Ethics. Cheat sheet: briefly, the most important

Lecture notes, cheat sheets
Free library / Directory / Lecture notes, cheat sheets

Ethics. Cheat sheet: briefly, the most important

Lecture notes, cheat sheets

Table of contents

1. Basic concepts of ethics

Concept "ethics" comes from ancient Greek ethos (it with). At first, ethos was understood as a place of joint residence, a house, a dwelling, an animal lair, a bird's nest. Then they began to designate mainly the stable nature of some phenomenon, disposition, custom, character.

Understanding the word "ethos" as the character of a person, Aristotle introduced the adjective "ethical" in order to designate a special class of human qualities, which he called ethical virtues. Ethical virtues, therefore, are the properties of the human character, his temperament, spiritual qualities.

At the same time, the properties of character can be considered: moderation, courage, generosity. To designate the system of ethical virtues as a special area of knowledge and to highlight this knowledge as an independent science, Aristotle introduced the term "ethics".

For a more accurate translation of the Aristotelian term "ethical" from Greek into Latin Cicero coined the term "moralis" (moral). He formed it from the word "mos" (mores - plural), which was used to denote character, temperament, fashion, cut of clothes, custom.

Words that mean the same thing as the terms "ethics" и "morality". In Russian, such a word became, in particular, “morality”, in German - "Sittlichkeit". These terms repeat the history of the emergence of the concepts of "ethics" and "morality" from the word "morality".

Thus, in their original meaning, "ethics", "morality", "morality" are three different words, although they were one term.

Over time, the situation has changed. In the process of development of philosophy, as the identity of ethics as a field of knowledge is revealed, these words begin to be assigned different meanings.

So, under ethics first of all, it means the corresponding field of knowledge, science, and by morality (or morality) - the subject studied by it. Although the researchers had various attempts to breed the terms "morality" and "morality". For example, Hegel under morality understood the subjective aspect of actions, and under morality - the actions themselves, their objective essence.

Thus, he called morality what a person sees actions in his subjective assessments, feelings of guilt, intentions, and morality - what the actions of an individual in the life of a family, state, people actually are. In accordance with the cultural and linguistic tradition, morality is often understood as high fundamental positions, and morality, on the contrary, is mundane, historically very changeable norms of behavior. In particular, the commandments of God can be called moral, but the rules of a school teacher are moral.

In general, in the general cultural vocabulary, all three words are still used interchangeably. For example, in colloquial Russian, what is called ethical norms can just as well be called moral or moral norms.

2. Ethics and morality as a subject of ethics

What is morality (morality)?

Different philosophical schools and thinkers gave very different answers to this question. Until now, there is no indisputable, unified definition of morality, which is directly related to the features of this phenomenon. Reasoning about morality or morality turn out to be different images of morality itself is not at all accidental.

Morality, morality - is much more than the sum of the facts, which is subject to research. It also acts as a task that requires its solution, as well as theoretical reflection. Morality is not just what is. She is most likely what she should be.

Therefore, the relationship between ethics and morality cannot be limited to its reflection and explanation. Ethics, therefore, must offer its own model of morality.

There are some of the most general characteristics of morality, which today are widely represented in ethics and are very firmly entrenched in culture.

These definitions are more in line with generally accepted views on morality.

Thus, a general analysis of morality is usually reduced to two categories: the moral (moral) dimension of the individual and the moral dimension of society.

Moral (moral) dimension of personality

Since Greek antiquity, morality has been understood as a measure of a person's elevation above himself, an indicator of the extent to which a person is responsible for his actions, for what he does. Ethical reflections often arise in connection with the need of a person to understand the problems of guilt and responsibility.

Thus, the question of man's dominance over himself is to a greater extent a question of the dominance of reason over passions. Morality, as the etymology of the word shows, is associated with the character of a person, his temperament. It is a qualitative characteristic of his soul. If a person is called sincere, then they mean that he is responsive to people, kind. When, on the contrary, they say about someone that he is soulless, they mean that he is evil and cruel. The value of morality as a qualitative certainty of the human soul was substantiated by Aristotle.

Morality can be seen as the ability of a person to limit himself in desires. She must resist sensual licentiousness. In all peoples and at all times, morality was understood as restraint in relation to selfish passions. In a number of moral qualities, one of the first places was occupied by moderation and courage, which testified that a person knows how to resist gluttony and fear, the strongest instinctive desires, and also knows how to control them.

To reign over and control your passions does not mean to suppress. Since the passions themselves can also be "enlightened", be associated with the correct judgments of the mind. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between two positions, the best ratio of reason and feelings (passions), and how such a ratio is achieved.

3. The theory of hedonism as part of ethics

Let's look at some core ethical values.

Pleasure. Among positive values, pleasure and benefit are considered the most obvious. These values directly correspond to the interests and needs of a person in his life. A person who by nature strives for pleasure or benefit seems to manifest himself in a completely earthly manner.

Pleasure (or enjoyment) - this is a feeling and experience that accompanies the satisfaction of a person's needs or interests.

The role of pleasures and pains is determined from a biological point of view, by the fact that they perform the function of adaptation: human activity depends on pleasure, which meets the needs of the body; lack of pleasure, suffering hinder the actions of a person, are dangerous for him.

In this sense, pleasure, of course, plays a positive role, it is very valuable. The state of satisfaction is ideal for the body, and a person needs to do everything to achieve such a state.

In ethics, this concept is called hedonism (from the Greek.

hedone- "pleasure"). This doctrine is based on the idea that the pursuit of pleasure and the denial of suffering is the main meaning of human actions, the basis for human happiness.

In the language of normative ethics, the main idea of this state of mind is expressed as follows: "Enjoyment is the goal of human life, everything is good,

what gives pleasure and leads to it. "Freud made a great contribution to the study of the role of pleasure in human life. The scientist concluded that the "pleasure principle" is the main natural regulator of mental processes, mental activity. The psyche, according to Freud, is such that regardless of a person's attitudes, feelings of pleasure and displeasure are decisive.The most striking, as well as relatively accessible, can be considered bodily pleasures, sexual, and pleasures associated with satisfying the need for warmth, food, rest.The principle of pleasure is in opposition to social norms of decency and acts as the basis of personal independence.

It is in pleasure that a person is able to feel himself, to free himself from external circumstances, obligations, habitual attachments. Thus, pleasures are for a person a manifestation of individual will. Behind pleasure there is always desire, which must be suppressed by social institutions. The desire for pleasure turns out to be realized in a departure from responsible relationships with other people.

Ordinary behavior based on prudence and the acquisition of benefits is the opposite of an orientation towards pleasure. Hedonists distinguished between psychological and moral aspects, psychological basis and ethical content. From a moral and philosophical point of view, hedonism is the ethics of pleasure.

4. Ethical values

Pleasure as a position and value in it is both recognized and accepted. A person's desire for pleasure determines the hedonist's motives and the hierarchy of his values, his way of life. Calling good pleasure, the hedonist consciously builds his goals, in accordance not with good, but with pleasure.

Benefit. This is a positive value, which is based on a person’s interests and attitude towards various objects, the comprehension of which makes it possible to maintain and improve his social, political, economic, professional, and cultural status.

Utility characterizes the means necessary to achieve some goal. Along with the benefits, utilitarian thinking also includes other value concepts, for example, "success", "efficiency". Thus, something is considered useful if:

1) meets someone's interests;

2) ensures the achievement of the set goals;

3) contributes to the success of actions;

4) contributes to the effectiveness of actions.

Like other practical values (success, expediency, efficiency, advantage, etc.), utility is a relative value in contrast to absolute values (goodness, truth, beauty, perfection).

As a value, utility is in the interests of people. However, taking utility as the sole criterion for action leads to a conflict of interest. The most characteristic expression of benefit-oriented human activity is entrepreneurship as an activity aimed at achieving profit through the production of goods and the provision of various services.

Justice - this is one of the principles that regulates the relationship between people regarding the distribution or redistribution, also mutual (in exchange, donation), social values.

Social values are understood in the broadest sense. These are, for example, freedom, opportunities, income, signs of respect or prestige. Just people are called those who obey the laws and return good for good, and unjust are those who create arbitrariness, violate the rights of people, do not remember the good done to them. Retribution to each according to his merits is recognized as fair, and undeserved punishments and honors are recognized as unfair.

The tradition of dividing justice into two types goes back to Aristotle: distribution (or rewarding) and equalizing (or directional). The first is connected with the distribution of property, honors and other benefits among members of society. In this case, justice means that a certain amount of goods should be distributed in proportion to merit. The second is associated with the exchange, and justice is designed to equalize the parties.

Mercy is the highest moral principle. But there is no reason to always expect it from others. Mercy must be considered a duty, not a duty of man. In human relations, mercy is only a recommended requirement.

5. Ethics of the Sophists

Ethics of antiquity was directed towards the person. "Man is the measure of all things" - researchers rightly consider these words of Protagoras the motto for all ethical works of this period. The ethical works of ancient authors are characterized by the predominance of a naturalistic orientation.

In addition, the main feature of their ethical position was the understanding of morality, the virtue of human behavior as rationality. It is the mind that governs the life of a person and society in the understanding of ancient ethics, it plays a major role in choosing the right path in life. In addition to the reasonableness of human behavior, one of the main characteristics of the ancient worldview was the desire for harmony of man with his inner and outer world. The ethical views of the Sophists, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle are associated in ancient philosophy with the transition from the idea of the dominance of the power of the universal over man to the idea of the unity of the individual and the state, which presupposed the substantiation of the intrinsic value of man. In a later period, the ethics of Epicureanism, Stoicism was associated with the ideas of opposing a person to the world of social existence, a person leaving for his own, inner world.

In accordance with this position, a person was offered not a long path of mental and moral improvement, but the enjoyment of every moment of his being.

The first stage in the development of the mature ethical consciousness of ancient Greece is represented by the teachings of the sophists (XNUMXth century BC), a kind of period of doubt about the subject of ethics, i.e., the denial of morality as something unconditional and universally valid.

The educational activity of the sophists had a pronounced humanistic character. At the center of their ethical reflections was always a person who was a self-sufficient value. It was man who had the right to create, to formulate the moral laws by which society lives. Correctly emphasizing the instability of moral views in society, their relativity, the sophists developed the position of moral relativism, proving that any person has his own idea of happiness, the meaning of life and virtue.

The skeptical attitude towards the life of the sophists allowed them to doubt, in particular, what was considered, it would seem, undoubted - in the universal validity of morality, morality. This reason, and perhaps also the fact that the sophists too exaggerated the role of individual creativity of moral values and thus did not put forward a positive ethical program acceptable to society, oriented the development of philosophical thought in ancient Greece towards increased interest in moral problems.

Thus the Sophists, Socrates and his disciples developed their ideas within an individualistically oriented ethic.

6. Ethical teaching of Socrates

Socrates (469-399 BC), who is rightfully considered the father of ancient ethics, assigned morality a paramount role in society, considering it the foundation of a worthy life for every person. Difficulties in recreating the ethical position of Socrates are associated with the lack of a written heritage of his philosophical reflections, although there are records of the thinker's statements made by his students. (Xenophon and Plato), as well as testimony from contemporaries about the features of his life and death. All this allows us to judge the main provisions of his ethical teaching.

Socrates did not accept the teachings of the sophists due to their lack of a positive program. In contrast to them, the philosopher sought to formulate a system of stable and general concepts. This original idea of Socrates is not accidental and functional. To solve this problem, Socrates used a special method, which was called the inductive method, and which the researchers conventionally divided into five parts:

1) doubt (or "I know that I know nothing");

2) irony (or revealing contradictions);

3) maieutics (or overcoming contradiction);

4) induction (or appeal to facts);

5) definition (or the final establishment of the desired concept).

It should be noted that the method used by Socrates has not lost its significance even today and is used, for example, as one of the ways of conducting scientific discussions.

Ethics is designed to contribute to the comprehension and implementation of this installation. Happiness means a prudent, virtuous being. Thus, only a moral person can be happy (and also reasonable, which is practically the same thing).

The eudemonistic position of Socrates is also supplemented by his point of view on the inherent value of morality: morality itself is not subordinated to a person’s natural desire for happiness, but, on the contrary, happiness directly depends on the moral character (virtue) of a person. In this regard, it is specified a task most ethics: to help each person become moral, and at the same time happy.

Socrates distinguished between the concepts of "happiness" and "pleasure". He raised the issue of free will. He considered the main virtues of a person: wisdom, moderation, courage, justice, emphasizing the importance of moral self-improvement of a person.

In the search for ways to solve all ethical problems, he always took a rationalistic position. It is reason, knowledge that are the basis of virtue (in other words, each virtue is a certain kind of knowledge).

Ignorance, ignorance are the sources of immorality. Thus, according to Socrates, the concepts of truth and good coincide. Perhaps, behind the statement of Socrates that a scientist, a sage is not capable of evil, there is a deep thought: moral values only have an important functional significance when they are recognized by a person as true.

7. The ethical teaching of Plato

Platonism (427-347 BC) is considered the first attempt to systematize ethical ideas, which was carried out by the philosopher on an objective-idealistic basis. Sharing the rationalistic principles of his teacher, Plato also set himself the task of formulating general concepts. Just like Socrates, he chose the deductive method of research for this.

Socrates discovered a discrepancy between the existing and the proper in the world. He revealed the contradiction between general moral views and their individual incarnations. Socrates was never able to find in the real world analogues of goodness and beauty in themselves. Plato continued to study this problem.

Plato's ethical concept can be divided into two related parts: individual ethics and social ethics. The first is the doctrine of the intellectual and moral improvement of man, which Plato associates with the harmonization of his soul.

The philosopher opposes the soul to the body precisely because the body of a person belongs to the lower sensory world, and the soul is able to come into contact with the real world - the world of eternal ideas. The main aspects of the human soul are thus the basis of his virtues: reasonable - wisdom, affective - moderation, strong-willed - courage. Human virtues thus have an innate character, they are special steps in the harmonization of his soul and ascent to the world of eternal ideas. In the ascent of man to the ideal world is the meaning of his being.

And the means to his exaltation is the contempt of the bodily, the power of reason over low passions. Conditioned by these principles, the social ethics of the philosopher assumes the presence of certain virtues in each estate. According to the teachings of Plato, the rulers must have wisdom, the class of warriors - courage, and the lower classes - moderation.

