the theory of morality, the concept of "Altruism" was introduced by Comte Comte Auguste (1798-1857), a French philosopher, the founder of positivism. who put this principle at the basis of their ethical system. Kont connected the moral improvement of society with the education in people of a public sense of altruism, which should counteract their egoism selfishness- life principle and moral quality, meaning giving preference in choosing a line of behavior to one's own interests over the interests of society and the people around. .

As a moral requirement, altruism arises as a reaction and a kind of compensation for the separation of people's interests, due to the private property of alienation and promotion to the fore in the social life of a person are the motives of self-interest and acquisition. The golden rule of morality and the Christian commandment "Love your neighbor as yourself" just reflect this direction of altruism, its appeal to selfish escomy, isolated individual. At the same time, if the golden rule emphasizes the idea of ​​equality in morality, then the commandments of love include the idea of ​​respect and mercy, treating others as an end in itself.

As a requirement for equality and humanity, altruism is one of the normative foundations of morality and humanism. At the same time, being addressed to the individual as the bearer of a private interest, altruism actually necessarily presupposes self-denial, because in conditions of mutual isolation of interests caring for the interest of one's neighbor is possible only if one's own interest is infringed. The specific forms of realization of altruism in behavior are beneficence beneficence- an action aimed at the benefit of another person or community and realizing the obligation of a person in relation to other people, to society. and philanthropy.

Justice - the concept of moral consciousness, expressing not you or another value, good, but their general relationship between themselves and the specific distribution between individuals; the proper order of human community, corresponding to the ideas about the essence of man and his inalienable rights. Justice is also a category of legal and socio-political consciousness. In contrast to the more abstract concepts of good and evil, with the help of which a moral assessment is given to certain phenomena in general, justice characterizes the ratio of several phenomena from the point of view distribution of good and evil between people.

In particular, the concept of justice includes the relationship between the role of individual people (classes) in the life of society and their social position, between deed and reward (crime and punishment). ), the dignity of people and its reward, rights and obligations. The discrepancy between the one and the other is assessed by moral consciousness as an injustice. The meaning invested by people in the concept of justice seems to them something self-evident, suitable for evaluating all the conditions of life that they require to be preserved or changed.

Justice does not contradict mercy, kindness, or love. Love includes both of these concepts. A just judge is obliged to punish the criminal, however, moved by love and according to the circumstances, he can at the same time show mercy in order to mitigate the punishment, which must always be humane. For example, the judge should not bully the accused, deprive him of a lawyer, or make a wrong trial.

REASON - a quality of character, a principle of action that orients a person (group) to achieve their own maximum good (happiness).

According to Aristotle, the main thing of the prudent (prudent) is to make the right decisions regarding the good and benefit for himself as a whole - for a good life. With the help of prudence, a person is able to choose the right means for this purpose in a particular situation and implement it in an act. Aristotle emphasizes that being prudent means not just knowing, but being able to act in accordance with knowledge. If scientific and philosophical knowledge deals with extremely general definitions that do not allow substantiation, then prudence implies knowledge not only of the general, but even more of the particular, since it deals with making decisions and performing actions in specific (private) circumstances. And the prudent, as capable of making decisions, is able to achieve the highest of the benefits that can be realized in a particular act. If wisdom is acquired through the mind, then prudence is acquired through experience and a special feeling similar to conviction.

Subsequently, I. Kant separated prudence from morality. He showed that the moral law is not determined by any external goal in relation to it. Prudence is aimed at the natural goal - happiness, and a prudent act is only a means to it.

The rehabilitation of prudence in modern moral philosophy involves the restoration of its meaning as practical wisdom, that is, as the ability to act in specific circumstances in the best way. In the best way - means focusing, if not on a morally exalted, then at least - on a morally justified goal.

Prudence is determined by one of the key (along with justice and benevolence) principles of morality. This principle is formulated in the form of a requirement to take care of all parts of your life equally and not to prefer the present good to the greater good that can only be achieved in the future.

