What is morality in modern society and what are its functions? How is morality different from ethics? What is the difference between the concepts of morality and ethics?

Shirshov Vladimir Dmitrievich, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Life Safety, Ural State Pedagogical University, Yekaterinburg [email protected]

Significant differences between the concepts of “morality” and “morality”

Abstract. The article reveals the historical origins of the concepts of “morality” and “morality”. Morality reflects social requirements for individuals in the form of customs, traditions, and legal norms. Compliance with morality is associated with knowledge of the laws, with the ability to implement them in accordance with the social status of the individual. Morality is based on religious requirements for the individual, where the most important thing is the judgment of one’s own conscience. The main thing in moral education is the formation of leading relationships to the world, other people and to oneself. Morality is a changeable concept, morality is an eternal category. Key words are morality, ethics, knowledge, skills, behavior, religion, law.

Various dictionaries and encyclopedias explain the concepts of “morality” and “morality” as identical. Thus, the “Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary” interprets “morality” 1. Morality, a special form of social consciousness and type of social relations; one of the main ways to regulate human actions using norms. Unlike simple custom or tradition, moral norms receive ideological justification in the form of ideals of good and evil, due, justice, etc. Unlike law, the fulfillment of moral requirements is sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public assessments, approval or condemnation).” Based on studies of the origin and historical development of morality, it can be considered established that initially morality arises as an objectively valuable content of spontaneously emerging forms of behavior of individuals in society, as an objective quality of an expedient way of interaction between people. At this stage, morality does not yet know what should be; it is rather an objective premise of morality, and not morality itself. Elements of what should be in morality appear in Ancient Greece in the form of a “culture of shame.” Competition, imitation of the best, public approval and public censure were the criteria for assessing the behavior of an individual in society. The fear of appearing stupid and funny was one of the most important motives determining behavior in society. The second side of the “culture of shame” was the desire to be the best among many. Valor was demonstrated in the field of wars and competitions at the Olympic Games, in beauty contests and in the field of social assistance. Gradually, spontaneously emerging morality acquires the signs of legalized morality. Mark Tullius Cicero (10643 BC), an ancient Roman orator, writer and eclectic philosopher, can be considered the founder of the concept of “morality”, when the satisfaction of the interests of individuals must be combined with the interests of society. In this case, the regulation of behavior is carried out through strict norms and psychological coercion and control. The basis here are mental factors associated with the public assessment of human behavior. The developing mental activity of a person provides society with progress in science, technology and technology, which creates prosperity in people's lives. Along with prosperity, the beginnings of new moral relations appear, both in individual strata and among the majority of the population. In the life of society, complementing customs, comes law, which formalizes the emergence of new relationships between people in society. Law consolidates the idea of ​​good and evil in the spiritual life of society. The growth of social inequality, the emergence of haves and have-nots in society negatively affects the implementation of moral norms. The haves begin to fight for greater wealth, for power over other people. A person’s moral unreliability is born and develops when he acts in accordance with customs only under coercion, and not of his own free will. In 1750 BC. e. in Ancient Babylon (Gate of God), the king issued a number of laws to regulate the life of the kingdom. Among these laws were provisions that obliged compatriots to help each other in days of difficult trials, to protect orphans, widows and the poor. These laws were based on spells and noted sins for which punishments should follow: failure to provide assistance to those in need; bringing discord into the family; lies and deceit; disrespect for the elderly and parents. During the era of the New Kingdom (2040-1640 BC), legal proceedings appeared in Egypt with all its attributes: judges, scribes who drew up agreements, wills, business contracts. During legal proceedings, witnesses, cross-examination, and punishment of perjury were used. For the first time, the principle of the presumption of innocence appeared, that is, no one can be called a criminal until his guilt is proven. The punishments used were fines, corporal punishment, hard labor, mutilation, exile and the death penalty. It is important to note that there were no prisons in those days and convicts served their sentences in churches, there were no lawyers and there was no one to defend the innocently convicted; they had to defend themselves. The development of moral standards had its own characteristics in Ancient Rus'. An important event occurred in 988 with the baptism of Russia. Christianity led to a softening of morals in Rus', since human sacrifice and ritual killings were prohibited, princes who were placed in the kingdom by God himself were glorified, and responsibility for his people was required from the prince. Having become Christians, the Slavs felt like Russians, no matter what tribe they belonged to. In the 19th century. a set of laws “Russian Truth” appears, which was supplemented in 1016 by the son of Prince Vladimir, Yaroslav the Wise. The code of laws consisted of 37 chapters on criminal and social issues, which was unusual for that time. As we see, with the development of society there is a need to protect social interests and strengthen moral prohibitions for individuals. Social nature gives rise to moral prohibitions in the form of a divine image. The gods arose to prohibit, warn, or punish man for the moral evils that man may inflict on society. This is how religion arises. “The protective function of religion in relation to society is hidden in the religious fear of punishment.”

With the development of a person’s worldview, religious fear is complemented by a social assessment of a person’s behavior and actions. Customs and rituals acquire mandatory forms of implementation. Laws appear in society that regulate the moral norms of reward and punishment. The development of society has no boundaries in its modernization; various social, economic, cultural, state and other relations between people are constantly taking shape and developing. These relationships change depending on what layer (stratum) a person is in. Each stratum develops moral norms of behavior. Various types of morality are observed in history: the morality of a nobleman, a knight, a merchant, a clergyman, etc. Gradually, vertical social mobility arises, when people have the opportunity to move from one socio-professional layer (stratum) to others. Moving from one stratum to another, people’s views and behavior change, and the moral requirements for individuals from their stratum are transformed. In a class society, morality has a class character. The principles and norms of communist morality were recorded in the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” in 1961. In this document, communist morality is interpreted as class, dynamic and performing ideological functions. An analysis of the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” shows that its main provisions (except for communist ideology) correspond to universal moral values ​​and the requirements of Christian morality. Currently, moral behavior is manifested in the cognitive sphere in the following way:

in mastering a number of key concepts of legal knowledge, in operating legal terminology, in presenting legal mechanisms and regulators of citizens’ activities;

in possessing the skills of searching for the necessary legal information in various legal documents and translating it from a legal sign system into one that is understandable to an individual citizen, in choosing sign systems that will be adequate to the cognitive and communicative situation;

in the ability to find examples of theoretical provisions of the legal sphere, solve legal problems, model problematic legal situations;

in the ability to consciously organize one’s cognitive activity from setting a goal to obtaining and evaluating a result. The value-motivational aspect of moral behavior can be detected through:

attitudes towards the need to be guided in one’s own life by current legislation;

knowledge of basic moral and legal concepts, norms and rules;

the ability to apply these norms and rules to the analysis and assessment of various legal situations;

understanding the incentive role of motives in human legal activity, the place of legal values ​​and their significance in the life of a person and society. The communicative aspect of moral norms is manifested through:

knowledge of the defining features of communicative activity in the legal field;

the ability to use modern means of communication to search and process the necessary legal information;

understanding the language of legal communication, the ability to distinguish legal facts, arguments, value judgments;

Possession of dialogue skills and participation in debates;

ability to argue and defend your legal point of view. There is legal nihilism in Russian society. Few people are interested in laws until some violation of them is committed. The Constitution of the Russian Federation itself remains in disrepute. The Constitution is the most important legal document that no one reads, although all citizens should know it. It should be noted that there is no propaganda of the Constitution in the Russian Federation. The Constitution is sold in the form of a book, but in the media and in education there is no propaganda of it in a playful, educational form, in the form of cartoons, etc.

Based on our research, we believe that Christianity played an important role in the emergence of the concept of “morality”. With the adoption of Christianity in Western Europe, the cultural paradigm of the “culture of guilt” became dominant. This “culture of guilt” differs significantly from the dominant paradigm of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome of the “culture of shame”, in which the court of one’s own conscience becomes the system of internal value for a person, and not a mob trial. The idea of ​​judging one's own conscience runs through the biblical canons and is the basis of the Christian worldview. With these ideas begins the sphere of moral freedom of the individual, when social requirements must coincide with the internal motives of human behavior. From the very beginning, the church was built on canonical provisions that should never change, then morality, as an internal imperative for a person, becomes an eternal ideal. We find the development of ideas of morality in Russia in “Domostroy”, written by a famous figure from the inner circle of Ivan the Terrible, priest Sylvester. In the “Instructions to the Son Anfim,” advice is given on observing Christian morality, on observing rituals, and on being faithful in the “sovereign service.” Sylvester advises his son to work, help the poor, learn to read and write, and live with kindness, truth, and love.

“Domostroy” reflects purely Russian pedagogical thought, richly colored in Orthodox tones. The first part of “Domostroy” sets out the rules of community life and instructions for preserving one’s soul: “Believe in the mysteries of God, believe in his body and blood, partake of them with fear for the purification and illumination of the soul and body...”. With the development of moral norms and religious teachings, commandments that have a religious and moral prescription are formulated. The commandments of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are necessarily of a moral nature and are aimed at numerous layers of the Earth's population. In contrast to knowledge of moral norms and the ability to act in accordance with this knowledge, morality requires the formation of leading relationships. Relationships in this case represent more complex psychological and pedagogical formations. Based on an analysis of philosophical, psychological and pedagogical literature, we believe that the structure of moral behavior is determined by leading activities and relationships, which are reflected in Scheme No. 1. MORAL RELATIONS

Social, state and patriotic activities

Attitude to the Motherland, the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws

Activities in the field of global problems of our time

Attitude to global issues

Activities in the field of material production and values

Attitude to work, values ​​and resources

Activities in the scientific and spiritual spheres

Attitude to the culture of one’s own people and other countries

Communication activities

Attitude towards people and yourself

Religious activities

Attitude towards God Moral education reflects not only what has already been achieved, but also what needs to be achieved in the future, therefore the moral norms of social life must be embodied in the experience of a growing person from an early age. Positive or negative childhood experiences, knowledge of basic moral concepts and moral beliefs influence a person’s entire life. The ideal of a moral personality, according to V.V. Bailuk is a tireless activist, bold in decisions, precise in execution, achieving success. Morality underlies all self-realization of an individual: such a person himself looks for a path in his life, determines his occupation, chooses a style of communication with other people and is responsible for his behavior. The Chinese philosopher Confucius answered the question: “What is life?” answered: “Do not do to a person what you do not wish for yourself. And then hatred in the state will disappear, hatred in the family will disappear.” Moral self-realization reflects the inner desire to live morally. The beginning of moral self-realization is moral self-knowledge: 1. What am I like from a moral point of view, what are my positive and negative character traits? 2. How do I relate to good and evil? (value judgments).3. The process of self-education must begin with a value judgment. The purpose of self-education is the need to form moral attitudes and habits of being tolerant of other people. In this case, the person must have positive moral character traits: honesty, goodwill, modesty, etc. Self-education always involves a clash between the forces of good and evil when solving some real life events. 3. Based on critical self-assessment, the question should arise: “What is my ideal model of moral behavior in the future?”.4. Moral behavior is built on the basis of a moral ideal, where moral knowledge turns into a regulatory, control function. Moral behavior is assessed through public opinion. If we judge the concept of “morality” according to the “Dictionary of the Russian Language” by S.I. Ozhegov, then it represents the internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person; ethical standards; rules of behavior determined by these qualities. .

