Basic principles. The morality of modern society is based on simple principles

There are different systems of ethics: the ethics of Ancient Greece, the ethics of Hinduism, Confucian ethics. Each of them offers its own model of morality, highlighting a limited number of key, all-encompassing concepts: humanity, respect, wisdom, etc. Such concepts receive the status of moral principles, or laws, on which the edifice of ethics rests.

All other, private moral concepts are grouped around moral laws, performing the functions of their internal justification and argumentation. For example, humanity as a moral principle, or law, is based on concepts such as compassion, sensitivity, attentiveness, readiness to forgive or help. The moral law of respect is realized through respect, delicacy, modesty, obedience, tact, and reverent attitude towards the world.

Different systems of ethics use different sets of moral laws. In Ancient Greece, the main moral principles (cardinal virtues) included courage, wisdom, and justice. In Confucian ethics, common in China and Japan, there are five so-called constants: humanity, justice, decency, wisdom, honesty. Christian ethics puts faith, hope, and charity first.

Moral philosophers sometimes offer their own model of morality. For example, the famous Russian philosopher of the 19th century. V. S. Solovyov put forward the idea three main virtues: shame, pity, reverence. The model proposed by the German-French thinker A. Schweitzer (1875-1965) is based on the value of life as such, and from here he derives one all-encompassing moral law - “reverence for life.”

Schweitzer writes: “A person is truly moral only when he obeys the inner urge to help any life that he can help, and refrains from causing any harm to a living person.”

We are talking about the main, universal laws, which are repeated in one or another combination in various systems of ethics. The value of these laws lies in the fact that they enshrine the most important moral duties in moral experience. They serve as designations of permanent states of consciousness that have developed in the process of education: humanity, justice, respectfulness, rationality, etc. These are virtues that Aristotle called “habitual inclinations” to commit moral actions. It is known that the ways (means, techniques) of implementing each moral principle are very diverse. They depend on the individual characteristics of a person, on the conditions and circumstances of a particular life situation, on the traditions of moral thinking and behavior that have developed in a given society.
Let's dwell on five moral principles, most often found in systems of secular ethics and reflecting the most important and best that has been deposited in the moral experience of mankind - humanity, respect, rationality, courage, honor. Well-developed functional connections are established between them in the sense that each of them supports, strengthens and expresses everything else. These principles, while maintaining relative independence, are important only as a means of the most complete, accurate and successful implementation of the principles of philanthropy. Reverence ensures benevolence and respect in contacts with the world, courage organizes and mobilizes the efforts necessary to achieve moral goals, reason is assigned the role of intellectual censorship of behavior, and honor is a sensory-emotional censor.

Humanity- a system of positive, unifying feelings and reactions: sympathy, understanding, empathy. In its highest manifestations, it includes a conscious, kind and unbiased attitude not only towards people, but also towards nature, animals and flora, cultural heritage of humanity. This is a supra-animal ability and readiness of an individual to transfer natural love for himself and for his loved ones to other people, to the entire world around him.

There is a common duty for the inhabitants of our planet: in any, even the most difficult situations to remain human is to behave in accordance with the moral level to which people have risen in the process of evolution. “If you are a person, then act like a person” - this is universal formula moral-anthropological identity. The duty of humanity is a kind and active participation in everything that happens around. This is loyalty and conformity to oneself, one’s social nature.
You cannot consider someone human just because they do not harm anyone. Humanity as a personality property consists of everyday altruism, of such acts as understanding, revenue, service, concession, favor. This is the ability to enter into the position of other people, to help them at least with kind advice and words of participation. After all, situations when people need moral support are not so rare. Sometimes sympathizing is the same as helping with deeds.

Nutritional internal environment Humanity is the participation, compassion, and empathy inherent in human nature. In psychological terms, this empathy- the ability to enter into someone else's emotional state person, to sympathize with him. Empathy is characterized as “warm entry” into the role of another person, as opposed to “cold entry”, when it is not accompanied by sympathy and goodwill. In accordance with the idea and general orientation of humanity, compassion should be valued as a moral obligation and an important moral quality personality, the opposite of such properties as callousness, heartlessness, moral deafness.

Of course, we respond to the experiences of other people not only due to purely emotional responsiveness, involuntarily. Empathy is formed and maintained through the efforts of the will, under the control of moral principles and rules. In order to enter the personal world of another person, to share his joy or sorrow, you sometimes have to overcome yourself, leave aside your own worries and experiences. Being empathic is difficult, it means being responsible, active, strong and at the same time subtle and sensitive (K. Rogers). Hence the concept of the development of “personal power” put forward by him in the process of personality-centered upbringing and education.

In everyday life, a significant part of empathic actions is performed almost automatically, out of habit. They are among the so-called simple volitional actions, correlated with simple moral norms. Simply put, in such cases we behave appropriately, humanly out of habit, perceiving it as something completely natural and unburdensome.

