Basic concepts of the course ethics morality. General issues of human morality and ethics

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RF

NOVOSIBIRSK STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Business

Department of Service Economics

Abstract on the discipline “Professional ethics and etiquette”

The relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality”, “morality”

Completed by a student

Golubova A.V.

group St-63

Checked by the assistant professor

Zagorskaya L. M.

Novosibirsk, 2008

Introduction

1. The emergence of ethics.

2. What is morality?

3. The concept of morality.

4. Morals and ethics.

5. Ethics and morality.

6. The relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality”, “morality”.

Conclusion

List of used literature

Additional sources of information

Introduction

The concepts of morality, ethics, and ethics are among the most common in language, and at the same time, among the most ambiguous and vague. Moral problems appear to be among the most important for humans.

The question of the essence of ethics, morality and ethics, as well as their differences and relationships, has been asked by many philosophers and thinkers, starting with Aristotle.

This question remains relevant and in our time, due to the fact that a certain “revaluation of values” is currently taking place in Russian society.

Purpose My abstract is to establish the relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality” and “morality”.

I set myself the following tasks :

1. define the exact explanation of these terms individually;

2. correlate these concepts and identify their essence in interaction with each other.

1. The emergence of ethics

One cannot speak of the emergence of ethics as a system of moral norms in the same sense in which one speaks of the emergence of sciences or philosophy in general. Ethics is not created through theoretical interest in a particular area of ​​reality, like most sciences, it is determined by the very fact of social life. Morality does not arise in human society at a certain point in time, but is inherent in it, in one form or another, at all stages of its development. Everywhere and at all times, the will of a person living in a society of his own kind was bound by moral norms of the most diverse content, in the form of customs, religious or state institutions. In this sense, morality precedes knowledge and is often even a powerful stimulus for its development: it is primarily in the field of morality that philosophical thought arises. The moral, perceived at first as an unaccountable ought, requires over time its justification as necessary to achieve the goals revealed to the mind. At the same time, moral teleology inevitably leads to philosophical ontology: the “ought” is clarified with the help of philosophical knowledge of the “existent”. Despite this priority of morality in the development of social and individual human consciousness, the first historically known attempts scientific ethics arise relatively late, already on the basis of a completely clearly defined philosophical cosmology. If morality, as the worldly wisdom of social legislators, should be recognized as existing in ancient times, then morality, as a philosophical theory, can only be stated after Socrates.

2. What is morality?

Morality (lat. moralis - relating to morals) is one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions. Morality covers moral views and feelings, life orientations and principles, goals and motives of actions and relationships, drawing the line between good and evil, conscience and dishonesty, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice, normality and abnormality, mercy and cruelty, etc.

There is a point of view about the physical foundations of morality, morality is objective, it is a set of immutable laws of Nature, the observance of which contributes to the development of higher consciousness, and their violation causes a drop in vital energy and human degradation. However, this opinion is far from indisputable and practically unfounded.

Morality is aimed at uniformity in the regulation of relationships and reducing conflict in society.

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

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

Morality is formed mainly as a result of upbringing, to a lesser extent - as a result of the action of the mechanism of empathy or the adaptation process. An individual's morality, as an imperative subconscious mechanism, does not lend itself well to conscious critical analysis and correction.

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

3. The concept of morality.

The criterionological approach to the category of morality requires, first of all, to achieve understanding and orientation in the space of life and, in general, natural criteria in order to build a system of assessment of knowledge of the highest level. Such a desire is very difficult to fulfill, because morality in itself is already such an evaluative system high level, allowing humanity and each individual to correlate virtually any actions and thoughts with each other.

When we try to comprehend this concept, we first of all note that the concept of morality combines in a special way, if not successfully, the knowledge of human civilization about the ideal and reality: the ideal attracts reality to itself, forcing it to change according to moral principles.

In addition, this category, as an expanded concept, combines the essential social root cause of people’s real actions: they voluntarily take upon themselves personal responsibilities to conform their actions to certain general ideas (general mores) and to correlate these actions and their thoughts with the goals, objectives, and criteria of society . In another way, life turns into a Game with a Win for Everyone.

Therefore, we can talk about morality only from the standpoint of a person’s voluntarily assumed responsibilities to society or to that Higher Power from the space of Consciousness of Nature, which corresponds to the general idea, egregoric image, God, standing above a given society and person and which leads this society and this person along the path of life.

Egoistic morality cannot exist. Therefore, we can remove the liberal (egoistic) reproach that Jesus Christ brought communist ideology to humanity: any spiritual and moral teaching, including those that arose before Jesus Christ, forces, first of all, to evaluate from the top of society. And the USSR collapsed not at all because the communist ideology was unviable; on the contrary, it lacked precisely the spiritual heights such as those found, for example, in Confucianism and Taoism.

However, egregors, like the individuals and societies they lead, can be different heights according to the level of spiritual potential, and therefore different in quality, strength, charge (positive-negative), breadth of coverage, and so on. And therefore, one person’s idea of ​​God does not coincide with another’s idea of ​​Him; one person’s personal God will never coincide with another person’s personal God. And although the spiritual height of each person’s egregor is assessed, “measured”, from the height of general morals, nevertheless, the understanding of morality is different for different people. Morality is as relative as any other truth.

Moral problems are studied by ethics. However, speaking of different types corporate ethics, first of all, we should talk about morality not as morality. Because morality is either a historically changeable or professional set of rules and norms of behavior of people, formulated by them on the basis of their experience, spiritual and relationship experience. Morality acts as a certain absolute law (imperative) of attraction of the human spirit (I. Kant), and simply ethics becomes spiritual ethics.

4. Morality and ethics.

In the Russian language there are two related concepts - morality and morality. What is the relationship between them? In ethics, there are attempts to “separate” these concepts. The most famous is the idea of ​​Hegel, who connected morality with the sphere of the proper, ideal, and morality with the sphere of reality, reality. There is a big difference between what people take for granted and what they actually do.

Defining “morality” (“morality”) is much more difficult than defining “ethics,” which is due to the complexity and multifaceted nature of the subject itself. We can highlight the following, the most generally valid definitions of “morality”.

1) Morality is “the internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person; ethical standards, rules of behavior determined by these qualities.” IN this definition morality comes down to certain spiritual qualities of a person, as well as certain norms and principles of behavior, i.e. to a certain form of consciousness. However, the moral dimension of society, as well as practical moral activity, is not adequately taken into account here. Therefore, in Russian-language Soviet ethics in the 70s of the 20th century, another, more broad concept morality.

2) Morality is a special, imperative-evaluative way of mastering reality through the dichotomy (opposition) of good and evil. The connection of this concept of morality with a person who can only evaluate and command is obvious. Morality is thus understood as a subjective form of existence, although universal for humans. But what about the attitude towards nature? Can it be moral? Do living beings other than humans have moral self-worth? Moral intuition answers these questions positively, but they turn out to be insoluble for the subjectivist approach to morality, which connects morality only with a person, with interpersonal and social relations. Therefore, an even broader definition of morality is legitimate.

3) Morality is a set of values ​​of good and evil, as well as the corresponding forms of consciousness, relationships, and actions. This definition of morality will be considered by us as the main one.

In Russian, the concepts of morality and morality are different shades. Morality, as a rule, implies the presence of an external evaluative subject (other people, society, church, etc.). Morality is more focused on the inner world of a person and his own beliefs.

Morality in a broad sense is a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations.

Morality in the narrow sense is a set of principles and norms of behavior of people in relation to each other and society.

Morality is a value structure of consciousness, a way of regulating human actions in all spheres of life, including work, life and attitude towards the environment.

5. Ethics and morality.

An etymological analysis of the word “ethics” suggests that the term “ethics” comes from the ancient Greek word “ethos”, which meant “custom”, “temperament”, “character”. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) from the term “ethos” formed the adjective “ethicos” - ethical. He identified two types of virtues: ethical and intellectual. Aristotle included such positive qualities of human character as courage, moderation, generosity, etc. as ethical virtues. He called ethics the science that studies these virtues. Later, ethics was assigned to designate the content of the science of morality. Thus, the term "ethics" originated in the 4th century BC.