The objective of our research is to identify significant differences between the concepts of “morality” and “morality” Thus, Shityakova N.P. asserts that morality belongs to the sphere of what is proper and ideal and acts as a set of requirements for human behavior. Morality belongs to the sphere of the real and reflects the essence of actions in the real life of a family, people, and state. Morality is life itself, that is, that part of life that is associated with a person’s practical behavior, his real actions. This is always self-esteem, which cannot depend on the opinions of the social environment. Together with A.A. Korzinkin, we define morality as a higher position in the structure of human nature than morality, because the cause-and-effect attitudes that subject a person to action to commit good deeds are updated not by external requirements of morality, but by internal beliefs. We agree with the opinion of M.I. Kovaleva, who argues that morality is an important regulator of people’s behavior in society, the basis and criterion for an objective reflection of social reality, while morality is an internal regulator of the subject’s life activity based on the acceptance, assimilation, and internal affirmation of moral values. A person must independently formulate his own moral duties and exercise moral self-control, demand from himself their fulfillment and conduct a self-assessment of the actions performed in the form of rational consciousness of the moral significance of the actions performed and emotional experiences. Indeed, we can agree that morality fixes the mental interaction of a person with society, acts as an element of normativity, while morality is a personal formation inherent in a particular individual, on the basis of which he voluntarily, without looking at the instructions, carries out a behavioral function. Thus, if moral norms in the life of society are subject to change, then moral commandments remain unchanged, one might even say eternal. In this we see a significant difference between the concept of “morality” and the concept of “morality”.

Links to sources1. Soviet encyclopedic dictionary [Text]. “Soviet Encyclopedia, M.: 1985.1600 p.2.. Shadrikov, V.D. The origin of humanity [Text]./V.D. Shadrikov. M.: 1999.3. .Shirshov, V.D. Spiritual and moral education. Tutorial; Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural.gos.ped.unt".Ekaterinburg: 2013.222 p.4. Bailuk, V.V. Spiritual and moral education and self-education of students // Spiritual and moral self-realization of the individual: Materials of student research practice. conf. Ekaterinburg: Russia.2007201p.5. Ozhegov, S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language [Text] / S.I. Ozhegov. M.: 1991.915 p.6. Shityakova, N.P. Theoretical and methodological foundations and practice of spiritual and moral education of schoolchildren in the conditions of modernization of education [Text]./N.P. Shitikova. Monograph. Chelyabinsk: 2004.23p. 7. Korzinkin, A.A. The spiritual and moral concept of personality education and modern education [Text]./A.A. Korzinkin. Abstract of Ph.D. ped. Sci. Kursk: 1999.20s. 8. Kovaleva, M.I. Moral education of high school students [Text]. M.I. Kovaleva. Dissertation for Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences. Kemerovo: 2003. 208 p.

Shirshov Vladimir DmitrievichDoctor of pedagogical Sciences, Professor of the Department of life safety of the Ural state pedagogical University, [email protected] article describes historical origins of the concepts of “morals” and “ethics”. Morality reflects social demands on the individual in the form of custom, traditions, norms of law. Compliance with the morality associated with cognition of the laws, with the skills to carry them out in accordance with social status of the individual. Morality is based on religious demands on the individual, where the most important is the court's own conscience. The main thing in the moral education is the formation of leading relations to the world, other people and yourself. Morality is a changing concept of morality is an eternal category.

morality, ethics, knowledge, skills, behavior, religion, and law.

If we look in the “Big Encyclopedic Dictionary”, we will see that there the definition of the words “morality” and “morality” mean the same thing. It's hard to agree with this. Even in ancient antiquity, morality was understood as the rise of a person above himself; it was an indicator of how a person is responsible for his behavior and actions. Morality is closely related to the character and temperament of a person, his spiritual qualities, the ability to moderate and suppress his egoism. Morality presupposes certain norms and laws of behavior in society.

Morality in modern society is based on the principles of not creating obstacles for another person. That is, you can do whatever you want, as long as you don’t cause harm to others. If, for example, you deceive another person and it brought him harm, then what if it didn’t? Then it is not frowned upon. This is the moral of our behavior today.

The concepts of “morality and ethics” of tomorrow will go even further. Live as you want, the main thing is not to meddle in other people's affairs and other people's lives unless you are asked to. Decide for yourself, and not for others, and if you want to help someone, then first find out from him, does he need it? Perhaps your views about what is good and what is bad do not coincide at all. And remember: everyone has their own morals. There are only a few general rules in common: do not touch someone else’s, do not encroach on the life of another person, his freedom and property - everything is quite simple.

As if distinguishing between the concepts of morality and morality, we can give the following definitions. Morality can also be called the word “decency”, that is, it is the sum of some norms of behavior and prejudices accepted in a given society. Morality is a deeper concept. A moral person can be called one who is wise, non-aggressive, does not wish harm to a person, sympathizes and empathizes with him, and is ready to help another. And if morality is more formal and comes down to certain permitted and prohibited actions, then morality is a more subtle and situational thing.

The main difference between the concepts of “morality” and “morality” is that morality involves evaluation by society, neighbors, God, management, parents, and so on. While morality is such internal self-control, an internal assessment of one’s thoughts and desires. It does not depend on external factors, it is a person’s inner beliefs.

Morality depends on a social group (religious, national, social, and so on), which prescribes certain norms of behavior in this society, its prohibitions and regulations. All human actions correspond to these codes. For proper adherence to these laws, encouragement from society is expected in the form of respect, fame, awards and even material benefits. Therefore, moral standards are closely related to the rules of a particular group and depend on the place of their use and time.

Morality, unlike morality, has a more universal character. It is not aimed at achieving some benefits and rewards, but at other people. A moral person sees in another person not himself, but his personality; he is able to see his problems, help and sympathize. This is the cardinal difference between these concepts, and morality is most expressed in religion, where love for one’s neighbor is preached.

From all of the above, it becomes clear that the concept of morality and morality are different things and how they, in fact, differ.

The lives of people and their interaction with each other are regulated not only by written laws, but also by unspoken rules of behavior and communication in various situations. The set of such norms, not written down in documents, but regulating human behavior is called morality and morality. Let's find out what it is and what differences exist between these concepts.