PEACEFUL - the principle of morality and politics, based on the recognition of human life as the highest social and moral value and affirming the maintenance and strengthening of peace as an ideal intercourse between peoples and states. Peacefulness presupposes respect for the personal and national dignity of individual citizens and entire peoples, state sovereignty, human rights and the people of natural choice of lifestyle.

Peacefulness contributes to the maintenance of public order, mutual understanding of generations, the development of historical, cultural traditions, the interaction of various social groups, ethnic groups, nations, Ultyp. Peacefulness is opposed by aggressiveness, belligerence, a tendency to violent means of resolving conflicts, suspicion and distrust in relations between people, peoples, socially - political systems. In the history of morality, peacefulness and aggressiveness, enmity oppose as two main trends.

PATIOTISM (Greek pateg - homeland) - a socio-political and moral principle, in a generalized form expressing a feeling of love for the Motherland, concern for its interests and readiness to protect it from the enemy gov. Patriotism is manifested in pride for the achievements of the native country, in bitterness because of its failures and troubles, in respect for its historical past and in respect for the people's memory, national onal and cultural traditions.

The moral meaning of patriotism is determined by the fact that it is one of the forms of subordination of personal and public interests, the unity of man and the Fatherland. But patriotic feelings and ideas only morally elevate a person and a people when they are coupled with respect for the peoples of other countries and do not degenerate into psycholo gyu national exclusivity and distrust of "outsiders". This aspect in the patriotic consciousness acquired particular urgency in the last third of the 20th century, when the threat of nuclear self-destruction or ecological catastrophe epic thinking of patriotism as a principle that commands everyone to contribute to the contribution of their country to the preservation of the planet and the survival of mankind.

Introduction.

Ethics is the science of morality. It describes morality, explains morality, and "teaches" morality. And there are a number of difficulties along the way.
First, why describe morality if everyone already knows what it is? Everyone imagines themselves to be connoisseurs and judges of morals. So ethics seems to be doomed to communicate something generally known, except perhaps in a clear and systematized form.
Secondly, ethics "teaches" morality, i.e. conveys not abstract, but practical knowledge, which must be used before one truly understands it. It is knowledge that inspires action. However, no one likes teaching. The right to "read morals" is given only to people of their own impeccable life, with unconditional moral authority, such as, for example, L.N. Tolstoy. But all the preachers for thousands of years have not persuaded mankind to act according to conscience. In general, no matter how much you say "halva", it will not become sweet in your mouth; from talking about good morals do not improve. To the great sorrow of all moralists, it turns out that it is impossible to teach morality. But you can learn. A moral position can be developed independently by studying the judgments of the sages, the words and actions of people. Ethics provides every thinking person with its own methods and means of argumentation.
Thirdly, it is difficult to satisfactorily explain anything in morality. Is it possible to find out exactly the reasons for the existence of injustice, the reasons why the nobility is ridiculed, and the scoundrels triumph? As if our indignation at betrayal or rudeness would decrease if we convincingly state how and why this happens. Good deeds are even harder to explain. After all, good is usually done not for some reason, not because they explained to me what good is, but because I cannot do otherwise. There are moral evidences that are not supported by any evidence. More F.M. Dostoevsky, using the example of his Raskolnikov, showed that even a crime can be rationally substantiated, but the theorem of good cannot be proved. Therefore, one must get used to the fact that in ethics it is impossible to get such an answer as in mathematics: unambiguous, logically proven and experimentally verified. This is only for the "baby son" in the poem by V.V. Mayakovsky is so clear, "what is good and what is bad." In fact, no judgment here is final. And just as an acrobat needs to quickly move his feet in order to keep his balance on the ball, so in ethics it is necessary to move from thesis to thesis, from one point of view to another, so that the overall complex picture of morality appears in its true light.
Analyzing the theory of morality, we are faced with many problems, it is difficult to find the central one in their multitude. Starting with one, you inevitably move on to all the others. Morality, like a tangled ball, is folded from a thread of uninterrupted reasoning. The world of morality is like the Hermitage, where from each hall you can see the next, no less beautiful, and the prospect lures you further and further. but this world can also turn into a gloomy labyrinth, where in endless wanderings it is impossible to determine whether you are approaching the exit or walking in circles. The confusion is aggravated by the fact that any moral task can become the main one at the moment. Where we are, there is the center of consideration. To paraphrase Pascal, morality is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose end is nowhere. And in this essay, in addition to considering the structure, functions and antinomies of morality, I decided to consider in detail only one of its problems, which seems to me the most important and interesting - the problem of the absolute in morality.