The term "morality" originated in the conditions of Ancient Rome, where the Latin language had a word similar to the ancient Greek "ethos" and this word is "mos", meaning "temper", "custom", that is, almost the same as the ancient Greek word " it with". Roman philosophers and among them Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) formed the adjective “moralis” from the term “mos”, and from it then the term “moralitas” - morality. By etymological origin, the ancient Greek term “ethics” and the Latin “morality” are the same.

The term "morality" comes from the ancient Slavic language, where it comes from the term "mores", denoting customs established among the people. In Russia, the word “morality” is defined in its use in print in the “Dictionary of the Russian Academy”, published in 1793.

What is the difference between ethics and morality?

It is well known that the words “ethics” and “morality” are close in meaning, interchangeable and often complementary (as, for example, in the clerical-ideological phrase “moral-ethical”); in any case, the lack of a clear distinction between them does not lead to any significant misunderstandings in ordinary communication. Another thing is a specialized philosophical and scientific context: the need for a clear distinction between ethics and morality is determined here not only by the general orientation of theoretical consciousness to give key terms as precise and individual meaning as possible (not intersecting with other terms), but also by the fact that the blur The semantic boundaries between these terms hide behind a number of unresolved (and sometimes simply not identified) methodological problems that ultimately leave their mark on all the specific problems of the corresponding field of research. Therefore in in this case clarification of terms, i.e. some streamlining of research tools is also associated with the formulation and justification of a certain approach to solving problems more general plan(knowledge - value, structure of ethics, specificity of morality, etc.).

Of course, the broad synonymy of ethics and morality that persists both in common use and in theory is not accidental; it has its own historical reasons: these terms have the same, or, rather, closely intertwined Greco-Latin roots: the Latin word moralis is a translation from the Greek adjective " ethical". Nevertheless, behind the formal identity of the terms under consideration, from the very beginning one can notice some - very significant - difference in the content and method of using the terms under consideration. This difference was expressed in the fact that “ethics” and “morality” were actually used to reflect different aspects of that broad and multifaceted area of ​​​​human existence, which the Greeks and Latins called, respectively, “ethos” and “mos” (“mores”) and which in in the Russian language it is most closely conveyed by the words “mores”, “customs”, “characters”, etc. “Ethics” from the moment of its appearance (if we take Aristotle’s “Ethics” as a starting point) was understood as a special specialized, rational-reflective, mental activity within (and about) the existing “ethos”, and the activity is not just cognitive (i.e. describing and explaining real morals), but also critically instructive, or value-oriented, to use later terminology; in this case, evaluative dichotomies such as “good - bad”, “virtuous - vicious”, “fair - unfair”, etc. were used. Actually, “morality” was initially associated with norms, assessments, principles, maxims expressed in these concepts; however, if for “morality” these specific norms, ideals, etc., formed in the structure of ethos and regulating to a certain extent human behavior, constituted its very body, then “ethics” developed precisely as a special philosophical discipline, as a practical philosophy, it operated with norms and ideals, built from them systems or codes based on a few common principles or sources, and proclaimed these systems as different life programs competing with each other.

Thus, the first (in time and in essence) demarcation of the concepts of ethics and morality was associated with the distinction, on the one hand, between doctrinally and (or) disciplinary life teachings (received the name ethics), and on the other, a set of special regulatory norms and principles, constituting the content of ethical teachings and (or) spontaneously formed and functioning in real societies (i.e., everything that is most often denoted by the word “morality”).

Thus, speaking about the relationship between ethics and morality, we must first clarify the concept of ethics, because one part of the conglomerate that is usually called by this word is part of morality itself, while the other component is knowledge (or science) about the phenomenon of morality. The fact that historically established ethics includes these two parts is expressed in modern definitions of ethics, fixing its dual status as “practical philosophy” and “moral science” (3). Such definitions, in my opinion, are “additive” in nature, i.e. here we summarize the incompatible features that essentially belong to different disciplines, only externally- due to a long tradition - united by the common name of ethics, but actually dividing its inheritance. “Practical philosophy” and “moral science” are not different branches, or aspects, or functions of the same “ethics”; the boundary between them is determined by the criteria by which the demarcation of two forms of consciousness is made - value and cognitive, respectively.

There are other theoretical perspectives in which ethics and morality can be compared. Thus, in the Anglo-American one-volume encyclopedia on ethics, in a special article devoted to the issue under consideration, the difference between ethics and morality is seen in the fact that the former includes universal, fundamental, unchangeable principles expressing the most important values ​​and beliefs of the individual and society, while the second contains more specific and variable rules through which these general principles are implemented (4). But if the interpretation of morality as an expression of “higher values” in social norms and human actions is indeed one of the accepted ways of defining this concept, then linking ethics precisely and only with these highest values ​​seems quite arbitrary. Obviously, the author of the article “Ethics/moralitydistinction” had in mind the fact that classical ethics always started from one or another higher principle, on the basis of which the corresponding life teaching was built; However, it does not at all follow from this fact that ethics is identical to these initial principles themselves, and morality is only their concretization.

A more in-depth interpretation of the relationship between ethics and morality is given in another English-language encyclopedia, which also contains an article on this topic (6). The article states that "ethics is a broader concept" than morality and "includes much that is not contained in morality." In this sense, “ethics (especially ancient) forms an alternative to morality: it does not have the characteristic narrow features of morality, although it still touches on moral issues, namely, how we should live and what we should do.”

The rational meaning of the above statement consists, in my opinion, in stating the fact that the historical paths of ethics and morality have diverged over time: “ethics” (if we leave aside its additional functions of describing and explaining a moral phenomenon mentioned above) is still understood as practical philosophy, life science, i.e. preaching and defending certain positive values, denoted by the words “good”, “duty”, “happiness”, “love”, etc.; the concept of morality has been narrowed and specified, so that not everything “good” and “ought” has the status of morally good and proper. Thanks to Kant, the difference between the specifically moral “categorical” imperative and the “hypothetical”, non-moral imperatives that are full of traditional ethics from antiquity to our time was realized. In other words, this or that ethical teaching may not be moral in its value orientation; it may declare some extra-moral values, including those that contradict generally accepted moral norms. Another thing is that such a possibility has never been realized in its pure form, and even hedonistic-eudaimonic life programs and Nietzschean invective towards universal morality was accompanied by explicit or, more often, implicit justifications and justifications from the standpoint of the same universal moral values.

Of course, already ancient thinkers, as is clear from the texts that have reached us, noticed the special position of those values ​​that we now call “moral”, among other value systems, but this special status was not conceptually and terminologically formalized, the boundaries between the strictly moral (in in the later understanding of this word) and other values ​​were vague and easily violated. Therefore, the value spectrum of ethical teachings has always been (and remains to this day) much richer and more diverse than the actual differences of philosophers in their moral positions (especially if we mean differences not in specific moral assessments and norms, but in the interpretation general principles morality).

Preserved in modern language philosophy and science, the excessive substantive similarity of the concepts of “ethics” and “morality”, manifested, in particular, in the fact that “ethics” is almost always defined through “morality”, leads, on the one hand, to an unjustified narrowing of the subject of ethics, and on the other - to an equally unjustified broad interpretation of morality, to the erosion of its specificity.

6. The relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality”, “morality”.

Thus, etymologically, the terms “ethics”, “morality” and “morality” arose in different languages ​​and at different times, but mean a single concept - “character”, “custom”. In the course of the use of these terms, the word “ethics” began to denote the science of morality and morality, and the words “morality” and “morality” began to denote the subject of the study of ethics as a science. In ordinary usage, these three words can be used as identical. For example, they talk about the ethics of a teacher, meaning his morality, that is, his fulfillment of certain moral requirements and norms. Instead of the expression “moral standards” the expression “ethical standards” is used.

There are two points of view on the relationship between the content of the words “morality” and “morality”, the first of which considers the content of these words to be identical, and the second believes that they have different content. It is known that the German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) divided the content of the terms “morality” and “morality”. In the content of morality, he sees such concepts as intent and guilt, intention and good, goodness and conscience, and in the content of morality he includes the features of three components: family, civil society and state. (See: Hegel G.V.F. Philosophy of Law. M., 1990, pp. 154-178). By the concept of “morality” Hegel meant the sphere of morality, and by the concept of “morality” - what is now defined as the socio-political sphere of society. Among modern authors, some of them share the content of the terms “morality” and “morality”, believing that morality is the sphere of what should be done, how one should do, how one should act, and morality is the sphere of existence, a system of realized moral consciousness, the area of ​​practical morals, the implementation of morality in the specific actions of people. Many authors consider morality and ethics as identical concepts, as terms that have the same content, and consider ethics as the science of morality and ethics.

