Principles and standards of morality, examples. Morality and moral standards What is the subject of morality

home and family

MORALITY

M. belongs to the number basic types of normative regulation of human actions, such as customs, traditions and etc., intersects with them and at the same time differs significantly from them. If the organization has the right. regulations, regulations are formulated, approved and carried out in specialist. institutions, then the requirements of morality (like customs) are formed in the very practice of mass behavior, in the process of mutual communication between people and are a reflection of practical life. and historical experience directly in collective and individual ideas, feelings and will. Moral norms are reproduced every day by the force of mass habits, dictates and assessments of societies. opinions, beliefs and motivations cultivated in the individual. Fulfillment of M.'s requirements can be controlled by all people without exception and by each individual. The authority of a particular person in M. is not related to k.-l. official powers, real power and societies. position, but is a spiritual authority, i.e. conditioned by his moral qualities (example) and the ability to adequately express morals. requirements in one case or another. In general, in M. there is no separation of subject and object of regulation characteristic of institutional norms.

In contrast to simple customs, the norms of M. are not only supported by the force of an established and generally accepted order, the power of habit and the cumulative pressure of others and their opinions on the individual, but receive ideological expression in general fixed ideas (commandments, principles) about what should be done. The latter, reflected in societies. opinions, at the same time, are more stable, historically stable and systematic. M. reflects a holistic system of views on social life, containing this or understanding of the essence (“purpose”, “meaning”, “goal”) society, history, man and his existence. Therefore, the morals and customs prevailing at a given moment can be assessed by morality from the point of view of its general principles, ideals, criteria of good and evil, and moral views can be critical. attitude towards the actually accepted way of life (which is expressed in the views of the progressive class or, conversely, conservative social groups). In general, in M., unlike custom, what is due and what is actually accepted does not always and not completely coincide. In class antagonistic. society norms are universal. morality has never been fulfilled entirely, unconditionally, in all cases without exception.

The role of consciousness in the sphere of moral regulation is also expressed in the fact that morals. (approval or condemnation of actions) has an ideal spiritual character; it appears in the form of non-effectively material measures of societies. retribution (rewards or punishments), and assessments that a person must realize, accept internally and accordingly direct his actions in the future. In this case, it is not just someone’s emotional-volitional reaction that matters (indignation or praise), but compliance of the assessment with general principles, norms and concepts of good and evil. For the same reason, individual consciousness plays a huge role in M. (personal beliefs, motives and self-esteem), which allows a person to control himself, internally motivate his actions, independently give them, to develop his own line of behavior within the framework of a team or group. In this sense, K. Marx said that “... morality is based on the autonomy of the human spirit...” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, T. 1, With. 13) . In M. not only practical aspects are assessed. people's actions, but also their motives and intentions. In this regard, the personal acquires a special role in moral regulation, i.e. the formation in each individual of relatively independently determining and directing his own line of behavior in society and without everyday ext. control (hence such concepts of M. as, a sense of personal dignity and honor).

Moral requirements for a person do not mean the achievement of some particular and immediate results in a specific way. situations, but to general norms and principles of behavior. In a single case, practical actions can be different, depending on random circumstances; on a general social scale, in the aggregate, the fulfillment of moral norms corresponds to one or another society. needs, reflected in a generalized form by this norm. Therefore, a form of expression of morals. norms are not rules ext. expediency (to achieve such and such a result, you need to do such and such), but an imperative requirement, an obligation that a person must follow when pursuing a variety of his goals. Moral standards reflect the needs of man and society beyond the boundaries of definition. private circumstances and situations, but on the basis of a huge historical. experience pl. generations; therefore with t.zr. These norms can evaluate both the specific goals pursued by people and the means of achieving them.

M. stands out from the initially undifferentiated normative regulation into a special sphere of relations already in clan society, and lasts for a long time. the history of formation and development in pre-class and class society, where its requirements, principles, ideals and assessments acquire meaning. least class character and meaning, although along with this the general human character is preserved. moral standards associated with human conditions common to all eras. dormitories.

In an era of socio-economic crisis. formation arises as one of its expressions of the dominant M. Moral crisis bourgeois society is part of the general crisis of capitalism. Crisis of tradition. values bourgeois M. is revealed in the “loss of ideals”, in the narrowing of the sphere of moral regulation (amoralism bourgeois politics, crisis of family and marriage relations, increase in crime, drug addiction, corruption, “escapism” and “rebellion” of youth).

Span. M., different historical. optimism, preserves and develops genuine moral values. As the socialist is approved. relations, the new M. becomes a regulator of everyday relationships between people, gradually penetrating into all spheres of society. life and shaping the consciousness and morals of millions of people. For communist morality is characterized by consistency. implementation of the principle of equality and cooperation between people and nations, internationalism and respect for people in all spheres of their societies. and personal manifestations based on the principle - “...the freedom of each is a condition for the free development of all” (Marx K. and Engels F., ibid. T. 4, With. 447) .

Communist morality becomes unified already within the framework of socialism. society, but its class character remains until class contradictions are completely overcome. “A morality that stands above class oppositions and any memories of them, truly human morality, will become possible only at such a stage of development of society when the opposition of classes will not only be overcome, but also forgotten in life practice.” (Engels F., ibid. T. 20, With. 96) .

Lenin V.I., About communism. morality. [Sb.], M., 19752; Kon I. S., M. communist and M. bourgeois, M., I960; B e k G., On Marxist ethics and socialism. M., lane With German M., 1962; Selzam G., Marxism and M., trans... s English, M., 1962; X ai k i n Ya. 3., Structure of moral and legal systems, M., 1972; Gumnitsky G.N., Main. problems of theory M., Ivanovo, 1972; Moral regulation and personality. Sat. Art., M., 1972; Drobnitsky O. G., Concept M., M., 1974; Titarenko A.I., Structures of morals. consciousness, M., 1974; M. and ethical. theory, M., 1974; Guseinov A. A., Social morality, M., 1974; Rybakova N.V., Moral relations and theirs, Leningrad, 1974; M. developed socialism, M., 1976; Morals and personality, Vilnius, 1976; Social, structure and functions M., M., 1977; Petropavlovsky R.V., Dialectics of progress and it in morality, M., 1978; Anisimov S. F., M. and behavior, M., 1979; Shishkin A.F., Human. nature and morality, M., 1979; Moral, M., 1980; Fundamentals of Communism M., M., 1980; The definition of morality, ed. G. Wallace and A. D. M. Walker, L., ;

O. G. Drobnitsky.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .

MORALITY

(from Latin moralis - moral)

that area from the realm of ethical values (see. Ethics), which is primarily recognized by every adult. The dimensions and content of this sphere change over time and are different among different peoples and segments of the population (many moralities and unity of ethics). Basic problems in morality are questions about what is a “good custom”, what is “decent”, what makes it possible for people to live together, in which everyone refuses the full implementation of life values (food consumption, sexuality, the need for security, the desire for significance and to possession) in favor of the implementation (least of all due to the understanding of what is considered correct) of social values (recognition of the rights of another person, justice, truthfulness, trustworthiness, fidelity, tolerance, politeness, etc.); cm. Rule. The dominant morality of all peoples and at all times, in addition to social values, also includes those that are regarded by religion as good behavior (love of neighbor, charity, hospitality, veneration of ancestors, worship, etc.). Morality is an integral part of the individual microcosm; it is one of the moments that determines the individual’s picture of the world.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

MORALITY

(from Latin moralis - moral) - a form of society. consciousness, a set of principles, rules, norms by which people are guided in their behavior. These norms are an expression of definition. real relationships of people to each other and to various forms of humanity. community: family, work collective, class, nation, society as a whole. The most important specific M.'s trait is morality. actions and motives for them. The basis for such an assessment are the ideas that have developed in society, among a given class, about good and evil, about duty, justice and injustice, about honor and dishonor, in which the requirements for an individual from society or a class or society are expressed. or class interests. Unlike law, the principles and norms of M. are not fixed in the state. legislation; their implementation is based not on the law, but on conscience and society. opinion. M. is embodied in morals and customs. Stable, firmly established moral standards. Behaviors passed on from generation to generation constitute morals. tradition. The content of M. also includes morals. beliefs and habits that together form morals. personality consciousness. M. manifests itself in people's actions. Morals behavior is characterized by the unity of consciousness and action.