Question 1. Morality.
This word came from France, but the concept of morality, i.e. about the rules of human behavior among other people, existed long before this word appeared. Explanation in the dictionary of V. Dahl: "rules for the will, conscience." But it can be said even more simply: morality is a generally accepted concept of what is good and what is bad. True, it is necessary to clarify: when and by whom it was recognized ... The mores of society and the concept of moral behavior, morality are formed in specific historical conditions.
Let's put it this way: our modern morality suggests that children should be treated carefully, kindly, and even more so - to children who are sick or have some kind of physical disability. It's shameful, just mean, to say "lame" to a boy who limps, or "bespectacled" to someone who has to wear glasses. This is generally recognized. Such are the mores of today's society, such are the moral norms (that is, when taking care of a sick child, a person does not perform some act of exceptional kindness, but behaves normally, naturally, as he should). But have they always been like this? No. For example, according to the law of Lycurgus, according to which ancient Sparta lived for more than one century, children were subjected to a special examination, and if a child had a physical defect that prevented him from becoming a full-fledged warrior later, he was killed by dropping into Apothetes - a deep crevice in the mountains of Taygetus.
From books and films, we know about the feat of King Leonid and the 300 Spartans led by him, who all perished, blocking the way for the Persian invaders near Thermopylae. Grateful descendants immortalized their feat in marble, inscribed on it that the soldiers died, "honestly fulfilling the law." But the same law allowed the killing of children, not considering it something shameful.
Another example.
To shoot a man is a crime, murder. But during the war years, the sniper not only shoots at the enemy, but also counts those who died from his hand. In this situation, one person (sniper), as it were, issues a sentence to another person (enemy soldier) and carries it out himself. The morality of the war allows him to act as an accuser, judge and executor of the sentence, which is completely impossible in peacetime. There are other norms of relations between people. Only a court can pass a sentence on a criminal, and any lynching, no matter how fair, is punishable.
However, morality is not only a concrete historical concept, but also a class one. From the point of view of official morality, the Russian officer Andrey Potebnya, a friend and like-minded person of Herzen, who went over to the side of the Polish rebels and fought against the tsarist punishers with weapons in his hands, committed the gravest crime - he violated the oath and betrayed the fatherland. From the point of view of the true patriots of Russia, whose voice was barely audible in 1863 and only resounded in full force decades later, Potebnya accomplished a civic feat in the name of saving the honor of Russia. Now his grave in the vicinity of Krakow is carefully guarded by the Poles - just as carefully as the graves of Soviet soldiers who died in the struggle for the liberation of Poland from the fascist yoke - and every Russian person, standing next to her, bows to the memory of this Russian patriot who fell from a bullet ... Whose bullets? The bullets of a Russian soldier who considered himself, presumably, the defender of the "Tsar, faith and fatherland" (otherwise he would not have fired at the rebels)...
Morality in words and morality in deed are not the same thing at all.
An object lesson in the misadventures of morality is taught by the history of fascism. In the book and film "Seventeen Moments of Spring" characteristics from the personal files of the SS men are remembered: a good family man, an athlete, he is even with his workmates, has no discrediting ties ...
Of course, not a single fascist said about himself: I am a scoundrel, I am an executioner, I am immoral. Forming the ideology and morality of the "Third Reich", the Nazis tried to create the illusion of imitating the cruel and harsh customs of Ancient Rome, which they saw as the "First Reich". And the camouflage worked. Throwing out their hand in a fascist salute, the Nazis copied the famous gesture of Julius Caesar; the symbolism of their banners, orders, military emblems called to resurrect the times of the Roman legions, in a businesslike manner trampling foreign lands, the revival of barbarism was shrouded in grandiloquent phrases. But the very nature and logic of the savage system caricatured the manners and morality of the Nazis, gave rise to monstrous immorality and immorality, penetrating into all pores of society.