Concept of morality and ethics

Morality is a set of rules of behavior, which are based on the division of all human actions into fair and unfair. Whenever they talk about morality, they always mean two categories - good and evil, from the point of view of which they determine whether a person acted correctly or not.

Morality controls a person's attitude:

• to other people;
• to animals;
• to nature.

Let's figure out what actions can be called moral.

A moral act is behavior that is aimed at helping someone or something, is built in accordance with the position of goodness and justice, and does not violate the rights of other people.

TOP 3 articleswho are reading along with this

When a student crosses a zebra crossing, this act cannot be called moral, but it is so if the same student helps an elderly person cross the road who finds it difficult to do it alone.

Along with morality, the concept of morality is often used. There are different points of view on the relationship between these terms. Some scientists say that morality and ethics are synonymous words and mean the same thing. Others highlight the similarities and differences between morality and ethics.

The main difference between these concepts is that morality is some abstract thoughts, ideas about what good and evil are, and morality is the actual actions of people performed by them in life.

Let us present in the form of a table morality and morality, their relationship.

The emergence of moral standards began long before the beginning of our era. Then it had a religious character and was compiled by sages in the form of commandments, many of which were included in the Bible - the holy book of Christians (For example, the Ten Commandments of Moses).

In subsequent years, moral norms developed further, but many of them retained their meaning and continue to be important in modern society.

What have we learned?

Morality and morality are concepts that have their own similarities and differences. Morality is the rules of behavior of people that require doing good deeds that do not violate justice, and morality is the direct embodiment of morality, the quality of a person who respects other people, animals and nature, is ready to help, correlates his behavior with established rules in society .

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 343.

For some reason, modern man is rarely guided in his actions by common sense. All decisions are made solely on emotions, which can create the impression of a person’s bad manners or disrespect for others. In fact, not many people understand such concepts as morality and morality, considering them to be outdated norms that do not bring benefit to a person in modern life. In this article we want to talk exactly about this topic.

If you consider yourself to be one of the civilized people who in life are not guided only by animal instincts and biological needs, then you can be called a moral person with a sense of high morality.

However, morality and ethics are in a sense the same categories - they have the same meaning, but there are also differences that need to be clearly understood. What is meant:

1. Morality is a broader concept that covers a person’s moral views. This includes the feelings and principles of a person, and his position in life, justice, mercy and other qualities that determine whether he is evil or good.
2. In addition, morality is considered an objective unit in philosophy, because it cannot be changed, it is completely built on the laws of nature. If a person adheres to it throughout his life, then he grows spiritually, develops, and gets a sea of ​​positive energy from the Universe, otherwise he simply degrades.
3. Morality helps a person to be peaceful, to avoid conflict situations, and not to create them intentionally, which is often done by people for whom the concept of morality is alien.
4. Morality is something that should be instilled in a person from the early years of his life. However, it is worth noting that each family has a different understanding of morality. Therefore, people are not the same. Many may be kind and sympathetic, but everyone will still have different life principles and orientations.

What is morality? If we consider this issue from the point of view of Hegel, who argued that morality is the sphere of the ideal, the proper, then morality in this case means reality. In practice, the relationship between morality and morality is reflected as follows: people often take many things for granted, but they are guided in their actions exclusively by what exists - by what has been instilled in them since childhood (morality).

Based on this, it follows that morality is:

• the inner beliefs of every person that guide him in life;
• rules of behavior instilled in a person by parents since childhood;
• these are value judgments of a person, with the help of which he can build relationships with other people in society;
• this is a person’s ability to change his ideal ideas about life under the influence of the non-ideal reality of the world around him;
• a category that determines how capable a person is of coping with life’s difficulties and other circumstances that happen to him in life.

It turns out that morality is inherent only in everything human and social. Nothing living in this world no longer has moral qualities, but every group of inhabitants of our planet definitely has morals.

If you carefully analyze the above rules of morality and ethics, the following simple and understandable conclusions will arise:

1. Morality reflects how spiritually developed a person is, and morality is the category that a person most often guides in solving social issues.
2. Morality instilled in a person from an early age never changes, but morality can change under the influence of society and life circumstances.
3. Morality is a common category for everyone, having only one meaning, but everyone can have their own morality, and it depends on the moral education of the individual.
4. Morality is an absolute category, and morality is relative, because it can change throughout a person’s life.
5. Morality is an internal state that a person simply cannot change, but morality is a person’s desire or predisposition to constantly conform to some model.

The doctrine of morality and morality is a complex area in philosophy. There are a number of scientists who are convinced that morality and morality are synonymous, because they have one source, they are studied by one science - ethics. Morality and ethics are similar in that their origins come from the Bible. These are the concepts that are preached by our Orthodox faith, this is what Jesus taught to all his disciples. We, of course, due to our busy lives and our burden of personal problems, always forget that our whole life is built on golden rules developed not by scientists, but by religion.

If we turned to its canons more often, we would perhaps suffer less spiritually, we certainly would not have problems that cause us discomfort and inconvenience in life. It turns out that in order to change your life for the better, it is enough to simply follow the norms of morality and morality, not just from time to time, but always.

The problem of morality and ethics in modern society

Unfortunately, you and I happen to live in a world in which there has long been a decline in morality and ethics, because modern people are increasingly disconnecting their lives from God’s commandments and laws. This all started:

• evolutionists in 1920, who began to argue that a person should manage his life himself, that some invented laws and principles should not be imposed on him;
• world wars, which simply devalue human life, because people suffered, suffered, and all this only gives rise to evil and the decline of moral principles;

• the Soviet era, which destroyed all religious values ​​- people began to revere the commandments of Marx and Lenin, but the truths of Jesus were forgotten, because faith was prohibited, morality was determined only by censorship, which was quite strict in the Soviet era;
• at the end of the twentieth century, because of all this, even censorship disappeared - films began to show explicit sex scenes, murders and bloodshed, what can we say if pornographic pictures began to appear in wide access for everyone (although this happened to a greater extent under the influence of Western culture );
• pharmacologists began to market contraceptives, which allowed people to be promiscuous without fear of having children;
• Families have stopped striving to have children, because for each spouse, career and personal ambitions are of primary importance;
• receiving a diploma, a red medal or a certificate of merit is the aspiration of losers who will achieve nothing in life if they do not use arrogance, rudeness and other qualities that can help them carve out a place in the sun in the modern cruel world.