According to historical materialism, M. is one of the elements of ideological. superstructures of society. Social M. is to contribute to the preservation and strengthening of existing societies. relationships or contribute to their destruction - through morality. approval or condemnation defined. actions and societies. orders of magnitude. The basis for the formation of M. norms is social, those relationships in which people are connected with each other in society. Among them, production plays a decisive role. relationships. People develop certain moral norms primarily in accordance with their position in the system of material production. That is why in a class society M. has a class character; everyone develops their own moral principles. In addition to production. relations, M. is also influenced by historically established national. traditions and life. M. interacts with other components of the superstructure: state, law, religion, art.

People's moral views changed along with changes in their social life. In each era as a whole or its components, antagonistic. developed such a criterion for M., which followed with objective necessity from their material interests. None of these criteria could lay claim to general validity, since in a class society the unity of material interests of all people did not and could not exist. However, in M. advanced societies. strength contained universal humanity. M. of the future. They are inherited and developed by , designed to forever end the exploitation of man by man and create a society without classes. “Truly human morality,” wrote Engels, “standing above class contradictions and all memories of them, will become possible only at such a stage of development of society when not only the opposition of classes will be destroyed, but even its trace in practical life will be erased” (“Anti- Dühring", 1957, p. 89).

Progress in the development of society naturally led to progress in the development of morality. “...In morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, progress is generally observed” (ibid.). In every historical During the progressive era, those moral norms that met the needs of societies were of a progressive nature. development, contributed to the destruction of old, obsolete societies. building and replacing it with a new one. Bearers of morals. progress in history has always been revolutionaries. classes. Progress in the development of M. lies in the fact that with the development of society, such norms of M. arose and became increasingly widespread, which raised the dignity of the individual, socially useful work, and cultivated in people the need to serve society, among fighters for a just cause.

M. is the oldest form of society. consciousness. It originated in primitive society directly. the influence of the process of production, which required the coordination of the actions of community members and the subordination of the will of the individual to common interests. The practice of relationships, which developed under the influence of a brutal struggle for power, was gradually consolidated in customs and traditions, which were strictly followed. The basis of morality was primitive collectivism and the primitive collectivism characteristic of clan society. A person felt inseparable from the collective, outside of which he could not get food and fight numerous enemies. “The security of an individual depended on his family; ties of kinship were a powerful element of mutual support; to offend someone meant to offend him” (Marx and Engels Archive, vol. 9, 1941, p. 67). Selfless devotion and loyalty to one's clan and tribe, selfless defense of relatives, mutual assistance towards them were the indisputable norms of M. of that time, and in the clan its members showed hard work, endurance, courage, and contempt for death. In joint work, a sense of duty was laid down, and a sense of justice was born on the basis of primitive equality. The absence of private ownership of the means of production made M. uniform for all members of the clan, for the entire tribe. Everyone, even the weakest member of the clan, felt its collective strength; This was the source of the self-esteem characteristic of people of that time.

The classics of Marxism-Leninism pointed to the high level of labor in clan society, where, according to Lenin, the common connection, society itself, and the work routine were maintained “... by the force of habit, tradition, authority or respect enjoyed by clan elders or women, in at that time they often occupied not only an equal position with men, but often even a higher one, and when there was no special category of people - specialists - to manage" (Oc., vol. 29, p. 438).

At the same time, it would be wrong to idealize the model of the primitive communal system and not see its historically determined limitations. Harsh life, an extremely low level of development of production, human powerlessness before the still unknown forces of nature gave rise to superstitions and extremely cruel customs. The ancient custom of blood feud originated in the family. Only gradually did the wild custom of cannibalism, which had persisted for a long time during military clashes, disappear. Marx, in his summary of the book “Ancient Society,” pointed out that both positive and certain negatives developed in tribal society. morals quality. “At the lowest level of barbarism, the highest properties of man began to develop.

Personal dignity, eloquence, religious feeling, straightforwardness, courage, bravery have now become general traits of character, but along with them appeared cruelty, betrayal and fanaticism" (Archives of Marx and Engels, vol. 9, p. 45 ).

M. primitive communal system - Ch. arr. M. blind submission to the indisputable demands of custom. The individual is still merged with the collective, he does not recognize himself as a person; there is no distinction between “personal” and “public”. Collectivism is limited. character. “Everything that was outside the tribe,” says Engels, “was outside the law” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 21, p. 99). The further development of society required the expansion of communication between people and should naturally lead to the expansion of the framework within which moral norms operate.

With the emergence of slave ownership. society, the period of existence of class society began. Private society undermined and then destroyed the collectivism of tribal society. Engels wrote that the primitive community “... was broken under influences that directly seem to us to be a decline, a fall from grace in comparison with the high moral level of the old tribal society. The basest motives are vulgar greed, rude to pleasures, dirty stinginess, selfish desire for robbery of the common property - are the successors of a new, civilized, class society; the most vile means - theft, deceit, treason - undermine the old classless tribal society and lead to its destruction" (ibid.). Private property freed slave owners from the need to work; produces. began to be considered unworthy of a free person. In contrast to the customs and mores of clan society, the slave owners' culture viewed social inequality as a natural and fair form of humanity. relations and defended private ownership of the means of production. Slaves essentially stood outside M., they were considered as the property of the slave owner, “speaking.”

Nevertheless, the new M. was a reflection of a higher level of development of society and, although it did not apply to slaves, it covered a much wider range of people than a tribe, namely the entire free population of the state. Morals remained extremely cruel, but prisoners, as a rule, were no longer killed. Subjected to morals. condemnation and cannibalism disappeared. Individualism and associated with it, which replaced primitive collectivism and since the times of slave owners. M. lies at the basis of the morality of all exploiting classes; at first they were a necessary form of self-affirmation of the individual (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 236). At the same time, the best that was created in morals. consciousness of the tribal system, did not die completely, but received a new life in new conditions. Many of the simple norms of morality and justice that originated in tribal society continued to live among the free artisans and peasants of the era of slavery. Along with the M. of slave owners and its variety for the oppressed - the slave M. of humility and obedience - the M. of protest of the oppressed against oppression arose and developed among the masses of slaves. This M., which aroused indignation at the inhumane orders of the slave-owning system and developed especially during the era of its decline, reflected the contradictions that led to the collapse of the slave-owning society and accelerated its collapse.

In the era of feudalism, a characteristic feature of spiritual life was religion, the church, which acted “... as the most general synthesis and the most general sanction of the existing feudal system” (F. Engels, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Op. , 2nd ed., vol. 7, p. 361). The dogmas of the church had a great influence on morality and, as a rule, themselves had the force of morality. norms. M., preached Christ. church, had the goal of protecting the feud. relations and reconciliation of the oppressed classes with their position in society. This M. with her preaching of religions. intolerance and fanaticism, sanctimonious rejection of worldly goods, Christ. equality of people before God and humility before those in power outwardly acted as a single M. of the entire society, but in reality it served as a hypocritical cover for immoral practices and the wild arbitrariness of spiritual and secular feudal lords. The massacres of the ruling exploiting classes are characterized by an ever-increasing discrepancy between official massacres and practical ones. M. or real morals. relationships (morals). The common feature is practical. M. spiritual and secular feudal lords had contempt for the physical. labor and the working masses, cruelty towards dissidents and all those who encroached on the feud. order, clearly manifested in the activities of the “Holy Inquisition” and in the suppression of the cross. uprisings. The peasant “...was treated everywhere as a thing or a beast of burden, or even worse” (ibid., p. 356). Real morals. the relationship was very far from certain Christian norms. M. (love for one's neighbor, mercy, etc.) and from the code of chivalry of that time, which ordered the feudal lord to show loyalty to the overlord and the “lady of the heart,” honesty, justice, selflessness, etc. The provisions of this code, however, played a decisive role. positive role in the development of morals. relationships.

M. ruling classes and feudal estates. Society was opposed primarily by the M. of the serfs, which was distinguished by its extreme inconsistency. On the one hand, centuries of feud. exploitation, political lawlessness and religion. stupefaction in feudal conditions. isolation also developed in the peasants humility, the habit of subordination, and a servile view of the spiritual and secular feudal lord as a father appointed by God. Engels wrote that “...the peasants, although embittered by terrible oppression, were still difficult to rouse to revolt.