Beyond interpersonal connections and relationships, there is a clearly defined, largely highly institutionalized layer of the culture of empathy associated with the creation of a living environment favorable to humans during the construction of residential and industrial premises, the design of industrial products, urban greening, etc. Various aspects of non-human life are widely discussed. only the natural, but also the man-made environment, in order to find out to what extent it meets national and universal standards of an empathic, aesthetic attitude towards the world. In a word, there is, and quite realistically, a powerful layer of culture, formed under the influence of sympathy, empathy, and mutual assistance. We call it a culture of empathy, meaning by this a system of principles and norms developed by humanity, sympathetic, understanding, aesthetically mature thinking and behavior.

While remaining a well-organized and coordinated entity, the culture of empathy is clearly divided into individually personal And socially oriented culture of empathy. In the first case, we are talking about the skills and abilities of empathic thinking and behavior of an individual. Empathy acts here as an important personal property, and in such cases they talk about the character of an individual person: his kindness, responsiveness, sensitivity. In contrast, a socially oriented culture of empathy is a characteristic of society as a whole. It includes a system of standards for a prosperous life, approved and supported by the state.

Sensitivity occupies a special place in the complex palette of moral concepts and feelings that make up philanthropy. As one of the personality traits, sensitivity is a fusion of moral attention, moral memory and moral understanding.

Moral attention is an ethical interest or a special form of curiosity or inquisitiveness, the ability to identify, recognize a person’s experiences or states and respond to them in a kind, human way. Mere observation is not enough for this; morally motivated, heartfelt attention is required. It is not for nothing that they say that the eyes look and see, but it is the heart and soul that truly recognizes and highlights the joy or sadness of another person. Moral attention sets a certain tone, a certain, ethically verified direction of external attention, contributes to the formation of a special type of personality, sensitive to people’s experiences. Manifestations of moral or positive attention include questions about health used in communication, congratulations on a joyful event, condolences, all kinds of warning gestures, movements, and actions. In all cases, this is caring for other people, a pleasant and flattering evidence of importance for them.

Gratitude is an important part of humanity. This is a manifestation of attentiveness, sensitivity, nobility, indicating that a good attitude is noticed, accepted, and appreciated. Gratitude presupposes a willingness to respond kindly to kindness, love to love, respect to respect. Ingratitude destroys this harmony and deals a tangible blow to the foundations of morality. Therefore, not a single significant good deed, word, or impulse should be left without attention, without a moral response.

Gratitude not only completes the building of humanity, it expands the horizons of philanthropy, acts as a spring that accumulates the necessary spiritual and moral energy, and sets into motion the mechanism of new benefits. If gratitude falls out of the moral system, humanity will lose a significant part of its inner strength and energy. As a result, this can so weaken the motivation for humane actions that it becomes tantamount to the destruction of morality. It was not for nothing that I. Kant emphasized that gratitude bears the stamp of special responsibility, responsibility for the state and fate of morality as a whole. He believed that gratitude should be considered a sacred duty, that is, a duty the violation of which (as a shameful example) could, in principle, destroy the moral motive of beneficence.

The paradox, however, is that ethics obliges one to do good deeds without counting on gratitude, so as not to reduce or destroy the moral value of the act. They say: “Do good and forget about it.” Having helped someone, it is undignified to complain that you were not thanked for it; It is indecent to remind a person about the services provided to him. Even when talking with third parties, you should avoid reporting your good deeds. A contradiction arises between noble self-sacrifice and the expectation of gratitude.

This contradiction affects the fundamentals inner world personality and requires your permission. It is recommended to repress information about your own good deeds and not forget about the good deeds of other people, and above all about the services provided to you personally. In the end, it all comes down to ensuring that everyone knows, remembers and accordingly fulfills his duty of humanity and gratitude, and, if possible, concentrates on the kind attitude of those around him, and not on the extent and form of recognition of his own deeds.

Respectfulness usually associated with politeness, benevolence, courtesy, good manners, which generally correctly reflects the essence of this moral principle.

But the philosophical understanding of respect is broader than the ordinary. This concept contains a respectful, reverent, poetic attitude towards the world as a miracle, a priceless, divine gift. The principle of respect obliges us to treat people, things, and natural phenomena with gratitude, accepting all the best that is in our life. On this basis, in ancient times, various kinds of cults were formed: the cult of trees, the cult of iron, the cult of animals, the cult of heavenly bodies. In fact, they reflected a reverent attitude towards the universe, of which every person is a small part, called to become a useful link in the world. In the famous poem by N. Zabolotsky it is said about this:

Link to link and shape to shape. The world In all its living architecture - A singing organ, a sea of ​​pipes, a clavier, Not dying either in joy or in storm.
(Metamorphoses)

Ethical immunity of the individual(in our understanding) is an unconditional human right to respect, regardless of age, gender, social or racial background. A personal legal field of the individual is established, into which no one should intrude, and any attack on the honor and dignity of a person is condemned.