In general, everything that was previously strictly prohibited has become permitted. Because of this, we and our children live in a world of bad morals. It is difficult for us to understand the morality of our grandparents, because they grew up in a different era, when traditions, rules, and culture were still respected and valued. Modern man is generally not aware of the role of morality and morality in people's lives. How else can we explain what is happening today in the world of politics, culture and science.

Nobody today, except scientists engaged in the professional study of philosophy, thinks about the origin of morality and morality and their future. After all, the democracy in which we live has completely freed our hands and our tongues. We can say and do whatever we want, and it’s unlikely that anyone will punish us for it, even if our activities openly violate someone else’s rights.

You don’t have to look far, it’s enough to analyze your own professional morals and ethics - will you move up the career ladder with honest and hard work, spending your time and best years so that your children have a carefree future, or will you use a dubious and vile scheme that will help you quickly take a high position? Most likely, you will choose the second, and this is not because you are a bad person, because you cannot say that about someone who cares about the future of the family, but because life experience has taught you so.

We hope that deep down, each of us is still an individual for whom such concepts in life as goodness, love, respect and honor are important. We wish you that your soul is pure, open, that your thoughts are kind, that love lives in your heart. Fill your life with morals and ethics to feel like a harmonious person.

Video: “Morality, morality”

Moscow Institute of Humanities and Economics

Volgograd representative office

ETHICS ABSTRACT

Subject:MORALITY AND MORALITY

Completed by a 1st year student

Kolpakova Ksenia Evgenievna

Reviewer: Levin

Alexander Alexandrovich

Volgograd, 2001

Introduction

The essence and structure of morality

Origins of morality

Aristotle on ethics

Christianity

Ethical concept of I. Kant

The social essence of morality

Conclusion

Literature

INTRODUCTION

Etymologically, the term "morality" comes from the Latin word "mos" (plural "mores"), meaning "disposition". Another meaning of this word is law, rule, regulation. In modern philosophical literature, morality is understood as morality, a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations; one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society through norms.

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

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

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

Individual and society;

Individual and collective;

Team and society;

Team and team;

Man and man;

A person to himself.

Thus, in resolving moral issues, not only collective, but also individual consciousness is competent: the moral authority of someone depends on how correctly he understands the general moral principles and ideals of society and the historical necessity reflected in them. The objectivity of the foundation allows the individual to independently, to the extent of his own consciousness, perceive and implement social demands, make decisions, develop rules of life for himself and evaluate what is happening. Here the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity arises. The correct determination of the general basis of morality does not yet mean the unambiguous derivation from it of specific moral norms and principles or the direct following of the individual “historical trend.” Moral activity includes not only the implementation, but also the creation of new norms and principles, finding the ideals and ways of their implementation that best suit modern times.

ESSENCE AND STRUCTURE OF MORALITY

It is pointless to look for an exact definition of the essence of morality; this was tried unsuccessfully in ancient times. We can only outline the basic framework of concepts that “make up” this science:

Moral activity is the most important component of morality, manifested in actions. An action, or a set of actions that characterizes a person’s behavior, gives an idea of ​​his true morality. Thus, only the activity and implementation of moral principles and norms give an individual the right to recognition of his true moral culture. The action, in turn, contains three components:

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

It would seem that in this case there are no direct incentives to commit a crime, and here the criminal result does not coincide with the motives and goals of the action. Here the motivation, at first glance, is inadequate to the committed act. This act can rather be called motiveless, however, the “convolution of the motive”, its situational conditionality does not mean its absence. In this impulsive action there was no criminal goal or corresponding motive, but here the stereotypical readiness to act frivolously, thoughtlessly, under the influence of individual isolated ideas was at work...

2. Result - the material or spiritual consequences of an action that have a certain meaning.

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

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

Moral (moral) relations are relationships into which people enter when committing actions. Moral relations represent a dialectic between the subjective (motives, interests, desires) and the objective (norms, ideals, mores) that have to be taken into account, and which have an imperative character for individuals. When entering into moral relations, people impose upon themselves certain moral obligations and at the same time assign themselves moral rights.

Moral consciousness - includes cognition, knowledge, volitional impulse and the determining influence on moral activity and moral relations. This also includes: moral self-awareness, moral self-esteem. Moral consciousness is always axiological, because in each of its elements it contains an assessment from the position of an established system of values ​​and is based on a certain set of moral norms, models, principles of traditions and ideals. Moral consciousness, as a system of assessments with plus or minus signs, reflects reality through the prism of approval and condemnation, through the opposition of good and evil, attitude and activity, intentions - these categories are of paramount importance in matters of ethics. Aristotle, for the first time in European ethics, comprehensively examined the concept of “intention”, understood it precisely as the basis of virtue and consciously contrasted it, distinguished it from will and idea (“Nicomachean Ethics”, book III, chapters 4, 5, 6, 7). Intention does not deal with what is impossible to achieve, but is aimed at what is in the power of man, it concerns the means of achieving the goal (one cannot say: I intend to be blessed) in contrast to the will in general, which can deal with the impossible (the desire for immortality , for example), and direct to what is beyond our control (the desire for victory for this or that athlete in a competition), concerns a person’s goals. The rational grain of Aristotle's thought, according to which intention concerns the means, and will - the goals of human activity, is that the content of intention can, as a rule, be feasible, real goals, taken in unity with the means of achieving them. Intention is also not a representation. The first is always practically oriented, highlighting in the world only what is in the power of man, the second extends to everything: both the eternal and the impossible; the first is distinguished by good and evil, the second by truth and falsity; the first is an instruction to action, talks about what to achieve and what to avoid, what to do with the object; the second analyzes what the object itself is and how it is useful; the first is praised when it is in accordance with duty, the second when it is true; the first concerns what is known, the second what is unknown to us. In addition, Aristotle concludes his comparative description, the best intentions and the best ideas are not found in the same people. Aristotle sees his own essential sign of intention in the fact that it is preceded by a preliminary choice, a weighing of motives, by which he primarily understands the different motivating role of reason and pleasure: “It is something that is chosen preferentially over others.”