Int. inconsistency and exploitative essence of the bourgeoisie. M. appeared when she came to power and found herself face to face with the proletariat who were rising to fight. The promised bourgeois. by the enlighteners, the kingdom of reason and justice turned out to be in fact the kingdom of the money bag, which increased the poverty of the working class, giving rise to new social disasters and vices (see F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1957, p. 241). Burzh. M. with its claim to eternity turned out to be a narrow, limited and self-interested M. bourgeois.

Basic bourgeois principle M., determined by the character of the bourgeois. society relations, is the principle of sanctity and inviolability of private property as the “eternal” and “immutable” foundation of all societies. life. From this principle follows the moral justification for the exploitation of man by man and all the practices of the bourgeoisie. relationships. For the sake of wealth, money, profit, the bourgeoisie is ready to violate any moral and humanistic ideals. principles. The bourgeoisie, having achieved dominance, “...left no connection between people except bare interest, heartless “purity.” In the icy water of selfish calculation, it drowned the sacred thrill of religious ecstasy, knightly enthusiasm, bourgeois sentimentality. It turned the personal into exchange value. .." (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 426).

In the bourgeoisie M. received its complete expression, characteristic to one degree or another of M. of all exploiting classes and egoism. Private property and competition separate people and place them in hostile relationships with each other. If in the fight against feudalism the bourgeois. individualism also contributed to a certain extent to the formation of personality, its liberation from feudalism. and religious put, then during the period of bourgeois rule it became a source of hypocritically disguised or open immoralism. Individualism and egoism lead to the suppression of what is truly human. feelings and relationships, to the neglect of societies. debt, suppress and disfigure the development of personality.

An integral feature of the bourgeoisie. M. is hypocrisy, hypocrisy, duplicity. The source of these vices is rooted in the very essence of capitalism. relations that make each bourgeois personally interested in violating officially proclaimed moral norms and in ensuring that these norms are observed by the rest of society. According to Engels' figurative remark, the bourgeois believes in his own morals. ideals only with a hangover or when he goes bankrupt.

The closer the capitalist system to its destruction, the more anti-national and hypocritical the bourgeoisie becomes. Especially the reaction. she took on the character of modern times. era - the era of the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of communism. The deep moral decay has engulfed the top of the capitalist class to the greatest extent. society - monopolistic. bourgeoisie. It has become a superfluous class both in the process of production and in society. life. For modern The bourgeoisie is characterized by the absence of genuine morals. ideals, disbelief in the future, and cynicism. Burzh. society is experiencing deep ideological and moral values. a crisis. The moral degradation of the bourgeoisie has a particularly detrimental effect on young people, among whom crime and crime are on the rise. Historical the doom of the bourgeoisie is perceived by the bourgeoisie. consciousness as the impending death of the entire society is the source of degradation of all moral values of the bourgeoisie. society. To delay their death, the bourgeoisie resorts to preaching anti-communism, which means. occupies slander of the heroic. M. advanced fighters for and progress.

Already in the early stages of development of the bourgeoisie. society in the working class a span is born. M. It arises and develops in the struggle that the class leads against the bourgeoisie, against lawlessness and oppression, and is then formed under the influence of scientific, dialectical-materialistic. worldview. Marxist-Leninist theory first gave scientific justification of the goal that all oppressed classes strived for - the abolition of exploitation - and opened up ways and means to achieve this goal. Basic span features. M, follow from the characteristics and historical. the role of the proletariat.

In communist M. is further developed by socialism. collectivism, mutual assistance among socialist members. society in work, in society. endeavors, in school and in everyday life. This, comprehensively developing during the period of extensive construction of communism, is based on the genuine collectivism of societies. relationships. Thanks to the dominance of the socialist ownership of the means of production is the property of morals. the consciousness of the members of society becomes so simple that “... the good, the happiness of each individual is inextricably linked with the good of other people” (F. Engels, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 535).

Contrary to the slanderous statements of the bourgeois ideologists, communists M. does not require the dissolution of the individual in the team or the suppression of the individual. On the contrary, the principles of communist M. open up wide scope for the comprehensive development and flourishing of the personality of every working person, because only under socialism “... the original and free development of individuals ceases to be a phrase...” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed. ., vol. 3, p. 441). One of the conditions for the development of high morals. personal qualities (sense of dignity, courage, integrity in beliefs and actions, honesty, truthfulness, modesty, etc.) is the individual in socialism. team. In Sov. society building communism, many. millions of workers participate in government management. affairs, show creativity, initiative in the development of socialism. production, in the struggle for a new life.

For morals. socialist relations society is characterized by new socially useful labor, which is valued by society. opinion as of high morals. business (see Communist labor). Morals quality of owls people became about societies. good, high consciousness of societies. debt. Sov. people tend to be socialists. Motherland and socialist. internationalism.

The victory of socialism established new morals. relationships in people's everyday lives, in their family life, put an end to the oppressed position of women.

Family relations in socialist society are freed from material calculations, love, mutual respect, and raising children become the basis of the family.

Communist M. socialist. society building communism is a coherent system of principles and norms that have found general expression in the moral code of the builder of communism. These principles and norms are established in the life of owls. society in the fight against the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people, against alien owls. society I build on the moral norms of the old society, which are maintained by the force of habit, tradition and under the influence of the bourgeoisie. ideology. Communist The party is considering the fight against manifestations of bourgeoisie. morality as an important communist task. education and considers it necessary to achieve new morals. standards have become internal. a need of all owls. of people. New moral norms are generated by socialist life itself. society and are a reflection of new social relations. But in order for them to become the property of the entire people, persistent, purposeful ideological and organizational work of the party is necessary.

Its full development is communist. M. will get into the communist. a society where morals. relationships will play the role of ch. human regulator behavior. Along with the improvement of communist society relations will be constantly improved and communist. M., truly human moral relations will be revealed more and more.

V. Morozov. Moscow.

Lit.: Marx K., Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 4; Engels Φ., Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; his, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, ibid., vol. 21; his, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, ibid., vol. 21; V. I. Lenin on morality, M.–L., 1926; V. and Lenin on communist morality, 2nd ed., M., 1963; Lenin V.I., Tasks of youth unions, [M. ], 1954; Program of the CPSU (Adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU), M., 1961; Morality as communists understand it, [Documents, letters, statements], 2nd ed., M., 1963; Schopenhauer A., Free will and foundations M., 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1896; Berthelot M., Science and Morality, M., 1898; Letourneau S., Evolution M., 1899; Brunetier F., Art and Morality, St. Petersburg, 1900; Nietzsche F.V., The origin of morality, Collection. soch., vol. 9, M., ; Kautsky K., Origin of M., M., 1906; Krzhivitsky L.I., Origin and development of morality, Gomel, 1924; Lunacharsky A.V., M. from a Marxist point of view, X., 1925; Marxism and ethics. [Sat. Art. ], 2nd ed., [K. ], 1925; Yaroslavsky E., M. and the life of the proletariat in the transition period, "Young Guard", 1926, book. 5, p. 138–53; Lafargue P., Studies on the origin and development of ideas: justice, goodness, soul and God, in the book: Lafargue P., Economic. Karl Marx, 2nd ed., M.–L., ; Morgan L.G., Ancient Society, 2nd ed., Leningrad, 1935; Kalinin M.I., On the moral character of our people, 2nd ed., M., 1947; Kareva M.P., Law and morality in socialism. society, M., 1951; Volgin V.P., Humanism and, M., 1955; Shishkin A.F., Fundamentals of Communism. M., M., 1955; him, Fundamentals of Marxist Ethics, M., 1961; Buslov K., V.I. Lenin on the class essence of morality, "Communist of Belarus", 1957, No. 6; Kolonitsky P.F., M. i, M., 1958; Mukhortov N. M., Some questions of communist M. in connection with the problem of necessity and freedom, "Tr. Voronezh University", 1958, vol. 69, p. 187–201; Kon I. S., M. communist. and M. bourgeois, M., 1960; Bakshutov V.K., Moral incentives in human life, [Sverdl. ], 1961; Efimov B.T., Communism and M., K., 1961; Prokofiev V.I., Two M. (M. religious and M. communist), M., 1961; Shtaerman E. M., M. and the religion of the oppressed classes of the Roman Empire, M., 1961; Marxist ethics. Reader, comp. V. T. Efimov and I. G. Petrov, M., 1961; Baskin M.P., Crisis of the bourgeoisie. consciousness, M., 1962; Böck G., On Marxist ethics and socialism. M., per. from German, M., 1962; Everything in a person should be perfect. [Sat. Art. ], L., 1962; Kurochkin P.K., Orthodoxy and humanism, M. , 1962; Oh communist. ethics. [Sat. Art. ], L., 1962; Selzam G., Marxism and M., trans. from English, M., 1962; Utkin S., Essays on Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, M., 1962; Khaikin Ya. Z., Rules of law and law and their connection during the transition to communism, "Tartu University Academic Record", 1962, vol. 124, Tr. in Philosophy, vol. 6, p. 94–123; Drobnitsky O. G., Justification of immorality. Critical essays about modern times bourgeois ethics, M., 1963; Zhuravkov M. G., The most important principle of communist morality, "Questions of Philosophy", 1963, No. 5; Ivanov V. G. and Rybakova N. V., Essays on Marxist-Leninist ethics, [L. ], 1963; Sadykov F.B., Communist. morality, [Novosib. ], 1963; Shvartsman K. A., “Psychoanalysis” and questions M., M., 1963; Zlatarov A., Moral and, in the book: Zlatarov A., Essays on Biology, Sofia, 1911, pp. 46–105; Schweitzer A., Civilization and ethics, 3 ed., L., 1946; Oakley H. D., Greek ethical thought from Homer to the stoics, Bost., 1950; Draz M. A., La morale du Koran, P., 1951; Lottin D. O., Psychologie et morale aux XII et XIII siècles, t. 2–4, Louvain–Gembloux, 1948–54; Carritt E. F., Morals and politics. Theories of their relation from Hobbes and Spinoza to Marx and Bosanquet, Oxf., .

