Essay on morality and immoral acts. Essay on the topic “Morality in action: a moral act”. To place an order or clarify the cost, please fill out the feedback form, and I will contact you as soon as possible

Each society educates its citizens on certain moral standards. Our parents tried to meet the moral principles of the builder of communism. The State of Ukraine upholds the democratic principles of the development of society. The encyclopedic dictionary explains the term "morality" as a system of views and ideas, norms and assessments that regulate people's behavior. The morality of ancient Rome justified gladiator fights, and the morality of ancient Sparta was aimed at educating warriors. The cruelest regimes found justification for their actions in public morality. Now people of all countries are striving to create a humanistic society and rely on the principles of God's morality. The ten commandments of Christ are also the moral principles of mankind.
I believe that each person, in addition to the great universal moral principles, has his own, his own. They are in relation to the closest people, to the world around, to study. Petty, at first glance, actions lay the foundations of a person's character. Nowadays, people look at learning much easier. I didn’t have time to do my homework - I wrote it off, I forgot a sandwich at home - I nibbled on a friend, got a bad mark - said that I had forgotten my diary.
It has been verified by more than one generation: one who has committed an immoral act at least once will not be able to resist in the future. This is how the morality of an opportunist, a liar, and sometimes a scoundrel is born. Therefore, I believe that one should not shout about lofty principles, they should be proved in practice. Only then will the moral principles of each of us become the moral principles of society when we are guided by positive intentions.
1. Understanding the term "morality" at different times of the existence of human society.
2. My understanding of morality.
3. The relationship between the morality of each individual and the morality of society.

Essay on literature on the topic: My understanding of morality

Other writings:

1. The Picture of Dorian Gray is called a characteristic piece of decadent prose. And nowhere did the decadent character of the author's own worldview manifest itself so clearly as in the objection to the morality of art. The very idea that beauty and morality have nothing in common is a subsoil Read More ......
2. The novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” is a social, philosophical and psychological novel. It seems to me that the psychological line is expressed most clearly in the novel. Crime occupies one part of the novel, and punishment - five parts. And Raskolnikov's punishment lies in moral suffering. In Read More ......
3. The protagonist of the novel is Radion Raskolnikov, a poor student who cannot pay for his studies at the University. He lives in terrible conditions: “his room is ten paces long, with yellow wallpaper that has peeled off the walls.” And despite this Read More ......
4. Euripides finds grateful material for depicting passions using the theme of love, which was almost completely untouched in the previous tragedy. Of particular interest in this respect is the tragedy Hippolytus. The myth of Hippolyta is one of the Greek variants of the widespread story about a treacherous wife who slanders Read More ......
5. Similarly, we sell, we give a prize as a souvenir! (Russian proverb) In our time, economic issues worry us much more than, for example, in the era of stagnation. This is understandable. To learn how to earn money well and honestly, you need to clearly understand economic issues. I believe Read More ......
6. “I tried to write the history of the people,” said Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy about the idea of ​​the novel “War and Peace”. Indeed, his greatest work in terms of its ideological content reflects the history of the life of the entire Russian people, all its strata, in the period before, during and Read More ......
7. When at the end of the lesson we were asked to write an essay on the topic “My Understanding of Happiness”, to be honest, I was confused. What to write about? Of course, I had many happy days and moments, but you had to choose the happiest one. And what does it mean - Read More ......
8. Very often, congratulating our friends or relatives, we wish them a peaceful sky over their heads. We do not want their families to be subjected to the hardships of the war. War! These five letters carry a sea of ​​blood, tears, suffering, and most importantly, the death of our dear Read More ......

IS THERE A PROGRESS IN MORALITY AND MORALITY

The theme of the relationship between the ethical categories of morality and morality and progress in general is not new; it has attracted the attention of thinkers in all eras and has always caused numerous disputes. Caused controversy, first of all, the possibility of applicability of the concept of "progress" to ethical categories, and secondly, the reality and possibility of progress itself in the theoretical formulation and practical application of these categories.