Question 2. The role of morality in human life.
Philosophers argue that morality has three tasks: to evaluate, regulate and educate.
Morality puts estimates. All our actions, as well as all social life (economy, politics, culture), morality evaluates from the point of view of humanism, determines whether it is good or bad, good or evil. If our actions are useful to people, contribute to the improvement of their lives, their free development - this is good, this is good. Do not contribute, hinder - evil. If we want to give a moral assessment to something (our own actions, the actions of other people, some events, etc.), we, as you know, do this with the help of the concepts of good and evil. Or with the help of other close, derivative concepts: justice - injustice; honor - dishonor; nobility, decency - meanness, dishonesty, meanness, etc. At the same time, evaluating any phenomenon, action, deed, we express our moral assessment in different ways: we praise, agree or condemn, criticize, approve or disapprove, etc. d.
Evaluation, of course, affects our practical activities, otherwise we would simply not need it. When we evaluate something as good, this means that we should strive for it, and if we evaluate it as evil, we should avoid it. This means that when evaluating the world around us, we change something in it, and above all ourselves, our position, our worldview.
Morality regulates the activities of people. The second task of morality is to regulate our life, the relationship of people to each other, to direct the activities of man, society towards humane goals, towards the achievement of good. Moral regulation has its own characteristics, it differs from state regulation. Any state also regulates the life of society, the activities of its citizens. It does this with the help of various institutions, organizations (parliaments, ministries, courts, etc.), normative documents (laws, decrees, orders), officials (officials, employees, police, police, etc.).
Morality has nothing of the kind: it is ridiculous to have moral officials, it is pointless to ask who issued the order to be humane, just, kind, courageous, etc. Morality does not use the services of departments and officials. It regulates the movement of our life in two ways: through the opinion of the surrounding people, public opinion, and through the inner convictions of the individual, conscience.
The person is very sensitive to the opinions of others. No one is free from the opinion of society, the collective. A person is not indifferent to what others think of him. Consequently, public opinion can influence a person and regulate his behavior. Moreover, it is based not on the force of the order, the law, but on moral authority, moral influence.
But there should not be a conviction that public opinion, as the opinion of the majority, is always true, more true than the opinion of individuals. This is wrong. It often happens that public opinion plays a reactionary role, protecting obsolete, obsolete norms, traditions and habits.
Man is not a slave to circumstances. Public opinion is, of course, a great force for moral regulation. However, it should be remembered: one person can be wrong, and the majority can be wrong. A person should not be a naive lumberjack, blindly and thoughtlessly obey someone else's opinion, the pressure of circumstances. After all, he is not a soulless cog in the state machine and not a slave to social circumstances. All people are born equal, have equal rights to life, liberty and happiness. Man is a free, active, creative being, he not only adapts to the world in which he lives, but this world itself adapts to itself, changes circumstances, creates a new social environment. Without personalities, humane and courageous, just and courageous, disinterested and independently thinking, society would simply stop developing, would rot and die.
A person, living in society, must, of course, listen to public opinion, but he must also be able to correctly evaluate it. And if it is reactionary - protest, fight against it, go against it, defending truth, justice, humanism.
Inner spiritual beliefs of the individual. Where does a person take strength when he opposes outdated public opinion, against reaction, prejudices?
Spiritual beliefs constitute the content of what we call conscience. A person is under the constant control of others, but also under the self-control of his inner beliefs. Conscience is always with a person. Every person has in life successes and failures, periods of ups and downs. You can free yourself from failures, but never from an unclean, tarnished conscience.
And a person constantly criticizes, remakes himself, as his conscience tells him. A person finds in himself the strength and courage to speak out against evil, against reactionary public opinion - this is what conscience commands. To live according to conscience requires great personal courage, and sometimes self-sacrifice. But the conscience of a person will be pure, the soul is calm, if he acted in full accordance with his inner convictions. Such a person can be called happy.
The educational role of morality. Education always goes in two ways: on the one hand, through the influence of other people on a person, through a purposeful change in the external circumstances in which the educated person is placed, and on the other hand, through the influence of a person on himself, i.e. through self-education. The upbringing and education of a person goes on virtually all his life: a person constantly replenishes and improves knowledge, skills, his inner world, because life itself is constantly updated.
Morality has its own special position in the educational process.
Question 3. The concept, the essence of the principles of morality.
The principle of morality is the principle of autonomous self-regulation by an individual of his relations to himself and to others, to the world, his behavior (internal and external).
Moral principles are one of the forms of moral consciousness in which moral requirements are expressed in the most general way. If the norm of morality prescribes what specific actions a person should perform, and the concept of moral quality characterizes certain aspects of behavior and personality traits, then o the principles of morality in a general form reveal the content of one or another morality, express the requirements developed in the moral consciousness of society, relating to the moral essence of a person , his purpose, the meaning of his life and the nature of relationships between people.