Conclusion

So, ethics is a broader concept, in relation to the concepts of morality and morality, a science that studies morality and ethics.

Morality and morality are concepts close in meaning, but they are not synonymous and have different meanings, functions and perform tasks different from each other.

I believe that the objectives of the essay have been solved, the goal has been achieved.

List of used literature:

1. Matyushin G. G. "Ethics. Course of lectures" 2007.

2. Maksimov L.V. "Ethical Thought". - Vol. 4. - M.: IF RAS. 2003.

3. Efimov V.T. Ethics and moral studies // Questions of philosophy. 1982. No. 2.

4. Guseinov A.A. Ethics // New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 volumes. M.. 2001. 4

6. Huntington S. Clash of Civilizations. M.: AST, 2003.

7. Morality and rationality - IFRAN, 1995

Additional sources of information:

Internet - www. ru.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia

Introduction 3
1. The concept of ethics and its characteristics 4
2. Morality: concept, functions and structure 7
3. Morality and law 12
Conclusion 18
References 19

Introduction

Currently, a certain “revaluation of values” is taking place in Russian society. In place of the old system of values ​​developed in a socialist society, a new system is being established. However, these processes proceed contradictorily when, along with real universal moral values, false “pseudo-values” begin to be implanted. Along with the growing attention of part of the population to morality and religion, there is an increase in crime and nihilism. Various kinds of teachings are becoming widespread in society, defending the cult of strength, the anti-values ​​of the “superman,” mysticism and amoralism. Therefore, it is very important to have fundamental scientific knowledge about morality.
The peculiarity of morality is that for one’s own successful action it must be deeply assimilated by a person, must “enter his soul”, become part of his inner world. A person is moral only when moral behavior becomes organic to him, and he does not need an overseer who checks and urges. Since all human actions and relationships have a moral aspect, in any area of ​​life we ​​are faced with morality as the “inner voice” of a person, which helps him behave morally in a wide variety of situations.

1. The concept of ethics and its characteristics

Ethics is a science whose subject of study is morality. In its development, ethics went through a number of stages; we will consider them in detail.
Aristotle is considered the “father” of ethics; it was he who gave the name to this science, and also wrote several important treatises on ethics (Nicomachean Ethics, Eudemic Ethics, Greater Ethics).
Aristotle defined ethics as “the science of virtue.”
The task of ethics, according to the Stagirite, is, firstly, to determine what virtue is, and, secondly, to “cultivate virtue.”
In this sense, traditional ethics, starting with Aristotle, was not only a theory, but also “practical philosophy,” and partly pedagogy, since it set itself educational goals.
In ancient philosophy, ethics was one of its most important parts. Thus, the Stoics divided philosophy into three sections (Kant adhered to the same scheme) - physics (metaphysics), logic and ethics, which was not only the final part of philosophy, but also the most important.
If philosophy is rational thinking about the world as a whole and man’s place in it, then ethics is rational thinking about the values ​​of human life. It is moral values ​​(happiness, love, compassion, the meaning of life, moral duty, dignity, honor, virtue) that constitute the main categories of ethics.
Ancient philosophers were the first to try to comprehend and understand what happiness, love, justice are, that is, to give these values ​​a rational, universal form.
The subject of ethics in the Middle Ages had a completely different character. The meeting of ancient philosophy and the Christian religion (Athens and Jerusalem) meant the subordination of philosophy to religion. The basis of Christian ethics is the authority of the church. The central problems revolve around the concepts of good and evil and are associated with the construction of a hierarchy of values. The highest value (the highest good and the source of all other goods) is God. He is the creator and moral teacher of the world. Christian thinkers were convinced that man himself, without the help of God, cannot decide what good and evil are. All moral problems acquire a religious connotation: the relationship between good and evil appears as a struggle between God and the devil, moral improvement is understood as religious asceticism and approaching God, human free will is correlated with divine predestination, the social ideal is transferred to the sphere of the coming of the kingdom of God. Ethics and morality do not contain their foundations in themselves, but in some beyond (transcendent) world.
Ethics of the New Time (Modern Time) abandons the idea of ​​transcendence of morality (which believed that the source of morality is outside the world), returning to the idea of ​​human rationality as the basis of morality (R. Bacon, R. Descartes, T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, D. Hume ). The highest achievement of this period was the ethics of Immanuel Kant, who first established that “in morality, man is subject to his own and yet universal legislation.” Kant's ethics formed the basis of the liberal understanding of law. In Hegel's philosophy, morality is also subordinated to law.
Already in the beginning of the nineteenth century (in the works of A. Schopenhauer) ethics changes its subject, becoming psychological research hidden (mostly vicious) motives of human behavior. This direction was continued by F. Nietzsche, Z. Freud, E. Fromm.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, metaethics emerged, the subject of which is the logical analysis of the language of morality. Metaethics has completely abandoned normative claims; it does not teach people how to live, but only describes the features of “moral language” as a specific phenomenon. Metaethics has discovered such qualities of moral language as descriptiveness (descriptiveness), emotivity (expression of subjective emotions)), prescriptivity (expression of instructions), imperativeness (the presence of moral requirements for a person). The English philosopher J. Moore criticized traditional ethics as resting on a naturalistic error, consisting in attempts to empirically define such concepts as good, ideal, duty, which, in his opinion, are indefinable.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, a new direction emerged - the sociology of morality (M. Weber “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1904), which examines specific problems of ethics associated with identifying the role of moral factors in real social processes. Weber laid down a new methodological paradigm (created new method research), expressed in consideration of the ethical components of social systems, the role of ethics in culture, its significance for economic development, began a comparative study of religious ethics. Weber's theory was the first study of the process of modernization - the transition from a traditional society to a bourgeois one. It was Weber who proved that the most important component of modernization (including industrialization) of Western society was the Protestant ethic, and also that other types of ethics (Buddhist, Islamic, Confucian, etc.) can act as an inhibitory factor in modernization. Weber's merit was that he revealed the close connection of economic and social development with the characteristics of economic ethics, mentality and way of life of large social communities.
At the beginning of the twentieth century (L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky) and especially in the middle of the century (M. Heidegger, K. Jaspers, J.-P. Sartre, A. Camus) a new direction in philosophy arose - existentialism. Its peculiarity was an appeal to the inner world of man, a return to the “eternal” problems of human existence (loneliness, love, death). Existentialism contained a significant ethical component, filling the subject of ethics with psychological content and personal meaning.
At the end of the twentieth century, a new period begins - applied ethics is widely developed. This is a very broad area of ​​ethics that meets practical development needs modern society and having great practical field applications. This includes all types of professional ethics (business ethics, scientific ethics, business communication), as well as completely new directions (that emerged at the end of the twentieth century) - Genetic Engineering, surrogacy, animal rights, environmental ethics, political ethics (espionage, capital punishment), sexual, computer, censorship ethics, etc.