Ethical immunity establishes the equal rights to basic respect and recognition of every person, whether high-ranking official, a child or a beggar tramp. This is how a democratic structure of character is formed, in which, according to A. Maslow, the central place is occupied by “the tendency to respect any human being only because he is a person.” Taking into account and under the control of ethical immunity, generally accepted rules of mutual treatment arise, develop and operate, and a certain level or necessary minimum of ethical legality is maintained.

Antithesis of etiquette and non-etiquette personality

There is a belief that the rules of good manners must be known and followed for the best self-realization and achievement of personal goals in contacts. In such cases, the good reputation that a person gains through respectfulness is of decisive importance. This is the reputation of a person who is friendly, respectful, and pleasant to talk to.

At the extreme end of the ratings are people who have little knowledge of etiquette standards. Usually in contacts with people they show timidity, helplessness, and confusion. “Reverence without ritual leads to fussiness,” emphasized Confucius. Most often this is expressed in the fact that a person is inactive where etiquette prescribes a certain activity that symbolizes respect. For example, he does not rise from his seat when elders or women appear, remains silent when he needs to apologize or thank him for a service, does not pay the necessary courtesy visits, etc. In addition general characteristics, applied to such a person: “ignorant”, “ill-mannered”, “uncouth”, there is another psychologically accurate characteristic: “awkward, awkward, worthless, lacking initiative.” Such a person fails to demonstrate his personality in an ennobled form. Etiquette ignorance as a specific form of deviant behavior limits the field and possibilities of self-realization.

An active form of etiquette ignorance manifests itself when a person violates the rules of decency openly, even demonstratively: he unceremoniously interferes in a conversation, slander, makes frivolous jokes, sits lounging, laughs loudly, shamelessly praises himself and his loved ones, etc. As a negative phenomenon close to active forms of etiquette ignorance, consider the identification of deference with flattery and servility. It is generally agreed that this is a symptom of an undeveloped faculty of understanding and a source of false judgments.

Dialectics of respect and self-esteem

The importance of deference and the associated strategy of achieving personal goals through politeness and courtesy raise some concerns: will a slave psychology develop on this basis? Is there a risk of conceptual substitution here?

To eliminate the possibility of such transformations, an ethically verified limit of respect is established, which cannot be crossed without compromising one’s own dignity. Each person determines this boundary himself. At the same time, there is a rule: when showing respect to people, remember that this is done in order to show yourself and others how and how much you respect yourself, how much you value the image of the Self, when coming into contact with the person evaluating you.

Self-respect is the psychological basis and internal justification for respectful attitude towards people. This view is best reflected in the well-known judgment: the respect you show to another is the respect you show to yourself. But there are other versions of this formula: the more you value and respect people, the more you value and respect yourself; Appreciate and honor people - and you yourself will be honored. These statements have their own logic. By showing respect, a person actively inserts himself into the consciousness of another person and offers him such a scheme of friendly relations that he himself expects. This is a kind of ethical hint, a way in which a person prepares a model of benevolent relations for himself. Such reasoning is within the range of traditional ideas that to navigate the nuances of respectful behavior requires subtle calculation. It was not for nothing that the American sociologist Homans compared the interaction of people with an economic transaction or “social economy”, when people, like goods, exchange love, respect, recognition, services, and information. Elements of such a calculation do take place, and they are associated primarily with the activity of the mind, which is entrusted with the functions of moral and intellectual monitoring or control of behavior. This is especially important for today’s interaction between people, taking place in the context of the intercultural diversity of the world.

Ethics of intercultural dialogue

In the policy of multiculturalism, we must rely on positive, unifying social capital. Expressions such as “conflict of civilizations” and “civilizational split” that have now become fashionable, of course, reflect some development trends modern world, however, are hardly relevant in the practice of multicultural education. They undermine faith in the reality of the spiritual unity of humanity, focusing attention on the fatal and almost insurmountable contradictions leading to disintegration and collapse of the world community.

It is much more useful to focus on creating highly synergistic, safe societies that Ruth Benedict wrote about, contrasting them with low-synergistic societies in which, in the presence of large interpersonal, intergroup and intercultural contradictions, negative energy and aggression accumulate. Developing the ideas of R. Benedict, the outstanding American psychologist A. Maslow focuses on the conscious search for socially acceptable plans and structures of behavior that can provide mutual benefit to the participants in interaction, excluding actions and goals that are harmful to other groups or members of society. According to him, ultimately it all comes down to the formation of a type of social structure in which an individual, through the same actions and at the same time, serves both his own interests and the interests of other members of society.