That is, when analyzing the problem of progress in morality and morality, one should highlight the issue of progress in ethical teachings and progress in the general moral state of society and in the personal code of conduct of an individual representative of this society.

Before attempting to deal with the question of the applicability of progress to the concepts of morality and morality, a distinction must be made between them. It is all the more difficult to do this because quite often, not only in philistine conversation, but also in scientific and philosophical literature, the concepts of "ethics", "morality" and "morality" are taken as synonyms. But still, it is worth recognizing that since there are different terms, then they are used to refer to different concepts.

Taking into account the above, we can define ethics as a consolidated philosophical discipline responsible for the harmonious integration of the formulated norms of behavior, their practical application and historical development. Accordingly, the generally accepted system of views and norms regarding good and evil is closer to the understanding of morality, generally accepted to a certain extent for all mankind, but can also be accepted for a limited group of people on professional, confessional, ethnic and other grounds. But every group and every community consists primarily of people for whom there is also their own understanding of good and evil and the practical implementation of this understanding, called morality. At the same time, the moral component of the worldview of an individual to one degree or another correlates with the morality accepted in society. Even the denial of generally accepted moral norms occurs along the lines of reflecting them.

If we assume the existence of progress, that is, a positive progressive change in the implementation of public morality and human morality, then it follows from this that we also assume the existence of criteria by which it is possible to assess the progressiveness of changes, if they occur. These should be such criteria, the significance of which would be preserved throughout the existence of society. And in general, is there a mandatory progressive change in morality and ethics?

In order to try to answer the questions posed, it is necessary to present the history of mankind as a certain, on the whole, a single process, stretched out in time. At the same time, the obligatory conditions also include the fact that humanity as a whole has been united throughout its history, but nevertheless consisting of, to one degree or another, autonomous social communities, in which, in turn, one can see the presence of a wide variety of groups, the degree of unity of which among themselves also differs greatly.

Awareness of the ethical side of relationships between people occurs at the most distant stage of history from our time and is connected, I think, with the need for joint activity, and joint activity here should be understood as almost all aspects of joint existence: getting food, giving birth and raising children, even the attitude to deceased relatives. Information about the moral attitudes and morality of behavior in this era is mostly conjectural and is partly based on data from archeology and physical anthropology, as well as on the basis of modeling based on ethnographic data of societies that have retained the primitive structure almost to the present. It is not yet timely to talk about any developed ethical doctrine in relation to such a society, but its moral principles were clearly systemic in nature, although the rationale for certain norms for a modern person may seem very strange.

With the beginning of written history, one can already quite definitely judge not only the development of ethical teachings, but also their implementation through transformation into moral norms, and, moreover, in connection with the moral state of society. In parallel, another regulatory system is developing - the law reflected in the legislation. And the basis for the formation of legal normative systems, in addition to the imperious will of the rulers and the economic and political interests of the elite, is the public morality formulated by the priestly class or worldly sages (philosophers). Moreover, formulated means not so much composed anew as recreated from tradition.

And in this regard, the question of the basis on which fundamental moral norms can be set is actualized. In this regard, already in ancient civilizations, the idea of ​​the universality of the basis for formulating ethical norms appears. In different parts of the planet, in conditions of almost complete isolation of each other, such universal concepts as justice, honor, kindness and others arise and develop. Examples of this are Ancient China with its Confucianism and theories of the path, Ancient Greece, where the very concept of ethics was formulated by Aristotle. True, the Romans, who replaced the Hellenistic powers, contributed practically nothing to the development of morality and morality, even their system of law was based to a greater extent on an undeveloped religious tradition, more like a trading system. The desire to reach a compromise with all possible forces operating in the surrounding world, avoiding ethical assessments, did not contribute to the improvement of the heritage of the Hellenistic world. To a certain extent, independently of Roman domination, a crisis of foundation arose for the formulation of morality. The conclusion of the ancient Greek philosophers that the necessity of a certain behavior is due to the very reasonableness of such behavior did not sound very convincing to the majority.