Using a rigid political as well as moral hierarchy in the state, one can achieve the highest virtue. This virtue is justice, which, according to Plato, testifies to social harmony. To achieve it, the philosopher argues, it is necessary to sacrifice the interests of the individual.

Thus, in Plato's ideal society there is no room for individuality. It should be noted that the perfect state, which the thinker depicted, turned out to be very unattractive, not so much because of the spirit of intellectual aristocracy, but because of the inferiority of the presence of representatives of each estate in it, since the "order" proposed by Plato in society would not bring happiness to anyone.

Thus, the key to understanding the essence of Plato's morality is the position that the content of individual being must be socially significant. This idea of Plato, like his other ideas, was comprehended and developed by his student, Aristotle.

8. Aristotle. Science concept

Creativity of Aristotle (384-322 BC) is considered the highest development of ancient ethics. This would hardly have been possible if Plato's student had not surpassed his teacher by making a choice in favor of truth.

We all know the philosopher's saying: "Although Plato and the truth are dear to me, a sacred duty tells me to give preference to the truth." Three works on ethics are associated with the name of Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, Eudemic Ethics, and Great Ethics. Although the question of the belonging of these works to the pen of Aristotle is still the subject of heated discussions. Today, only the Nicomachean Ethics is considered a genuine treatise of the philosopher.

Regarding the "Eudemic Ethics", the opinions of scientists differ. Some researchers attribute the authorship of the work to Eudemus of Rhodes, a student of Aristotle, others believe that he only edited the work of his teacher after his death. Also, analyzing the content of the "Great Ethics", the researchers suggest that its author is one of Aristotle's students, whose name remains unknown to us.

The basis of the ethical teachings of Aristotle is psychology.

Ethics should study the individual behavior of a person, his relationship with other people, therefore, it is primarily socio-political ethics, that is, a field of knowledge that explores the moral tasks of the state and citizen. Thus, Aristotle's ethics occupied a middle position between his psychology and politics.

Aristotle was the first to define and classify sciences, types of knowledge. He divided the sciences into three groups: theoretical ("speculative"), practical ("productive") и creative ("creative"). The philosopher included philosophy, mathematics and physics as the first; to the second - ethics and politics, and to the third - arts, crafts and applied sciences.

According to Aristotle, philosophy is the most theoretical of the sciences, since it studies what is most worthy of comprehension - the principles and causes, only thanks to them, everything else can be known on their basis.

Thus, according to Aristotle, science is the more valuable, the more it is contemplative. It is given to knowledge, the search for truth, and thus represents the highest form of creative activity. Only in the process of this activity does a person get the opportunity to come closer to calm happiness, to true bliss, which is given only to the gods. For ancient philosophers, knowledge was the attitude of man to the world, the establishment of a connection with the origin. Cognition of the universal is the discovery behind the variety of objects and phenomena of their common principle, the beginning.

Ancient science was focused primarily not on the subordination of the forces of nature to man, not on the use of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, but on the comprehension of the general order of things, on the knowledge of social relations, on the education of man and the regulation of relationships and human behavior, on the achievement of an ethical ideal.

9. Ethics of Aristotle

"Ethics" (the doctrine of morality) was understood by Aristotle as life wisdom, "practical" knowledge about what happiness is and what are the means to achieve it. Is it possible to consider the doctrine of adherence to the correct norms of behavior and conduct of a moral lifestyle as a science?

According to Aristotle, “all reasoning is aimed either at activity or creativity, or at the speculative...”. This means that through thinking a person makes the right choice in his actions, striving to achieve happiness and realize the ethical ideal.

Aristotle argues that creativity and action are not the same thing. Actions are inextricably linked with a person, with his activities, with free choice, with the general moral and legal norms of citizens, and creativity is aimed at creating works of art.

The moral activity of a person is aimed at himself, at the development of his abilities, his spiritual and moral forces, at improving his life, at realizing the meaning of life and purpose. In the field of activity, which is associated with free will, a person conforms behavior and lifestyle with his moral ideal, with views and concepts about what should be and what is, good and evil. With this, the philosopher defined the subject of science, which he called ethics.

Thus, the merits of Aristotle in the development of ethics are very great: he gave the name to this science, he owns the first ethical work, he first raised the question of the independence of ethics, built his theory of morality. His ethical teaching is characterized by logical analysis, the unity of the method of rational understanding of problems and their empirical confirmation, the social orientation of ethical thinking, and applied, practical significance.

Speaking about the ethical aspect of the problem of the relationship between man and society, Aristotle tried to find ways of their harmonious interaction in the rational limitation of all his egoistic needs by the individual, orienting him towards the public good. Social harmony, the philosopher believed, should not suppress personal interests.

Paying tribute to the established tradition, Aristotle also considered happiness. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is a special state of satisfaction that a person receives from the virtuous activity he has performed. Morality and happiness must be linked. Aristotle argued that a person can achieve the highest satisfaction in life only by committing moral actions. He considered the main conditions on the path to happiness: moral and intellectual improvement, friendship, health and the presence of external goods, and an active civic position.

In particular, Aristotle in his teaching developed the themes of freedom of choice and responsibility in morality, the unity of ethics and politics, etc.

10. Hellenistic schools and the origin of individual ethics

Cynics proclaim the slogan "Back to nature" as a program of practical action. The movement towards primitiveness, the "dog" way of life, the rejection of the entire dominant Greek civilization were carried out within the framework of criticism of traditional morality, the rule of law, the achievements of science, philosophy, the class essence of the state, social institutions, works of art, the sports and festive feeling of life preached by the aristocracy.

It is possible to present the main provisions of Cynic ethics in a concise form.

1. Utilitarianism (virtue is manifested not in words, but in deeds).

2. Subjectivism and voluntarism (the cynics considered the will to be the main human ability).

3. Eudemonism (the ultimate goal of any act is to give a person happiness in poverty and unpretentiousness).

4. Rationalism (the main weapon of the cynic was considered ingenuity and resourcefulness).

5. Negativism (the ethical ideal of the cynic is freedom from the prejudices of polis morality, freedom from the evil of civilized life).

6. Individualism (the cynics preached inner freedom, so the main struggle for them was the struggle with oneself).

7. Maximalism (the cynics demanded everyday and constant heroism, especially from their own teachers).

Epicureans. Famous Hellenistic philosopher Epicurus expressed the main postulates of his ethical teachings in the so-called Tetrapharmakon (quadrug).

1. "A blissful and immortal being neither has worries itself, nor delivers to others, and therefore is not subject to either anger or goodwill: all this is characteristic of the weak."

2. "Death is nothing to us: what is decomposed is insensitive, and what is insensitive is nothing to us."

3. "The limit of the magnitude of pleasure is the elimination of all pain. Where there is pleasure and as long as it exists, there is neither pain, nor suffering, nor both."

4. "Continuous pain for the flesh is short-lived. In the highest degree, it lasts the shortest time; in a degree that only exceeds bodily pleasures, a few days, and prolonged infirmities give the flesh more pleasure than pain."

Tetrapharmakon is at the same time a view of a person in the world, and an instrument for a worthy existence. Consequently, ethics must be the doctrine of the good in this real life and the means leading to it.

The way is cleared for her by the elimination of false fears and false aims; the true goal, the true good, appears to us as pleasure, and the true evil as suffering.

Stoics. The Stoics, like most ancient philosophers, considered happiness to be the highest goal of every human aspiration. They taught that everything in the world obeys world laws, but only man, by virtue of his mind, is able to cognize them and consciously carry them out.

11. Basic provisions of Christian ethics

Medieval ethical thinking denied the provisions of ancient moral philosophy, primarily because the basis for the interpretation of morality in it is not reason, but religious faith. The thinkers of the Middle Ages in their treatises assign a secondary role to reason, both in comprehending the very essence of morality and in choosing an individual moral position. The idea of God as a moral model in medieval ethics sets strict boundaries for the interpretation of all moral problems.

Ancient philosophers, solving the question of the highest good, proceeded from the fact that the good exists directly for man and for him, and therefore it was about the highest good of man. Christians opposed these ideas with a different thesis: since the highest good is God as a reality, the highest good exists for the glory of God himself.

In accordance with Christian ethics, human life and its values acquire meaning only in relation to divine commandments. Thus, God acts as an objective, unconditional, the only correct source of morality. Christian ethics is characterized by a contradictory combination of pessimistic and optimistic thoughts. Pessimism is mainly associated with the "local" world, and optimism - with hopes for the "kingdom of God." Man must give up self-will, completely submit to the will of God.

The key problem of the Christian ethical concept is the idea of love for God. Love is understood as a kind of universal principle of morality, morality. It determines the moral attitude towards one's neighbor, makes it possible to give morality a universal status, sanctifies everything that exists.

In Christian ethics, from the idea of love for God, a new virtue appears - mercy (unknown to ancient ethics), which presupposes forgiveness of offenses, readiness for compassion and help to those in need. It was with this period that the emergence of the “golden rule” of morality, written in the Bible, is associated: “So, in everything, as you want people to do to you, do so to them...”.

Since the era of the Middle Ages is characterized by the inseparability of moral consciousness proper from other forms of social consciousness and morality, Christian theology united philosophical, religious, and ethical problems into a single undivided complex. As a result, the problem of morality as an independent field of knowledge, in fact, is not raised, and traditional ethical questions acquire a religious orientation. In addition to "love" and "the highest good", Christian ethics developed such concepts as "act" and "intention" of an act, "virtue" and "sin", "vice" and "guilt".

Thus, all patristics in the Middle Ages was based on this idea of ethics. In addition, the understanding of God as the highest good, in which all people participate, and the following, to which contempt for death leads, served as an ethical proof of the existence of God.

12. Augustine the Blessed and the theological foundation of morality

The idea of subordinating morality to religion is very clearly reflected in the work of Augustine of the Blessed (354-430). He is considered one of the most significant representatives of the era of patristics. The ethics of the thinker is characterized by the realization of God as the only source and measure of morality, the explanation of evil as the denial of goodness and deviation from divine prescriptions, a negative attitude towards human activity and the denial of the moral full value of the individual.

In his work, a significant role is played by the comprehension of each of the divine commandments in their relation to the world, which is closely connected with ethics. Augustine's treatises "On Free Will", "On the City of God", "On Grace and Free Will", "Confession" are devoted to ethical problems. According to the teachings of Augustine, a Christian performs every act, thinking about the act of confession.

This influences the moral consciousness of a person, makes him determined not only by the past, but also by the future, already present in the eternity of retribution: punishment or bliss.

But at the same time, this act is completely free, since in it life ends only mentally, life is still ahead, and by performing this or that act now, a person chooses both his future and his eternity.

Augustine the Blessed developed the doctrine of the will, which became pivotal in the Middle Ages, since it contains the ontological proof of the existence of God. In the work "On the City of God" the thinker defines the will as nature, which is the "spirit of life."

This is the life-giving spirit, says Augustine, "the creator of every body and the spirit of every creature is God himself, a spirit uncreated in all respects." Will, in his opinion, confirms precisely the relation in which it acquires its essence and quality.

In Augustine, the idea of predestination is closely connected with the idea of foreknowledge (forecast), it is proved by him in close connection with the idea of free will. Predestination and fate are different concepts.

Wisdom is the knowledge that makes the philosopher happy. At the same time, his soul goes through a series of steps before reaching wisdom. These steps are first fear, then piety, and then knowledge (its difference from wisdom is that it can not necessarily be directed to the good).

The soul, having reached the limit of blessed knowledge, perceives illumination, which contributes to the emergence of moral consciousness, or conscience. It is the basis that gives a universally necessary character to human ideas. Thus, conscience is the agreement of divine law and human moral attitudes. Morality is the index of a certain kind of being.

A person can be free from evil, and, accordingly, from the problem of choosing between good and evil. In this case, he can be gracious, use not free will, but the gifts of God.

Discussion of the ideas of predestination, fate, free will, good became common for the entire Middle Ages.

13. Synthetic ethics of Thomas Aquinas

Synthetic ethics of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) relied on the provisions of Aristotle, but comprehending it in the context of Christian doctrine.

F. Aquinas singled out three parts of ethics: monastics, by which he meant the conditionality of human actions by a higher goal; economy, this concept included the virtues that are inherent in people as individuals; politics as civil behavior of people. And in the work "The Sum of Theology" the thinker singled out three main subjects of his philosophical research. It is God, the way to God, and Christ, who as a man is the way to God. The last two are the moral doctrine and the doctrine of salvation. They directly concern questions of ethics, inseparable from metaphysics, since morality is a kind of continuation of creation.

F. Aquinas believed that the will is oriented from the outside by reason, an external engine that informs it of spontaneity and guarantees its freedom. That mind is God. Morality is practically an organization of movement towards God. Thus, the interconnected will and reason become significant abilities of a person. The rationality of the will is in its purposefulness towards the highest goal, which is God.

Freedom in F. Aquinas is interpreted through the arbitrariness of action. The will, which is doomed in alliance with the intellect to implement the choice of goals, is considered by the thinker from two different positions: as a desire for an established goal and as a need for the means necessary to achieve the goal. The will that has reached its goal looks like pleasure.

Thus, one of the main problems for Thomas is the correlation of human actions with the good. But at the same time, not every action that a person performs, consisting of different spheres (reasonable, vegetative, sensual), F. Aquinas defined as actually human. The humanness of an action will depend on how, to what extent it will correspond to the form of a person, originally given by God. This means that the measure of the humanity of an action is the measure of its subordination to reason.

Use it for evil, because through it God manifests himself in a person. The virtues of a person are all the abilities of the soul, namely: reason, will, desire.

F. Aquinas's doctrine of virtue is closely connected with the doctrine of sin, which he presents as a deviation from good goals.

The quality that characterizes a deviant will is called malice. Sin is a transgression of laws. The severity of a person's sin depends on the sinful act.

The perversion of the will is an expression of rooted sinfulness, vice. Thus, the main thing in the ethical teaching of Thomas is the assertion of the primacy of reason over the will, which was fully consistent with the intellectual orientation of the XNUMXth century. At the same time, F. Aquinas supplemented his provisions with the idea that love for God is much more important than knowledge of God.

14. Anti-Christian ethics of Erasmus of Rotterdam

The main theme in ethical writings Erasmus of Rotterdam was the problem of the relationship between faith and knowledge. What is the position of Erasmus on this issue?

The thinker does not oppose faith and knowledge. In his opinion, faith and knowledge are harmoniously linked. Knowledge is designed to strengthen faith, to understand the Holy Scriptures.