At the same time, the question inevitably arises: is national identity a hindrance or an insurmountable obstacle to integration processes? Anyone who accepts such a point of view, voluntarily or unwittingly, finds himself in the field of negative intercultural orientation, where distrust and rejection of other means and methods of cultural self-organization best arise. This is how various forms of discrimination, mutual misunderstanding, everyday nationalism, and morbid suspicion appear.

The exact opposite is the response of multicultural pedagogy to asked question. Multiculturalism is perceived as a source of mutual enrichment, unity and dynamic development of society. At the same time, a well-thought-out and balanced policy of multiculturalism must be implemented. In each specific case, it should be based on the specific features of a multiethnic environment: historical, socio-economic, psychological, demographic, geographical, etc. But the general formula of multiculturalism remains unchanged in all cases and appears in the form of various combinations of the two keywords: “unity” and “diversity”, which presupposes a morally reasoned, reasonable combination of variability and integrativeness in the practice of multicultural education.

Filling is of particular importance general principles and guidelines for the interaction of cultures with specific moral and psychological content that connects the universal and culturally unique experience of the ethical rationalization of the world. For example, the concept of humanity, expressed in a specific linguistic form among one people, is not much different from how it is presented in the linguistic consciousness of another people. Quite identical to the Russian word “humanity” in Chinese ren, Kabardian tsykhug'e, Balkar adamlyk etc. For many peoples, the key concept is “face”: face- from the British, nape- among the Kabardians, bet- among the Balkars. Kabardins and Balkars define a low, unscrupulous person as a result of this as having no face - napenshe, betsyz, which generally corresponds to similar mappings of this content in English - to lose face or in Russian - lose face.

The general expression of the deference, honesty, and respect necessary in relations between people is the term namus. It goes back to the Greek word nomos- a norm, a law, thereby reinforcing the importance of mutual respect and recognition as a universally binding, universal rule that knows no cultural barriers and restrictions. Hence the idea of ​​the inalienable right of every person to respect and social recognition. It is believed that every person, regardless of age, gender, religion, nationality and other differences, has this right, a kind of “ethical immunity” that protects him from attacks on personal safety, dignity and honor.

Mutual respect and recognition create a good basis for trust and openness in contacts, a feeling of psychological comfort, confidence that the participant in the dialogue will be treated with sympathy and understanding, that if necessary, they will help him and meet him halfway. This also shows how closely humanity, respect, trust, openness are connected with tolerance and empathy - the ability to sympathize, have compassion, and narrow the boundaries of one’s own Self.

The moral concepts and attitudes that make up a positive intercultural attitude and unifying social capital mutually reinforce and support each other. The practice of multiculturalism should be built on the basis of the commonality of basic symbols, values ​​and norms. Formal differences in culture in this case will only intensify the process of their mutual attraction and enrichment. “The discovery of differences is the discovery of new connections, not new barriers,” wrote C. Lévi-Strauss. Therefore, deep, respectful immersion in the culture of other, especially neighboring, peoples should be welcomed.

The most effective means of multicultural education is intercultural dialogue - free, friendly communication between speakers of different cultures, during which exchange, comparison and combination of various methods and techniques of ethical rationalization of the world are carried out. Such communication relieves fear, anxiety, reduces mistrust, allows you to make the necessary adjustments to stereotypical, often erroneous ideas about life, morals, true reasons and the goals of the actual participants in social contact and exchange.

Intercultural dialogue, built on the basis of positive social capital, brings people together and makes them want to demonstrate through their actions the best features of the culture they represent. It's kind of cultural patriotism, forcing a person to constantly worry about showing himself in an ennobled form, making the most favorable impression on people, not damaging the honor of his family, profession, people, etc. At the same time, the instinct for environmental alignment and a morally reasoned critical attitude are becoming more acute to the shortcomings of their culture.

Experience shows that on the basis of cultural patriotism, ethically significant cultural competition, when each of the participants in the dialogue constantly and unobtrusively proves to what extent he, as a bearer of a certain culture, can contribute to the creation of a society with high level cultural interaction. Properly organized intercultural dialogue becomes a tool for positive transformations in the space of the individual and society. Thus, step by step, a civil society is being formed, in which cultural differences only strengthen the processes of consolidation around universal human values.

Return back to

Moral principles- these are the basic moral laws that are recognized by all ethical teachings. They represent a value system that reinforces a person’s moral responsibilities through moral experience.

They are also called virtues. Moral principles are formed in the process of education and together lead to the awareness and acceptance of such qualities as humanity, justice, and rationality.

The ways and means of implementing each moral principle are very diverse and depend on the individual characteristics of the person himself, the moral traditions that have developed in society and the specific life situation.

The most comprehensive and widespread are 5 principles: humanity, respect, rationality, courage and honor.

Humanity is a system of positive qualities that represent a conscious, kind and selfless attitude towards people around us, all living beings and nature in general.

Man is a spiritual and intellectual being, and in any, even the most difficult situations, he must remain human, in accordance with the high moral stage of his development.