At the philistine level, moral norms acted more consecrated by tradition than by reasonable justifications. The elite periodically fell into an ideological crisis, accompanied by a decline in morals.

The solution of the problem with the justification of the origin (justification) of ethical norms was outlined as well as possible with the spread of monotheistic religions. Of course, in former social communities, morality was also justified to a large extent by religious ideas, but the presence within one polytheistic religion of several almost autonomous cults, and even the state or ethnic binding of mythology, with the development of empires, it was more and more leveled. The change of empires partly influenced the change in the religious and mythological content of moral norms, as, for example, in the era of Hellenism in Egypt. And any change in the fundamental social attitudes did not particularly contribute to the preservation of their value.

Monotheism, on the other hand, made moral norms immutable, given once and for all. The Jewish religion has not coped with the task of spreading its ideas within the framework of the familiar world, including its ethics through the institution of proselytes. But on the other hand, Christianity that came to replace it was able to make its ethics truly universal. Even the main and most powerful schism that took place in 1054 (the exchange of anathematizations between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople) was not enough to create several instead of one Christian morality. Christianity was divided on dogma, but not on ethics. At the same time, within the framework of the Christian worldview, such an ethical complex of moral norms and a moral way of life has developed that another monotheistic religion, Islam, could not surpass, despite a fair amount of rigor compared to the religion of Christ.

The processes taking place at the same time in the East could not reach the same level in terms of a transparent justification of morality, carried away by pluralism, and often this enthusiasm turned out to be so strong that moral perfection was actually replaced by the formation of certain physical skills and abilities (the practice of Buddhism, especially in zen).

The crisis was outlined only when, under the influence of first secularism, and then open atheism, it became necessary to look again for the basis for the existence of moral norms and values. The concepts of "humanism", "human rights" and "universal values" fixed in the terminological set, in reality, cannot serve as a justification for morality, since they themselves constantly require clarification, an absolute that could be relied upon is not found in secular ethics. In fact, non-religious ethics do not set norms, but state the way of thinking and behavior that has already been adopted by society, whether it is good or bad.

The results of the moral order were not long in coming - on the ethical plane, such concepts are gradually being established that for thousands of years within the framework of civilization were considered forbidden and opposite to morality - perversion, suicide and murder, not to mention the de facto established ethics of lies. At the same time, negatively deviant behavior tends to take the place of the norm.

Thus, progressive linear progress in morality and morality turned out to be a chimera. It would not be entirely correct to talk about progress in the field of morality and morality; rather, modern society has entered the stage of regression of moral norms and values ​​and their reflection in morality as a system of behavior.

"It is easy to preach morality, it is difficult to justify it." A. Schopenhauer.
What is morality? And why, according to Schopenhauer, is it difficult to substantiate it?
Morality is a part of spirituality, a form of social consciousness, it is a system of norms that regulate people's behavior, based on generally accepted ideas about good and evil. But the categories of good and evil are very vague, and when it comes to moral assessment, difficulties begin. Let's try to figure out why.
To understand the essence of morality, let's compare it with another regulator of human relations - law. Morality, like law, is normative in nature, but differs from law in its meaningful, informal nature. Moral prescriptions, norms and principles are not always clearly fixed. Morality is addressed to a person as a person who can control his actions, and who is not alien to the concepts of conscience, duty, responsibility. However, a person always has the right to choose how to act. Abortion is now legal in many countries. That is, a woman bears a huge moral responsibility - whether to save the unborn child or interrupt the thread of his life. From the point of view of the law, these actions will not be murder. And from the point of view of morality, abortion is wrong and public opinion has a negative attitude towards such a decision. But if a woman cannot provide for her unborn child, if she is mortally ill, then how can one evaluate her actions from the point of view of morality? More questions than answers.
Morality is regulated not only through self-control, but also from the outside. That is, society as a whole monitors, regulates and evaluates the actions of a particular individual.
During the Great Patriotic War, Stalin issued an order: "Not a step back!", Which obviously doomed people to death. In this way, he wanted to save the country and the whole world from fascism. Perhaps, in that difficult, tragic situation for the country, it was impossible to do otherwise.
However, historians are still arguing about whether the price was not too high for the victory.
This is the exclusivity of morality - the inability to clearly justify it. For each individual and the time when he lives, there is a concept of morality, morality.
Given all of the above, I fully agree with Schopenhauer on this topic. Morality is something voluminous, it is a social regulator of life, very flexible and not subject to pen. As Karl Marx said, "Moral force cannot be created by paragraphs of law." There are too many exceptions to this rule, in my opinion.