2. Morality: concept, functions and structure

Morality is a historical concept. It is one of those universal spiritual values ​​that determine the content of social existence from the very beginning of the emergence of human civilization and will remain its most important attribute as long as man and society exist. Being one of the most ancient forms of social consciousness, morality was formed as man was separated from the animal world in the course of the formation of social relations, the formation of social groups and communities.
Primitive man could not survive alone, and the need for collective existence in that period of time required certain rules of community that each member of the clan had to master. Labor played a decisive role in this process, on the basis of which certain requirements and norms in people’s behavior emerged and were consolidated (became traditions). Collaborative work required coordinated behavior, each and everyone following certain rules. The emergence of morality accompanied the formation of society itself and meant a transition primitive man from instinctive forms of behavior to expedient and conscious activity. Many elementary moral requirements that arose in the era of the tribal system retain their significance today.
Morality does not suddenly appear immediately in a “ready-made”, modern form. It has gone through a rather long, complex, one might say, painful, path of development from the most primitive norms and ideas to the highest aspirations of modern preachers of holiness and purity. Tracing the path of development of morality, at least in the most general terms, is very important for understanding its essence.
But, as it turns out, researchers face great difficulties when solving the problem of the origin of morality. And this is not accidental, because in this case it is inevitable to come to the problem of the essence, or rather the Mystery, of man himself. As the modern Italian philosopher N. Abbagnano rightly noted, “morality is always the solution to a person’s problem” (2, p. 12). Which, in general, is quite natural, since moral consciousness is directed to the very depths of human existence.
Naturalistic (evolutionist) concepts - they derive morality from the natural factor; its content is determined by the achievement of a moral goal in relation to nature and the outside world. Morality is seen as a simple continuation and complication of the group instincts of animals as a way of survival of the species in the struggle for existence. There is nothing in human behavior that is not found in animals. The naturalistic interpretation of moral requirements dates back to ancient times: the teaching of Heraclitus on morality as the law of a single logos, the Pythagoreans’ ideas about heavenly harmony, Confucius’s theory of the heavenly world, etc. Naturalistic concepts in ethics became widespread in the Renaissance (D. Bruno, B. Telesio ) and during the New Age: theories of natural morality and law, reasonable egoism, utilitarianism, etc. In the 19th century. these ideas are developed by Charles Darwin, P. Lafargue, K. Kautsky, G. Spencer, P. Kropotkin and other sociologists who consider ethics as a phase of the biological evolution of the world. The meaning of morality is to ensure biologically expedient activity, and the organic world is included in the sphere of moral relations. So P.A. Kropotkin considered the principle of sociability or the “law of mutual assistance” in the animal world as the initial beginning of the emergence of such moral norms as a sense of duty, compassion, respect for fellow tribesmen and even self-sacrifice. The disadvantage of naturalistic concepts is that they blur the line between the social and the biological, identify humans and animals, and equate moral values ​​with biological ones.
Anthropological concepts of the origin of morality derive morality from the “nature of man” as a natural being, his needs, interests, and the “unchangeable” biological and psychological essence of the individual. The initial principles of this direction were proclaimed back in the 5th century. BC. Greek philosopher Protagoras in his famous saying: “Man is the measure of all things.” Within this direction there were many ethical schools. Thus, hedonism (from the Greek - pleasure, enjoyment) derived morality from empirical sensations of pleasure or displeasure. A person must be taught to understand the differences between them and to find the fullness of being in the pursuit of pleasure. The main value for a person is good mood, and so that it does not turn into bad, you do not need to burden yourself with unnecessary problems - property and other worries.
Identifying the main components and the nature of the relationships between them is very important for the analysis of any phenomenon - social or natural. The latter fully applies to morality. When analyzing such a complex phenomenon, the emergence of different approaches and different points of view is inevitable. However, most modern researchers recognize the existence of two relatively independent spheres in morality: moral consciousness and moral practice, in the process of which moral ideas and feelings are realized.
Moral consciousness is a kind of alloy of feelings and ideas, in which the deepest, fundamental aspects of human existence are specifically expressed - the individual’s relationships with other people, with society, with the world as a whole. Specificity is expressed in the corresponding concepts: good and evil, justice, conscience, dignity, etc., in aspiration to higher values.
Depending on the carrier, moral consciousness is divided into individual and social.
The starting point for the researcher is a “living”, specific person. And morality itself is addressed primarily to the individual. Therefore, we should first consider the inner world of the individual.
It is well known that a person cannot exist and, therefore, develop his moral qualities, realize his freedom, his moral convictions otherwise than in society. Rare cases of small children being raised by wild animals convincingly and once again testify to this. Individual moral consciousness is formed in interaction with public moral consciousness, the bearer of which is society as a whole.
Public moral consciousness is not an amorphous formation, but has its own structure. Let us note its simplest version, which includes everyday moral and theoretical moral consciousness. The first spontaneously arises (in embryonic form) even in primitive society. The second develops to a large extent purposefully with the separation of mental labor from physical labor, with the emergence of professions, the representatives of which specifically considered various problems moral life, were engaged in training and education of young people (these were clergy, philosophers, teachers, playwrights, etc.). In theoretical moral consciousness main role plays moral philosophy (ethics).
It is very difficult to draw a “Chinese wall” between everyday and theoretical moral consciousness: they are in close interaction. We must keep in mind that in moral life, feelings and faith play an important role, which in one way or another permeate all levels of moral consciousness.
Morality exists not only in the form of consciousness. Moral feelings and ideas are manifested in a wide variety of actions, in which the attitude towards other people, towards society as a whole, and finally, towards oneself is expressed. In a word, we can assume that moral relations constitute moral practice.
But moral relations are one of the types of relations that exist in society. In this regard, Aristotle’s thought is close that “every state is a kind of communication” and that there are many types of communication, the main of which he considered, and one can argue with this, political communication. It is obvious that communication and relationships are very close concepts (perhaps there are other translation options from Greek).
To understand the essence of morality, an important role is played by identifying the functions that it performs. In the process of the formation of morality, its separation into a relatively independent area of ​​culture, a certain number of functions were established, which are inherent in it at the present time. Let us highlight, in our opinion, the main ones.
1. The initial function can be considered the evaluative function of morality. But the evaluative function is characteristic not only of morality, but also of art, religion, law, politics, etc. What is the specificity of the evaluative function of morality? First of all, the assessment is made through the prism of special concepts of moral consciousness: good and evil, justice, duty, conscience, etc. In moral consciousness, what is is compared with what should be. Moral assessments are universal in nature and apply to virtually all (with rare exceptions - more on this later) human actions.
2. Cognitive function of morality. It does not have the same meaning, the same intensity as the evaluative one, but it is closely intertwined with it. In particular, when an individual evaluates the actions of others or his own, he inevitably receives a certain (incomplete, of course) idea of inner world both your own and other people. When morality assesses the general state of morals, it reveals to us to a certain extent how consistent the action of the state is with the highest universal values ​​and the strategic direction of the development of history.
3. Worldview function of morality. As we have already noted, morality cannot be reduced to simple norms. It must justify, “justify” these norms, indicate in the name of what they should be implemented, i.e. moral consciousness inevitably comes to highest values, to life’s meaningful questions. But to solve the latter, it is very important to identify man’s place in the world.
4. The educational function is one of the most important functions of morality. Without the process of education - continuous, quite intensive and purposeful - the existence of society is impossible, and the formation of an individual human personality is impossible. But it is necessary to emphasize that at the center of education is moral education, which forms the spiritual core of the individual. Moral education will be discussed in more detail in the corresponding lecture.
5. The regulatory function of morality is a kind of synthesis of all other functions, because ultimately the task of morality is to direct the thoughts and actions of an individual person. But, as we know, it is not only morality that regulates an individual’s behavior, but also law, religion, art, political consciousness, etc.