ORIGINS OF MORALITY (Aristotle, Christianity, Kant)

Human morality as a special form of human relations has been developing for a long time. This perfectly characterizes society’s interest in it and the importance attached to morality as a form of social consciousness. Naturally, moral standards varied from era to era, and attitudes towards them were always ambiguous.

In ancient times, “ethics” (“the study of morality”) meant life wisdom, “practical” knowledge about what happiness is and what the means are to achieve it. Ethics is the doctrine of morality, of instilling in a person active-volitional, spiritual qualities that he needs first of all in public life, and then in personal life. It teaches practical rules of behavior and lifestyle for an individual. But are morality, ethics and politics, as well as art, sciences? Can the teaching of observing correct standards of behavior and leading a moral lifestyle be considered a science? According to Aristotle, “all reasoning is aimed either at activity or creativity, or at the speculative...”. This means that through thinking a person makes the right choice in his actions and deeds, striving to achieve happiness and realize the ethical ideal. The same can be said for works of art. The master embodies in his work the ideal of beauty in accordance with his understanding. This means that the practical sphere of life and various types of productive activity are impossible without thinking. Therefore they fall within the realm of science, but they are not sciences in the strict sense of the word.

Moral activity is aimed at the person himself, at developing the abilities inherent in him, especially his spiritual and moral powers, at improving his life, at realizing the meaning of his life and purpose. In the sphere of “activity” associated with free will, a person “chooses” individuals who conform their behavior and lifestyle with a moral ideal, with ideas and concepts about good and evil, what is proper and what is.

With this, Aristotle defined the subject of science, which he called ethics.

Christianity, undoubtedly, represents one of the most majestic phenomena in the history of mankind when viewed from the aspect of moral standards. Religious morality is a set of moral concepts, principles, and ethical standards that develop under the direct influence of a religious worldview. By asserting that morality has a supernatural, divine origin, preachers of all religions thereby proclaim the eternity and immutability of their moral principles, their timeless nature.

Christian morality finds its expression in unique ideas and concepts about moral and immoral, in the totality of certain moral norms (for example, commandments), in specific religious and moral feelings (Christian love, conscience, etc.) and some volitional qualities of a believer (patience , obedience, etc.), as well as in systems of moral theology and theological ethics. All of the above elements together constitute Christian moral consciousness.

The main feature of Christian (as well as any religious) morality in general is that its main provisions are placed in mandatory connection with the dogmas of the faith. Since the “divinely revealed” dogmas of Christian doctrine are considered unchangeable, the basic norms of Christian morality, in their abstract content, are also distinguished by their relative stability and retain their force in each new generation of believers. This is the conservatism of religious morality, which, even in changed socio-historical conditions, carries the burden of moral prejudices inherited from past times.

Another feature of Christian morality, arising from its connection with the dogmas of the faith, is that it contains such moral instructions that cannot be found in systems of non-religious morality. Such, for example, is the Christian teaching about suffering as good, about forgiveness, about love for enemies, non-resistance to evil and other provisions that are in conflict with the vital interests of people’s real lives. As for the provisions of Christianity, common to other moral systems, they received a significant change in it under the influence of religious and fantastic ideas.

In its most condensed form, Christian morality can be defined as a system of moral ideas, concepts, norms and feelings and behavior corresponding to them, closely related to the tenets of Christian doctrine. Since religion is a fantastic reflection in the heads of people of external forces that dominate them in their everyday lives, real interpersonal relationships are reflected in the Christian consciousness in a form modified by religious fantasy.

At the basis of any moral code lies a certain initial principle, a general criterion for the moral assessment of people's actions. Christianity has its own criterion for distinguishing between good and evil, moral and immoral behavior. Christianity puts forward its own criterion - the interest of saving a personal immortal soul for an eternal blissful life with God. Christian theologians say that God has placed in the souls of people a certain universal, unchanging absolute “moral law.” A Christian “feels the presence of the divine moral law”; it is enough for him to listen to the voice of the deity in his soul in order to be moral.

The moral code of Christianity was created over centuries, in different socio-historical conditions. As a result, one can find in it a variety of ideological layers, reflecting the moral ideas of different social classes and groups of believers. The understanding of morality (and precisely its specificity), and its ethical concept, consistently developed in a number of special works, was the most developed, systematic and complete. Kant posed a number of critical problems related to the definition of the concept of morality. One of Kant's merits is that he separated questions about the existence of God, soul, freedom - questions of theoretical reason - from the question of practical reason: what should I do? Kant's practical philosophy had a huge impact on the generations of philosophers that followed him (A. and W. Humboldt, A. Schopenhauer, F. Schelling, F. Hölderlin, etc.).

The study of Kant's ethics has continued to develop since the 1920s. There are many different assessments of Kant's ethics. From the point of view of metaphysics, the most valuable are Kant's ideas about freedom and the autonomy of ethics.

Modern studies of Kantian ethics are an attempt to provide new ways of rethinking it and new approaches to the reconstruction of critical ethics. Kant's critical ethics takes as its starting point an awareness of the practice in which rational human behavior is embodied. Just as theoretical philosophy clarifies the question of the possibility of truth and scientific knowledge, all practical philosophy is devoted to human practice, and consideration of the relationship between real freedom and moral law is one of the significant problems of understanding Kant’s practical philosophy. According to Kant, the unity of critical philosophy with Kantian moral philosophy should be sought in the fundamental position of man in the world and in the understanding of his unity and behavior that pushes the boundaries of knowledge. Indeed, moral behavior requires not only an awareness of duty, but also the practical fulfillment of duty.