They give a person a general direction of activity and usually serve as the basis for more particular norms of behavior. In addition to the principles of morality that reveal the content of one or another morality, for example, individualism and altruism, collectivism and humanism, there are also formal principles that reveal the features of sp particular fulfillment of moral requirements (for example, consciousness and its opposites - fetishism, formalism, dogmatism, authoritarianism, fanaticism, fatalism). Although these principles do not justify any specific norms of behavior, they are nonetheless closely related to the nature of this or that morality, show how much it allows coz the native attitude of a person to the requirements presented to him.
Moral principles motivate human behavior, i.e. act as causes and motives that cause a person to want to do something (or, conversely, not to do something). As a result of education and self-education, people develop attitudes that force them - sometimes even as if against their will - to do things that they should do in accordance with moral standards, and not to take any actions that they should not do, since they contradict these norms. . An honest person simply cannot, say, steal something: he will not raise his hand to it. Whenever any values ​​or regulations conflict with moral ones, the choice must be made in favor of the latter. The priority of moral principles over all others extends to any human relationships and actions. In this sense, all spheres of human life and activity are subject to moral principles. Immorality is unacceptable either in everyday life or in production; neither at home nor at school; neither in sports nor in science; neither in economics nor in politics. 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. Confidence that the person who happened to be nearby adheres to the same moral principles, allows you to foresee the general direction of his actions, rely on him and trust him. 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. Observance by people of uniform and universal moral principles makes their behavior predictable.
Question 4. Characteristics of the basic principles of morality.
Humanism (lat. himapis - human) - the principle of worldview (including morality) which is based on the belief in the infinity of human possibilities and his ability to owls improvement, the demand for freedom and the protection of the dignity of the person, the idea of ​​the human right to happiness and that the satisfaction of his needs and interests should be the ultimate goal of society.
The principle of humanism is based on the idea of ​​a respectful attitude to another person, fixed since ancient times. It is expressed in the golden rule of morality "treat others in the same way as you would like them to act toward you" and in Kant's categorical and the imperative "always act in such a way that the maxim of your conduct may become a universal law."
However, the golden rule of morality contains an element of subjectivism, because what some individual person wants in relation to himself is not at all necessary ce others.
Humanism, represented by its imperative side, acting as a practical normative requirement, undoubtedly, proceeds from the primacy of the individual over other values. Therefore, the content of humanism correlates with the idea of ​​personal happiness.
Genuine happiness presupposes the fullness, emotional saturation of life. It can be achieved only in the process of self-realization of the personality, one way or another carried out on the basis of goals and values ​​shared with other people.
It is possible to identify three main meanings of humanism:
1. Guarantees of basic human rights as a condition for preserving the humane foundations of his existence.
2. Support for the weak, going beyond the usual ideas of this society about justice.
3. The formation of social and moral qualities that allow individuals to carry out self-realization on the basis of public values.
To the co -rejoice of the lamination of the Gymeanic thought of the Mozhno, the entry of the same, inherent in the Cydbam of the Cydba, Innication of the same - the altogether for the same to eat in the currently scenting follars, the fuel of the miracle of the miracle. Yabhevniy ".
In the modern world, the ideas of non-violence have had a great success, allowing in practice to liberate many peoples from colonial dependence, overthrow totalitarian regimes, excite public opinion is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the continuation of underground nuclear tests, etc. In the center of attention of humanistic thought are also environmental problems, global alternatives associated with a certain decrease in the pace of development of production, limiting m consumption, the development of waste-free production. By means of the formal principle, it is impossible to solve specific questions about the humane attitude of one person to another, and real humanism, apparently, represents some balance in the combination of different principles, the degree of connection of the freedom of expression of the individual with the requirements for its behavior, set by the culture of this society.
MERCY - compassionate and active love, expressed in the readiness to help every needy and extending to all people, and in the limit - to all living things. In the concept of mercy, two aspects are combined - spiritual and emotional (experiencing someone else's pain as one's own) and specifically practical (an impulse for real help): without the first, mercy degenerates into cold new philanthropy, without a second - into empty sentimentality.
The origins of mercy as a moral principle lie in the apex tribal solidarity, which strictly obliges, at the cost of any sacrifices, to rescue a relative from trouble, but excluding "strangers". True, tribal solidarity can partially extend to those who are outside the circle of "their own", but somehow connected with it (obligations to the guest, prescribed in the Old Testament attitude towards non-free persons and "aliens", etc.).
However, one can speak of mercy only when all the barriers between "ours" and "them" are, if not in everyday practice, then in the idea and in certain heroic moral acts, and But suffering ceases to be just an object of cold descent.
Religions such as Buddhism and Christianity were the first to preach mercy. In Christian ethics, a caring attitude towards one's neighbor is defined as mercy, which is one of the main virtues. The essential difference between mercy and friendly love-attachment is that, according to the commandment of love, it is mediated by an absolute ideal - love for God. Christian love for one's neighbor is not limited to loved ones, it extends to all people, including enemies.