Humanity consists of everyday altruism, of such qualities as mutual assistance, revenue, service, concession, favor.

Humanity is an act of will of a person based on a deep understanding and acceptance of his inherent qualities.

Reverence is a respectful and reverent attitude towards the world around us, as a miracle, a priceless gift.

This principle prescribes to treat people, things and natural phenomena of this world.

Deference is associated with qualities such as politeness, courtesy, and benevolence.

Rationality is action based on moral experience. It includes concepts such as wisdom and logic.

Thus, rationality, on the one hand, is the actions of the mind, given to a person from birth, and on the other hand, actions in accordance with experience and the system moral values.

Courage and honor are categories that mean a person’s ability to overcome difficult life circumstances and states of fear without losing self-esteem and respect from those around him.

They are closely interrelated and are based on qualities such as duty, responsibility and resilience.

Moral principles must be constantly implemented in human behavior to consolidate moral experience.

Universal Moral Principles exist in addition to specific moral norms, such as “don’t steal” or “be merciful.” Their peculiarity is that they set most general formulas, from which all other specific norms can be derived.

Talion principle

Talion rule considered the first universal principle. In the Old Testament the talion formula is expressed as follows: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." In primitive society, talion was carried out in the form of blood feud, and the punishment had to strictly correspond to the harm caused. Before the emergence of the state, the talion played a positive role by limiting violence: a person could refuse violence out of fear of retribution; Talion also limited retaliatory violence, leaving it within the limits of the harm caused. The emergence of the state, which took over the functions of justice, turned the talion into a relic of uncivilized times, crossing it out of the list of basic principles of moral regulation

Principle of morality

Golden Rule of Morality formulated by the first civilizations independently of each other. This principle can be found among the sayings of the ancient sages: Buddha, Confucius, Thales, Christ. In the most general view this rule looks like this: "( Do not act towards others as you would (not) want them to act towards you" Unlike talion golden rule relies not on fear of revenge, but on its own ideas about good and evil, and also abolishes the division into “us” and “strangers,” presenting society as a collection of equal people.

Commandment of love becomes the basic universal principle in.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ expressed this principle this way: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is similar to it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

New Testament ethics is an ethics of love. The main thing is not formal obedience to laws and rules, but mutual love. The commandment of love does not cancel the Ten Commandments Old Testament: If a person acts on the principle of “love your neighbor,” then he cannot kill or steal.

The principle of the golden mean

The principle of the golden mean presented in works. It reads: Avoid extremes and observe moderation. All moral virtues are a mean between two vices (for example, courage is located between cowardice and recklessness) and go back to the virtue of moderation, which allows a person to curb his passions with the help of reason.

Categorical Imperative - a universal formula of morality proposed by Immanuel Kant. It reads: act in such a way that the reasons for your action can become a universal law,; in other words, do so that your actions can become a model for others. Or: always treat a person as an end, and not just as a means, i.e. never use a person only as a means to your ends.

The Greatest Happiness Principle

The Greatest Happiness Principle Utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) proposed it as a universal. It states that everyone should behave in such a way that provide the greatest happiness for the largest number people. Actions are assessed by their consequences: the more benefit the action brought different people, the higher he is rated on the moral scale (even if the act itself was selfish). The consequences of each possible action can be calculated, all the pros and cons can be weighed, and the action that will bring more benefit to the greatest number of people can be chosen. An action is moral if the benefit from it outweighs the harm.

Principle of justice

Principles of justice American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) proposed:

First principle: Every person should have equal rights to fundamental freedoms. Second principle: Social and economic inequalities should be so arranged that (a) they can reasonably be expected to benefit everyone, and (b) access to positions and positions is open to everyone.

In other words, everyone should have equal rights in relation to freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, etc.) and equal access to schools and universities, to official positions, jobs, etc. Where equality is impossible (for example, in where there are not enough goods for everyone), this inequality should be arranged to the benefit of the poor. One possible example of such a redistribution of benefits could be progressive income tax, when the rich pay more taxes, and the proceeds go to the social needs of the poor.

Each universal principle expresses a certain moral ideal, which is mainly understood as philanthropy. However, not all principles are compatible: they are based on different values ​​and different understandings of the good. Based on general principles, one should first determine the extent to which a particular principle is applicable to a situation and identify possible conflicts between different principles. A decision will be clearly moral only if all applicable principles are consistent the decision taken. If there is a serious conflict of principles, it is worth considering other factors, for example, the requirements of professional codes, expert opinions, legal and religious norms accepted in society, understand the degree of your responsibility for the decision, and only then make an informed moral choice.

Rice. 2

Moral principles- the main element in the moral system is the basic fundamental ideas about proper human behavior, through which the essence of morality is revealed and on which other elements of the system are based. The most important of them: humanism, collectivism, individualism, altruism, egoism, tolerance . Unlike norms, they are selective in nature and are determined by a person independently. They characterize the moral orientation of the individual as a whole.