"Spare criminals, harm honest people". (Seneca)
The outstanding philosopher Seneca lived during the time of the Roman Empire. What did he mean by this phrase? By not punishing criminals at all, or by not punishing them properly, we harm honest, law-abiding citizens. And although many centuries have passed since then, the words of Seneca remain relevant. And I agree with his opinion, the essence of the crime remained the same. Who are the criminals? These are the people who committed the crime. According to the definition, a crime is a public act that encroaches on the rule of law, as provided for by the criminal code. Features of the crime are the wrongfulness of the act, guilt, special social danger, severe punishment. If the first two characteristics are true for any offense, then the last two - for a crime. This suggests that if an offense may affect a person indirectly, then people face crime directly. Crimes can be classified: against the person, against sexual inviolability, against the family and minors, in the sphere of the economy, planning and unleashing war, illegal manufacture, storage and sale of narcotic drugs, and others. Of course, all this harms people. Here we can focus on two aspects. First, if the perpetrator is not punished, then criminal acts can be repeated. This is even the subject of films. Among the latter is the series "Deadly Force", where the mother-judge covers up her son, who committed a robbery with the murder of two policemen. Their acquittal by the court moved him to new crimes.
The second aspect of the problem is the victims. Seeing that the court cannot punish, many take the path of lynching. Here, again, one can recall another Russian TV series "Kamenskaya", where juvenile delinquents killed the only son in a military family. After that, the mother lost her mind, and the father began to adjust the death of the perpetrators.
Are these examples unique in your opinion? Unfortunately no. Open any newspaper and on the "Crime" page you will come across similar information. Therefore, despite the past centuries, I consider the words of Seneca to be relevant and topical today.

“I saw further than others only because I stood on the shoulders of giants”. (I. Newton)
These words would be difficult to understand without knowing their author. But knowing that the author of this statement is Newton, one of the most prominent scientists of mankind, we can understand their meaning. I think the "giants" on whose shoulders Newton stood were the predecessor scientists and the education they received. Education is a purposeful cognitive activity aimed at obtaining knowledge, abilities, skills or their improvement. Newton was an outstanding physicist, mechanic, astronomer and mathematician. It was the knowledge that Newton possessed that allowed him to see further than others and discover his own laws in physics, mathematics and astronomy. He had to learn the knowledge that was known before him. This knowledge served as a ladder to the shoulders of the giants. This ladder for Newton was the University of Cambridge, where he received his basic education. Self-education also played a big role. The knowledge gained at the university about the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Huygens was later refined and substantiated by Newton. The law of universal gravitation substantiated the geocentric system of the world of Copernicus, and Newton's three laws completed the works of Galileo, Descartes, Huygens and other physicists. It is unlikely that Newton was able to discover these laws, being unfamiliar with the teachings of his predecessors. This speaks of one of the models for the development of science: the model of gradual development. The essence of the model is expressed in the assertion that the origins of any new knowledge can be found in the past, and the work of a scientist should be reduced to a careful study of the work of his predecessors. And each of us is able to climb on the shoulders of giants and see further than others. After all, the world around us is not known to the end. And you can get closer to a complete knowledge of the world only by getting an education and applying the knowledge gained to create your own scientific theories, which can become the property of all mankind.