Even in cases of rejection of property inequality, loneliness, old age, ailments and other sufferings requiring not only public care, but also more elitist individual mercy. In our time, the process of the full return of the term "mercy" into the lexicon of our society is gradually taking place, and activities aimed at specific assistance are being activated people in need of mercy.
PABEHCTBO (in morality) - a relationship between people, within which they have the same rights to develop creative abilities for happiness, respect for their personal dignity. Along with the idea of ​​the necessity of fraternal unity between people, equality is the key idea of ​​morality, which historically arises as an alternative to blood-related closure and social isolation of people, their actual economic and political inequality. The most adequate expression of the principle of equality in morality is the golden rule, from the formulation of which follows the universality (generality) of moral requirements, their distribution to all people her, regardless of their social status and living conditions, and the universality of moral judgments, which consists in the fact that when evaluating the actions of others people, a person proceeds from the same grounds as when evaluating his own actions.
The idea of ​​equality receives a normative expression in the principle of altruism and the corresponding requirements of compassion (pity), mercy, co-participation.
As historical experience shows, moral equality can be practically realized only with a certain socio-political and cultural status of people, which characterizes eco nomic and political independence, the possibility of raising the educational and professional level, spiritual development with an indispensable responsibility each member of the society for the results of their activities .
ALTRUISM (from Latin altego - another) is a moral principle that prescribes compassion for other people, selfless service to them and readiness for self-denial in the name of their good and happiness. The concept of "Altruism" was introduced into the theory of morality by Kont, who made this principle the basis of his ethical system. Kont connected the moral improvement of society with the upbringing in people of a social sense of altruism, which should counteract their egoism.
As a requirement for equality and humanity, altruism is one of the normative foundations of morality and humanism. At the same time, being addressed to the individual as the bearer of a private interest, altruism actually necessarily presupposes self-denial, because in conditions of mutual isolation of interests caring for the interest of one's neighbor is possible only if one's own interest is infringed. Concrete forms of realization of altruism in behavior are charity and philanthropy.
Justice - the concept of moral consciousness, expressing not you or another value, good, but their general relationship between themselves and the specific distribution between individuals; the proper order of human community, corresponding to the ideas about the essence of man and his inalienable rights. Justice is also a category of legal and socio-political consciousness. In contrast to the more abstract concepts of good and evil, with the help of which a moral assessment is given to certain phenomena in general, justice characterizes the ratio of several phenomena from the point of view distribution of good and evil between people.
Justice does not contradict mercy, kindness, or love. Love includes both of these concepts. A just judge is obliged to punish the criminal, however, moved by love and according to the circumstances, he can at the same time show mercy in order to mitigate the punishment, which must always be humane. For example, the judge should not bully the accused, deprive him of a lawyer, or make a wrong trial.
According to Aristotle, the main thing of the prudent (prudent) is to make the right decisions regarding the good and benefit for himself as a whole - for a good life. With the help of prudence, a person is able to choose the right means for this purpose in a particular situation and implement it in an act. Aristotle emphasizes that being prudent means not just knowing, but being able to act in accordance with knowledge. If scientific and philosophical knowledge deals with extremely general definitions that do not allow substantiation, then prudence implies knowledge not only of the general, but even more of the particular, since it deals with making decisions and performing actions in specific (private) circumstances. And the prudent, as capable of making decisions, is able to achieve the highest of the benefits that can be realized in a particular act. If wisdom is acquired through the mind, then prudence is acquired through experience and a special feeling similar to conviction.
Subsequently, I. Kant separated prudence from morality. He showed that the moral law is not determined by any external goal in relation to it. Prudence is aimed at the natural goal - happiness, and a prudent act is only a means to it.
The rehabilitation of prudence in modern moral philosophy involves the restoration of its meaning as practical wisdom, that is, as the ability to act in specific circumstances in the best way. In the best way - means focusing, if not on a morally exalted, then at least - on a morally justified goal.
Prudence is determined by one of the key (along with justice and benevolence) principles of morality. This principle is formulated in the form of a requirement to take care of all parts of your life equally and not to prefer the present good to the greater good that can only be achieved in the future.
PEACEFUL - the principle of morality and politics, based on the recognition of human life as the highest social and moral value and affirming the maintenance and strengthening of peace as an ideal intercourse between peoples and states. Peacefulness presupposes respect for the personal and national dignity of individual citizens and entire peoples, state sovereignty, human rights and the people of natural choice of lifestyle.
Peacefulness contributes to the maintenance of public order, mutual understanding of generations, the development of historical, cultural traditions, the interaction of various social groups, ethnic groups, nations, Ultyp. Peacefulness is opposed by aggressiveness, belligerence, a tendency to violent means of resolving conflicts, suspicion and distrust in relations between people, peoples, socially - political systems. In the history of morality, peacefulness and aggressiveness, enmity oppose as two main trends.