L. Azarkh. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

MORALITY

MORALITY (lat. moralitas) is a concept of European philosophy that serves to generalize the sphere of highest values and obligations. Morality generalizes that cross-section of human experience, different aspects of which are designated by the words “good” and “evil”, “virtue” and “vice”, “right” and “wrong”, “duty”, “conscience”, “justice”, etc. e. Ideas about morality are formed in the process of understanding, firstly, correct behavior, proper character (“moral character”), and secondly, the conditions and limits of a person’s will, limited by his own (internal) obligation, as well as the limits of freedom in conditions from outside the given organizational and (or) regulatory order.

In the world history of ideas, it is possible to reconstruct antinomic ideas about morality as a) a system (code) of norms and values imputed to a person in fulfillment (universal and absolute or particular and relative) and b) the sphere of individual self-esteem (free or predetermined by some external factors) .

According to one of the most common modern approaches, morality is interpreted as a way of regulating (in particular, normative) behavior of people. This understanding is formalized in J. S. Mill, although it was formed earlier - the idea of morality as some form of imperativeness (in contrast to the understanding of morality that dominated in Enlightenment thought as primarily the sphere of motives) is found in different versions in Hobbes, Mandeville, and Kant. In the perception and interpretation of the imperativeness of morality, several approaches and levels are distinguishable. Firstly, a nihilistic attitude to morality, in which imperativeness is not accepted as such: any ordering of individual manifestations, in the form of everyday rules, social norms or universal cultural principles, is perceived as a yoke, suppression of the individual (Protagoras, Sade, Nietzsche). Secondly, a protest against the external coercion of morality, which can also express itself as a moral one - an individualized attitude towards existing mores or the denial of external, official, hypocritical submission to social norms; the intrinsic value of morality is interpreted as its inability to be subject to externally given and self-reliant norms and rules (S. L. Frank, P. Janet). Thirdly, the interpretation of the imperativeness of morality as an expression of the need for expedient interaction in society. Understanding morality as a set of “rules of behavior” (Spencer, J.S. Mill, Durkheim) will place it in a more general system (of nature, society) and the criterion for the morality of actions is their adequacy to the needs and goals of the system. In line with this understanding of imperativeness, morality is interpreted not as a force of supra-individual control over the behavior of citizens, but as developed by people themselves and enshrined in the “social contract” of interaction between people (Sophists, Epicurus, Hobbes, Rousseau, Rawls), a system of mutual obligations that people as citizens of one community take over. In this sense, morality is conventional, variable, and prudential. Fourthly, consideration of moral imperativeness from the point of view of its specificity, which lies in the fact that it is more motivating than prohibitive: moral sanctions addressed to a person as a conscious and free subject are of an ideal nature (Kant, Hegel, Hare). Fifthly, understanding the mutual and self-restraints imposed by morality, as indicating its peculiarity that morality sets the form of volition; The fulfillment of a requirement directly depends on the person; by fulfilling a requirement, he, as it were, proclaims it himself. This is a feature of non-institutionalized forms of behavior regulation. Related to this is the fact that the morality of actions is determined both by the content and result of the action performed, and, no less, by the intention with which it was committed, which significantly distinguishes morality from law-abidingness, opportunism, servility or diligence. The “internally motivating” nature of the imperativeness of morality is reflected in the special concepts of duty and conscience. However, the imperativeness of morality is perceived as “internal,” i.e., coming from the individual (as autonomous, self-determining and creative), with a certain, namely social or socio-communitarian point of view on morality, according to which morality is the norms existing in the Community, and the personality in its activity is determined by those dependencies in which it, as a member of the community, is included. Assuming variously interpreted transcendental principles of human activity and, accordingly, when considering a person not only as a social or socio-biological, but also as a generic, spiritual being, capable of volitional and active changes in external circumstances, as well as himself (see Perfection), - the source of moral imperativeness is interpreted differently. The person broadcasts, etc. represents value content in society (in relation to society). This gives rise to the idea of virtue or moral phenomena in general as having an intrinsic value that is not determined by other life factors. These are the various ideas about the imperativeness of morality, which reflect (in one form or another) its inherent role of harmonizing individual interests, but also ensuring individual freedom and resisting arbitrariness - by limiting willfulness, ordering the individual (as having a tendency to atomize, alienate) behavior, understanding the goals to which a person strives (in particular, to achieve personal happiness), and the means that are used for this (see Goal and Means).

In comparison with other regulations (legal, local group, administrative-corporate, religious, etc.), moral regulation has features arising from its specificity. The content of moral requirements may or may not coincide with the provisions of other types; At the same time, morality regulates the behavior of people within the framework of existing institutions, but regarding what is not covered by these institutions. In contrast to a number of instruments of social discipline, which ensure that a person as a member of a community confronts natural elements, morality is designed to ensure the independence of a person as a spiritual being (personality) in relation to his own drives, spontaneous reactions and external group and social pressure. Through morality, arbitrariness is transformed into freedom. Accordingly, according to its internal logic, morality is addressed to those who consider themselves free. Based on this, it can be spoken of as a social institution only in the broad sense of the word, i.e., as a set of certain values and requirements formalized in culture (codified and rationalized), the authorization of which is ensured by the very fact of their existence. Morality is non-institutional in the narrow sense of the word: to the extent that its effectiveness does not need to be ensured by any social institutions and to the extent that its coerciveness is not determined by the presence of a force authorized by society external to the individual. Accordingly, the practice of morality, being predetermined (given) by the space of arbitrary behavior, in turn defines freedom. This nature of morality makes it possible to appeal to it when assessing existing social institutions, as well as to proceed from it when forming or reforming them.