Moral standards- specific rules behaviors that determine how a person should behave in relation to society, other people, and himself. They clearly show the imperative-evaluative nature of morality. Moral norms are the simplest forms of moral statements (“don’t kill,” “don’t lie,” “don’t steal,” etc.) that determine human behavior in typical, repeating situations. Often they take the form of moral habits in a person and are observed by him without much thought.

Moral values- social attitudes and imperatives, expressed in the form of normative ideas about good and evil, just and unjust, about the meaning of life and the purpose of a person from the point of view of their moral significance. They serve as a normative form of a person’s moral orientation in the world, offering him specific regulators of actions.

Moral ideal- this is a holistic example of moral behavior that people strive for, considering it the most reasonable, useful, and beautiful. The moral ideal allows us to evaluate people's behavior and is a guideline for self-improvement.

1. The structure of morality.

Moral norms, principles, ideals are manifested in the moral activity of people, which is the result of the interaction of moral consciousness, moral attitudes and moral behavior . In their unity and interdependence, they are the way of being of morality, embodied in its structure.

Understanding the essence of morality involves analyzing its structure. In terms of content, traditionally (since ancient times) there are three main elements:

♦ moral consciousness;

♦ moral behavior;

♦ moral relations.

Moral consciousness- this is a person’s knowledge of the essence of the main categories of ethics, understanding of moral values ​​and the inclusion of some of them in the system of personal beliefs, as well as moral feelings and experiences.

Moral relations as one of the types of social relations lies in the realization by a person of moral values ​​when communicating with others. They are determined by the level of moral consciousness of the individual.

Moral behavior- these are specific actions of a person that are an indicator of his moral culture.

Moral consciousness includes two levels: emotional and rational. . The structure of moral consciousness can be schematically presented as follows.

Emotional level- mental reaction of a person to an event, attitude, phenomenon. It includes emotions, feelings, mood.

Emotions - special mental states that reflect the individual’s immediate evaluative reactions to situations that are morally significant for a person. A type of emotion is affect - a particularly strong short-term experience that is not controlled by consciousness.

Feelings - This is the joy and sadness, love and hatred, suffering and compassion experienced by a person, arising on the basis of emotions. Passion is a type of moral feeling – a strongly expressed feeling leading to achieving a goal by any means, including immoral ones.

Moods - an emotional state characterized by duration, stability and is the background against which feelings manifest themselves and human activity takes place. Depression can be considered as a type of mood - a depressed, depressed state and stress state special mental tension.

Rational level - the individual's ability to logical analysis and self-analysis - is the result of the purposeful formation of moral consciousness in the process of training, education and self-education. The result is the moral competence of the individual, which includes three main components.

Knowledge principles, norms and categories , included in the moral system. Ethical knowledge - primary, necessary, but insufficient component of moral consciousness.

Understanding the essence of moral norms and principles and the need for their application. To establish moral relations, both the correctness and the similarity of this understanding by different subjects are important.

Acceptance moral standards and principles, incorporating them into your own system of views and beliefs, using them as a “guide to action.”

Moral relations- the central element of the structure of morality, in which the properties of any human activity from her point of view moral assessment. The most significant in a moral sense are such types of relationships as a person’s attitude to society as a whole, to other people, and to himself.

The attitude of man to society governed by a number of principles, in particular the principles of collectivism or individualism. Moreover, various combinations of these principles are possible:

v the combination of collectivism and egoism gives rise to so-called group egoism, when a person, identifying himself with a certain group (party, class, nation), shares its interests and claims, thoughtlessly justifies all its actions.

v the fusion of individualism and egoism, when, satisfying his own interests, a person guided by the principle of individualism can cause damage to other people, selfishly realizing himself “at their expense.”

Relationship to another to a person can be of a subject-subject or subject-object nature.

The subjective type of relationship is characteristic of humanistic ethics and manifests itself in dialogue . This approach is based on the principles of altruism and tolerance.

At one time E.N. Trubetskoy wrote that “Solovyov’s ethics is nothing more than part of his teaching about the “All-Unity”, criticizing Solovyov for inconsistency in defending the independence of ethics from metaphysical principles. A.F. Losev, in response to the reproach of E.N. Trubetskoy, notes that Solovyov , without abandoning metaphysics, sought to “characterize morality in its pure form... And if morality, as it develops, rises higher and higher until it joins the general unity, this does not mean that morality is thereby already in itself the doctrine of All-Unity."

Solovyov believed that direct moral feeling or the intuitive distinction between good and evil inherent in man is not enough; morality cannot be considered as an instinct. Moral foundations become the starting point from which a person starts, determining the norms of his behavior.