3. Morality and law

Law and morality are closely intertwined - both in their origins and in their further development. What brings them together is that both law and morality are part of the general social mechanism of value-normative regulation of society - they are focused on maintaining the proper order of interaction between people and the conditions for their self-realization. Moral views, like legal views, are mostly normative, prescriptive and evaluative in nature. In their content they have such common fundamental categories as “duty”, “justice”, “freedom”, “dignity”, “will”, etc.
Legal norms presuppose as a condition of their action elementary moral norms - a “minimum of morality.” So, for example, legal consciousness is unthinkable without the real action of such moral principles and norms as respect for the dignity of other people, a sense of personal responsibility for one’s actions, recognition of the need to take into account the interests of other people, the belief that the freedom of all people is impossible without the freedom of every person, and vice versa. The principle of law - “everything that is not prohibited is permitted” - works effectively only when there is a strong moral foundation, stable moral habits and beliefs in society, when people have internal conscious consent to self-restraint, when such moral qualities of a person as nobility, conscience, decency are traits Everyday life.
In this context, the question of the admissibility of such an exceptional punishment as the death penalty can be considered. One can argue whether it is effective or ineffective, but first of all it should be assessed as a legal restriction, exceptional in its consequences for a person who has violated all conceivable and inconceivable norms of morality and law. Let us emphasize that public opinion, which advocates the preservation and sometimes expansion of the practice of the death penalty due to the inertia of the statist understanding of law and sociocultural infantility, is opposed by a purely legal justification for its necessity as a restraining element of social regulation. Society must suffer the end of the death penalty, becoming sufficiently stable, wealthy and morally mature.
In the public consciousness, real content is filled with those terms of law that are incomprehensible and practically impossible to implement without taking into account the norms and criteria of public morality, for example, “hooliganism”, “insult”, “slander”, “exceptional cynicism”, etc., with its help Such evaluative concepts as “good reason” and “sufficient grounds” are specified and become generally valid.
At the same time, law and morality are two independent way social regulation, they interact as two special social phenomena, each of which, when mediating social relations, performs its own functions and has a special value.
If morality governs interpersonal relationships, then the emergence of law is associated with the regulation of people’s activities, determined by their social status and the resulting specific interests in a state-organized society. Moral consciousness is included in the internal motivation of human behavior; it is associated with such categories as mercy, sincerity, modesty, meanness, hypocrisy, which do not have a direct legal meaning. Moral regulation of people's behavior universally affects the interpersonal aspects of the "person - society" relationship.
Law comes from the relationship “citizen - state”, differing from moral knowledge, beliefs, norms primarily in that in it what is due and fair is always thought of as what should be state law, the violation of which should be followed by an inevitable sanction.
The normativity of law and morality differs as institutional and non-institutional. The institutionality of legal norms lies in their formal determination by the highest authority of public authority, protection and support by the power of influence of the relevant bodies of this authority. The non-institutional nature of moral norms is associated with the absence of a public mechanism for their implementation, an assessment developed in principle outside of any social institutions. Emerging spontaneously from interpersonal interactions, moral norms in their action rely on the power of public opinion.
So, law and morality are the main social regulators of human behavior. They have common features and differences from each other.
Common features:
a) belong to social norms and have the general property of normativity;
b) are the main regulators of behavior;
c) have a common goal - regulating people’s behavior with the strategic goal of preserving and developing society as a whole;
d) are based on justice as the highest moral principle;
e) act as a measure of an individual’s freedom and determine its boundaries.
Differences:
1. Morality is formed before law, legal consciousness and state organization of society. We can say that morality appears with society, and law with the state. Although morality also has its own historical period of development and arises from the need to reconcile the interests of the individual and society.
2. Within one country, one society, only one legal system can exist. Morality in this sense is heterogeneous: several moral systems (classes, small social groups, professional classes, individuals) can operate in society. Moreover, in any society there is a system of generally accepted moral views (the so-called prevailing morality).
3. Moral norms are formed as a normative expression of the views and ideas about good and evil, justice, honor, duty, decency, nobility and other categories of ethics that have developed in a given social environment, society. (The main categories of moral consciousness are “good” and “evil”, without which any moral assessment is impossible.) At the same time, the process of formation of moral systems occurs spontaneously, in the depths of public consciousness. The process of legal formation is also very complex, has deep social roots, but law, in the unity of its form and content, appears as the result of the official activities of the state, as an expression of its will.
4. Morality lives in public consciousness, which is the form of its existence. And in this regard, it is even difficult to distinguish between morality as a form of social consciousness and morality as a normative social regulator, in contrast to law, where the boundary between legal consciousness and law can be drawn quite clearly. Law, in comparison with morality, has clear forms of objectification and external consolidation (formal sources of law). Of course, one or another moral system can be systematized and presented in in writing as a kind of moral code. However, the point is that morality as a special social regulator does not objectively need this.
5. The subjects of regulation of legal norms and moral norms do not coincide. If you imagine them as circles, they will intersect. That is, they have a common subject of regulation and there are social spheres that are regulated only by law or only by morality. The specific subject of moral regulation is the spheres of friendship, love, mutual assistance, etc., where law as a regulator, requiring external control over the implementation of its instructions and presupposing the possibility of state-enforced implementation, cannot and should not penetrate. However, there are also areas legal regulation, to which morality is not connected due to the fact that they are fundamentally, by their nature, not amenable to moral assessment: they are ethically neutral. These areas include, in particular, the subject of technical and legal norms.
6. From the point of view of internal organization, this or that moral system, being a relatively holistic normative formation, does not have such a logically harmonious and sufficiently rigid structure (the law of connection of elements) as a legal system.
7. Law and morality differ in the means and methods of ensuring the implementation of their norms. If the law, as is known, is ensured by the possibility of state-enforced implementation, then moral norms are guaranteed by the strength of public opinion, the negative reaction of society to violations of moral norms. At the same time, the nature of morality is such that truly moral behavior occurs when it is carried out due to a person’s personal conviction of justice and the need for ethical requirements, when a person’s behavior is guided by his conscience. There is a “golden rule” of morality: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Law and morality interact. Law is a form of implementation of prevailing morality. At the same time, morality recognizes illegal behavior as immoral. Moral norms are important both for lawmaking and for the implementation of law: first of all, for the process of application legal norms. A law enforcement official will not be able to make a fair decision without relying on moral requirements. At the same time, contradictions between the norms of morality and law cannot be ruled out. This is due, in particular, to the processes of their development: both moral norms and legal norms may be “ahead.”

Conclusion

The history of the development of civilization shows that law and morality, as components of the spiritual culture of society, are organically connected with each other. The legal system of a state-organized society establishes moral requirements and moral principles that are vital for the entire society. The legislative branch, in its work to improve the law, takes into account the state of public morality, the moral culture of the country's population, and proceeds from the fact that the moral basis of law is the most important component of the general regulatory potential of law, that law must be moral, laws must be fair and humane.
The greatest moral value is represented by fundamental human rights - the legal expression of his freedom and dignity. The actual implementation of these rights is a condition for achieving human happiness, for human rights are essentially his aspirations for happiness, recognized by law. Historical monuments of law indicate a close connection between law and morality ancient world, Middle Ages and modern times. This is also evidenced by the use of moral and ethical concepts in assessing the content of laws from other sources of law.
I would like to emphasize in conclusion that it would be a mistake to transfer the noted characteristics of the unity of law and morality to the level of practical jurisprudence. It is contrary to the spirit of the law and the letter of the law to apply legal norms directly depending on moral principles and criteria. The latter are related to law to the extent that they are implicitly present in the rules of law and are politically introduced into the legal system.

Bibliography

1. Guseinov A.A., Apresyan R.G. Ethics. – M., 1998.
2. Drobnitsky O. G. Moral. – M.: Education, 1974.
3. Zelenkova I.L., Belyaeva E.V. Ethics. – Minsk: Tera-systems, 1998.
4. Zoloukhina-Abolina E.V. Course of lectures on ethics. – Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1999.
5. Krasnov V.N. Ethics. – M.: Prospekt, 2001.
6. Kropotkin P. A. Ethics. – M.: Nauka, 1966.
7. Kruglianitso T.F. Ethics and etiquette. – M., 1995.
8. Popov L. A. Ethics. – M., 1998.
9. Russell V.M. Morality and ethics. – M.: Nauka, 1989.
10. Rosenko M.N. Basics ethical knowledge. – St. Petersburg: Lan, 1998.
11. Yakobson V.M. Ethics. – M.: Progress, 1983.

© Posting material on other electronic resources only accompanied by an active link

Test papers in Magnitogorsk, buy test papers, term papers on law, buy coursework on law, coursework at RANEPA, coursework on law at RANEPA, diploma theses on law in Magnitogorsk, diplomas on law at MIEP, diplomas and coursework at VSU, tests at SGA, master's theses on law to Chelga.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RF

NOVOSIBIRSK STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

Faculty of Business

Department of Service Economics

Abstract on the discipline “Professional ethics and etiquette”

The relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality”, “morality”

Completed by a student

Golubova A.V.

group St-63

Checked by the assistant professor

Zagorskaya L. M.

Novosibirsk, 2008

Introduction

1. The emergence of ethics.

2. What is morality?

3. The concept of morality.

4. Morals and ethics.

5. Ethics and morality.

6. The relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality”, “morality”.

Conclusion

List of used literature

Additional sources of information

Introduction

The concepts of morality, ethics, and ethics are among the most common in language, and at the same time, among the most ambiguous and vague. Moral problems appear to be among the most important for humans.

The question of the essence of ethics, morality and ethics, as well as their differences and relationships, has been asked by many philosophers and thinkers, starting with Aristotle.