There are two main points of view on the issue of the relationship between morality and sociality (social relations). According to one, morality is a type of social relations and is determined by basic social relations (Marx, Durkheim); according to another, differently expressed, morality does not depend directly on social relations, moreover, it is predetermined by sociality. The duality in this issue is related to the following. Morality is undoubtedly woven into social practice and in its reality mediated by it. However, morality is heterogeneous: on the one hand, these are principles (commandments), which are based on an abstract ideal, and on the other hand, practical values and requirements, through which this ideal is variously realized, reflected by a separate consciousness and included in the regulation of actual relationships between people. The ideal, highest values and imperatives are perceived and interpreted by various social actors, who record, explain and justify them in accordance with their social interests. This feature of morality as value consciousness was already reflected in the statements of the sophists; it was quite clearly recorded by Mandeville, reflected in its own way by Hegel in the distinction between “morality” (Moralitat) and “morality” (Sittlichkeit); in Marxism, the idea of morality as a form of class ideology, i.e., transformed consciousness, was developed. In modern philosophy, this internal heterogeneity is reflected in the concept of “primary” and “secondary” morality, presented in the early works of A. Macintayre, or in E. Donaghan’s distinction between first- and second-order moral claims.

). Through utopian socialism, this view was adopted by Marxism, where morality is also interpreted as a form of ideology, and through Stirner it influenced Nietzsche’s interpretation of morality. As in Marxism, in Durkheim's social theory morality was presented as one of the mechanisms of social organization: its institutions and normative content were based on actual social conditions, and religious and moral ideas were considered only as economic states, appropriately expressed by consciousness.

In modern European philosophy (thanks to Machiavelli, Montaigne, Bodin, Bayle, Grotius), another idea of morality is emerging - as an independent form of managing people’s behavior and not reducible to religion, politics, economics, and teaching. This intellectual secularization of the field of morality became a condition for a more private process of formation and development in the 17th and 18th centuries. the actual philosophical concept of morality. The idea of morality as such is formed as an idea of autonomous morality. This approach was first developed in a systematic form by the Cambridge Neoplatonists of the 17th century. (R. Cudworth, G. Moore) and in ethical sentimentalism (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson), where morality is described as a person’s ability to be sovereign and independent of external influence in judgment and behavior. In Kant's philosophy, the autonomy of morality as the autonomy of the will was also affirmed as the ability of a person to make universalizable decisions and to be the subject of his own legislation. According to Kant, appeals not only to society, but also to nature, to God characterize heteronomous ethics. Later, J. E. Moore sharply strengthened this thesis by pointing out the inadmissibility of references to extra-moral qualities in the theoretical justification of morality (see Naturalistic error. Ethics). However, the following requires attention. 1. The concept of morality, developed in European philosophy since the 17th century, is a concept that is adequate specifically to the new European, i.e., secularizing society, which developed according to the model of “civil society.” In it, autonomy is an unconditional social and moral value, against the background in which many values of a traditional type of society, for example, the value of service, fade into the background, or are even completely lost sight of. 2. Both from the point of view of the ethics of service and from the point of view of the ethics of civil society, the subject of moral responsibility of the subject in morality arises. understood as autonomous morality. An essential feature of morality in its special philosophical understanding is universality. In the history of ethical and philosophical thought, three main interpretations of the phenomenon of universality can be traced: as universality, universalizability and universality. The first draws attention to the very fact of the existence of certain moral ideas, in fact, different in content, among all peoples, in all cultures. The second is a concretization of the golden rule of morality and assumes that any moral action or any individual is potentially explicit for every decision, action or judgment in a similar situation. The third concerns ch. O. imperative side of morality and indicates that any of its demands is addressed to every person. The principle of universality reflects the properties of morality as a mechanism of culture, giving a person a timeless and supra-situational criterion for evaluating actions; through morality the individual becomes a citizen of the world.

The described features of morality are revealed when it is conceptualized from the point of view of imperativeness - as a system of norms. In a different way, morality is conceptualized as a sphere of values defined by the dichotomy of good and evil. With this approach, formalized as the so-called. ethics of the good and dominated in the history of philosophy, morality appears not from the side of its functioning (how it operates, what is the nature of the requirement, what social and cultural mechanisms guarantee its implementation, what a person should be as a subject of morality, etc.), but in aspect of what a person should strive for and what to do for this, what results his actions lead to. In this regard, the question arises of how moral values are formed. In modern literature (philosophical and applied), the difference in fundamental approaches to the interpretation of the nature of morality is associated - based on a generalization of late modern European philosophical experience - with the traditions of “Kantianism” (understood as) and “utilitarianism”. A more specific concept of morality is established by correlating good and evil with those general goals and values that a person is guided by in his actions. This is possible based on the distinction between private and common good and analysis of the multidirectional interests (inclinations, emotions) of a person. Then morality is seen in the limitation of egoistic motivation by a social contract or reason (Hobbes, Rawls), in a reasonable combination of selfishness and benevolence (Shaftesbury, utilitarianism), in the rejection of egoism, in compassion and altruism (Schopenhauer, Soloviev). These distinctions turn out to be continued in metaphysical clarifications of the nature of man and the essential characteristics of his existence. Man is dual by nature (this can be expressed in conceptually different forms), and the space of morality opens up on the other side of this duality, in the struggle between the immanent and transcendental principles. With this approach (Augustine, Kant, Berdyaev), the essence of morality is revealed, firstly, through the very fact of the internal contradiction of human existence and through how this fact turns into the possibility of his freedom, and secondly, through how a person in specific actions regarding particular circumstances can realize the ideal principle of morality, how in general a person joins the absolute. In this regard, the peculiarity of morality is revealed as one of the types of value consciousness among others (art, fashion, religion). The question is posed either in such a way that moral values are of the same order as others and differ from them in their content and mode of existence (they are imperative, they are imputed in a certain way), or in such a way that any values, to the extent that they relate decisions, actions and assessments of a person with meaningful foundations and ideals, are moral.

Another, adjacent to the previous, conceptualization of the concept of morality is possible when constructing ethics as a theory of virtues. The tradition of this approach comes from antiquity, where it was presented in its most developed form by Aristotle. Throughout the history of philosophy, both approaches - the theory of norms and the theory of virtues - in one way or another complemented each other, as a rule, within the same constructions, although it was virtue ethics that prevailed (for example, in Thomas Aquinas, B. Franklin, V.S. Solovyov or MacIntyre). If the ethics of norms reflects that side of morality that is associated with the forms of organization or regulation of behavior, and the ethics of values analyzes the positive content, through norms imputed to a person for fulfillment, then the ethics of virtues points to the personal aspect of morality, to what a person should be in order to realize proper and correct behavior. Medieval thought recognized two fundamental sets of virtues—the “cardinal” and the “theological virtues.” However, along with this distinction in the history of ethics, an understanding of morality is being formed, according to which the cardinal virtues in the proper sense of the word are justice and mercy. In terms of theoretical description, these different virtues point to two levels of morality - the morality of social interaction (see Golden Rule of Morality - (lat. moralis doctrina; see moralist). Morality, a set of rules recognized as true and serving as a guide in the actions of people . Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. MORAL [fr. morale] ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Modern society cannot be imagined without ethical standards. Every self-respecting state compiles a set of laws that citizens are obliged to follow. The moral side in any business is a responsible component that cannot be neglected. In our country, there is a concept of moral damage, when the inconvenience caused to a person is measured in material equivalent in order to at least partially compensate for his experiences.

Morality– norms of behavior accepted in society and ideas about this behavior. Morality also refers to moral values, foundations, orders and regulations. If in society someone commits actions that contradict the designated norms, then they are called immoral.

The concept of morality is very closely related to ethics. Compliance with ethical concepts requires high spiritual development. Sometimes social attitudes run counter to the needs of the individual himself, and then a conflict arises. In this case, an individual with his own ideology runs the risk of finding himself misunderstood and alone in society.

How is morality formed?

Morality of man depends largely on himself. Only the individual himself is responsible for what happens to him. Whether a person will be successful or not is accepted by others depends on how ready she is to follow the orders established in society. The development of morality and moral concepts occurs in the parental family. It is those first people with whom a child begins to interact in the early stages of his life who leave a serious imprint on his future fate. So, the formation of morality is significantly influenced by the immediate environment in which a person grows. If a child grows up in a dysfunctional family, then from an early age he develops a misconception about how the world works and develops a distorted perception of himself in society. As an adult, such a person will begin to experience enormous difficulties in communicating with other people and will feel dissatisfaction on their part. If a child is raised in a prosperous average family, he begins to absorb the values of his immediate environment, and this process occurs naturally.

Awareness of the need to follow social instructions occurs due to the presence in a person of such a concept as conscience. Conscience is formed from early childhood under the influence of society, as well as individual inner feelings.