Erasmus strengthened the role of knowledge. It can be called anti-Christian because knowledge in Erasmus becomes an element that is practically equivalent to faith. In addition, Erasmus in his works calls for the use of the works of ancient thinkers.

The thinker equated the significance of the pagan culture of Ancient Greece and Rome with the Christian culture. The second, in his opinion, arose on the basis of the first. The ethical ideas of the ancients were continued and developed by the Italian humanists of the XNUMXth century. In Erasmus, this tendency towards the continuity of ideas is especially deeply and subtly indicated.

In his reflections, he strove for a harmonious combination of ancient and Christian moral and philosophical ideals. Therefore, Socrates, for example, was practically equated with Christ by him. In his book "Home Conversations" Erasmus argued that "many sayings of the ancient pagans in their moral value approach the provisions of Holy Scripture."

Thus, Erasmus believes that knowledge is universal. It will not change its essence depending on the source. For faith, any knowledge is necessary if it corresponds to the spirit of Christianity.

In the question of the correlation of faith and knowledge, the thinker can be attributed to the concept of "two truths", or the concept of the duality of truth, which arose in the XII-XIII centuries. According to this concept, the truth formulated by the human mind and related to nature is the truth in philosophy (coinciding with science), while the truth of the Holy Scriptures is either not at all accessible to the human mind, or is only partially comprehended by it, is related only to the human sphere. morality, which is focused not on real earthly life, but on eternal life in the afterlife.

In the "Book of Antibarbarians" - Erasmus' statements that scientists use evidence in the study of the issue, and piety is based on faith. But for Erasmus, the focus on piety, that is, on the sphere of human moral behavior, and on knowledge is more characteristic.

An interesting fact is that the idea of the necessity of knowledge for faith was embodied not only in the works of Erasmus, but also in his life. During the Reformation, the Catholic Church sought to win him over to their side, to use his knowledge and great authority. The Pope himself turned to him with a request: "Come out in support of the cause of God! Use your wonderful gift for the glory of God! Think about what depends on you with God's help to return to the true path most of those whom Luther fell away, and warn those close to the fall."

15. Skeptical ethics of M. Montaigne

At this stage, ethics still retains fairly strong successive ties with the medieval worldview. In this case, skepticism acts as a peculiar way of asserting new ideals. The most interesting example of this is the position Michel Montaigne (1533-1592), who managed to reflect many antinomies of moral consciousness in a figurative-empirical form, to give the later moral theorists "the most difficult problem: what can be the basis of virtue if it does not rest on either the personal or social needs of a person, but enters into conflict with both?

Montaigne believed that a person should not humble himself before fate, God, providence, he is able to be fully responsible for his actions. Montaigne's stoicism focused primarily on nature, on the natural, was epicurean in nature; sacrifice, renunciation in the name of otherworldly ideals were alien to him.

Life leads us by the hand along a gentle, almost imperceptible slope, slowly and gently, until it plunges us into this miserable state, forcing us to gradually get used to it. That is why we do not feel any shocks when the death of our youth comes, which, really, is in its essence much more cruel than the death of a barely glimmering life or the death of our old age.

Respect for nature as a worldview is also very characteristic of most Renaissance thinkers.

The main goal of man - listen to nature.

And the surest means for a person, which helps to overcome his difficulties, is moderation, only it allows him to avoid excesses that destroy the personality, allows it to be within the limits set by nature.

Nature, according to Montaigne, should also be a mentor in the matter of moral education. In this case, it is necessary to put in the first place not the accumulation of knowledge, but the development of thinking, the ability to judge. The upbringing of a person is a means to discover, reveal and improve what is given to him by nature, inherent in human nature. The goal of education is to create natural, honest, hardworking people.

Montaigne calls for everything in the world to be skeptical. But at the same time, one must understand that Montaigne's skepticism was not directed against reason as a whole, but against medieval scholasticism, which was engaged in the development of abstract logical circuits, but did not work with specific knowledge, did not follow the path from the particular to the general, from concrete experience.

But, not even talking about the achievements of civilization and other conditions that affect the degree of knowledge of man and the Universe, but considering the human mind, we can say that people have not fully realized their own capabilities in the knowledge of the universe and themselves. Montaigne repeated the words of Socrates, who used to say: "I know that I know nothing."

16. Ethics of B. Spinoza

Axiomatic method of proof of morality

The main attitude of the thinkers of the New Age assumed the derivation of morality from nature, which often became its reduction to natural science knowledge.

Benedict Spinoza (1635-1677) turns ethics into natural philosophy (his main work "Ethics" is the doctrine of substance). One of the fundamental thesis in his works is the thesis of the rational essence of man.

The problem of the individual and the general in his ethics acquires a pronounced epistemological coloring, and good and evil are explained in the context of utilitarianism. The most important for understanding the ethics of Spinoza and the ethical basis of his philosophy were the provisions on the human body as an object of the soul, on the relationship between the order of ideas and the order of things, on the three kinds of knowledge, the essence of which is in the imagination, which is the main cause of falsity, on reason and intuitive knowledge.

Spinoza depicts a person as realistically as possible. Each of us seeks not only to preserve his being, but also to expand it by increasing his power,

The improvement of a person is accompanied by joyful feelings, and the decrease in perfection is accompanied by sadness and displeasure. Desire testifies to the active beginning of a person.

Spinoza believes that the key to understanding human actions lies in his nature, his state of passions. Therefore, ethics, in turn, must proceed from the natural laws of behavior, from which certain actions follow with the same necessity with which "it follows from the nature of a triangle that its three angles are equal to two right angles." The main basis of virtue, the thinker believes, is the desire for self-preservation.

The awareness of benefit is the driving force behind human behavior. Good is identical with the benefit of man, and evil - with that which hinders the benefit. There is no good or evil in nature, these are all human situations.

No thing can be destroyed without the action of an external cause, therefore a person's desire for self-preservation is the overcoming of passive states. Overcoming them, a person is freed from the power of affects, lives according to the laws of self-preservation. The very path of transition from passive to active affects is the path of virtue, moral perfection. What is determined by the passive states can also be determined by the mind. Virtue is in the transition from one level of determination to another. As a result, the selfishness that drives human behavior becomes moral only when it becomes rational selfishness.

Spinoza believed that the program of human behavior consists in rationally intuitive love for God. Reason in relation to affects is not only a repressive ground. It can achieve its goal only when it replaces the feelings and itself acts as an affect.

The ultimate goal of man is bliss, which consists in the intellectual love of God. Spinoza seeks to create a universal ethics, the subject of which is the individual.

17. Rational ethics of R. Descartes

New time is mainly focused on revealing the naturalistic basis of morality, on the search for harmony between objective and subjective factors.

The new ideas of the thinkers of the New Age are very significant and not only "reduce morality from heaven to earth", but also substantiate the moral usefulness of the individual. The idea of the independence of the moral subject, on which the spiritual opposition was based in the Middle Ages, becomes central.

Descartes' doctrine of the passions actually occupies the place traditionally assigned to ethics in metaphysics.

Rene Descartes builds his anthropology as an anatomy of the movements of the human body. The life of the body, he believes, can be described on the basis of understandable physical laws. Man is just a physical substance that can be observed and understood. Passions are the natural nature of man, practically autonomous from the mental efforts of the soul. Passions can be represented through the description of the physical-physiological mechanism.

Descartes attributed to passions all the movements of human life, excluding only those few that cannot belong to the body. "Thoughts" belong not to the body, but only to the soul. Descartes also calls all kinds of perceptions or knowledge passive states (they are acquired from things, from outside).

Autonomous actions of the soul are only desires, which depend on the freely manifesting will. Descartes clearly depicts human bodily existence as a movement of passions.

This model is mechanical in nature.

It is she, according to Descartes, who can claim the completeness of the description. Descartes considers the effect of objects on our feelings as the main cause of passions. It has a different meaning for a person, either by exciting various passions, the number of which is infinitely large, or by giving birth to six primary passions. Among these, the thinker singled out: love, hatred, surprise, desire, joy and sadness.

Descartes also turned to a traditional for metaphysics, directly ethical topic - power over passions... He calls for “making efforts to instruct and guide” human passions, to refrain from extremes. At the same time, Descartes is convinced that “those people who are especially concerned about passions can enjoy life to the greatest extent.” Thus, the thinker does not give any moral prescriptions. He does not take on the role of moralizer or preacher, but is an independent observer.

The ethical position of the philosopher of self-sufficiency is in the main procedure that Descartes developed in his concept, the procedure I think. His developments in the field of anthropology as physical and physiological research are also considered ethical. Researchers also attribute a carefully and consciously built life strategy to the ethical teaching of a philosopher, since they believe that it is precisely this that is his ethical gesture and the internal condition of his philosophizing.

18. Ethics K. A. Helvetia. common good

Claude Adrian Helvetius (1715-1771) interpreted man in a psychophysiological way. A person, overcoming his natural egoism, becomes reasonable, begins to correctly understand his interests and follow the "compass of public benefit" in the process of their implementation. The morality of Helvetia proposes a setting for the public good.

The starting point of his reasoning is the individual as a natural being. At the same time, Helvetius equated nature with the physical sensitivity of a person, and individual needs - with personal interest. It is behind them that the desire for physical pleasures is hidden. A person's desire for pleasure, as well as the fear of suffering, determine his behavior. All human activity, his actions in moral terms must be evaluated through the prism of physical pleasures. Even the work of people is just like that.

Personal interest determines vices. Since it forces people to deny the well-known golden rule: do not do to another what you would not want them to do to you. Interest forces one to respect the vices of benefactors, and it also induces a virtuous priest not to reveal the crimes of the church, etc.

Helvetius comes to the conclusion that people believed and will always believe only what is consistent with their interests, while the content of those changes from one era to another. Therefore, we can only talk about relative, and not about absolute morality.

The need for humanity arises only when a person has a desire to unite with his own kind. People can sacrifice part of their interests in order not to lose everything. Therefore, they sometimes have to recognize the public interest above personal interests and declare it the highest good.

In order to form a true morality in a person, in order to promote the common good, it is first of all necessary to distribute property as evenly as possible and protect it, because it is the basis for the existence of the whole society.

Despotism, on the other hand, has a detrimental effect on morality, gives rise to cowardice, servility, vanity, and other vices, while in a prosperous state under the rule of an enlightened monarch, favorable conditions are created for true virtue. Everyone strives for virtue for the purposes of power, which gives a person the satisfaction of personal interests, universal respect.

At the same time, education must be carried out from early childhood. It is necessary to begin education with the suggestion of thoughts about the inviolability of private property, which is the "moral God" of the state. Only she restrains internal strife and maintains peace, justice, including all other virtues. Its purpose is to give to each what belongs to him. A wise legislator, the thinker believes, should strive to establish rewards for virtues and punishments for crimes.

19. Formulation of the categorical imperative by I. Kant

The main problem of ethics Immanuel Kant - the problem of human freedom. It was the main problem of the era. I. Kant deduces the mutual equality of all people. Another meaning of I. Kant’s solution to this problem is that the thinker explains human freedom by the dominance of man, his right to dispose of things.

The most precise formula of autonomy, which is the starting point of his judgments, was given by I. Kant in the Metaphysical Foundations of Legal Science. According to his formula, our freedom depends on the fact that the connection between sensibility and behavior does not have the character of direct necessity, but is presented as a conditionality.

In an animal, an external stimulus excites an instinctive reaction, but in a person it gives rise only to the desire for satisfaction, to which an instinctive reaction would lead. As a result, in the act of will, motivation is autonomous, and the certainty of will is overcome by sensory stimulus. The difference between autonomously motivated behavior and behavior that is determined by external conditions is the difference between animal and human levels of life.

Kant thereby explains the highest ontological value of man in relation to nature. As a being capable of autonomous motivation, man becomes an "end in himself," while the rest of the animals are mere "means." This ontology is, of course, valid only from the point of view of moral behavior, but not from a theoretical point of view.

In the introduction to the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant writes about freedom as the "argument for the existence" of the moral law. After that, the philosopher proceeds to deduce the moral law. Man's behavior according to the moral law is determined by the fact that the people about whom I perform any action show the same autonomy as I do, or that they are ends in themselves, but never means to the cause of someone else. Therefore, the formula of the categorical imperative, which determines the content of moral behavior, is: "Act in such a way that you use a person for yourself as well as for another, always as an end and never only as a means."

According to a more pathetic but less precise formula from the Critique of Practical Reason, the moral law prescribes the inviolability of the other person ("The other person must be holy to you").

It must be added to the formula of the moral law that the moral law is built on the dualism of the natural character of man and duty, from which it follows that man is a being capable of free decision, which distinguishes him from animals. Moral behavior acts as a limiter of personal egoism, which follows from the instinct of self-preservation.

Thus, moral behavior, according to I. Kant, is peculiar in that, firstly, it is in accordance with the law, and secondly, its motivation is the dignity of a person.

20. Ethics of I. Kant

moral theory Immanuel Kant does not allow exceptions to the implementation of the law, which would be due to unfavorable circumstances. Perjury must not be heard. However, the moral law does not force heroic deeds to be carried out, regardless of the adverse consequences or the impossibility of their implementation. When Kant himself was called to stop criticizing religion because the moral law required it, he complied and undertook not to lecture on religion.

The thesis about the ethics of intent corresponds to Kant's idea that moral behavior should not have "inclination" as its basis and that it is all the more deserved, the more we must overcome our egoism. This idea is based on a strict dualism of sensibility and law. Sensuality should not be aimed at making a person gravitate towards behavior based on the law.

Conversely, if behavior based on sensuality (for example, sympathy, friendship, love) coincides with action based on the law, then it has no moral value, since it is not motivated by law. According to I. Kant, only one feeling does not violate the moral value of behavior - this is a feeling of respect for the law, because it belongs to the general moral value.

The ethics of I. Kant contains reasoning about the freedom of man. Freedom is also manifested in the ability to act in relation to nature.

In nature, everything happens according to the law of causality, and therefore our behavior must be subject to this law, since it affects nature. At the same time, the moral theory of I. Kant is based on the freedom of man. In the conclusion to the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, I. Kant solves this antinomy in such a way that he applies to it the distinction between "things in themselves" and phenomena, which he introduces in the Critique of Pure Reason. On the one hand, our self as a "thing in itself" belongs to the "intelligible" world, which is revealed to us by moral behavior.