This question remains relevant and in our time, due to the fact that a certain “revaluation of values” is currently taking place in Russian society.

Purpose My abstract is to establish the relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality” and “morality”.

I set myself the following tasks :

1. define the exact explanation of these terms individually;

2. correlate these concepts and identify their essence in interaction with each other.

1. The emergence of ethics

One cannot speak of the emergence of ethics as a system of moral norms in the same sense in which one speaks of the emergence of sciences or philosophy in general. Ethics is not created through theoretical interest in a particular area of ​​reality, like most sciences, it is determined by the very fact of social life. Morality does not arise in human society at a certain point in time, but is inherent in it, in one form or another, at all stages of its development. Everywhere and at all times, the will of a person living in a society of his own kind was bound by moral norms of the most diverse content, in the form of customs, religious or state institutions. In this sense, morality precedes knowledge and is often even a powerful stimulus for its development: it is primarily in the field of morality that philosophical thought arises. The moral, perceived at first as an unaccountable ought, requires over time its justification as necessary to achieve the goals revealed to the mind. At the same time, moral teleology inevitably leads to philosophical ontology: the “ought” is clarified with the help of philosophical knowledge of the “existent”. Despite this priority of morality in the development of social and individual human consciousness, the first historically known attempts at scientific ethics arise relatively late, already on the basis of a quite clearly defined philosophical cosmology. If morality, as the worldly wisdom of social legislators, should be recognized as existing in ancient times, then morality, as a philosophical theory, can only be stated after Socrates.

2. What is morality?

Morality (lat. moralis - relating to morals) is one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions. Morality covers moral views and feelings, life orientations and principles, goals and motives of actions and relationships, drawing the line between good and evil, conscience and dishonesty, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice, normality and abnormality, mercy and cruelty, etc.

There is a point of view about the physical foundations of morality, morality is objective, it is a set of immutable laws of Nature, the observance of which contributes to the development of higher consciousness, and their violation causes a drop in vital energy and human degradation. However, this opinion is far from indisputable and practically unfounded.

Morality is aimed at uniformity in the regulation of relationships and reducing conflict in society.

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

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

Morality is formed mainly as a result of upbringing, to a lesser extent - as a result of the action of the mechanism of empathy or the adaptation process. An individual's morality, as an imperative subconscious mechanism, does not lend itself well to conscious critical analysis and correction.

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

3. The concept of morality.

The criterionological approach to the category of morality requires, first of all, to achieve understanding and orientation in the space of life and, in general, natural criteria in order to build a system of assessment of knowledge of the highest level. Such a desire is very difficult to fulfill, because morality itself is already such a high-level evaluative system that allows humanity and each individual to correlate virtually any actions and thoughts with each other.

When we try to comprehend this concept, we first of all note that the concept of morality combines in a special way, if not successfully, the knowledge of human civilization about the ideal and reality: the ideal attracts reality to itself, forcing it to change according to moral principles.

In addition, this category, as an expanded concept, combines the essential social root cause of people’s real actions: they voluntarily take upon themselves personal responsibilities to conform their actions to certain general ideas (general mores) and to correlate these actions and their thoughts with the goals, objectives, and criteria of society . In another way, life turns into a Game with a Win for Everyone.

Therefore, we can talk about morality only from the standpoint of a person’s voluntarily assumed responsibilities to society or to that Higher Power from the space of Consciousness of Nature, which corresponds to the general idea, egregoric image, God, standing above a given society and a person and which leads a given society and a given person along the path of life.

Egoistic morality cannot exist. Therefore, we can remove the liberal (egoistic) reproach that Jesus Christ brought communist ideology to humanity: any spiritual and moral teaching, including those that arose before Jesus Christ, forces, first of all, to evaluate from the top of society. And the USSR collapsed not at all because the communist ideology was unviable; on the contrary, it lacked precisely the spiritual heights such as those found, for example, in Confucianism and Taoism.

However, egregors, like the individuals and societies they lead, can be of different heights in terms of the level of spiritual potential, and therefore different in quality, strength, charge (positive-negative), breadth of coverage, and so on. And therefore, one person’s idea of ​​God does not coincide with another’s idea of ​​Him; one person’s personal God will never coincide with another person’s personal God. And although the spiritual height of each person’s egregor is assessed, “measured”, from the height of general morals, nevertheless, the understanding of morality is different for different people. Morality is as relative as any other truth.

Moral problems are studied by ethics. However, speaking about different types of corporate ethics, first of all, we should talk about morality not as morality. Because morality is either a historically changeable or professional set of rules and norms of behavior of people, formulated by them on the basis of their experience, spiritual and relationship experience. Morality acts as a certain absolute law (imperative) of attraction of the human spirit (I. Kant), and simply ethics becomes spiritual ethics.

4. Morality and ethics.

In the Russian language there are two related concepts - morality and morality. What is the relationship between them? In ethics, there are attempts to “separate” these concepts. The most famous is the idea of ​​Hegel, who connected morality with the sphere of the proper, ideal, and morality with the sphere of reality, reality. There is a big difference between what people take for granted and what they actually do.

Defining “morality” (“morality”) is much more difficult than defining “ethics,” which is due to the complexity and multifaceted nature of the subject itself. We can highlight the following, the most generally valid definitions of “morality”.

1) Morality is “the internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person; ethical standards, rules of behavior determined by these qualities.” In this definition, morality comes down to certain spiritual qualities of a person, as well as to certain norms and principles of behavior, i.e. to a certain form of consciousness. However, the moral dimension of society, as well as practical moral activity, is not adequately taken into account here. Therefore, in Russian-language Soviet ethics in the 70s of the 20th century, a different, broader concept of morality was proposed.

2) Morality is a special, imperative-evaluative way of mastering reality through the dichotomy (opposition) of good and evil. The connection of this concept of morality with a person who can only evaluate and command is obvious. Morality is thus understood as a subjective form of existence, although universal for humans. But what about the attitude towards nature? Can it be moral? Do living beings other than humans have moral self-worth? Moral intuition answers these questions positively, but they turn out to be insoluble for the subjectivist approach to morality, which connects morality only with a person, with interpersonal and social relations. Therefore, an even broader definition of morality is legitimate.

Always, if there is a term, it means there is something that it should mean. The same is true with the concepts of morality and ethics. What are morals and ethics? By morality we usually mean certain socially established norms of behavior or ideas about “good” and “bad.” These concepts can differ significantly at different times and in different cultures, so we can talk about the “high” or “low” moral level of a person or society. In other words, morality is a concept that characterizes the moral level, but it is to a certain extent relative.

Unlike morality, ethics is an objective concept. Ethical principles They represent unchanging criteria of morality, based on the true laws of the universe or cosmic principles, and are a necessary condition for the existence of a highly spiritual, intelligent being. They are a reflection of the truth, and therefore unchangeable under any conditions.

Now let's pay attention to the fact that the concepts of morality and ethics are associated only with a person, only with his activities. We cannot apply these criteria to any other living being. This means that this is something that distinguishes a person from everything else, his unique feature. Only a person can choose what is closer to him - showing harshness or mercy, greed or selflessness, envy or condescension, committing murder or forgiveness. Everything depends only on his desire.

The lack of morality, the lack of ethical foundations makes a person similar to other living beings, but not “man”. Without the existence of a certain level of morality in society, humanity is not “humanity.” In such a case, it cannot comply with the principles defined for it.

The glory and decline of empires is determined by morality

The concepts of morality and ethics are closely related to spiritual teachings or the teachings of the sages. These instructions pass through centuries and remain unchanged because they are eternal and correspond to the inner nature of man. A person preserves them because he understands that this is his foundation, and if he loses it, he will cease to be himself. Despite the fact that they are expressed from different points of view, they still direct attention to one thing - the human heart. Pay attention to the criteria imposed on a person by God, Heaven, Buddha, the Universe, Nature or Tao.

However, in different eras we can find both positive and negative examples of compliance with moral principles by different cultures or specific people. For example, the glory and decline of great empires have always been correlated with the level of moral standards existing in society. The Roman Empire was the greatest civilization, the guardian of culture and high scientific achievements. She also inherited the wisdom of the great ancient philosophers. She was accompanied by splendor and glory, as long as the standards of morality and ethics were high.