Functions of morality

Few people actually question why morality is needed? This concept consists of many important components and protects a person’s conscience from unwanted actions. The individual is responsible for the consequences of his moral choice not only to society, but also to himself. There are functions of morality that help it fulfill its purpose.

Evaluation function is connected with how other people or the person himself determines the actions he has committed. In the case when self-assessment occurs, the person is usually inclined to justify his own actions by some circumstances. It is much more difficult to bring actions to public court, because society is sometimes unforgiving when assessing others.
Regulatory function helps establish norms in society that will become laws intended to be followed by all. The rules of behavior in society are acquired by the individual at a subconscious level. That is why, when we find ourselves in a place where there are a large number of people, most of us, after some time, begin to unerringly follow the unspoken laws adopted specifically in this particular society.
Control function is directly related to checking how much an individual is able to follow the rules established in society. Such control helps to achieve a state of “clear conscience” and social approval. If an individual does not behave appropriately, he will certainly receive condemnation from other people as a backlash.
Integrating function helps maintain a state of harmony within a person. When performing certain actions, a person, one way or another, analyzes his actions, “tests” them for honesty and decency.
Educational function is to give a person the opportunity to learn to understand and accept the needs of the people around him, to take into account their needs, characteristics and desires. If an individual reaches a state of such internal breadth of consciousness, then we can say that he is able to care for others, and not just for himself. Morality is often associated with a sense of duty. A person who has responsibilities to society is disciplined, responsible and decent. Norms, rules and procedures educate a person, form his social ideals and aspirations.

Moral standards

They are consistent with Christian ideas about good and evil and what a real person should be.

Prudence is an essential component of any strong person. It presupposes that an individual has the ability to adequately perceive the surrounding reality, build harmonious connections and relationships, make reasonable decisions, and act constructively in difficult situations.
Abstinence involves a ban on looking at married people of the opposite sex. The ability to cope with one’s desires and impulses is approved by society, while reluctance to follow spiritual canons is condemned.
Justice always implies that for all acts committed on this earth, sooner or later retribution or some kind of response will come. Treating other people fairly means, first of all, recognizing their value as significant units of human society. Respect and attention to their needs also relate to this point.
Durability is formed through the ability to endure the blows of fate, gain the necessary experience and constructively emerge from a crisis state. Resilience as a moral standard implies the desire to fulfill one's purpose and move forward despite difficulties. By overcoming obstacles, a person becomes stronger and can later help other people go through their individual trials.
Hard work valued in any society. This concept means a person’s passion for something, the realization of his talent or abilities for the benefit of other people. If a person is not ready to share the results of his work, then he cannot be called hardworking. That is, the need for activity should not be related to personal enrichment, but to serve the consequences of one’s work to as many people as possible.
Humility achieved through prolonged suffering and repentance. The ability to stop in time and not resort to revenge in a situation where you have seriously offended is akin to real art. But a truly strong person has enormous freedom of choice: he is able to overcome destructive feelings.
Politeness necessary in the process of interaction between people. Thanks to it, it becomes possible to conclude deals and agreements that are beneficial for both parties. Politeness characterizes a person from the best side and helps him move constructively towards a given goal.

Principles of morality

These principles exist, making significant additions to generally accepted social norms. Their significance and necessity lies in contributing to the formation of general formulas and patterns accepted in a given society.

Talion principle clearly demonstrates the concept of uncivilized countries - “an eye for an eye.” That is, if someone suffered any loss due to the fault of another person, this other person is obliged to compensate the first through his own loss. Modern psychological science says that it is necessary to be able to forgive, reorient oneself to the positive, and look for constructive methods to get out of a conflict situation.
Moral principle involves following Christian commandments and observing divine law. An individual does not have the right to harm his neighbor, or to deliberately try to cause him any damage based on deception or theft. The principle of morality most powerfully appeals to a person’s conscience, forcing him to remember his spiritual component. The phrase “Treat your neighbor the way you want him to treat you” is the most striking manifestation of this principle.
The principle of the "golden mean" is expressed in the ability to see moderation in all matters. This term was first introduced by Aristotle. The desire to avoid extremes and move systematically towards a given goal will certainly lead to success. You cannot use another person as a way to solve your individual problems. You need to feel moderation in everything, be able to compromise in time.
The principle of well-being and happiness is presented in the form of the following postulate: “Act towards your neighbor in such a way as to bring him the greatest good.” It doesn’t matter what action is performed, the main thing is that it can benefit as many people as possible. This principle of morality presupposes the ability to predict the situation several steps ahead, to foresee the possible consequences of one’s actions.
Principle of justice based on equal treatment between all citizens. It states that each of us must observe the unspoken rules of treating other people and remember that the neighbor living in the same house with us has the same rights and freedoms as us. The principle of justice implies punishment in case of illegal actions.
The principle of humanism is the leading one among all the above. It assumes that every person has the idea of a condescending attitude towards other people. Humanity is expressed in compassion, in the ability to understand one’s neighbor and to be as useful to him as possible.

Thus, the importance of morality in human life is of decisive importance. Morality affects all spheres of human interaction: religion, art, law, traditions and customs. In the existence of every individual, sooner or later questions arise: how to live, what principle to follow, what choice to make, and he turns to his own conscience for answers.

Morality is a conditional concept of rules, principles, assessments, norms based on the paradigm of assessments of evil and good, which was formed in a certain period of time. This is a model of social consciousness, a method of regulating the behavior of a subject in society. It develops both in individual and social forms of subjective relations.

The concept of morality from the point of view considered by psychologists is a fragment of the human psyche, formed at a deep level, responsible for assessing events occurring in various planes with the meaning of good and bad. The word morality is often used as a synonym for the word morality.

What is morality

The word "morality" originates from classical Latin. It is derived from “mos”, a Latin word meaning character, custom. Referring to Aristotle, Cicero, guided by this meaning, formed the words: “moralis” and “moralitas” - moral and ethics, which became equivalent to expressions from the Greek language: ethics and ethical.

The term “morality” is mainly used to designate the type of behavior of society as a whole, but there are exceptions, for example, Christian or bourgeois morality. Thus, the term is used only in relation to a limited group of the population. Analyzing the attitude of society in different eras of existence to the same action, it should be noted that morality is a conditional value, variable in connection with the accepted social structure. Each nation has its own morality, based on experience and traditions.

Some scientists have also noted that different moral rules apply to subjects not only of different nationalities, but also to subjects belonging to an “alien” group. The definition of a group of people in the vector “friend”, “stranger” occurs at the psychological level of the individual’s relationship with this group in various senses: cultural, ethnic, and others. By identifying himself with a specific group, the subject accepts those rules and norms (morality) that are accepted in it; consider this way of life more fair than following the morality of the whole society.

A person knows a large number of meanings of this concept, which is interpreted from various points of view in various sciences, but its basis remains constant - this is a person’s definition of his actions, the actions of society in the equivalent of “good or bad.”

Morality is created on the basis of the paradigm adopted in a particular society, since the designations of “good or bad” are relative, not absolute, and the explanation of the morality or immorality of various types of acts is conditional.

Morality, as a combination of rules and norms of society, is formed over a long period on the basis of traditions and laws adopted in a particular society. For comparison, you can use the example associated with the burning of witches - women who were suspected of using magic and witchcraft. In a period such as the Middle Ages, against the background of adopted laws, such an action was considered a highly moral act, that is, good. In the modern paradigm of adopted laws, such atrocity is considered an absolutely unacceptable and stupid crime against the subject. At the same time, you can put such incidents as holy wars, genocide or slavery. In their era, in a particular society with its own laws, such actions were accepted as the norm and were considered absolutely moral.

The formation of morality is directly related to the evolution of various ethnic groups of humanity in its social key. Scientists who study the social evolution of peoples consider morality to be the result of the influence of the forces of evolution on the group as a whole and on individuals individually. Based on their understanding, behavioral norms prescribed by morality change during the evolution of humanity, ensuring the survival of species and their reproduction, and guaranteeing the success of evolution. Along with this, the subject forms in himself a “pro-social” fundamental part of the psyche. As a result, a feeling of responsibility for what was done, a feeling of guilt, is formed.