On the other hand, we, as "representatives of the sensory world," belong to the world of appearances. From this example, we can say that I. Kant solves the problems of his ethical philosophy with the help of the achievements of theoretical philosophy. In fact, both ethical works of I. Kant are based on the premise that by reflecting on moral behavior, we come to certain conclusions that cannot be reached with the help of theory alone.

This also applies to freedom, which remains unprovable for the "Critique of Pure Reason" (the possible "causality through freedom" is unproven, because this statement is one of the members of the antinomy), while in ethical treatises I. Kant proves freedom as a condition of the moral law which we are aware of.

21. Hegel and the metaphysical foundations of ethics

The principle of historicism, which adhered to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), allowed him to make a turn from the ethics of inner conviction to a socially oriented theory of morality. Hegel turned to the definition of the role of morality in the system of social relations. The ethical views of the German philosopher were most fully set forth in two of his works: "Phenomenology of the Spirit" and "Philosophy of Law". A hot topic for Hegel was the distinction between the very concepts of "morality" and "morality".

It should be noted that at that time there were two approaches to morality: morality as an area of the spirit, designated only by personal meanings, as well as morality as a sphere of socially defined behavior. Emphasizing the originality of the personal and social meaning of morality, Hegel tried to combine both of these ethical traditions. It should be noted that the doctrine of Hegel's morality was the result of a complex creative development, in the process of which the philosopher gradually overcame the pathos of his early works, associated with the ideas of activity, the moral independence of the individual.

As a result, the personality was, as it were, sacrificed by Hegel to the philosophy of absolute idealism, aimed at achieving social harmony. Hegel's doctrine of free will predetermined the philosopher's study of the nature of morality and morality. Considering freedom "a necessary condition and basis of morality," Hegel reveals the developing nature of the relationship between freedom and necessity.

As a result, he proposed the concept of the development of free will. The will must go through three stages. This is natural will, arbitrariness, rational will. Subsequently, Hegel used these provisions in the doctrine of abstract law, morality and morality.

The very formulation of this problem causes a positive response, as does the recommendation to set great goals for yourself when setting intentions. Of particular interest is Hegel's definition of the concept of a person's moral duty. The philosopher believed that it consists in "having an understanding of the good, making it one's intention and carrying it out in activity."

So, in essence, the very mechanism for the implementation of morality is determined, the task of moral necessity is posed. A lot of valuable ideas are also contained in the Hegelian dialectic of good and evil. Morality is the second (social) nature of a person, which rises above the first (personal).

There are also three successive forms of its development: the family, civil society and the state. The process of the formation of morality is, in principle, the subordination of the individual to state interests, because "the whole value of a person, all his spiritual reality exists thanks to the state."

Guided by the principle of historicism, Hegel identified many features of the historical development of morality, analyzed the relationship of morality with other aspects of social life, thus inscribing the concept of morality in the social context.

22. Ethics of A. Schopenhauer

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) rejected with his teaching many principles of the classical philosophical tradition, in particular its idea that morality should be formed on the basis of rationality.

The main philosophical idea of the thinker is also expressed in the title of his main work - "The World as Will and Representation". It is connected with the difference between the two worlds.

First - spatio-temporal area of phenomena, representations, and second - a special sphere of will, not correlated with space and time, which is unchanging, identical to itself, free in manifestations. As, in particular, in Plato, A. Schopenhauer considers only one of the worlds to be "real" - this is a mysterious, incomprehensible world of human thought, which he understands as a "blind desire for life", an inexplicable, irrational "want", which permeates everything around, including the person himself.

By changing at the "human level", the will brings to life the urges of personality behavior, such as selfishness, malice, but also compassion.

It is the latter that constitutes the starting points of morality. A. Schopenhauer claims that compassion - contains a certain mystical element. He believes that compassion is "an amazing and, moreover, mysterious process. This is truly the mystery of ethics, its primary phenomenon and boundary pillar."

The task of the individual is to defeat the egoistic attitudes that are prompted by her will.

But to do this and thereby overcome suffering is possible only through the complete rejection of the will to live, the choice of a position of non-action, leading to nirvana.

Undoubtedly, in these statements of A. Schopenhauer, inspired by Eastern philosophy, the pessimistic nature of his ethical reflections is revealed. According to his ideas, life is practically only the expectation of death.

In his ethical writings, he opposed the omnipotence of reason and denied the authority of a universally significant, depersonalizing and subordinating individual. One of the important ethical issues A. Schopenhauer considered the relationship between the concepts of justice and injustice in human society. “No concern for another, no compassion towards him can impose on me the obligation to endure insults from him, that is, to be subjected to injustice,” the philosopher wrote, also pointing out that the active resistance of the individual, which is necessary to protect her rights and dignity, should not be regarded as an injustice to the offender.

The requirement to prevent injustice, directly understood as a ban on injustice against others, has another aspect that is very important in ethical terms - not to commit injustice towards others, as well as towards oneself.

As a result, the observance of justice in relation to others presupposes the fulfillment of one's own duties. But also justice in relation to oneself should involve upholding one's own rights.

23. Voluntaristic ethics of F. Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche asserted morality, criticizing and even denying it. The philosopher was guided by the fact that the forms of morality have become the main obstacles to the elevation of the human personality.

The reassessment of values proposed by F. Nietzsche is aimed mainly at releasing the creative energy of the individual, which sweeps away all previously established stereotypes on the way to asserting one's "I".

In order to be a full-fledged, "total" person, who fully realized his will to live, it is necessary, according to the philosopher, "to turn morality into a problem", to be "on the other side of good and evil." The denial of morality by F. Nietzsche cannot actually destroy moral consciousness as such.

Man must eliminate the traditional, religiously oriented, moral values imposed by the outside world in order to completely "liberate life."

F. Nietzsche rejects the previously invented metaphysics of free will. Emphasizes that in fact it is a question of a strong or weak will, and writes that morality - this is “the doctrine of the power relations in which the phenomenon arises life". It is an organic property of a person, a measure of his will to power. Morality, the virtue of a noble person, in particular a philosopher, an aristocrat, is a direct expression and continuation of his strength.

Morality, virtue, thus, is a need, protection, a way of life of a person. If a person has a slavish nature, then it also expresses his will, since this will is very weak, then it cannot find expression in a person’s act and turns into an imaginary revenge, taking the form of moralization.

Strong personalities, the philosopher argues, do not need to hide, go into the area of \uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbinternal experiences and moral fantasies, they will be able to directly recognize the conditions of their existence for granted.

Superman in the understanding of the thinker - this is a whole person, with a strong and collected will, he can openly assert himself in full confidence that he thereby affirms life in its highest manifestation.

But even the new morality that F. Nietzsche proposes, the morality of the “superman”, who rejects the life-killing reason and chooses vertu (strength) the highest virtue, is not a priority for him.

Proclaiming the primacy of aesthetic values over moral ones (since art most of all corresponds to the inclusion of a person in a living, undivided stream of life), F. Nietzsche ultimately defines his position as "aesthetic immoralism".

Thus, the directions in ethics outlined by A. Schopenhauer and F. Nietzsche (doubt about the moral "capabilities" of the mind, the leading role of the individual, subjective in opposition to the generally significant, established stereotypes) anticipate the ethical searches of the twentieth century. and largely determine their new, unconventional appearance.

In line with the ideas of the "philosophy of life", the most influential spiritual trend of the century is taking shape - existentialism.

24. Ethical teachings in Russian philosophy

The original features of the ethical quest of Russian philosophy took shape in the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, at a time when the national ethical consciousness was sufficiently defined. At first, it may seem that the ethical heritage of the philosophers of this period is a kind of mosaic of disparate teachings, and only a closer study reveals unifying patterns associated primarily with the originality of Russian philosophizing, the Russian idea. A large degree of general patterns is also contained in the definition of the boundaries of the two main trends in the development of Russian ethical thinking. One of them personifies the inclination towards a materialistic interpretation of morality, most clearly realized in the views of Russian revolutionary democrats; the other is oriented towards an idealistic conception. It is the second direction that will be discussed below.

The most interesting, from the point of view of the development of ethical thought, are such areas in the idealistic branch of Russian philosophy as the philosophy of "all-unity" (V. S. Solovyov, S. N. Trubetskoy, S. N. Bulgakov, S. L. Frank) and existential philosophy (L. I. Shestov, N. A. Berdyaev). In these teachings, ethics is the center of the research interests of thinkers. And the ideas they proposed are very original and in many respects are in tune with the spiritual quests of the present time. Russian idealists sought to solve the main questions of life. Although sometimes contradictory, but extremely bright, the original heritage of Russian philosophers testifies to the efforts to comprehend the fate of man in the world, the eternal problems of freedom and creativity, death and immortality.

If we highlight some general characteristics of the way these thinkers philosophize, then first of all we should pay attention to the irrationalistic tendency, which was expressed to one degree or another in their work. It was largely due to a complex of both socio-economic and ideological and theoretical conditions.

The unreasonable nature of the Russian reality of that time gave rise to doubts about the possibility of rational knowledge of the world, the desire for other (super-rational or non-rational) ways of mastering the essence of being.

In this search, Russian idealistic ethics developed from moderate irrationalism (philosophers of “all-unity”) to open irrationalism (N. Berdyaev) and anti-rationalism (L. Shestov). The religious-mystical form of Russian idealism assumed a significant role for religion, without which the existence of higher values was simply impossible. S. Bulgakov noted that “the determining force in a person’s spiritual life is his religion...”.

The common thought of the Russian idealists was the belief in the necessity of the divine consecration of morality, for this reason all ethical problems were considered by them in a religious key.

25. Ethics and philosophy of unity. V. S. Solovyov

The idealistic direction of Russian ethics, for which the period of the late XIX - early XX centuries. turned out to be a kind of Renaissance, extremely diverse and multicolored, while its key ideas are still quite traditional for a religious interpretation of morality. Russian idealistic ethics is an extremely complex, in many respects a unique phenomenon of spiritual culture, worthy of a separate discussion, and in this lecture it is only necessary to consolidate some of its manifestations in the most general form.

Speaking of panethism, it should be noted that the idealistic thought of this era was characterized by an "ethical bias", i.e., the dominance of ethical issues. There are many reasons for this distinctive phenomenon in the spiritual life of Russian society, the main ones are related to the reassessment of values, an attempt to solve socio-economic problems by ideological, theoretical means. Preference was given to moral measures.

Since they were recognized as the main ones in public life, various projects for the moral renewal of the whole world were created, and ethics was assigned the main role in the entire system of philosophical knowledge.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov, who set himself the task of forming a new type of idealism (synthetic, practical, humanized), sought to substantiate the concept of absolute synthesis, the main principle of which is “positive unity” (according to V.S. Solovyov, this is “complete freedom of the constituent parts in the perfect unity of the whole ").

This principle provides an opportunity to create "whole knowledge" (connection of faith, creativity, intuition), and the result of its implementation is "theosophy". The main part of V. S. Solovyov's theosophy is ethics and its understanding by the philosopher as a complete principle in the synthesis of morality with a person (subjective ethics) and with society (objective ethics). The main role in ethical research, according to the definition of V.S. Solovyov, is played by moral activity, which should be investigated both from the inside and from the outside.

The first type of activity can be realized in the God-man, and the second - in God-manhood. As a result, ethics determines the ideals and conditions for the realization of both the ideal personality and the "should be" human society.

In his philosophical work Justification of the Good, Solovyov put forward ideas about the three foundations of morality, namely, that its components: shame, reverence, pity, about the importance of conscience and love in moral activity, about the main principles of morality (worship of God, asceticism, altruism ). He considered the question of the meaning and purpose of human life to be the main theme of ethics. The students of V. S. Solovyov continued the traditions that he laid down, but with somewhat different accents, which reinforce the significance of not the social, but the religious validity of morality. "Morality is rooted in religion. The inner light, in which the distinction between good and evil in man is made, comes from the" Source of Lights "" (S. N. Bulgakov).

26. The problem of freedom and justification of ethical problems. N. A. Berdyaev

Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev. The thinker went through a difficult path of understanding the subject of ethical knowledge, expressing many interesting ideas. Thus, in particular, he wrote that the subject of ethics can be considered the antithesis of what should be and what is; argued the opposition between the “philosophy of tragedy,” which is capable of seeing the essence of morality, and the “philosophy of everyday life,” which only skims the surface of human existence. The philosopher also distinguished between genuine and inauthentic morality.

In later works, N. A. Berdyaev contrasted the moral with the social, affirmed individual moral values and denied morality as something universally valid, obligatory.

The key problem in the teachings of N. A. Berdyaev was the problem of the meaning of life. “To comprehend the meaning of life, to feel the connection with this objective meaning is the most important and only important thing, in the name of it any other thing can be abandoned” - this statement of N. A. Berdyaev was supported by all Russian idealists, although in the process of searching for the meaning of life, their path often diverged.

Throwing between pessimism (mainly in relation to existence) and optimism, which is associated with the adoption of a higher ideal, is also inherent in all teachings, although the proportion of pessimism is much greater among representatives of the second direction, in particular, N. A. Berdyaev. Deep and vivid descriptions of the meaninglessness and even tragedy of human existence have become for Russian philosophers a special background for the creation of positive, that is, the justification of such values that will make it possible to overcome evil and suffering, to give life a true meaning.

The meaning of life is the highest true value, which must be seen ("comprehended" through mystical intuition), easily accepted by a person and implemented in his activity. A lot of interesting ideas are contained in the work of N. A. Berdyaev and on the problem of freedom.

The world "lies in evil", it needs to be changed, destroying the gap between what should be and what is, to bring Good, Beauty, Truth into life. Differences in the reasoning of Russian idealists on this topic practically come down to establishing the paramount importance of the internal, spiritual, religious and moral transformation of the individual and society. This "practical" task is practically not commensurate with real life.

I would only like to object to attempts to infinitely raise the significance of Russian idealism and turn the names of its main representatives and their teachings into some kind of sacred incantations. What is needed today is, first of all, a serious, thoughtful analysis of Russian philosophy.

An attempt to spiritualize the world, to discover the priority of morality is very important and in many respects is in tune with the processes that are characteristic of our days. It is quite possible that familiarization with these samples of Russian ethical thought can at least to some extent stimulate the process of moral improvement of the individual.

27. Ethics of non-resistance to evil by L. N. Tolstoy

An understanding of the meaning of life as an ideal, movement towards the infinite is given in the Bible. Jesus Christ, in a dispute with the Law of Moses, formulates five commandments: do not be angry; do not leave your wife; do not swear; do not resist evil; Do not consider people of other nations as enemies. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy considered the fourth of these Christian commandments to be the main one (“do not resist evil”), which means a complete prohibition violence.