To be proud of one's nation is patriotism, to brag about one's nationality is nationalism" (I.N. Shevelev)
Shevelev is certainly right in his statement. What a wonderful feeling - patriotism! Pride in our people and the richest history of the nation, respect and reverence for the traditions of our ancestors - all this gives rise in us to love for our common Motherland. Were it not for patriotism in the souls of our ancestors, we would not have been able to honorably leave Berlin in 1945 victorious, not defeated. It is a terrible phenomenon, however, when love and respect for the Motherland turn into a feeling of hatred for other people and peoples, and praise and ascension to heaven is only one’s own.
The philosopher Nietzsche once sang the idea of ​​a superman and a supernation. Thus, according to Nietzsche, the nation of the Aryans has a full set of the best qualities and no other can be compared with it. Nietzsche's ideas were inspired by such great tyrants as Mussolini and Hitler. It was in Italy that fascism was first born, and in Germany - nationalism and such a terrible concept as chauvinism appeared. Chauvinism is an extreme form of nationalism, even leading to armed clashes between nations.
We must love and be proud of our nation, but, in addition, respect other nations and the rights of their citizens. If people follow this instruction, then the line between patriotism and nationalism will never be erased!!!

We were civilized enough to build a machine, but too primitive to use it.(Karl Kraus)
The statement of Karl Kraus, an Austrian writer, that “we were civilized enough to build a machine, but too primitive to use it”, is true and remains relevant at the present time, because now, more than ever, the question of the interaction of man and technology, nature and civilization.
The scientific and technological revolution brought to the fore the problem of applying a new type of technology. It should be noted that the development of technology went not only along the path of its complication, but also in the direction of improving its quality and reliability. All those advantages that were achieved due to the technical improvement of machines were almost often nullified by inaccurate, untimely human actions. And all because this technique made it possible to solve fundamentally new problems, but at the same time created completely new working conditions for a person. The complex processes inherent in the new technology required from a person such a speed of perception and processing of information, which in some cases exceeded his capabilities. If, moreover, we take into account that such tasks had to be solved in unusual or extreme conditions (for example, on an airplane under conditions of overload, lack of oxygen, etc.), in conditions of high responsibility for the success of work (for example, in production, where the cost of a mistake is very high ), it will become obvious how significantly the conditions of human life have changed over the past decades.
More and more nature becomes an object of technological exploitation, it loses its sacred character. The idea expressed by Bacon is strengthened: "Knowledge is power." However, not everything that man has invented has benefited him. For example, the discovery of nuclear energy allowed people to conserve natural resources and at the same time caused massive destruction and death. As a result, this seemingly peaceful discovery gave rise to such a global problem as the danger of a world nuclear missile war.
I fully agree with the statement of Karl Kraus and conclude that the reason for the low efficiency of the new technique was not the person who, with his mistakes, prevented its successful application, but the technique itself, which was created without taking into account the psycho-physiological capabilities of the person controlling it and actually provoked his mistakes. This once again proves that a person is too primitive to fully use the technique he created.

What is morality? Everyone understands this word in their own way. According to the generally accepted understanding, morality is the generally accepted ideas in society about good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil, as well as a set of norms of behavior arising from this definition.

Does our society follow moral laws? In my opinion, not always and not all. Modern society lives by different laws. These are material laws and laws of force. Often today, the one who is stronger, who has more money, is right. And this no longer surprises anyone. Young people, seeing this, are also hungry for profit and power. You can often hear that you should go to the goal even over your heads, that the most important thing is power and material wealth. But it's not.

Morality is the most important thing that should be in society. Moral laws have come to us since ancient times. Even our ancient ancestors lived with them. Since ancient times, murders and thefts, lies and all kinds of evil manifestations have been condemned. Our ancestors knew that only by adhering to such laws can one remain human.

Today people, alas, forget the laws of morality. More and more of those who believe that it is not necessary to adhere to moral principles, because they will not help to achieve the goal. But it depends what the goal is. If it's all about getting rich or getting a good job, then maybe it is. But if we are talking about becoming a whole person who strives for self-improvement and self-development, then this cannot be achieved without observing moral laws.