Accordingly, morality is a certain set of behavioral norms that is formed over a long period of time, under the influence of environmental conditions at a certain moment it forms a set of established ideological norms that contribute to the development of human cooperation. It is also aimed at avoiding the individualism of the subject in society; formation of groups united by a common worldview. Sociobiologists consider this point of view in a number of species of social animals; there is a desire to change behavior aimed at survival and preservation of one’s own species during the period of evolution. Which corresponds to the formation of morality, even in animals. In humans, moral norms are more sophisticated and diverse, but they are also concentrated on preventing individualism in behavior, which contributes to the formation of nationalities and, accordingly, increases the chances of survival. It is believed that even such norms of behavior as parental love are consequences of the evolution of human morality - this type of behavior increases the level of survival of offspring.

Studies of the human brain conducted by sociobiologists determine that the parts of the subject's cerebral cortex that are involved when a person is preoccupied with moral issues do not form a separate cognitive subsystem. Often, during the period of solving moral problems, areas of the brain are activated that localize the neural network responsible for the subject’s ideas about the intentions of others. To the same extent, the neural network responsible for the individual’s representation of the emotional experience of other individuals is involved. That is, when solving moral problems, a person uses those parts of his brain that correspond to empathy and compassion, this indicates that morality is aimed at developing mutual understanding between subjects (an individual’s ability to see things through the eyes of another subject, to understand his feelings and experiences). According to the theory of moral psychology, morality as such develops and changes as the personality develops. There are several approaches to understanding the formation of morality at the personal level:

– cognitive approach (Jean Piaget, Lorenz Kohlberg and Eliot Turiel) – morality in personal development goes through several constructive stages or areas;

– biological approach (Jonathan Haidt and Martin Hoffman) – morality is considered against the background of the development of the social or emotional component of the human psyche. Interesting for the development of the doctrine of morality as a psychological component of personality is the approach of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, who suggested that morality is formed as a consequence of the desire of the “superego” to get out of a state of guilt.

What are moral standards

Fulfillment of moral norms is the moral duty of the subject; violation of these measures of behavior represents a feeling of moral guilt.

Moral norms in society are generally accepted measures of subject behavior that arise from formed morality. The totality of these norms forms a certain system of rules, which in all respects differ from the normative systems of society such as customs, rights and ethics.

In the early stages of formation, moral norms were directly related to religion, which prescribes the meaning of divine revelation to moral norms. Each religion has a set of certain moral norms (commandments) that are mandatory for all believers. Failure to comply with prescribed moral standards in religion is considered a sin. In various world religions, there is a certain pattern in accordance with moral standards: theft, murder, adultery, and lies are undeniable rules of behavior for believers.

Researchers studying the formation of moral norms put forward several directions in understanding the meaning of these norms in society. Some believe that compliance with the rules prescribed in morality is a priority in the guise of other norms. Followers of this trend attribute certain properties to these moral norms: universality, categoricalness, immutability, cruelty. The second direction, which is being studied by scientists, suggests that the attribution of absolutism, generally accepted and obligatory moral norms acts as someone.

In terms of the form of manifestation, some moral norms in society are similar to legal norms. So the principle “thou shalt not steal” is common to both systems, but by asking the question why a subject follows this principle, one can determine the direction of his thinking. If a subject follows a principle because he is afraid of legal liability, then his act is legal. If the subject confidently follows this principle, because theft is a bad (evil) act, the vector of direction of his behavior follows the moral system. There are precedents in which compliance with moral standards is contrary to the law. A subject, considering it his duty, for example, to steal medicine in order to save his loved one from death, acts morally correctly, while absolutely breaking the law.

Studying the formation of moral norms, scientists came to a certain classification:

– norms affecting questions about the existence of an individual as a biological being (murder);

– norms on the independence of the subject;

– norms of trust (loyalty, truthfulness);

– norms relating to the dignity of the subject (honesty, justice);

– norms about other moral norms.

Functions of morality

Man is a creature with freedom of choice and he has every right to choose the path of following moral standards or vice versa. This choice of a person who puts good or evil on the scales is called a moral choice. Having such freedom of choice in real life, the subject is faced with a difficult task: to follow what is personal or to blindly follow what should be. Having made a choice for himself, the subject bears certain moral consequences, for which the subject himself is responsible, both to society and to himself.

Analyzing the features of morality, we can extract several of its functions:

– Regulation function. Following moral principles leaves a certain mark on the consciousness of the individual. The formation of certain views of behavior (what is allowed to be done and what is not allowed) occurs from an early age. This kind of action helps the subject to adjust his behavior in line with usefulness not only for himself, but also for society. Moral norms are capable of regulating the individual beliefs of the subject to the same extent as the interaction between groups of people, which favors the preservation of culture and stability.

– Evaluation function. Morality evaluates actions and situations occurring in a social society in terms of good and evil. The actions that have taken place are assessed for their usefulness or negativeness for further development; after this, each action is given an assessment from the moral side. Thanks to this function, the subject forms the concept of belonging to society and develops his own position in it.

– Function of education. Under the influence of this function, a person develops an awareness of the importance of not only his own needs, but also the needs of the people who surround him. A feeling of empathy and respect arises, which contributes to the harmonious development of relationships in society, understanding the moral ideals of another individual, contributes to a better understanding of each other.

– Control function. Determines control over the use of moral norms, as well as condemnation of their consequences at the societal and individual levels.

– Integration function. Following moral standards unites humanity into a single group, which supports the survival of man as a species. It also helps maintain the integrity of the spiritual world of the individual. The key functions of morality are: evaluative, educational and regulatory. They reflect the social significance of morality.

Morals and ethics

The term ethics is of Greek origin from the word "ethos". The use of this word denoted actions or actions of a person that were powerful to him personally. Aristotle defined the meaning of the word "ethos" as the virtue of a subject's character. Subsequently, it was customary that the word “ethicos” is ethos, meaning something related to the temperament or disposition of the subject. The emergence of such a definition led to the formation of the science of ethics - the study of the virtues of the character of the subject. In the culture of the ancient Roman Empire there was a word “moralis” - defining a wide range of human phenomena. Later, a derivative of this term “moralitas” appeared - relating to customs or character. Analyzing the etymological content of these two terms (“moralitas” and “ethicos”), it should be noted that their meanings coincide.

Many people know that such concepts as “morality” and “ethics” are close in meaning, and they are also often considered interchangeable. Many people use these concepts as extensions of each other. Ethics, first of all, is a philosophical direction that studies moral issues. Often the expression “ethics” is used to designate specific moral principles, traditions, and customs that exist among subjects of a limited group of society. The Kantian system views the word morality, using it to denote the concept of duty, principles of behavior and obligations. The word "ethics" uses Aristotle's system of reasoning to denote virtue, the inseparability of moral and practical considerations.

The concept of morality, as a system of principles, forms a set of rules that are based on many years of practice, and allows a person to determine the style of behavior in society. Ethics is a branch of philosophy and theoretical justification of these principles. In the modern world, the concept of ethics has retained its original designation as a science in the ranks of philosophy that studies human properties, real phenomena, rules and norms, which are moral norms in society.

02But I

Morality is a system of purely conditional rules of behavior in society, based on the prevailing perception of good and evil. In a broad sense, morality is a system of coordinates that allows you to direct people’s actions in such a way that the results of their actions bring benefit to all humanity as a whole. From a psychological point of view, morality is- the deep part of the human psyche, which is responsible for assessing current events, namely for recognizing good and evil. Quite often the word “morality” is usually replaced with the word “Morality”.

What is human morality? The concept (definition) of morality in simple words - briefly.

Despite the rather simple essence of the term “morality”, there are a huge variety of its definitions. One way or another, almost all of them are correct, but perhaps the simplest answer to the question “What is morality?” there will be this statement:

Morality is a person's attempt to determine what is right and wrong regarding our actions and thoughts. What is good and bad for our existence.

If by and large everything is more or less clear with the term, then the very concept of what is moral and what is immoral causes a lot of controversy. The fact is that the concepts of evil and good are not always absolute and their assessment depends solely on the modern paradigm accepted in society.