In his writings, L. N. Tolstoy gives three subsequently increasingly deepening definitions of violence:

1) physical restraint, threat of murder or murder;

2) external influence;

3) usurpation of the free will of man.

In the understanding of the thinker, violence must be equated with evil, it is directly opposite to love. To love means to do things the way the other wants. To rape, according to L. N. Tolstoy, means to do what the one who is being abused does not want to do. Thus, the commandment of non-resistance can be considered a negative formula of the law of love. Non-resistance to evil transfers a person's activity into the sphere of his internal moral perfection. Any violence, no matter how complex its causes, has the last component - someone must take a decisive action: shoot, press a button, etc. The surest way to completely eliminate violence in the world is to start from the last link - with the refusal of a particular person to participate in violence. If there is no murder, then there will be no death penalty. LN Tolstoy explores the arguments of people's everyday consciousness against non-resistance. Of course, the doctrine of non-resistance to evil looks beautiful, but it is very difficult to implement. It is impossible for one person to oppose the whole world. Non-resistance to evil is associated with very great suffering.

Tolstoy reveals the logical inconsistency of these arguments and shows their inconsistency. The commandment of Christ is not only moral, but also prudent, it teaches not to do stupid things.

At the same time, Tolstoy does not deny the possibility of resisting evil, he speaks of non-resistance to evil by physical force, violence. This does not at all exclude resistance to evil by others, namely by non-violent methods.

Although the thinker did not develop tactics for the general non-violent resistance of people, his teaching presupposes it. The scope of this tactic is spiritual influence, as well as its usual forms: persuasion, protest, dispute, etc. The philosopher called this his method revolutionary. The meaning of his non-resistance is not just to achieve a "pass" to heaven, but to transform relations in society for the better, striving to change the spiritual foundations of life, to achieve peace among all people.

Some exceptions to the law of love are the recognition that cases of morally justified use of violence are also possible. The peculiarity of the situation, from which the idea of non-resistance follows, lies precisely in the fact that people cannot in any way come to an agreement on the question of evil and good.

28. Ethical quest in existential philosophy

Of course, it would be more correct to assert the existence of not the ethics of existentialism, but of its "ethical component", since the status of ethics in it is not clearly fixed. Although the definition of the limits of the "ethical component" is also very conditional, since moral issues cover the entire space of existential philosophy, playing a major role in it.

Appeared in the 1920s. The "philosophy of existence" gained great popularity after the Second World War, enticing significant segments of the population of Western European society into the number of its adherents.

Its most famous representatives include: M. Heidegger и K. Jaspers in Germany; A. Camus, J. - P. Sartre, G. Marcel in France, and to the predecessors - S. Kierkegaard (Denmark); N. Berdyaeva, L. Shestova (Russia). Existential philosophy is not distinguished by its ideological solidity, on the contrary, it is heterogeneous and contradictory, nevertheless, its general ethical principles can be briefly described.

Innovation of the existential worldview on many issues.

First, it should be noted his extraordinary focus on meaningful life issues. The main problems that concern philosophers and are widely discussed are: the fate of a person, choice, death, loss of meaning, guilt.

Thinking about these problems is built contrary to all the academic rules that philosophers used earlier. Philosophizing acquires an unusual for classical thinking, very mobile, bizarre form, which is close to artistic, and sometimes it flows smoothly into it.

It is necessary "as if to catch consciousness at the crime scene" (Sartre), thus fixing the emotional state before its theoretical understanding. Only in this case, "experience will turn into a kind of" viewing window "through which it will be possible to observe the world as it is, as it has existed for the finite from time immemorial, and a person is forced in search of an absolute guideline to abandon the relative certainties of reality," to take them beyond brackets" and rush to the depths of one's own "I". In the manifestations of his life experience, in the experiences and dispositions of the spirit, he can find some inner basis for them, which represents his "essence", i.e., existence.

Regardless of the very complex, subtle shades in the description of existence, it is clear that it acts as a primary, inflexible value that determines human destiny, the meaning of life, creativity, happiness and unhappiness. It allows you to resist the deforming influences of society and fulfill your destiny - "to choose yourself."

Thus, existentialism seeks to eliminate the opposition "subject - object", within which classical ethics operated, to reveal a more flexible form of a person's attitude to the world in general and to the world of morality, based on subconscious involvement and empathy.

29. Freedom as a principle of human existence

The initial principle of human existence is freedom, about which existentialism puts forward many interesting, although sometimes controversial ideas. Mainly, the inseparable unity of existence and freedom is emphasized: self-creation is possible only as a complete liberation from all external influences.

"Man - this is freedom," says Sartre, emphasizing their becoming, and not just the present character. Moral life is a "continuous renewal" (Husserl), in which it is impossible to put an end to it, for this reason the "final", formed person does not exist, he always has yet to "become himself". Freedom, therefore, can never be exhausted, fully realized, it is limitless, unpredictable, it is "a constantly renewed obligation to remake one's self" (Sartre).

Completely left to himself, a free person is the creator of his own destiny and bears full responsibility for it. Therefore, the theme of responsibility is initially woven into the reflections of existentialists about freedom. If a person "makes himself", he thereby assumes responsibility for everything that happens.

The complete and irrevocable responsibility of each person logically follows from the interpretation of freedom in existentialism and brings to life many paradoxes. Thus, in particular, condemning the German occupation of France, Sartre acknowledges, in fact, his responsibility for it. The burden of global responsibility that a person puts on his shoulders gives rise to a chronic sense of guilt and exacerbates feelings of melancholy and anxiety.

Anxiety is thus a constant companion of the process of free self-fulfillment. This is a very complex state of the human spirit.

Having found himself in an alien, hostile world, and thus doomed to resist it, a person, in addition to everything else, feels the problem of the formation of his existence, since freedom is always a "risk zone", its consequences are simply impossible to "calculate". It is understandable that the tragic feeling of anxiety arising from this state, getting rid of which is simply impossible. Freedom is found in choice, in a sense it is the same thing: "freedom is freedom of choice" (Sartre).

Two interrelated components can be found in this problem: the choice "by and large", that is, the choice of oneself, and situational. It is sometimes impossible to move away from choice: "I am free to choose this or that, but I cannot rid myself of the choice" (Sartre). This circumstance once again emphasizes the "doom" to be free. The absolute choice that determines the life strategy and destiny of a person is made "without a fulcrum" and, therefore, is without reason, except for the connection with existence.

As a result, it is wrong to talk about different levels of freedom and its content: everything is allowed, since only I myself am the cause of the chosen plan or the way it is implemented.

30. Analytical philosophy. Moral language analysis

The "formalistic image" of the ethical thinking of the past century is most clearly represented in neopositivism. At the same time, the analytical school tried to soften the opposition, first of all, by starting to explore not specific moral judgments, but the “ordinary language of morality” as a whole.

Thus, analytical philosophy sought not simply to declare it the sphere of “pseudo-judgments” (using the “language of science”, as was the case in emotivism), but to define its specificity. Refuting only the emotive meaning of moral judgments, analysts approve of some significance of the expedient factor of morality.

Although this significance can manifest itself only within the boundaries of a homogeneous moral culture and not be related to the deep foundations of the worldview. These so-called foundations also become a stumbling block in the way of criticism of the emotivist approach to the question of "verification" of moral views. Analytical ethics makes possible the logical "verification" of personal moral judgments with the help of more general (principles, ideals), but the latter can no longer be verified or proved using scientific knowledge, their personal choice is made spontaneously, impulsively. The most consistent attempt to bring ethics closer to real life, to overcome subjectivism, to restore the rational factors of morality is the concept of R. Hear.

Starting from the analysis of the peculiarity of moral judgments, which is revealed precisely in the fact that, having an instructive character, they include answers to utilitarian questions, R. Hear draws attention to the practical meaning of moral philosophy.

Its primary task is "to help us think better about moral problems, revealing the logical structure of the language in which our thought is expressed."

This moral philosophy shows that morality is not only the realm of emotions, desires, but is also integrated with rationality and voluntary action. To prove this, R. Hear formulated the principle of “universalizability”, which to a certain extent contrasts with the emotivist principle of “tolerance” (after all, not a single moral judgment can lay claim to truth, and therefore, according to R. Hear, from the “two opposite courses of action” they define it is impossible to prefer any one", therefore it is necessary to be tolerant of all moral orientations).

The meaning of the principle of "universalizability" and that moral judgments have the ability to reflect the characteristics of circumstances common to people, regardless of their will, for this reason they mean an individual "person in general", offer imperatives of a general, and not just situational nature. In other words, "objectivity" and "rationality" of moral judgments are explained by R. Hear as a general validity.

31. Principles of justice J. Rawls

Justice in ethics is considered primarily as a problem of equality. The connection between justice and equality is significantly specified by J. Rawls, who analyzes justice as a principle of social organization. He introduces the concept of equality into the definition of justice.

It should be noted that he also included the concept of inequality in this definition. Justice, therefore, is a criterion of equality and a criterion of inequality between people.

People, of course, must be equal in their rights, and this equality must be enshrined in law. They must be equal in sharing social values.

At the same time, inequality will also be fair, but when it is such an unequal distribution that gives an advantage to everyone.

Accordingly, the definition of justice given by J. Rawls can be divided into two principles.

1. Every person shall have equal rights in respect of the most extensive system of equal fundamental freedoms compatible with similar freedoms for all other people.

2. Economic and social inequalities must be organized in such a way that benefits for all can really be expected from them and access to positions and posts is open to all.

Apparently, equality is not always and not for everyone a priority and is preferable. Thus, equality in the socio-economic sphere, if it is achieved at the cost of restricting economic activity and forcing a low standard of living for the majority of citizens, cannot be considered a blessing.

On the contrary, inequality in wealth is the basis of a compensatory advantage for each person (for example, the payment of a high progressive tax on wealth), in which case it is of course fair.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." It was precisely on this principle of justice that it was also assumed that although people would receive an unequal amount of goods, the principle of receiving them would equally apply to everyone: "according to need."

The main difference is that the first part of this formula can be explained: "From each (taxes!) according to income"; and the second - "Each poor as much as society can afford to distribute to provide a social minimum of benefits."

But under the same conditions, this inequality will be unfair to wealthy taxpayers.

Thus, according to the conclusions of J. Rawls, the ratio of equality and justice needs to be significantly clarified: fair equality in the distribution of rights and duties and, accordingly, the general accessibility of justice to people; just functional inequality - in the distribution of goods. J. Rawls also considers justice in relationships between people.

32. Morality and Politics

Political ethics is a special component of public morality, social ethics. It began to take shape at the turn of the New Age, when, as a result of the disintegration of the previously cohesive society and the emergence of functional subsystems, politics emerged as a multi-level specialized activity with its own goals, institutions, norms and values, certain connections and personnel.

Etymologically the term "morality" comes from lat. We - "temper". Another meaning of this word is law, rule, prescription. In modern philosophical literature, morality, as a rule, is understood as morality, a peculiar form of social consciousness and a type of social relations; one of the main ways to correct human actions in society with the help of norms.

Morality arose and develops on the basis of the need of human society to regulate the behavior of its members in various areas of their lives. Morality is one of the most accessible ways for people to understand the complex processes of social life. The main problem of morality is the regulation of relationships and interests of society and the individual. The concept of morality includes: moral attitudes, moral consciousness, moral behavior.

In the history of philosophical thought, the problem of the relationship between morality and politics has been interpreted in different ways. It has developed from a complete denial of any connection whatsoever between them (N. di B. Machiavelli and T. Hobbes) to the recognition that morality and politics can be equated with each other. The interaction of morality and politics is diverse. Political struggle is inevitably accompanied by a clash of moral attitudes. Politics is characterized by a certain strategy and laws, which cannot be violated with impunity, but at the same time, politics includes moral values in its strategic goals, thus, internal moral orientation.

Politics in tactics, in the choice of means and ends, proceeds from their effectiveness and accessibility, but should not neglect their moral justification. Morality influences politics through moral assessments and directions. Politics also has an effect on morality in the direction of its trampling.

All forms of social consciousness, reflecting a single social being and having internal specifics, interact with each other. The interdependence of these two phenomena lies in the fact that political views determine the formation and implementation of moral norms, just as moral relations, these norms contribute to the formation of political consciousness.

Thus, the orientation of the individual to social needs, which is expressed in political consciousness, is supported by the concept of duty, honor, justice, conscience, happiness, etc., that is, it has a moral connotation. At the same time, moral convictions become more effective if they are comprehended by a person from the position of politics.

33. The problem of interaction between politics and morality

The problem of the interaction of politics and morality can be resolved in different aspects from different angles of view. For example, the concept A. Obolonsky explores the history of Russia within the framework of two fundamental traditions, two mutually exclusive points of view on the world, which reflect all the various forms of human civilization: system-centrism и personocentrism.

According to the personacentric scale, the individual is considered the highest point, the measure of all things. All phenomena in the social world are viewed through the prism of the human personality. The system-centric scale is characterized either by the absence of the individual, or by considering him as something auxiliary.

Individual It is a means, but not an end. Russia, in particular, refers to system-centrism.

These two forms define two ethical genotypes. The main difference between them is in the opposite approaches to solving moral conflicts.

In the main branches of the Russian nationality, the dominance of system-centric ethics throughout most of the centuries of its historical existence is unlimited. The confrontation "society - personality" did not even arise not because there was harmony, because there were no contradictions, but because all issues were resolved in favor of the whole.

The system had an excellent self-preservation instinct all along. In Russia, any opportunities that sought to lead the country out of despotism immediately came into conflict with the national traditions of political behavior and the oral foundations of social relations.

Only at the beginning of the XIX century. personacentrism began to represent a noticeable social value in Russia, and the entire XNUMXth century. passed under the sign of development, improvement, strengthening of this breed, expansion of its social base.

Each civilization has its own moral problems, determined by specific historical conditions, but all of them, one way or another, are different facets of the general moral problems of man. Politics, on the one hand, is a sphere of increased moral risk, where one can easily be tempted by power over people, the advantages of moral cynicism, hypocrisy, dirty politicking, promiscuity in choosing means to achieve even very moral goals.

But on the other hand, this is a sphere where the moralizing of the beautiful soul also very easily shows its complete uselessness.

As soon as politics wants to educate its erring subjects in the spirit of high moral principles, reward the virtuous and punish the vicious, it will begin to perceive itself as the highest moral authority, and here sooner or later it will be threatened by failures, the traps of utopianism or even the lures of totalitarianism.