Now, looking at young people, one might sometimes think that they do not know the laws of morality. Young people can easily use obscene language in public places, rarely show respect for elders (for example, they give up their seat on a bus or minibus) ... And the worst thing is that they forget that a person should do good. On the Internet, you can often see how guys bully cats or dogs, or, in general, people. How many videos are posted where we see cruelty and violence! Today, one can often observe a picture when, during a fight or even an accident, young people, instead of calling the police or reconciling the participants in the fight, film what is happening on the phones. Then it is laid out on the Internet ... And, no matter how scary it is, today it no longer surprises anyone! What kind of morality are we talking about? Who can grow out of such teenagers? What will tomorrow's society be like?

I don't want to live among people who think only about themselves, who don't give a damn about everyone and everything. I want the future to be built on the laws of morality and goodness. So it is not too late to change ourselves and thus change our future! It should only be recognized that there is nothing more important than the laws of morality!

* * *

Slaves of morality. Who is it? These are all those people who are active carriers of certain moral rules, attitudes, norms, views, and so on. To be an active carrier means to share and follow all these rules in life. (But why slaves? Why not such a combination of the words “slave” and “morality”? I will answer this question a little later.) These norms refer to a special form of social consciousness based on the normative regulation of human actions in society. Regulation occurs through society's evaluation of a person's actions from the standpoint of the categories of good and evil, justice and injustice, honor and dishonor, and the like. Morality regulates the behavior and consciousness of a person, to one degree or another, in all spheres of public life without exception - in work, in everyday life, in politics and science, in family, personal, interclass and international relations, and others. Morality belongs to the main types of normative regulation, such as law, customs, traditions, and intersects with them, and at the same time differs significantly from them. Unlike legal norms, the rules of morality are not written down in laws, they are supported by the power of public opinion, customs, habits and upbringing, the power of a person's inner motives. They have the status of "tacit", "unwritten". They determine the attitude of a person to society, to the peoples of other countries, to the family, and so on. The fulfillment of the requirements of morality can be controlled by all people without exception and by each individually. The authority of a person in morality is not associated with real power, but is a spiritual authority based on his own moral qualities.

Morality is universal. This statement is not an absolute law, but a regularity, since there are people who do not accept universal moral prescriptions at all, moreover, they deny them and act contrary to them. But the vast majority of the world's population (the developed population, except for various Papuans and the like) share common moral standards. General moral norms include, for example, well-known commandments from religion. Rules of this kind are the pillars that hold most of society together. I will call these norms the norms of the first, basic, level. Over the course of the development of mankind, a huge number of new installations have accumulated on these general rules, penetrating into all corners of social relations and regulating them. And they, on the one hand, begin to interfere with living freely and developing, but this is only on the one hand, however, more on that later. Of course, I have nothing against the basic settings, I completely share them. Moreover, those people who deny such fundamental values ​​as life, freedom and everything that follows from it should be isolated from society, sent to forced re-education, because action against these values ​​leads to undermining the foundations of human society. As for the moral attitudes of the next level, the second, there is already confusion in their acceptance and adherence to them. Some people believe (and they are still in the minority) that speculation, treason, fawning, lies, theft are permissible phenomena, other people - on the contrary. Some believe that all means are good to achieve the goal, others do not think so. These differences are explained by the unequal development of those social societies, groups in which these people are located. The differentiability of development is due to historical prerequisites, economic, economic conditions. For the most part, being determines human consciousness. Such people who, solely for their own reasons, do not accept the moral norms of the second level are a minority. And from the position of the majority of people who follow these norms, people who deny them are characterized as immoral. People who do not accept the basic moral principles, not only are they immoral, in the spiritual dimension they cannot be called people. After all, if there are doubts about whether it is possible to kill a person, and until such doubts are resolved, and this process will take place, in the sense of a mass character, then there will be no need to talk about any development of society, not to mention the implementation of moral norms second level. Therefore, I a priori proceed from the fact that the basic moral principles of the first level are shared by absolutely all members of society. This is a pattern. Henceforth I will speak only of the moral norms of the second level. Based on the above reasoning, we can confidently conclude that the morality of the second level is of a class nature. If the word "class" causes confusion, then you can replace it with any other synonym, for example, "group", or even "class". Regardless, the core content of this entire synonymous series has the same essence. (But whatever one may say, the ideologists of Marxism-Leninism, as always, are on friendly terms with the true state of things.) If there are groups, classes, then there is an act of division, which in turn excludes the state of unity. So the society is fragmented.