For example, in the middle “dark” centuries, when society was poorly educated, but very religious, burning people suspected of witchcraft was a very highly moral act. It goes without saying that in the modern era of science and law, this is considered terrible stupidity and a crime, but no one has canceled historical facts. And there was slavery, holy wars, various kinds and other events that were perceived by certain parts of society as something normal. Thanks to such examples, we understood that morality and its norms are very conditional rules that can change to suit the social order.

Despite the examples given above and the sad historical experience in assessing certain events, now we have, in a certain respect, a more or less adequate system of moral values.

Functions of morality and why do people need morality?

Despite many philosophical and scientific theories, the answer to this question is very simple. People need morality for further successful coexistence and development as a species. It is precisely because there are general concepts about what is good and what is bad that our society has not yet been consumed by chaos. Thus, we can say that the function of morality is to form general rules of behavior or laws, which in turn maintain order in society.

As an example of a moral principle that is understandable to absolutely everyone, we can cite the so-called Golden Rule of Morality.

The golden rule of morality says:

« Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.»

There are several interpretations of this principle, but they all convey the same essence.

Norms and examples of morality.

A huge number of aspects can be attributed to the norms and examples of morality, some of them will be highly moral absolutely everywhere, and some will be controversial, taking into account the differences in cultural characteristics. Nevertheless, as an example, we will cite precisely those moral norms that are beyond doubt.

Moral standards in society:

Honesty;
Bravery;
Ability to keep one's word;
Reliability;
Generosity;
Restraint (self-control);
Patience and humility;
Mercy;
Justice;
Tolerance for Differences();
Self-respect and respect for other people.

morality, a set of norms and principles of human behavior in relation to society and other people; the oldest form of social consciousness; social an institution that performs the functions of regulating human behavior. In contrast to simple custom or tradition, moral norms receive ideological justification in the form of the ideals of good and evil, due, justice, etc. Unlike the right to fulfill demands, moral norms are sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public assessments, approval or condemnation). M acts as the basis for the content of moral education of the individual.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MORALITY

lat. moralis - relating to disposition, character, mentality, habits, from mos, pl. including mores - customs, morals, behavior), the general value basis of culture, directing human activity to affirm the self-worth of the individual, the equality of people in their desire for a decent and happy life; subject of study of ethics. The term "M." arose by analogy with ancient Greek. the concept of ethics: from the word mos Cicero, referring to the experience of Aristotle, formed the adjective moralis, which characterized the qualities, virtues related to a person’s temperament, his ability to be guided in his behavior by the instructions of reason and harmoniously build his relationships with other people. In the 4th century. from this adjective the noun moralitas was formed, like the Greek. the word “ethics” contained two meanings - a certain set of human virtues and the science that studies them. Subsequently, science began to be called ethics, and the concept of ethics was assigned to the phenomenon itself, which is the subject of the science of ethics. In a number of European languages along with Lat. the term "M." have their own designations, e.g. in Russian language - “morality” (in colloquial speech the concepts of ethics, morality and morality are used as partially interchangeable).

M. represents the unity of two characteristics. Firstly, it expresses the need and ability of people to unite, cooperate and live peacefully together. life according to laws binding on everyone. The relationships between people are always objective and objectively diverse. M. is what remains in human relations after the exclusion of all concrete and objectively determined content - their societies. form.

Secondly, M. is based on the autonomy of the human spirit. M. associates the affirmation of universal brotherhood with the free choice of the individual and his self-affirmation. The elevation of a person to the level of the clan is at the same time his self-determination.

Thus, M. is the consciousness of a person’s duty to other people (this means not just a set of specific duties, but the initial understanding of duty in a broad sense, making it possible for a person to fulfill certain specific obligations). In M., a person, in the words of I. Kant, “is subject only to his own and nevertheless universal legislation” (I. Kant, Works, vol. 4, part 1, p. 274).

The essence of M., associated with the ideas of all-humanity and personality, is embodied in one of the most ancient moral commandments, called the “golden rule” of morality: “act towards others as you would like them to act towards you".

M. is not the last highest. spiritual reality in human life. Higher the goal of human activity, called the highest in ancient philosophy. good, was interpreted in the history of culture as universal reason, one God, personal happiness, etc. In relation to the highest. for the good of M. acts as a connecting link between him and living, sinful people, but, of course, it cannot be attributed only to the means of achieving the highest. goals, since M. is directly included in the content of higher education. benefits. So, for example, it is generally accepted that M. brings a person closer to God, but at the same time it is also considered as a creation of God; virtue leads a person to happiness, but happiness itself is unthinkable without it. Virtue is both the path to happiness and an essential element of happiness.

In relation to the human individual, M. is a goal, a prospect for his self-improvement, a requirement. Its content is expressed in the form of norms and assessments, which have a universal, binding character for all people, claim to be absolute (direct consciousness and regulate human behavior in all spheres of life - in work, in everyday life, in politics, in personal, family, intragroup, international relations, etc.). Moral principles support (or, conversely, require changes) certain foundations, the structure of life, M. refers to the main. types of normative regulation of human actions (such as law, customs, traditions, etc.), but it means. differences from them. For example, in law, regulations are formulated and implemented by special means. institutions, morals. requirements develop into practical life, in the elements of human society. M.'s norms are reproduced every day by the force of mass habits, influences, and assessments of societies. opinions, beliefs and motivations cultivated in a person. Moral regulation is not characterized by the separation of subject and object. By observing its norms and making moral assessments, a person acts as if he had formulated them himself - the object of M. is at the same time its subject. Moral norms are based on spiritual sanctions and authorities (remorse, the beauty of a moral act, the power of personal example, etc.). Historically, specific M. systems (for example, Confucian, Christian, aristocratic, bourgeois, proletarian, etc.), having a worldview. certainty. M. reflects the needs of man and society, based on the generalization of experience of many people. generations, and not limited by private circumstances and interests. It contains humanistic. prospects for human development. M. determines the criteria for assessing human goals and the means of achieving them.

M.'s norms receive ideological expression in general fixed ideas (commandments, principles) about how to act in different ways. situations. Along with the “golden rule” of morality, general humanistic principles have emerged. principles: “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not lie,” “thou shalt not steal.” The strength and justification of moral precepts, always unconditional in form and extremely severe in content, lies in the fact that a person must first of all address them to himself and only through his own. present the experience to others. In M. not only practical aspects are assessed. the actions of people, but their motives, motivations and intentions. In this regard, in moral regulation, a special role is played by the formation in each person of the ability to relatively independently determine his own line of behavior without external influence. control, relying on such ethical. categories such as conscience, sense of personal dignity, honor, etc.

M. sets a personal image of harmonious societies. relationships. An adequate form of moral regulation is self-regulation, moral assessment is self-esteem, moral education is self-education. Basic M categories: good (as opposed to evil), duty and conscience. Good expresses M.'s focus on the ideal of humanity, duty - its imperative character, and conscience - its intimate and personal nature.

The problem of the essence and specificity of M. is one of the central ones in ethics. science. It does not have a single and indisputable solution. Understanding M. organically enters into the process of a person’s definition of his own. moral position. Theoretical disputes in the fatherland ethical science are stimulated by the need to overcome vulgar-but-sociological. schemes and ideological cliches in ethics, awareness of the fact that M., with its values of collectivism, love for one’s neighbor, and tolerance, is the basis of human spirituality and culture. The experience of totalitarian social systems shows that the denial of universal humanity leads to a crisis of society and the individual. In the conditions of modern development. civilization, with increasing potential. dangers threatening the existence of mankind, with the increasing degree of risk of human activity that harms the environment, a responsible attitude towards M., recognition of the priority of universal human values is a choice that has no reasonable alternative. Struggle and confrontation between people, caused by differences of interests, worldview. predilections and social-political goals, are permissible and can be historically appropriate and productive only within the boundaries and forms defined in their elementary and universally recognized content.

Lit.: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Op. in 4 vols. t. 4, M., 1983; Kant I., Fundamentals of the metaphysics of morality, Works, vol. 4, part 1, M., 1965; Moore JPrinciples of Ethics, trans. from English, M., 1984; Drobnitsky O. G., The Concept of Morality, M. 1974; Guseinov A. A., Morality, in the book: Social consciousness and its forms, M. 1986. A. A. Guseinov.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