34. Ethics of a political leader

With the development of political ethics, its sub-branches were gradually formed. First of all, this is a system of norms and rules that regulate the implementation of human rights in political life, as well as parliamentary ethics of parliamentary behavior, political rivalry and cooperation; the ethics of the political leader and voter, which regulates the behavior of the electorate, and he is not at all indifferent to whose hands the power falls into, and who cannot be satisfied only with an imitation of the electoral process.

Ethics of party activity, norms and rules of various professional ethics were also developed: legal, journalistic, scientific, expert and advisory activities - to the extent that they are involved in political power.

Ethical norms encourage a political leader to business and life success.

The precepts and prohibitions of the ethics of a political leader include those that ensure the natural course of fair play in the political field. They presuppose the ability of a leader to endure both success and defeat with dignity in a struggle.

It is assumed that he has such moral qualities as truthfulness, fidelity to written and oral obligations.

Political ethics is based on the leader's ability to combine adherence to principles with the need to make forced compromises.

More often than not, a leader who opposes his competitor with illicit methods and means loses. George Bush pointed this out in his autobiography, singling out four basic rules of leadership.

1. No matter how fierce the fight on any issue, never resort to personal attacks.

2. Do your "homework". You will not be able to lead if you do not know in advance what you will talk about.

3. Use your leadership power primarily to persuade, not to intimidate.

4. Be especially attentive to the needs of your colleagues, even if they are at the very bottom of the totem pole.

Leadership и лидеры This is a very delicate and delicate area. It is very easy to break the border, fall into the realm of bad luck, and also fall into extremes: either overly exaggerate the role of a leader, or seriously underestimate his actions, his capabilities, abilities, and not use them himself. It is clear that everyone is obliged and entitled to play only their own role and not to succumb to the temptations of politics and power.

The goal of a political leader today is the well-being and free development of the people, and the acceptable means are democratization and the market. Without a doubt, it is clear that the deep development of mechanisms for achieving the set goals is the most important element of all the activities of a political leader. Moreover, it is absolutely unacceptable to mix goals and means.

At present, the views of society have turned to people of action, practical deeds - the true spokesmen for the political interests of the people.

35. New ethics

Democratic system and the problem of the formation of a new ethics

The new ethics offers different ways of understanding and properly expressing moral values; various "circles of problems" are outlined with different subordination in them (either, in particular, the greater significance of the meaning of a life problem is recognized in comparison with others, or it is completely removed from the field of ethical priorities).

The ethical principles of the past century either declared themselves absolutely new, advanced, striving for a final break with traditional norms, or declared their complete conservatism and traditionalism. So, the diversity and abundance of faces, masks of the ethical consciousness of the twentieth century simply amaze our imagination.

At the time when the institutions of civil society, representative democracy, the rule of law began to take shape, when there were profound changes in the political culture of society, the power began to lose its halo of sacredness and paternalism, new methods of its legitimization arose, forms of mobilization of the masses unknown in the past, there was a need for professionalism of politicians in the exercise of their powers of authority. This ultimately gave rise to a new relationship between the masses and the political elite, as well as within this elite itself. Such circumstances in their historical development served as a general prerequisite for the emergence of a new ethics.

The rudiments of such ethics can be considered the rules, establishments, sayings of public competition in the exercise of the right to state power, to defend one's interests and views, which were developed in the ancient polis system and to some extent in a number of urban communes of the Middle Ages.

The content of political ethics is expressed by the moral demands of citizens to professional political leaders invested with power, to officials involved in politics, social management, as well as to all those who, voluntarily or against it, were involved in the ebullient whirlpools of political life, were related to its front and backstage parties.

Democratic principles presuppose bringing to power political figures who are rationally minded, moderately minded, and capable of thoughtful decisions. The political ethics of a democratic society calls for the implementation of the principle of the division of power and the responsibility of politicians for it. It also implies self-limitation of power, tolerance towards dissent, sensitivity to the interests of allies, various minorities, fidelity to obligations, honesty, partner reliability.

Political ethics in a democratic society requires the rejection of confrontational political behavior wherever possible, from the rules of political radicalism. Political leaders are obliged to give preference to compromises, dialogue, negotiations, cooperation, achieving a balance of interests of rivals. Ethics reinforces the norms of the activities of various government institutions with moral means.

36. Entrepreneurial (business) ethics

Entrepreneurial (business) ethics - a specific subsystem of applied ethics associated with economic activity in a market economy. It is also called business ethics. Entrepreneurship is considered to be such a type of management, which is based on:

1) economic freedom to choose the direction of activity, its planning, management and organization;

2) the existence of the owner's rights to the means of production, as well as to products;

3) income received, which presupposes the presence of a market-competitive environment of activity and a proper moral and psychological climate in society, which provides this activity with the necessary level of freedom of choice in relations with other agents of commodity production.

Entrepreneurship is also associated with a characteristic mental attitude that "inspires" production and commerce, the activities of the institutions serving them (banks, brokerage houses, stock exchanges, insurance companies, etc.), a peculiar style of economic behavior, the "spirit of capitalism", about which they wrote M. Weber, E. Troelch, T. Parsons and many other researchers. An "economic man", an entrepreneur, cannot but reckon with social, including moral, norms, with the behavioral models of culture adopted by him.

The ethics and ethos of entrepreneurship are considered morally positive socialized personal orientations and motives, not allowing them to be reduced to complete egoism and self-interest, condemning the limitation of rational approaches to profit maximization alone. Individualistic orientations and motives can only acquire moral significance when, on the one hand, they are based on the motives of life's calling, service to the cause by increasing the efficiency of social capital, and on the other hand, they are associated with an addiction to the rules of "fair play" in the market, which is controlled by through the sanctions of public and group opinion.

Entrepreneurial activity serves the public good not only economically, but also morally, since only a society with a dynamically developing economy can be prosperous.

The market mechanism is not necessarily fair, rewarding, as in a moralizing story, the worthy, skillful, enterprising, and punishing the unworthy, irresponsible. In a certain sense, the market is a necessary evil, similar to any other economic mechanism, and yet a lesser evil, since there cannot be a productive economy, the driving force of which would not be interests, not representations of benefits, but a craving for speculative justice and love for one's neighbor. .

37. Corporate ethics

Unlike Western Europe, where entrepreneurial ethics were based on the mentality of medieval cities, the ethos of capitalism, and especially the ethics of Protestantism, in Russia the spiritual sources of this ethics were the service ethos of class society, which contributed to the development of moral qualities and character traits that were very important for entrepreneurial activity. .

Such qualities are: fidelity to duty, acceptance of abstinence and the burden of public duties, discipline, perseverance in work, etc.

Entrepreneurial ethics governs also relations between entrepreneurs in various communities - associations, guilds, corporations.

These relations include both the upholding of competitive positions, and solidaristic ties, cooperative organizational programs of activity. The latter are built on the principles of equality, trust, mutual respect and mutual assistance, goodwill, responsibility for property. Partnerships do not just provide solidarity support, but also involve a certain degree of closeness, affection of people, and that is why they can be built on the principles of trust and responsibility.

One of the principles of corporate ethics is the principle of a single family. First of all, this means that the enterprise should be like a family: the interests of one of its members are dear to everyone, because everyone depends on each other.

And most importantly, that this is not just announced in words, it is important that each member of the team feel care, support, and respect. Then he will work in such a way that the business of the family flourishes, he will fight for her good name, dignity and well-being.

In order for people to have a spirit of involvement and even co-ownership, they must feel that they are not being deceived. The economics of an enterprise must be transparent not only to management, but also to the entire team. The dedication of employees of all ranks, who raise the prestige of the enterprise, should be encouraged. First of all, a person must feel that the team values him, then he will value the team even more and try even harder at work.

In order for a person to conscientiously, with a soul, in a businesslike way, and not as a day laborer, treat his business, it is necessary that he had something to lose, which means that he had something to value.

According to the principle of corporate ethics, not only head offices, but also all existing branches should also live. The management of the head enterprise should do everything so that the branches do not feel like appendages, but feel like an integral part of it.

Corporate ethics - these are not just beautiful words. Every modern enterprise has a code of corporate ethics, which is followed by both management and employees. Man is born for self-realization, says the corporate code. And it is easiest for a person to realize himself in conditions of corporatism, that is, mutual respect and understanding.

38. Charity

Charity - this is an activity in which private resources are voluntarily distributed by their owners in order to help people in great need, solve social problems, and improve the conditions of public life.

In this case, those in need are understood not only as those in need, but also those people (specialists, artists, politicians, students) and public (i.e. non-political and non-profit) organizations that lack additional resources to solve personal, professional, cultural and civic goals.

Financial and material resources, as well as the abilities and energy of people, can act as private resources. Recently, a stable idea has been formed about charity not only as monetary and property donations, but also as a gratuitous (voluntary) activity. And also as a public (i.e., non-commercial and non-political) matter in the truest sense of the word.

Charity should provide people not with commodities, but with the means by which they can help themselves; support, therefore, is most definitely in that those in need stop being dependent and can be in charge of their lives.

But in this case, charity itself as a purposeful activity should become different: enlightened, scientific, controlled, technological.

Unlike the old philanthropy, which carried the spirit of paternalism, the new philanthropy must become an activity that has in mind the systematic development of society and the large-scale improvement of human life. The methodology of the new approach to charity, which was borrowed from social engineering, is as follows: formulate the question in terms of objectively fixed criteria; define goals that can be controlled; select the means to achieve these goals and achieve constructive practical results.

Indicative in this regard is the experience of a very famous industrialist and subsequently one of the largest in the XNUMXth century. philanthropists J. Ford. In the spirit of his time, he proceeded from the principle that true help to the needy consists in giving them opportunities to earn their own living. Like the thinker Seneca, Ford was not against charity, but against extravagance itself: it is wasteful to provide organized assistance, while giving physically and mentally healthy workers jobs that could use unskilled or part-time labor.

As an example of a private solution to problems in Detroit, where the Ford factories were located, there was the organization on a commercial basis of a free special vocational school for the children of workers and working youth. Ford thus undertook to implement the advice offered Confucius, - teach how to fish, and not just give it away.

39. The main problems arising in the implementation of charity

The problem is not so simple. How to deal with the order of work in an economic downturn and rising unemployment? Is it worth spending money on charity, training and job creation? Is it necessary to choose between providing concrete assistance to a person in particular need and organizing conditions so that the person in need today does not need tomorrow? It is clear that the first requires much less material and organizational resources than the second.

Although the turn in the cause of charity cannot be interpreted one-sidedly: to refuse the distribution of resources that are not provided with labor and organize the training and retraining of those in need.

Modern charitable programs are aimed not only at maintaining a sufficient standard of living for those in need, but on a large scale - at financing various scientific, educational, environmental, socio-cultural, etc. programs.

However, with their help it is really possible to resolve social contradictions, even in the developed societies of the "golden billion" of mankind. Moreover, charity itself - both as a system of redistribution of resources and as an area of special activity - remains a source of very serious problems of a socio-ethical, moral order. Moral criticism of charity in our time is shifting the solution of pragmatic issues to value and normative guidelines, and thus leads to the most specific and human-oriented topics. Ethical reasoning about philanthropy tries to reveal its moral meaning from the point of view of the commandment of love. In the course of this reasoning, philanthropy itself becomes clear.

Helping other people, usually those in need, is an expression of solidarity and courtesy towards them, and philanthropy itself is charity, in the light of which the expedient arguments of utilitarianism lose their sharpness. Mercy should not count the equality of benefits, which is very important for the state or a conscientious charitable foundation, it gives and sympathizes.

A good deed as a moral theme is expressed not only in the willingness to share, to give, but also in the willingness to get out of the limitations of personal egoism.

Only selfless actions, only selflessness is far from enough.

Mercy will require from a person not only generosity, but also spiritual sensitivity and moral maturity, and therefore he himself must rise to goodness, eradicating evil in himself, in order to be able to do good to another.

Free financial resources and material resources should be concentrated with the greatest efficiency and shared in such a way that the benefit and material resources of individuals, if they wish, could significantly contribute to increasing the benefit of the whole society.

40. Nature and society: the evolution of relationships

Environmental ethics - this is a direction of interdisciplinary research, the subject of which is the moral and spiritual aspects of the relationship of man and society to nature. In English-language and Northern European literature environmental ethics is a direction of philosophical and ethical research that is gaining strength, focused on revising the value foundations of Western civilization, on changing the integral development of a person and limiting his life on Earth.

It is well known that the primary impact of man on the environment is associated with his instrumental activity, power supply and the ability to accumulate, store and transmit information to generations. These three elements ultimately characterize the difference between people and other living beings, the consistency of human actions with biospheric processes, the probability of finding one's own place in the biosphere by ecologically determined methods.

People began to use simple tools about 3 million years ago. The beginnings of its characteristic influence on the environment can be associated with this time. Subsequently, weapon activity improved, and the overall effect of its impact on the environment gradually increased. The amount of energy spent on meeting human needs has also increased, and it is this indicator that is usually considered as energy availability.

It is also known that 2500-3000 kcal of energy per day is enough to satisfy the actual biological needs of a person, as well as other species very close to him in size.

During the period when a person was engaged in gathering, he received with food and spent the same amount of energy to ensure life. Today, the existence of an average person is associated with the use of 80-100 thousand kcal of energy per day. And in industrialized countries, the daily average per capita energy consumption is 250-300 thousand kcal.

In the literature, one can also find the following factors of coordinated human activity with the laws and principles of general ecology.

1. Changing the boundaries of optimal and limiting factors. A person can change the strength of action and the number of limiting factors and narrow or expand the boundaries of the average values of environmental factors.

2. Changing factors that regulate population size.

3. Human impact on the functioning of living matter in the biosphere. One of the main results of human activity is the violation of the mechanisms of the existence of living matter and its functions.

4. Consequences of differences in the rates of social and technological progress. Social and technogenic structures are characterized by low environmental efficiency.

5. Alienation of a person from the natural environment. Human actions violate the time factor in the development of biospheric processes, and also lead to alienation from nature, its subordination to its goals.

41. Ecological crisis and the formation of environmental ethics

Both man and other living beings are in an environment that is a consequence of the action of anthropogenic factors.

A noticeable change in the environment by man began precisely from the time when he moved from gathering to more active activities, in particular, to hunting, domesticating animals and growing plants.