"One should unconditionally accept only that which in itself, in its essence, is good. ... Man, in principle or according to his purpose, is the unconditional internal form for good as unconditional content; everything else is conditional and relative. Good in itself is not conditioned by anything, it conditions everything and is realized through everything. The fact that it is not conditioned by anything constitutes its purity; the fact that it determines everything by itself is its completeness, and the fact that it is realized through everything is its power or effectiveness."

Thus, pointing to natural bases morality, Solovyov at the same time links morality and the very nature of man with the Absolute. A person must be directed upward. This aspiration, this connection with the Absolute does not allow a person to return to the animal state. “Primary, natural morality is nothing more than the reaction of spiritual nature against the suppression and absorption that threatens it by lower forces - carnal lust, selfishness and wild passions.”

In the material nature of man Vl. Solovyov discovers three simple moral feelings. But they cannot, again, be groundless, or, in other words, they need support, and this support is the unconditional Good of God. God embodies perfect unity. Material nature can enter into perfect connection with the absolute only through us. “The human personality, and therefore every individual person, is the possibility for the realization of unlimited reality, or a special form of infinite content.”

There is no unity in society, nature often triumphs over man, matter dominates the spirit. Moral improvement does not presuppose blind submission to a higher power, but conscious and free service to the perfect Good. Such a formulation of the question is of a fundamental nature, pointing to free will, autonomy of the individual, on the one hand, and on the other, Solovyov does not accidentally choose from several definitions of the Absolute not God or Good, but perfect Good, thereby emphasizing and defining main characteristic The Absolute, which lies in the moral sphere and sets the goal and meaning.

In addition, moral improvement involves a transition from natural solidarity with one’s own kind to sympathetic and consonant interaction based on love and, thirdly, actual advantage over material nature must “transform into rational dominion over it for ours and for its good.”

For real superiority over material nature, natural moral foundations must be constantly implemented in human behavior. For example, considering the principle of asceticism, which is significant for the Christian religion, Solovyov suggests its relationship with man’s negative attitude towards his animal nature. At the same time, nature is not considered as evil in itself - analyzing a number of philosophical teachings - Vedic, Buddhist, even Gnostic - Solovyov speaks of nature as a good beginning. Asceticism is a manifestation of shame in that area of ​​​​human activity, which can and should be, first of all, spiritual, but is often relegated to the level of the material, “... the process of purely animal life strives to capture the human spirit in its sphere, to subjugate or absorb it.”

Ascetic demands for a way of life grow out of the desire of the spirit to subjugate the demands of the body: “The moral demand for the subordination of the flesh to the spirit meets the opposite actual desire of the flesh to subjugate the spirit, as a result of which the ascetic principle is twofold: it is required, firstly, to protect spiritual life from the capture of the carnal principle and , secondly, to conquer the realm of the flesh, to make animal life only potency or matter of the spirit." In this process, Solovyov identifies three main points - the self-distinction of spirit from flesh, the spirit’s real defense of its independence, and the achieved dominance of the spirit over nature. The third stage is a state of spiritual perfection; it cannot be imputed to every person as a duty; thus, Soloviev is not a supporter of absolute, but only relative asceticism: “subordinate the flesh to the spirit, to the extent necessary for its dignity and independence. Having as the final, hoped-for goal To be a complete master of your physical forces and general nature, set your immediate, obligatory goal: not to be, at least, an enslaved servant of rebellious matter, or chaos."

Solovyov’s interpretation of asceticism proceeds, first of all, from the need for self-control of the spirit, non-subordination to carnal passions, and in no way a denial of human corporeality, nor an attitude towards it as something unclean. The restriction, from Solovyov’s point of view, should apply not only to the two most important functions of human physiology, nutrition and reproduction, but also to breathing and sleep. Breath control practices are indeed common as a technique for body control, an example of which is yoga. The tendency to excessive sleep also inclines a person to the carnal side of life - we note, once again, that Soloviev understands asceticism as a limitation, but not self-torture.

Excess nutrition, carnal sin - not the physical act of conception, but precisely “immeasurable and blind attraction”, both in reality and in the imagination - everything that attaches special exclusive importance to the material side of human life to the detriment of the spiritual, must be overcome with the help a reasonable, conscious, voluntary choice of a person, guided by his conscience, guided by shame.

Asceticism, according to Solovyov, is designed to free a person from carnal passions, which are simply shameful. “The predominance of the spirit over the flesh is necessary to preserve the moral dignity of man.” By acting in accordance with one's material nature, by excessing in carnal desires, a person can harm himself. But evil passions - anger, envy, greed - must be eradicated by a person in himself as the worst, since they are directed and can cause harm to other people. This is no longer the area of ​​ascetic, but of altruistic morality. Just as asceticism has shame at its basis, so altruism is a necessary continuation of pity as a moral foundation.