However, over time, moral standards in Ancient Rome gradually declined, such alarming symptoms as homosexuality, cruelty, depraved behavior and wastefulness arose, which became the norm in society. The Colosseum attracted more and more spectators demanding gladiator fights or baiting people with animals. The more people wanted “bread and circuses,” the more they moved away from human standards. If we evaluate the state of morality and ethics in Roman society at the time of the transition to our era, we can detect a sharp decline in morality.

As they say, “the fish rots from the head.” The Emperor is the head of state, responsible for everything that happens in it. Does this concern the well-being of citizens (material things) or the level of morality (the soul of the nation). Take, for example, Caesar Nero (50 - 54). During his reign, many stupid, cruel and vicious things were done. It was noted in historical records that at times he fell into fits of madness, and staged crazy, disgusting games. Sometimes he pretended to be gods or goddesses.

The Romans hated him, feared him and cursed him. During his reign many troubles and misfortunes happened. The plague alone wiped out 30 thousand Romans in a few months. There was also a decline in morality in society. One day, a comet appeared in the sky and was visible for three nights in a row. This was a bad omen: the appearance of a “tailed monster” always threatened with terrible disaster.

Not disdaining to commit all sorts of vicious acts, Nero decided on the most disgusting, unprecedented thing in the village. During his reign, persecution of followers of the emerging spiritual teaching began. These were the first Christians.

As you know, the Roman Empire was destroyed by barbarians who came from the northern lands. This is one example of the fact that if the morality of a society is low and the morality of people does not meet the standards, then there is nothing that can save the state from destruction.

Ancient China - the birthplace of people of great morality

The prosperity of society directly depends on the level of morality and ethics, and here is evidence from another part of the world. In Ancient China there were three spiritual teachings that established the solid foundation moral principles. These are Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, which existed independently of each other. They enriched Chinese culture with the concepts of mercy, virtues, nobility, the principle of retribution for what was done (karma), as well as the need to follow the Tao to achieve harmony with nature and the Universe. In the East they say “for good you will receive good, but for evil there will be punishment.”

Thus, dynasties succeeded one after another, and historians painstakingly recorded all the vicissitudes of life situations, clearly illustrating the principle of the relationship of morality and ethics with stability in the state. An emperor who followed the principles of Tao and observed the will of heaven certainly led his people to prosperity, allowing peace and tranquility to fill the Celestial Empire.

When droughts, crop failures or natural disasters occurred, noble emperors sought advice from sages and were the first to repent to Heaven for their mistakes. Since it was believed that in the state the emperor, then the officials, had the least value, and the people were considered the most valuable, therefore the great rulers considered their responsibility for everything that happened in the country to be paramount. They paid attention to morals and ethics, created schools and taught their own positive example, keeping himself strictly.

Those same rulers who, in pursuit of fame and wealth, exhausted the people with wars and oppressed them with cruel prohibitions, were called “headless emperors without Tao.” Such government policy necessarily led to unrest and destruction, and society split and uprisings arose.

Over thousands of years, history has provided us with many examples that paying attention to morality can achieve prosperity in society, while immoral behavior of people threatens unrest and destruction. Thus, morality and ethics represent the foundations that maintain the state in a stable state.

Heraclitus on morality, ethics and human vices

Heraclitus came from a royal family and was supposed to take the throne of the ruler of Ephesus, in Asia Minor. But when his time came to ascend the throne, he renounced it and, retiring, devoted himself to knowledge. Heraclitus' contemporaries called him the "crying" philosopher because he often expressed his pity for people who were wasting their years aimlessly. Like any sage, Heraclitus sought to revive the norms of ethics and morality in society.

Heraclitus (540 - 480 BC) devoted his life to studying the principles of nature and studying the unshakable truths of the universe. He called his main work “On Nature.” However, it was written like this complex language that most people did not have the opportunity to understand him. For which Heraclitus received another nickname - “dark”. Although, most likely, the philosopher did this deliberately, probably hiding what he knew from the majority. He wrote several more essays. All of them were bequeathed to the temple of Artemis of Ephesus. Unfortunately, his records have reached us only in fragments. In his writings, Heraclitus called on people to pay attention to the main thing in human life: morality, ethics, and called on them to renounce vices.

Every desire is bought at the price of the psyche

Seeing that the Greek society of that time was guided by desires and forgot about morality and ethics, Heraclitus was very worried. He knew that desires deplete the soul and said: “It is difficult to fight with your heart: every desire is bought at the price of the psyche (soul).” The philosopher believed that in order to achieve wisdom and knowledge of the truth, a person must get out of the everyday bustle of the world and take the position of an outside observer. “In all the speeches I have heard, no one comes to the point of understanding that the wise is separate from everyone else.”

To free himself for knowledge, Heraclitus renounces royal throne. Having transferred the “royal dignity” and the reins of government of Ephesus to his brother, he completely removed himself from state affairs and political life. Heraclitus finds a place for himself in the temple of Artemis, where he spends his time carefree playing dice with the children. One day the Ephesians gathered around him and began to wonder how he could do this. Their speeches upset the sage so much that he said in his hearts: “Why are you wicked ones surprised? Isn’t it better to do this than to conduct state affairs with you?” Seeing that people did not heed his instructions about morality, he became disappointed , retired to the mountains, where he ate herbs.

The principles of Logos are unshakable

Heraclitus believed that the system of moral and ethical principles should be based on divine unity - Logos (from Greek - word) or “fire”, the rational principle that governs the whole world. It manifests itself in the principles of the Cosmos and is a thing that exceeds everything ordinary. According to Heraclitus, Logos is the principle of the existence of nature, by knowing and following which a person can demonstrate his virtue.

Like the Universe, man also consists of a “fiery principle,” soul, and body. If a person’s soul is not burdened by satiety and intoxication, it becomes “the best and wisest,” otherwise the soul becomes weak. Therefore, Heraclitus believed that those who act in accordance with the Logos and pay attention to morality, follow ethics, can gradually rise and become purified. Having learned the law, a person can become a soothsayer, a hymn singer, a doctor or a king, and then ascend to the Gods.

The most valuable virtue of man is chastity - speaking the truth and acting in accordance with nature. He considered it wisdom to see not the particular, changeable, but the eternal - “to know everything as one” and live with a sound mind. Therefore, Heraclitus, in his speeches and writings, criticized “many knowledge” that does not “teach the mind.”

It would not be better for people if everything they desire were fulfilled...

Heraclitus was very upset when he saw how low morality had fallen in Greek society, and the principles of ethics gave way to bodily and sensory pleasures. Clearly understanding this, Heraclitus often cried in the squares during speeches, for which he was nicknamed the “crying” philosopher. “Oh, people! Do you want to know why I never laugh? Not because I hate people, but because I hate their vices... (I cry) Looking at virtue, placed in second place after vice!

The philosopher did not consider people themselves bad, but saw their weakness in the fact that they cannot resist bad aspirations. People, being in error, do not want to hear from him true knowledge and principles of ethics. “For what kind of mind or understanding do they have? They believe in folk singers, and their teacher is the crowd. For they do not know that there are many bad people and few good ones.” Finally, seeing that morality and ethics are no longer restraining factors for people, Heraclitus compares them to animals: “Beasts, living with us, become tame, and people, treating each other, become wild.”

2500 years have passed since Heraclitus called on the inhabitants of Ephesus to follow the Logos and improve virtue. After him there were other sages and saints. But the situation in society not only did not improve, but became much worse. The words of Heraclitus were a merciful reminder and a formidable warning to the entire Greek civilization, mired in vice. But they didn’t hear him. Several hundred years later, the once great Greek civilization decomposed from the inside, and the Romans in the 2nd - 1st centuries. BC. tried in every possible way to limit contacts with them. For only morality and ethics are factors of stability for society and determine development and prosperity.

Studying human society- a very multi-layered and difficult task. The basis, however, is always the behavior of each individual and the entire group as a whole. The further development or degradation of society depends on this. In this case, it is necessary to determine the relationship between the concepts of “ethics”, “morality” and “morality”.

Morality

Let's consider the terms ethics, morality and morality sequentially. Morals are the principles of behavior accepted by the social majority. At different times, morality appears in different guises, just like humanity. From here we conclude that morality and society are inextricably linked, which means they should be considered only as one whole.