Since that time, the principle of "ecological boomerang" began to work: any impact on nature, which the latter could not perceive, would return to man as a negative factor. Man began to separate himself more and more from nature and to enclose himself in the boundaries of the environment formed by himself.

The modern environment and the ecological situation are the result of the action of anthropogenic factors, therefore, several specific features of their action can be distinguished: irregularity and unpredictability for organisms, high intensity of modifications, almost unlimited possibilities of action on organisms, sometimes until their complete destruction, natural disasters and cataclysms. In this case, human impacts can be both purposeful and unintentional.

Crisis - this is one of the states of the environment, nature, biosphere. It may be preceded or followed by other states or environmental situations.

Ecological crisis - these are changes in the biosphere or its blocks over a large area, which are accompanied by a change in the environment and its systems as a whole into a new quality.

The biosphere often experienced dramatic periods of crisis determined by natural phenomena (at the end of the Cretaceous, for example, five orders of reptiles died out in a short period of time - dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, pterosaurs, etc.).

Crisis phenomena were often generated by climate change, glaciation or desertification. Human activity also repeatedly contradicted nature, causing crises of various scales. But due to the small population, poor technical equipment, they never had a global scale.

In particular, the Sahara desert 5-11 thousand years ago was a savanna with rich vegetation and a system of large rivers. The destruction of the ecosystems of this region is due to both excessive pressure on the natural environment and climate change (desiccation).

Ancient Babylon (a city with a population of almost a million people) was abandoned by the inhabitants due to the ill-conceived reclamation of the surrounding agricultural fields, accompanied by severe salinization of the soil and the impossibility of their further use.

A feature of the modern ecological crisis is its global character. It is spreading or threatening to engulf our entire planet. Therefore, the usual methods of overcoming crises by migration to new territories are not feasible. Changes in the methods of production, volumes and norms of consumption of natural resources remain real.

42. The problem of urbanization and ecology in big cities

Catastrophes are a big problem for large cities. The overcrowding of the population in them results in greater than in rural areas, the death of people during catastrophes, for example, during earthquakes.

Moreover, large cities (megalopolises) sometimes themselves provoke catastrophic events due to their strong impact on the environment. There is a very clear pattern: the lower the technical and socio-economic level of development of the city, the greater the probability of death of the population in disasters. For example, in the cities of Asia, the death of the urban population during disasters is twice as high as in Europe.

One of the reasons for this phenomenon is considered to be an increase in man-made disasters that are associated with cities either directly or indirectly (maintenance of supply lines, warehouses, etc.). Since the growth of cities is an inevitable phenomenon of our time, people are looking for ways to ease the pressure of urban civilization on the environment and health. The main way to solve this problem is the greening of the urban environment. This will be possible thanks to the creation or preservation of natural or artificially created ecosystems (parks, squares, botanical gardens, etc.) within urban settlements. Settlements where urban development is combined with an indispensable variety of architecture and natural landscapes are called eco-cities, or ecocity . In relation to them in urban construction, the term "ecological architecture" is also used.

This concept is invested in this type of development of urban areas, in which the socio-ecological needs of people are taken into account to the utmost: approaching nature, liberation from the monotony of buildings, a population density of no more than 100 people per 1 ha, the creation of microdistricts (no more than 30 thousand people), preservation of at least 50% of the area for all kinds of green spaces and flower beds, fencing off transport routes from residential areas, creating better conditions for people to communicate, etc.

Although it should be borne in mind that this extensive way of greening cities has not only positive, but also negative consequences, since the expansion of suburban developments more often exacerbates than solves environmental problems. The development of suburban cottages is associated with a large alienation of land, as well as the destruction of natural ecosystems, sometimes their destruction.

This construction is associated with the use of large spaces for the construction of roads, water pipes, sewer networks and other communications. In addition, the indigenous inhabitants of the cities as a result will be deprived of nearby places of recreation, and the cities themselves will lose contact with natural landscapes.

In the context of the spread of the global crisis, within the framework of the prevailing natural-science consciousness of technogenic civilization, a lot of applied ethics are being created, which have the goal of morally limiting the gross forms of exploitation of nature by man.

43. The concept of sustainable development

Currently, two strategic concepts for solving planetary environmental problems are best known: the concept of "sustainable development" и doctrine of the noosphere.

The concept of "sustainable development" formed gradually on the pages of Western European and American literature. In its modern form, it was formulated by the Brutland Commission, which worked under the auspices of the United Nations, and then proclaimed as a development strategy for the future by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNECD) in 1992.

"Sustainable development" in this program is seen as one in which humanity will be able to meet its needs without compromising the ability of future generations to also meet their needs.

The concept is based on the realization of the fact that the human environment and socio-economic development cannot be considered as isolated areas. It is believed that only in a world with a healthy socio-economic environment can there be a healthy environment. The program of action adopted by the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992) notes "that in a world where there is so much need and where the environment is deteriorating, a healthy society and economy is impossible." This means that economic development should take "a different path, ceasing to destroy the environment so actively."

The flagship document of UNCED, Agenda XNUMX, addressed a wide range of issues that should ensure such a development in the future.

These are also issues directly related to environmental problems (prevention of climate change, combating desertification).

The range of such issues concerns almost all types of human activity. These are updating industrial and agricultural technologies, fighting poverty, changing consumption patterns, developing sustainable settlements, strengthening the role of different segments of the population, etc. They are combined into four sections of the “Program of Action...”: “Social and economic aspects”, “ Conservation and rational use of natural resources”, “Strengthening the role of key population groups”, “Means of implementation”.

After the concept of sustainable development was proclaimed, the UN Conference (UNCED) called on the governments of all states to adopt national concepts of sustainable development. In accordance with this, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 44 of April 1, 1996 "On the concept of the transition of the Russian Federation to sustainable development" was issued in the Russian Federation. This Decree approved the "Concept of the Russian Federation's transition to sustainable development" presented by the Government of the Russian Federation.

The documents outline the main directions for the implementation of the state environmental policy in the country.

44. The concept of violence

Concept violence, like the word itself, undoubtedly has a negative emotional and moral connotation. In most philosophical and religious moral teachings, violence is identified with evil. The decisive prohibition on it “thou shalt not kill” marks the boundary that separates morality from immorality. At the same time, social consciousness, as well as ethics, allow situations of morally justified violence. There are two extreme approaches to understanding violence - absolutist (broad) и pragmatic (narrow), each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. In a broad sense, violence is understood as the suppression of a person in all its types and forms - both direct and indirect, both physical and economic, psychological, political and any other.

At the same time, suppression is considered to be any restriction of the conditions for the development of a personality, the cause of which lies in other people. Thus, violence turns out to be a synonym for moral evil; along with murder, it includes lies, hypocrisy and other moral deformations. A broad interpretation of the concept of violence is expensive because it gives significant importance to its moral dimension. But it has two shortcomings: its own content of the phenomenon of violence disappears; its denial inevitably takes the form of impotent moralizing.

With this approach to violence, the very formulation of the question of any cases of its morally justified use is excluded.

In a narrow sense, violence is often reduced to the physical and economic damage that people can inflict on each other, and it is understood as bodily harm, robbery, murder, arson, etc. With this approach, violence retains its specificity, does not dissolve entirely in the generic concept moral evil. Its imperfection lies in the fact that violence is equated with an externally limiting influence on a person, it is not linked to the internal motivation of his behavior.

Power in human relations could be defined as making a decision for another, multiplying one will at the expense of another. Violence is one of the ways that provides domination, the power of a person over another person. The reasons why one will dominates, rules over another, replaces it, makes any decisions for it, can be different:

1) some have a real superiority in the state of the will - the usual case: paternalistic power, the power of the father;

2) a preliminary mutual agreement, for example: the force of law and legitimate rulers;

3) violence as a typical case: the power of the occupier, rapist, conqueror.

Violence - this is such coercion or such damage that is realized against the will of the one or those against whom they are oriented. Violence is the usurpation of free will. It is also an attack on the freedom of the human will.

45. The concept of non-violence

The concept of violence has a very specific and strict content, it cannot be identified with any form of coercion.

And no matter how bad violence may be, it is still better than resignation and cowardice. Violence is considered justified as counter-violence. A violent response to violence in comparison with non-resistance, obedience to it, indeed, has enormous advantages.

In utilitarian terms, it is more effective and morally more worthy. It is thus a challenge to violence, a form of struggle against it. If a person, argued Gandhi, had a choice between cowardly humility or violent resistance, then the choice, of course, would be for the latter. But there is also a third line of behavior in the face of hostile injustice - this is active non-violent resistance, overcoming the situation of injustice, but in other - non-violent - ways.

Nonviolence differs from violence mainly in understanding how good and evil are divided in human society. It is based on the mutual connection of all people in good and evil. One of the frequently repeated objections to non-violence as a program of action is that it promotes an overly benevolent and therefore unrealistic conception of man.

In reality, this is not the case. At the heart of modern concepts of non-violence is the belief that the human soul becomes an arena for the struggle between good and evil.

As Martin Luther King pointed out, even in the worst of us there is a bit of good and in the best of us there is a bit of evil. To regard a person as effectively evil is to slander him unjustly.

To consider a person infinitely kind means to flatter him. His due will be rewarded when the moral duality of man is determined. An adherent of non-violence does not consider a person to be a good being to the end. He believes that man is open to good as well as to evil.

Intentionally focusing on the good beginning in man, the advocate of non-violence nevertheless repels the conviction that moral ambivalence (duality) is the fundamentally irremovable basis of human existence. He cannot remove from himself the evil against which he is fighting, and he does not excommunicate the opponent from the good in whose name he is fighting. On this, in fact, the positions of non-violent behavior are built:

1) complete rejection of the monopoly on truth, readiness for change, dialogue or compromise;

2) criticism of one's own behavior in order to identify what in it could nourish and provoke the opponent's hostile position;

3) consideration of the situation through the eyes of the opponent in order to understand him and find a way out of the situation that would help him save face.

Thus, in the face of militant injustice, three lines of behavior are possible:

1) passive obedience;

2) violent resistance;

3) non-violent resistance.

46. War: moral and ethical problems

Carl von Clausewitz wrote: “If we want to embrace in thought as a whole all the countless martial arts that make up the war, then it is best to imagine a fight between two fighters.

Each of them seeks, by means of physical violence, to force the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance."

War, in his understanding, is an act of violence that aims to force the enemy to do our will. Violence, in this case, uses the inventions of the arts and sciences to resist violence. The inconspicuous, barely worth mentioning restrictions that it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany violence without actually mitigating its effect.

He introduces two concepts that, in his opinion, are necessary for considering the phenomenon of war: "the political goal of war" and "the goal of military operations." The political purpose of the war is the original motive and must be a very significant factor: the smaller the sacrifice we demand from our enemy, the less resistance we should expect from him.

But the more insignificant our demands on him, the weaker will be our preparation.

War in human society - sometimes war of entire peoples, and at the same time civilized peoples - always stems from a political situation and is caused only by political motives.

War is not only a political act, but also a true instrument of politics, a continuation of political relations, their implementation in other ways.

There are no inevitable wars, because although they are a continuation of politics, an extreme step, a compromise solution can always be found. Man dreamed of the world of man at all levels of civilization, beginning with his first steps. The ideal of life without cruel clashes and wars goes back to ancient times, such that generally recognized norms of justice would be observed in relations between countries and people.

If we consider the theme of a world without wars, relying on the views of the Christian church, then here one can notice some duality. On the one hand, the main commandment "Thou shalt not kill" declared war and the very deprivation of human life as the gravest sin.

The Christian Church was also the initiator of the establishment of the so-called Peace of God - the days when internecine strife ceased. They associated such days with mythical events from the life of Christ, with important religious holidays.

Military operations were not conducted on the days that the church determined for reflection and prayer, on the days of Christmas Eve and fasting. Those who violated God's Peace were punished with a fine and confiscation of all property, excommunication from the church, and corporal punishment.

But at the same time, the preaching of universal peace did not prevent the Christian Church from consecrating countless wars of conquest, crusades against the "infidels", and the suppression of peasant movements.

47. The view of various philosophers on the problem of war

Concept J. Galtunga affirms "the minimization of violence and injustice in the world", then only the highest human values of life can survive. The position of one of the most famous theorists of the Club of Rome, A. Peccei, is very interesting.

He claims that the scientific and technological complex created by man "deprived him of orientation and balance, plunging the entire human system into chaos." He sees the main reason that undermines the foundations of the world in the vices of the psychology and morality of the individual - in greed and selfishness, a tendency to evil and violence, etc.

That is why the main role in the implementation of the moral reorientation of mankind, in his opinion, is played by "people changing their habits, morals, behavior." "The question comes down to how to convince people in different parts of the world that it is in the improvement of their human qualities that the key to solving problems lies," he argues.

Philosophers of different eras condemned wars, fervently dreamed of eternal peace, explored various aspects of achieving universal peace. Some of them focused mainly on the ethical side of the war.

They believed that an aggressive war is a product of immorality, that permanent peace can be achieved as a result of the moral education of people in the spirit of mutual understanding, tolerance for different faiths, the elimination of nationalist prejudices, and the education of people in the spirit of "all people are brothers."

But others saw the main evil caused by wars in economic ruin, in the disruption of the normal functioning of the entire economic structure. As a result, they tried to incline mankind towards peaceful coexistence, using the picture of general prosperity in a society without wars, in which, first of all, the forces of society will be directed to the development of science, technology, art, literature, but not to the improvement of the means of destruction.

They believed that peace between states could be established only as a result of a reasonable policy of an enlightened ruler.

Others developed the legal aspects of the problem of peace, which they wanted to achieve through an agreement between governments, the proclamation of regional or world federations of states.

The problem of peace, as well as the problem of war, is relevant for many scientists, as well as political and social movements.

Significant are the successes of the peace-loving forces and numerous organizations, as well as the achievements of a number of schools and directions, scientific centers that specialize in the study of peace problems.

Today, a huge amount of knowledge has been accumulated about peace as a goal, as well as the conditions for the life and development of all mankind, about the relationship between peace and war and the features of this problem in the modern era, about conceivable ways and prerequisites for moving towards a world without weapons and wars.

48. Violence and the State

An important qualitative leap in limiting violence was the emergence of the state. The attitude of the state to violence, in contrast to the primitive practice of talion, is characterized by three main features.

The state monopolizes violence, institutionalizes it and replaces it with indirect forms.