Soloviev notes that the predominance of the spirit over the flesh can be achieved by a person without giving this act a moral meaning: “... the power of the spirit over the flesh, or willpower, acquired through correct abstinence, can be used for immoral purposes. A strong will can be evil. A person can suppress lower nature in order to be conceited or proud of one's higher power; such a victory of the spirit is not good."

Consequently, asceticism as a moral principle does not contain unconditional good - for moral behavior it is necessary, but not sufficient, although in many religious teachings it was asceticism that was considered the only basis for correct behavior. “There have been and are successful ascetics not only people devoted to spiritual pride, hypocrisy and vanity, but also downright evil, insidious and cruel egoists. Admittedly, such an ascetic is much worse in a moral sense than a simple-minded drunkard and glutton, or a compassionate libertine.” .

Asceticism acquires moral meaning only in conjunction with altruism. Pity, which underlies altruism, connects a person with the world of all living things, while shame separates him from nature. Sympathy and participation in themselves are not the basis of moral behavior; they can also include self-interest, for example, joy together with someone brings pleasure. Pity, on the other hand, is disinterested: “... pity directly prompts us to act in order to save another being from suffering or help him. Such an action can be purely internal, for example, when pity for an enemy keeps me from causing him offense or harm, but even this, in in any case, there is an action, and not a passive state, like joy or pleasure. Of course, I can find inner satisfaction in the fact that I have not offended my neighbor, but only after the act of will has been completed."

Pity, regardless of its object, is a good feeling. A person is capable of feeling sorry for an enemy or a criminal; this kind of feeling will not be an excuse for a crime, but only a manifestation of a natural moral basis. "... Pity is good; a person who shows this feeling is called kind; the more deeply he experiences it and the more widely he applies it, the more kind he is recognized; a ruthless person, on the contrary, is called evil par excellence."

A person, pitying another, nevertheless clearly realizes that he is not identical to himself, but recognizes the object of his pity as having “the right to existence and possible well-being.” Thus, altruism affirms the principle of equality, the principle of correct relationships between people and living beings in general, justice, when I recognize for others the same feelings and rights that I myself have.

In this, the altruistic principle of morality echoes Vl. Solovyov with the categorical imperative of I. Kant, but does not repeat it: “In perfect inner agreement with the highest will, recognizing for all others the unconditional meaning or value, since they also have the image and likeness of God, take as full a part as possible in your work and general improvement for the sake of the final revelation of the Kingdom of God in the world."

Solovyov distinguishes between the internal essence of morality - the integrity of man, inherent in his nature, as an abiding norm, a formal principle of morality or a moral law of obligation and real manifestations of morality. Asceticism and altruism are precisely those real moral principles that, from Solovyov’s point of view, bring a person closer to the Absolute.

But real manifestations of morality even during the time of Vl. Solovyov, and today are far from perfect. This is due to the fact, according to Vl. Solovyov, that real humanity is “disintegrated humanity.” It is not concentrated and not raised by a single absolute interest in God, “it is scattered in its will between many relative and incoherent interests.” Solovyov warns that “the historical process is a long and difficult transition from bestial humanity to divine humanity.”

Moreover, Good does not have a universal and final realization for us. Virtue is never completely real. However, “the measure of goodness in humanity generally increases... in the sense that intermediate level universally binding and implementable moral requirements are increasing." Man can do a lot, but Vladimir Solovyov sees his main role in gathering the universe in an idea, but in reality only the God-man and the Kingdom of God can assemble the universe.

Moral improvement is possible thanks to reasonable freedom. “Morality rests entirely on rational freedom, or moral necessity, and completely excludes from its sphere irrational, unconditional freedom, or arbitrary choice.” And the choice defines the Good “with all the infinity of its positive content and being, therefore this choice is infinitely determined, its necessity was absolute, and there is no arbitrariness in it.”

This law, formulated by Vl. Solovyov, and there is a path to All-Unity. That is why “the moral nature of man is a necessary condition and presupposition of God-manhood,” and “moral life is revealed as a universal and all-embracing task.”

The importance of man as a moral being is fundamental for Vl. Solovyov. God-manhood as a goal cannot be realized without an active personality, morally self-organizing, spiritualizing the “collective man,” organic and inorganic nature. Endowing a person with the natural foundations of morality, which goes back to absolute Good, gives grounds to Vl. Solovyov speaks about the involvement of each member of society in the “absolute completeness of the whole” on the one hand, and on the other (and this is the originality of the philosopher’s approach), insist that the person himself is necessary “for this completeness no less than she is for him.”

It seems important to conclude Vl. Solovyov that the natural foundations of morality, its involvement in the Absolute Good is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the moral improvement of humanity on the path to All-Unity, since the human personality, possessing the infinity of its content due to involvement in the absolute fullness of God-manhood, nevertheless is only a possibility, not a reality. Today, says Vl. Solovyov, a person is characterized by blind submission to the external circumstances of life, and, above all, submission to a higher power, the Absolute God.