Conclusion
Nothing can happen outside of morality, i.e. outside the circle of values ​​that determine human life. Each individual, each group, each society is a certain system of norms, ideals, prohibitions that allow the individual to gradually improve in the chosen direction. Morality is thus an indispensable dimension of human existence. The ultimate goal of morality is human happiness, the most harmonious development of the individual and all people.
One of the necessary signs of true morality is eternity, the immutability of its principles and categories, including the categories of good and evil, which are the most general and fundamental concepts of ethics.
Material things, especially those created by man, are subject to change. Moreover, they must change and improve. Human genius is constantly inventing better things. This is part of the progress that man naturally seeks in his creativity.
But moral principles and values ​​belong to a different order. Some of them are relative, while others are absolute and immutable. They are immutable because, among many other things, they prevent us from doing things that are against our dignity.

Literature
1. Guseinov A.A., Apresyan R.G. Ethics. M.: 1998. - 472 p.
2. Zelenkova I.L., Belyaeva E.V. Ethics: Textbook. - Minsk: ed.V.M. Skakun, 1995. - 320 p.
3. Milner-Irinin A.Ya. Ethics or principles of true humanity. M., Interbuk, 1999. - 519 p.
4. Mitashkina T.V., Brazhnikova Z.V. Ethics. History and theory of morality. Minsk, BSPA "VUZ-UNITI", 1996. - 345 p.
etc.................