The doctrine of morality is at the center of Kant's entire system. Kant managed to identify, if not fully explain, a number of specific features of morality. Morality is not the psychology of man as such; it does not come down to any elementary aspirations, feelings, drives, and impulses inherent in all people, nor to any special unique experiences, emotions, impulses that are different from all other mental parameters of a person. Morality, of course, can take the form of certain psychological phenomena in a person’s consciousness, but only through education, through the subordination of the elements of feelings and impulses to the special logic of moral obligation. In general, morality does not come down to the “internal mechanics” of a person’s mental impulses and experiences, but has a normative nature, that is, it imputes to a person certain actions and the very motivations for them according to their content, and not according to their psychological appearance, emotional coloring, mental state, etc. n. This, first of all, consists of the objectively obligatory nature of moral demands in relation to individual consciousness. With this methodological distinction between the “logic of feelings” and the “logic of morality,” Kant was able to discover the essence of the moral conflict in the sphere of individual consciousness in the conflict of duty and inclinations, drives, desires, and immediate aspirations. Duty, according to Kant, is one-sided and strong integrity, a real alternative to moral laxity and opposes the latter as principled compromise. One of Kant's historical merits in the development of the concept of morality is his pointing out the fundamental universality of moral requirements, which distinguishes morality from many other similar social norms (customs, traditions). The paradox of Kantian ethics is that, although moral action is aimed at realizing natural and moral perfection, it is impossible to achieve it in this world. Kant tried to outline a solution to the paradoxes of his ethics without resorting to the idea of ​​God. He sees in morality the spiritual source of radical transformation and renewal of man and society.

Kant's formulation of the problem of the autonomy of ethics, consideration of the ethical ideal, reflections on the practical nature of morality, etc. are recognized as an invaluable contribution to philosophy.

SOCIAL ESSENCE OF MORALITY

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

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

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

At one time, V.I. Lenin wrote: “People have always been and will always be stupid victims of deception and self-deception in politics, until they learn to look for the interests of certain classes behind any moral, religious, political, social phrases, statements, promises.” ". From what has been said it is clear that ethics is organically included in the ideological struggle. It is appropriate to recall the recent confrontation between bourgeois and socialist ethics. It was assumed that bourgeois ideology cannot fulfill its class purpose without a certain minimum of knowledge about the nature and functioning of morality, because without this it is impossible to purposefully influence the real moral consciousness of society. But in general, an adequate theoretical reconstruction of the essence and patterns of development of morality is in direct contradiction with the class interests of the bourgeoisie. This social contradiction finds its resolution in idealistic ethics. It was understood that socialist ideology, on the contrary, strives to develop the moral capabilities of working people. It was believed that the objective needs of the struggle for communism require that the millions of people awaken to active historical creativity, so that they believe in their strengths and unite to implement them (however, despite the logical harmony and completeness of a number of communist moral foundations, the material conditions of life led subsequently to their erosion, the emergence of the “kitchen syndrome” - the split personality syndrome of the Soviet person). But be that as it may, one or another theoretical interpretation of morality, independently, and often even contrary to the subjective intentions of researchers, acquires a certain class meaning and turns out to be beneficial to one or another group of people in society. The social nature of morality becomes obvious if we analyze what changes morality undergoes when one socio-economic formation changes to another.

One of the most important issues around which a sharp struggle of ideas in ethics unfolds is the question of the social nature of morality. Formulating the initial principles of materialist ethics (personally, I am very sympathetic to the bias of political economy), K. Marx and F. Engels sharply criticized philosophical speculation, which separated “the ideas of individuals from the conditions of their lives, from their practical collisions and contradictions,” which turned the realities upside down. relations, mystified the essence of morality, endowed it with independent existence. Separated from their empirical basis, moral ideas turn from an effect into a cause, from a predicate into a subject; the distorted consciousness of ideologists endows them with such abilities, such creative potential, which in fact they never possessed. The practical-political consequence of this idealistic illusion is moralization - powerlessness turned into action, an attempt to replace real struggle with sentimental complacency.

Morality is a purely historical social phenomenon, the secret of which lies in the conditions of production and reproduction of society, namely the establishment of such seemingly simple truths that moral consciousness, like any consciousness, “can never be anything other than conscious being.” that, therefore, the moral renewal of man and society not only is not the basis and productive cause of the historical process, but can itself be rationally comprehended and correctly understood only as a moment of practical world-transforming activity, marked a revolution in views on morality, and marked the beginning of its scientific understanding. The entire subsequent history of Marxist ethics was a further deepening, concretization, development and defense of these provisions, on the basis of which there was a constant struggle against bourgeois-idealistic concepts. Revealing the fundamental differences between the materialist ethics of Marxism and all other moral theories, V.I. Lenin said: “We deny any such morality, taken from a non-human, non-class concept. We say that this is a deception, that this is a deception and clogging of the minds of workers and peasants in the interests of landowners and capitalists.” The social conditioning of morality is allowed in bourgeois ethics only to the extent that is limited by the original idealistic postulate about the primacy and unconditionality of the world of moral values. On the contrary, from the point of view of the scientific methodology of historical materialism, the social is not an aspect, side, external condition, property, etc. of morality, but its essence, the true and only nature. It has no other nature, no other source. Looking for the secret of morality outside of socio-historical practice, be it the fictional worlds of theologians and idealists or the very real biological foundations of human existence, is absolutely futile. Any attempts to go beyond social boundaries to explain morality are theoretically fruitless. By the way, this is one of those points in which the positions of Marxist-Leninist ethics and idealistic concepts of morality are diametrically opposed. Of course, one cannot agree with all the provisions of the theory of Marxism, but the idea of ​​recognizing the fundamental interests of society (classes) as the scale of moral action, the essential content of moral obligation, seems very logical.