Morality, in a good sense of the word, is infected with a large part of society. And what then are value, and if from the standpoint of the majority of society - anti-value attitudes, of a minority of people who oppose generally accepted morality? Can their views be called morality? Again, from the standpoint of the moral majority, no, of course not. And from the position of their minority? It seems to me that theoretically one can also call their system a kind of morality; for them, the morality of the majority can also be immoral. But in my reasoning, I, nevertheless, will proceed from the fact that people who go against the moral principles of the majority are immoral and represent one big reactionary force.

How can I place, implement and link to the existing concepts in my reasoning the concepts of “masters”, “slaves”? Who are moral people? Probably slaves to their morals. Does their position correspond to the coloring that the word “slave” carries in itself? I think no. A slave state is an oppressed, suppressed, disenfranchised state. Are moral people moral? No. By their original nature, by their original state, they are not slaves. They can become slaves, and become when they enter into certain relationships. But if they are all equal, what type of relationship labels them as a slave? And this is precisely the relationship with the very social reactionary force mentioned above. The smallest immoral part of society. These relationships are the result of the natural course of things. For a handful of immoral people in the conditions of being in the vast majority of moral people, excellent development prospects open up. If an immoral person wants to achieve some high position, then he will go to his plan, disregarding all morality, guided by the principle "to achieve the goal - all means are good." Accordingly, free from moral attitudes, he will achieve his goal better and faster. After all, he will not experience any significant competition from the absolute majority of a society that develops on the basis of moral principles, and such a state as remorse. An immoral person, having stolen, lied, pandered, will come to the goal much faster. Just, in most cases, such people are at the top of managerial, coordinating structures, leading the rest of the moral society. If you rise above this whole structure and look at it from a height, then it is quite possible to consider a large moral part of society as slaves. Slaves of their morality, which did not allow them to achieve access to a high position, to the distribution of material wealth. And the slaves of a spoiled handful of people who stood at the "helm". And, unfortunately, this is an objective reality, the actual state of affairs, the alignment of forces. And in such an arrangement, access to higher positions is closed to a moral person, since he will be a threat to the domination of an ungodly handful of people, a threat to the current system in which a moral society is a slave to an indecent bunch of immorals, and they, in turn, are his master. And moral people, at times, cannot oppose this situation, cannot revolt, go to bloodshed, because their own moral attitudes do not allow them. In all this, in my opinion, lies the weakness of the slaves of morality. And what is their strength? Strength lies in their ability to unite. They can unite, and their morality will easily allow them to do so. Morality will play the role of a consolidating substratum that fills all spaces of human relationships. As for the merits of a structure that can be described as a single, close-knit, friendly, powerful one, I think it's not worth talking about, it's obvious. The “morality” of the immorals will not allow them to unite, they, based on their “morality”, are a disunited group of individualists, they are more likely to fight for influence, for a high position, than to unite. Therefore, the slaves of morality need to take advantage of their advantage, their strength, contained in unity, and give battle to vice, obscenity, immorality, debauchery, corruption! Also, the strength of the slaves of morality will be manifested in the fact that they will be able to forgive the defeated and, instead of destroying them, subject them to re-education. The ability to forgive, to forgive disinterestedly is also a kind of power that is inherent only in people of high morality. With the destruction of classes (well, it doesn’t work without Marxist-Leninist terminology - it’s so powerful), or rather the class of immorals, the moral part of society will lose the status of a “class”, and there will be one single moral society. And it will no longer be possible to apply the concept of a “slave” of morality to him. It will be a free and, at the same time, a disciplined society, which is the main postulates of rapid and high-quality development. And when all its members are highly moral people, then development in an immoral way within the framework of this society will be simply impossible.