The very definition of morality, as a certain form of behavior, is very vague. When we hear about moral things or have little idea of ​​specific things. This is due to the fact that behind this concept there is only a certain basis for morality. Not specific instructions or clear rules, but only general directions.

Moral standards

Moral standards are precisely what the concept itself contains. Some general instructions, often not particularly specific. For example, one of the highest forms of morality of Thomas Aquinas: “Strive for good, avoid evil.” Very vague. The general direction is clear, but the specific steps remain a mystery. What is good and evil? We know that there is not only “black and white” in the world. After all, good can cause harm, but evil sometimes turns out to be useful. All this quickly leads the mind into a dead end.

We can call morality a strategy: it outlines general directions, but omits specific steps. Let's say there is a certain army. The expression “high/low morality” is often applied to it. But this does not mean the well-being or behavior of each individual soldier, but the condition of the entire army as a whole. General, strategic concept.

Moral

Morality is also a principle of conduct. But, unlike morality, it is practically directed and more specific. Morality also has certain rules that are approved by the majority. They help in achieving high moral behavior.

Morality, as opposed to morality, has a very specific concept. These are, one might say, strict regulations.

Rules of morality

The rules of morality are the core of the whole concept. For example: “you can’t deceive people,” “you can’t take someone else’s property,” “you should treat all people politely.” Everything is concise and extremely simple. The only question that arises is why is this necessary? Why is it necessary to adhere to moral behavior? This is where morality comes into play.

While morality is a general development strategy, morality explains specific steps and suggests tactics. On their own they do not function correctly. If we imagine that clear actions are carried out aimlessly, then, obviously, all meaning disappears in them. The opposite is also true; a global goal without specific plans is doomed to remain unfulfilled.

Let us recall the analogy with the army: if morality appears as the general state of the entire company, then morality is the quality of each individual soldier.

Education of morals and ethics

Based on life experience, we understand that moral education is necessary for life in society. If human nature were not limited by the laws of decency and each individual was guided only by basic instincts, then society as we know it today would quickly come to an end. If we put aside the laws of good and evil, right and wrong, then ultimately we are faced with the only goal - survival. And even the most lofty goals pale before the instinct of self-preservation.

In order to avoid general chaos, it is necessary to instill in a person the concept of morality from an early age. Various institutions serve this purpose, the main one being the family. It is in the family that a child acquires those beliefs that will remain with him throughout his life. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of such upbringing, because it actually determines a person’s future life.

A slightly less important element is the institution of formal education: school, university, etc. At school, the child is in a close group, and therefore is forced to learn how to interact correctly with others. Whether the responsibility for education lies with teachers or not is another question; everyone thinks differently. However, the very fact of having a team plays a leading role.

One way or another, all education comes down to the fact that a person will be constantly “examined” by society. The task of moral education is to ease this test and guide along the right path.

Functions of morality and ethics

And if so much effort is invested in the education of morality, then it would be nice to examine it in more detail. There are at least three main functions. They represent the relationship between ethics, morality and ethics.

1. Educational.
2. Controlling.
3. Estimated.

Educational, as the name suggests, educates. This function is responsible for forming correct views in a person. Moreover, often we are talking not only about children, but also about fully grown and conscientious citizens. If a person is observed to behave inappropriately to moral laws, he is urgently subjected to education. It comes in different forms, but the goal is always the same - calibration of the moral compass.

The controlling function monitors human behavior. It contains habitual norms of behavior. They, with the help of the educational function, are cultivated in the mind and, one might say, control themselves. If self-control or education is not enough, then public censure or religious disapproval is applied.

The evaluation helps others at the theoretical level. This function evaluates an action and labels it as moral or immoral. The educational function teaches a person based precisely on value judgments. It is they who represent the field for the work of the control function.

Ethics

Ethics - philosophical science about morality and ethics. But no instructions or teachings are intended here, only theory. Observing history, studying current norms of behavior and searching for absolute truth. Ethics, as the science of morality and morality, requires painstaking study, and therefore the specific description of behavior patterns is left to “colleagues.”

Objectives of ethics

The main task of ethics is to determine the correct concept, the principle of action according to which morality and ethics should work. In fact, it is simply a theory of a certain doctrine within the framework of which everything else is described. That is, we can say that ethics - the doctrine of morality and ethics - is primary in relation to practical social disciplines.

Naturalistic concept

There are several basic concepts in ethics. Their main task is to identify problems and solutions. And if they are unanimous in the highest moral goal, then the methods differ greatly.

Let's start with naturalistic concepts. According to such theories, morality, morality, ethics and the origin of morality are inextricably linked. The origin of morality is defined as the qualities originally inherent in a person. That is, it is not a product of society, but represents somewhat complicated instincts.

The most obvious of these concepts is the theory of Charles Darwin. It argues that what is generally accepted in society is not unique to the human species. Animals also have concepts of morality. A very controversial postulate, but before we disagree, let's look at the evidence.

The entire animal world is given as an example. The same things that are elevated to the absolute level by morality (mutual aid, sympathy and communication) are also present in the animal world. Wolves, for example, care about the safety of their own pack, and helping each other is not at all alien to them. And if you take their close relatives - dogs, then their desire to protect “their own” is striking in its development. In everyday life, we can observe this in the example of the relationship between a dog and its owner. The dog does not need to be taught devotion to a person; you can only train certain moments, such as the correct attack, various commands. From this it follows that loyalty is inherent in a dog from the very beginning, by nature.

Of course, among wild animals, mutual assistance is associated with the desire to survive. Those species that did not help each other and their own offspring simply died out and could not withstand the competition. And also, according to Darwin's theory, morality and morality are inherent in man for the purpose of undergoing natural selection.

But survival is not so important to us now, in the age of technology, when most of us have no shortage of food or a roof over our heads! This is certainly true, but let's look at natural selection a little more broadly. Yes, in animals this means struggle with nature and competition with other fauna. Modern man has no need to fight with either one or the other, and therefore he fights with himself and other representatives of humanity. This means that natural selection in this context means development, overcoming, and struggle not with an external, but with an internal enemy. Society develops, morality strengthens, which means the chances of survival increase.

Concept of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism involves maximizing benefits for the individual. That is, the moral value and level of morality of a particular act directly depend on the consequences. If, as a result of some actions, people’s happiness has increased, these actions are correct, and the process itself is secondary. In fact, utilitarianism is a prime example of the expression: “the end justifies the means.”

This concept is often misinterpreted as being completely selfish and "soulless." This, of course, is not true, but there is no smoke without fire. The thing is, utilitarianism between the lines presupposes a certain degree of selfishness. This is not said directly, but the principle itself - “maximize the benefits for all people” - implies a subjective assessment. We cannot know how our actions will affect others; we can only guess, which means we are not completely sure. The most accurate forecast is given to us only by our own sensations. We can more accurately say what we will like than trying to guess the preferences of people around us. It follows from this that we will primarily be guided by our own preferences. It is difficult to directly call this selfishness, but the bias towards personal gain is obvious.

The very essence of utilitarianism is also criticized, namely the neglect of the process due to the result. We are all familiar with how easy it is to deceive ourselves. Invent something that doesn't actually exist. Also here: a person, when calculating the usefulness of an action, tends to deceive himself and adjust the facts to suit his personal interests. And then such a path becomes very slippery, because it actually provides the individual with a tool to justify himself, regardless of the action committed.

Creationist theories

The concept of creationism places divine laws as the basis for moral behavior. The commandments and instructions of saints play the role of sources of morality. One should act in accordance with the highest postulates and within the framework of a certain religious denomination. That is, a person is not given the opportunity to calculate the benefits of an action or think about the correctness of a particular decision. Everything has already been done for him, everything is written and known, all that remains is to just take it and do it. After all, man, from the point of view of religion, is an extremely unreasonable and imperfect creature, and therefore allowing him to decide for himself about morality is like giving a newborn child a textbook on space engineering: he will tear everything up, he will be tormented, but he will not understand anything. So in creationism, only an act that agrees with religious dogmas is considered the only correct and moral one.

Conclusion

From what was written above, we can clearly trace the relationship between morality and morality. Ethics provides the basis, morality defines the highest goal, and morality backs everything up with concrete steps.