Concretizing the question of the social nature of morality, Marxist ethics, in accordance with the historical-materialist theory of socio-economic formations, considers it as a form of social consciousness. Along with other forms, it is characterized by the following characteristics. Morality is rooted in objective economic relations. F. Engels wrote that “people, consciously or unconsciously, ultimately draw their moral views from the practical relations on which their class position is based, that is, from the economic relations in which production and exchange take place.”

In a society that is based on class oppositions, morality is always of a class nature, it either justifies the domination and privileges of the exploiting classes, or is a means of expressing the interests of the oppressed. “That’s why we say: for us, morality taken outside of human society does not exist...”

Morality in its essence is a historical phenomenon; it changes radically from era to era. “There is no doubt that in this case, in morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, progress is generally observed.” However, being a secondary, derivative phenomenon, morality at the same time has relative independence, in particular, it has its own logic of historical movement, has a reverse impact on the development of the economic basis, and plays a socially active role in society.

In a word, the secret of morality lies not in the individual and not in herself; as a secondary, superstructural phenomenon, its origins and goals go back to material and economic needs and its content, as already noted, cannot be anything other than conscious social existence. (K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. 3, p. 25).

In order to identify the specificity of morality, its internal qualitative boundaries, it is necessary to determine its originality within the framework of social consciousness itself. Forms of social consciousness are usually distinguished from each other according to the following criteria:

Roles in society;

Method of reflection;

Social source.

It makes sense to consider the features of morality in the light of these criteria.

Morality is one of the main types of social regulation, a unique way of organizing the real process of human life. The objective needs of society, fixed in morality, take the form of assessments, general rules and practical instructions. Material relations are reflected in it from the point of view of how they can and should be realized in the direct activities of individuals and groups. By fixing the demands that social existence places on consciously acting individuals, morality acts as a way of practical orientation of people in social life. In terms of its role in society, it is of the same order as law, customs, etc. Morality, according to the concept of “practical-spiritual mastery of the world,” is a form of spiritual attitude towards the world, but one that is practically oriented, and its immediate task is to organize real communication between people

To understand the regulatory nature of morality, at least four points seem essential:

a) it represents a certain value attitude towards the world, or rather, a subjectively interested one. It considers the world, individual social phenomena and acts (actions of individuals and groups, social institutions, their decisions, etc.) not in themselves, but from the point of view of their significance for society (class). She classifies the variety of empirical events either as positive, or negative, or neutral. The world is perceived in black and white.

b) morality is an expression of the activity of human consciousness - a value-based attitude towards the world is at the same time an active attitude. By characterizing something as good or evil, morality simultaneously implies that one must strive for the first and avoid the second. IN AND. Lenin, in his summary of Hegel’s “Science of Logic,” makes the following note: “... the transition of the idea of ​​truth into the idea of ​​good, theory into practice and vice versa.” The movement from truth to goodness is a movement in the direction from theory to practice. The practical focus of moral concepts is emphasized here.

c) moral views and ideas are given in unity with practical relations - the peculiarity of moral consciousness, considered as a whole, is that it is normative and prescriptive, aimed at certain actions, therefore moral views and ideas must be taken in unity with real moral relationships. This is true both when it comes to individuals and when it comes to a large group of people. A typical fallacy of idealistic ethical teachings, both in the past and in the present, is that they narrow the content of morality, one-sidedly reducing it to the sphere of intrapersonal motivation. The famous positivist Victor Kraft in his book “The Rational Justification of Morality” writes that the specificity of “morality, in contrast to all regulators, is that the latter concern only external behavior, while the subject of morality is belief and desire.” But it does not at all follow from this that internal motivation is the only subject or that law and other social regulators are completely indifferent to the subjective grounds of action. Thus, the point of view of idealists gives a distorted image, impoverishes morality, blurs its main social function, its socially organizing role.

d) the main means of mastering reality is a moral requirement - it makes sense to use the concept of a moral requirement here not in a narrow sense (a requirement as one of the structural elements in contrast to principles, norms, etc.), but in a broad sense, meaning by it a certain the common denominator of moral principles, norms, qualities, concepts, ideals, as well as real mores. The concept of moral requirement concentrates on the fact that morality is a way of regulating human activity.

Thus, the main idea of ​​all previous discussions is that the social essence of morality finds its concentrated expression in the regulatory function.

CONCLUSION

Moral consciousness, generated by the needs of social development, as a means of regulating the social life of people and their relationships, is designed to serve these needs. Being a form of reflection of reality, moral consciousness, like other forms of social consciousness, can be true or false; the criterion of its truth is practice. However, it has some specific properties. First of all, it can have an active impact on people's everyday behavior. Moral ideas, principles, and ideals are woven into human activity, serving as motives for actions. Unlike science, moral consciousness operates mainly at the level of social psychology and everyday consciousness. Moral consciousness and moral knowledge are mandatory.

Moral feelings, multiplied by theoretical elements of moral consciousness, manifest themselves and, being repeatedly realized in actions, are ultimately consolidated in a person as his moral qualities, integral spiritual and practical formations, manifested in various spheres of human life. What they become depends on us.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

1. Volchenko L.B., Good and evil as ethical categories, Moscow, 1975

2. Malyshevsky A.F., Karpunin V.A., Pigrov K.S., Introduction to philosophy. - M., Education, 1995

3. Philosophical Dictionary, under. ed. I. T. Frolova, -M. Politizdat, 1986

4. Philosophy, ed. V. P. Kokhanovsky, Rostov-on-Don / Book, 1995

5. Frank S.N., The Concept of Philosophy // Relationship between Philosophy and Science, 1990 - 2

6. M. Heidegger, What is philosophy? // Questions of Philosophy, 1993 - 4

7. “Anthology of World Philosophy”, Universal Dictionary-Reference Book, London, Slovo, 1993