As for Nietzsche, his views on morality. It follows from his philosophy thatressentimentappears as a driving force in the process of formation and structuring of moral values. Yes, there is such a moment in the formation of morality - I agree with him. But originally there was morality, I believe, not out of a sense of revenge. Morality began to emerge in its proto-forms - various systems of taboos and prohibitions. They began to appear in primitive communal society. People began to understand that if they kill each other, at least within the community, this is a regression, there will be no development. Thus, over time, a ban on killing one's neighbor was formed, and other prohibitions also arose in a similar way. Then, gradually accumulated rules, which constitute the backbone of future morality, were influenced by changes in societies, modes of production, production relations. The slave era came, and then people began to form a sense of revenge, because of the oppression they experienced from the slave owners. I agree with Comrade Nietzsche, if I understood him correctly, that the impotence of the slaves of morality, their internally intense experience of this helplessness is so emotional that the emotion, as it were, plunges into the center of the personality, thereby moving away from the personality's zone of action. This emotion is constantly experienced again and again. Forms negative qualities and feelings. And if there is no way to rebel, then the slave, in fact, directs this hatred towards himself, by creating ascetic ideals. These ideals contributed to the formation of culture and morality, but in part they were meaningless.

I don't quite agree, or rather I can't even imagine that the Jews overestimated the values ​​of their masters. What now, the noble and powerful have become hated, evil, and the oppressed and the poor - good and pious, thanks to the Jews. It seems to me that the noble and powerful long before the creation of Christianity were considered insatiable and cruel. Slavery existed for a long time before the advent of Christianity, and, therefore, slaves have long created such an assessment. And it has been transmitted in the public consciousness from time immemorial. Even more, I do not agree with the position of Nietzsche, who, in fact, stood up for the masters, the aristocracy. If only pure aristocrats exist, they will never develop, they will just indulge in pleasures, and without physical labor, by mental reflection alone, they will not achieve much. And their oppression of other people is disgusting! (Here I am acting as a classic slave of morality, giving an expressive assessment of oppression.) Society, as I said above, will develop effectively only in the presence of freedom and order. So the Jews only reinforced, but did not create, the already existing dissatisfaction with the masters in society, by creating a religion. And in general, the basic prohibitions on which morality was formed did not come from religion, but arose at the very beginning of the formation of a primitive communal society. (These are prohibitions on murder, theft, incest.) Jews, I agree with Nietzsche, have some kind of special state, not that of the world messiah, but significant enough, piercing for everyone. They harmed the masters as well, having created an ideological basis for the further uprising of the slaves of morality, and harm the rest of the world with their negative traits. The main pernicious, corrupting feature of the world order is usury, from which the current world economy and ordinary people suffer. This nasty property was transferred from them to other peoples, but the benefit was not fully. If everyone is usurers, the world cannot exist. And the Jews themselves seem to have settled down quite well: having risen, they overthrew the masters and took their place. Now all the most influential structures are Jewish, the most influential people are Jews. They, through financial mechanisms hidden from the layman, just mentioned by Nietzsche, the mechanisms of relations between creditors and debtors, control more than half of the world.

I do not see anything unusual in the fact that slaves form their morality based on opposing themselves to an external aggressive source. That they themselves, like gentlemen, generate their image based on their own independent ideas. This is quite understandable by the specific historical conditions in which the formation of the morality of the slaves took place, after all, they were oppressed, and it is natural that in this case, they first needed to get rid of the oppressors, opposing themselves to them. After that, moral norms would no longer be formed to such a large degree of dependence on external conditions.

To sum it up, I ultimately, for the most part, still disagree with Nietzsche. Instead of being touched by free aristocratic gentlemen, glorifying their independent noble position, it is better to take a more difficult path. Along the way of destroying master relations, along the way of overcoming the morality of the herd instinct among slaves, the effect of the crowd, building a truly free and equal community of developed individuals, creating a highly moral, disciplined, responsible society, a society of dynamic development and prosperity!

Puleshkov Evgeny