The state means such a stage in the development of society when the provision of its security becomes a special function within the framework of the general division of labor. To this end, the right to violence is concentrated in the hands of a group of certain individuals and is exercised according to established rules. Approximately in the same way as artisans, farmers, merchants, etc. appear, guards (warriors, policemen) appear, who are called upon to protect the life and property of people both from their mutual encroachments and from external enemies.

Human security in a primitive society is a matter of the whole family: here every adult male is a warrior. The right of blood feud is recognized by all, and each kindred, in accordance with a certain custom and sequence, perceives it as his inalienable duty.

But with the advent of the state, security becomes the responsibility of a special structure, which is the monopoly holder of the right to use violence. The principle "Thou shalt not kill", considered in a specific historical content, was just aimed at seizing the right of violence from the population itself (compatriots) and transferring it to the state. First of all, it was intended to block the actions of people demanding fair retribution, to guarantee in exchange that the state would punish and protect.

The violence practiced by the state is based on reasonable arguments and is characterized by impartiality, thus it reaches a qualitatively higher level of institutionalization compared to the talion. The state has also taken another important step in limiting violence.

In the state, violence is often replaced by the threat of violence. German explorer R. Speemann in his work Morality and Violence, he distinguishes three types of influence of one person on another:

1) actual violence;

2) speech;

3) public authority.

Violence is physical. Speech is an influence on motivation. Social power is an action on the circumstances of life that determine behavior. This circumstance is a compulsion to motives. This is the case, in particular, of the state at the moment when it encourages or restricts childbearing in society through the policy of taxes. In relation to public power, violence and speech act as the primary means of influencing man on man.

State violence is not just a limitation of violence. This is such a limitation that creates the prerequisites for decisive overcoming and transition to a fundamentally non-violent social order.

49. Historical background of the death penalty

Today, the most pressing issues are the practice of applying the death penalty. Supporters and opponents of it put forward their arguments. What is the ethical side of this problem?

The death penalty First of all, it is murder, which is carried out by the state within the framework of its right to legitimate violence. It can also be called legalized murder, which is committed by the verdict of the court.

The duty of the state is to ensure the security and peaceful life of citizens. It is also reinforced by his right to dispose of the lives of his citizens in certain situations (for example, in the case of violation of such norms, about which it is known in advance that their crime is punishable by deprivation of life) and to organize an appropriate system of punishments. The state has been using the death penalty since its inception to the present day.

But the size, forms of practice, the nature of the death penalty in different countries are not the same. If we consider this problem in historical dynamics, then such trends are clearly detected here.

1. In the course of time, the number of types of crimes, the punishment for which is death, decreases. So in England at the beginning of the XIX century. more than 200 types of crimes were punishable by death, including even pickpocketing more than 1 shilling in a church.

In countries where the death penalty is used, it is usually considered as the most extreme measure and for limited types of serious crimes (in particular, premeditated murder, drug trafficking, treason, etc.).

2. In the past, the death penalty was carried out publicly and very solemnly. Currently, its publicity is a rarity. The general rule is that the death sentence is carried out in secret.

And also earlier, along with the usual forms of the death penalty, its qualified forms existed and even prevailed, in which the murder was committed in extremely painful and striking forms (for example, impalement, pouring metal into the throat, boiling in oil, etc.).

At present, the norms of civilization already completely exclude the qualified death penalty and oblige it to be carried out in very quick and painless forms.

3. The circle of persons against whom the death penalty can be applied has been reduced. Previously, there were no exceptions for such punishments. At present, the laws of many countries exclude from this circle children under a certain age, old people after a certain age, and women.

4. From year to year, the number of those countries that use the death penalty is decreasing. So, in particular, if by the beginning of the First World War the death penalty was legally abolished or actually suspended only in 7 countries of Europe, then in the late 1980s. it was canceled in 53 countries and suspended in 27 countries.

50. Crime and punishment: ethical aspect

One of the trends in the development of this problem is that the subjective attitude towards the death penalty changes over time. At first, society unanimously recognized the necessity, as well as the moral justification of the death penalty.

The opinion of the people, especially if it is to some extent motivated by justified anger, is a fact that cannot be ignored. Also, one should not forget that in ancient times there was a custom to sacrifice people to the gods, and perhaps this practice was accompanied by great spiritual uplift, and members of society who opposed such customs aroused sincere indignation from everyone. But over time, the situation has changed a lot. Society has come to the conclusion that no one has the right to sacrifice people - even to the gods themselves! New ideas were also formed, the principle "Thou shalt not kill" was adopted, the position of non-resistance to evil by violence.

But since about the XNUMXth century. Philosophers, scientists, public figures began to publicly speak out and defend polar opinions. The most discussed work is the book of the Italian lawyer C. Becarria "On Crimes and Punishments" (1764). After her, many social thinkers began to link the principle of humanism with the demand for the complete abolition of the death penalty. Her determined opponents were K. G. Marx, A. N. Radishchev, L. N. Tolstoy, V. V. Solovyov and many other thinkers. The negative attitude towards the death penalty, argued, first of all, by ethical motives, began to quickly gain strength. In many European countries, it began to prevail and was embodied in legislation and judicial practice. Thus, in particular, the demonstrative public executions that were carried out in Chechnya in 1997 according to the Sharia court, as well as similar actions practiced from time to time in individual countries, are perceived by modern public opinion outside the states where they take place, as a vivid manifestation of barbarism, an insult to public morality.

The change in the view of the death penalty in the modern world is associated with a general change in the attitude of society towards the state, which can be characterized as its legal restriction. The denial of the death penalty was and is of a symbolic nature in the sense that it is a blow to the omnipotence of the state and indicates the inalienable nature of the right of every person to life.

Today, in modern society, murder is considered morally unacceptable, except when it is committed by the state, it would seem, in the name of morality itself. But let's hope that with respect to this delusion society will eventually come to an insight. The discussions about the death penalty that have become widespread in our day are a step towards this insight.

51. Ethics of the death penalty

Discussions on this issue continue to this day. Let us first consider the arguments that some authors put forward "for" the death penalty, and then the possible objections to them.

We are talking here about ethical, moral arguments, given that the death penalty can be considered justified, not just taken by force, but possible. The key of these arguments are the following.

1. The death penalty is a fair retribution, it is a moral act, as it is used as a punishment for a murder.

This argument is the most widely accepted. It would seem to be very strong and convincing, since justice is indeed based here on the position of the equivalent. But just the principle of equivalent in this case is not respected.

Murder, which is punishable by death, is qualified here as a crime. And the death penalty itself is an act of state activity. It turns out that a crime is equated with an act of state activity.

The death penalty is superior to other forms of murder in psychological terms. The convict knows about death in advance, expects it, leaves his relatives, this and much more makes murder by the death penalty psychologically, undoubtedly, more difficult than in most other cases.

2. The death penalty may be unfair to the person to whom it is to be applied, but nevertheless it is justified, since by its deterrent effect it helps to prevent the commission of the same crimes by others.

This argument, when taken deeper, is easily refuted. The death of a criminal in the sense of intimidating others is less effective than his long, hopelessly painful existence outside of freedom. The death penalty as a punishment can indeed make a very strong impression, but this impression does not last long in a person's memory.

3. The death penalty benefits society in that it frees it from very dangerous criminals.

It can be objected that society could also protect itself from them by lifelong imprisonment. If we talk about the good of society, it should consist in making amends for the damage caused by the criminal. And the death penalty does nothing.

4. The death penalty can be justified by humane considerations in relation to the person who committed the crime, since a life, impenetrable, unbearably difficult imprisonment in solitary confinement is much worse than a quick death.

5. The death penalty is the easiest and cheapest way to get rid of a criminal. Russian jurist A. F. Kistyakovsky wrote: "Its only advantage in the eyes of the peoples is that it is a very simple, cheap and not mind-boggling punishment." Thus, arguments in favor of the death penalty do not withstand moral scrutiny.

52. Arguments against the death penalty

Let's consider the ethical arguments against the death penalty..

1. The death penalty has a morally corrupting effect on human society.

It has a direct impact directly through the people who are involved in it, and indirectly - by the fact that in society, the very fact of the existence of the death penalty affirms the idea that murder, even in some individual cases, can be fair, useful to society, a good deed.

It occurs only as something inhuman, as a shameful deed: executioners often hide their profession; such methods of the death penalty are used so that it is generally impossible even to find out who is acting as the executioner.

2. The death penalty is an anti-legal act.

Basic principle of law balance of personal freedom and the common good. The death penalty, which destroys the individual, also eliminates the legal relationship itself.

In the case of the death penalty, the relatives of the offender are also practically punished, since it can have such a strong influence on them that it can drive them to suicide or insanity, not to mention their severe moral suffering.

According to the law, the principle of reversibility of punishment operates, which allows, to some extent, to make reversible cases where a miscarriage of justice is committed. In relation to the death penalty, this principle is violated, since the one who was killed cannot now be brought back to life, just as it is impossible to compensate for the harm caused to him by a legal error.

It should be noted that such errors are not uncommon.

3. The death penalty is unfair and false because it undoubtedly violates the limits of human competence. Any person has no power over life. Life is the condition of all human affairs and must remain their limit. At the same time, a person does not have the right to judge someone's guilt, and even more so to assert the perfect incorrigibility of the criminal.

Experienced observations of scientists have shown that the death sentence often makes a deep spiritual upheaval in the person to whom it was intended. The condemned to death begins to look at the world differently, experiencing enlightenment. After all, in some cases the death penalty, even if it is not a miscarriage of justice, is implemented when there is no need for it.

4. The death penalty is an attack on the fundamental moral principle of the self-worth of the human person, his holiness. To the extent that we equate morality with non-violence, with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", the death penalty cannot become a moral sanction, since it is something directly opposite.

In conclusion, it should be noted that although the above ethical arguments in favor of the death penalty do not have logical coercion, they nevertheless seem quite convincing to a large number of people.

53. Bioethics and medical ethics. Hippocratic Oath

Bioethics represents a significant point of philosophical knowledge. The formation and development of bioethics is closely related to the process of changing traditional ethics in general, as well as medical and biological ethics in particular. It can be explained, first of all, by the significantly increased attention to human rights (in particular, in medicine, these are the rights of the patient) and the creation of the latest medical technologies, which give rise to a lot of problems that require urgent solutions, from the point of view of both law and morality.

In addition, the formation of bioethics is determined by colossal changes in the technological support of modern medicine, great achievements in medical and clinical practice, which have become acceptable due to the success of transplantology, genetic engineering, the emergence of new equipment to support the life of the patient and the accumulation of practical and relevant theoretical knowledge. All these processes have made the most acute moral problems that are now facing the doctor, relatives of patients, and nursing staff.

Bioethics is an interdisciplinary research area that emerged around the late 1960s and early 1970s. The term "bioethics" itself was introduced by W. R. Potter in 1969. Today, its interpretation is very heterogeneous. Sometimes they try to equate bioethics with biomedical ethics, limiting its content to ethical problems in the doctor-patient relationship. In a broader sense, bioethics includes a number of social problems and problems that are associated with the health care system, human attitudes towards animals and plants.

And also the term "bioethics" suggests that it focuses on the study of living beings, regardless of whether they are used in therapy or not. Thus, bioethics focuses on the achievements of modern medicine and biology in substantiating or solving moral problems that arise in the course of scientific research.

In the past, there were various models, approaches to the issue of morality in medicine. Let's consider some of them.

Hippocratic model ("do no harm")

The principles of healing, which were laid by the "father of medicine" Hippocrates (460-377 BC), are at the origins of medical ethics. The famous healer in his well-known "Oath" formulated the obligations of the doctor to the patient. Its main position is the principle "do no harm". Even despite the fact that centuries have passed since then, the "Oath" has not lost its vitality, moreover, it is the standard for the construction of many modern ethical documents. In particular, the Russian Doctor's Oath, which was approved at the 4th Conference of the Association of Russian Doctors in Moscow in November 1994, contains positions that are close in spirit and even in wording.

54. Models and approaches to the problem of morality in medicine

Paracelsus model ("do good")

Its postulates were most clearly stated by the physician Paracelsus (1493-1541). In the Paracelsian model, paternalism is of primary importance - the emotional and spiritual contact between the doctor and the patient, on the basis of which the treatment process is built.

Deontological model (principle of "observance of duty")

It is based on the principle of "observance of duty" (from the Greek. deontos - "proper"). It is based on the strict observance of the prescriptions of the moral order, the observance of a certain set of rules that are established by the medical community, society, as well as the doctor's own mind and will for their mandatory implementation. Each medical specialty has its own "code of honor", non-compliance with which is punishable by disciplinary action.

Model "technical" type

One of the results of the biological revolution is the rise of the medical scientist. Scientific tradition commands the scientist to be "impartial". His work must be based on facts, the doctor must avoid value judgments.

Sacred type model

The paternalistic model of the "doctor-patient" relationship has become polar to the model described above. Sociologist Robert N. Wilson described this model as sacral.

The main moral principle that formulates the tradition of the sacred view is: "Helping the patient, do not harm him."

Here are the basic principles that a doctor must follow in this model.

1. Benefit and do no harm. No one can remove a moral obligation. The doctor should bring only benefit to the patient, avoiding completely causing harm. This principle is taken in a broad context and constitutes only one element of the whole mass of moral duties.

2. Protecting personal freedom. The fundamental value of any society is personal freedom. The personal freedom of both the doctor and the patient must be protected, even if one feels that this could cause harm. The judgment of any group of people should not serve as an authority in deciding what is beneficial and what is harmful.

3. Safeguarding human dignity. The equality of all people in their moral principles presupposes that each of us possesses the main human virtues. Personal freedom of choice, complete control over one's body and one's life contribute to the realization of human dignity.

4. Tell the truth and keep promises. A doctor's moral duties to tell the truth and keep his promises are as reasonable as they are traditional. But one can only regret that these grounds for interaction between people can be made minimal in order to comply with the principle of “do no harm.”

5. Maintain justice and restore it. The social revolution increased public concern for the equality of distribution of basic health services.

Thus, if health care is a right, then this right should be for everyone.

55. The problem of euthanasia

Term "euthanasia" comes from two ancient Greek words: thanatos - "death" and eu - "good", which literally translates as "good, good death." In the modern sense, this term means a conscious action or refusal of actions that lead to an early and often painless death of a hopelessly ill person, instantly ending unbearable pain and suffering.

Medical decisions about the end of life can also be divided into two broad categories.

1. Directly euthanasia - when there is an active participation of the doctor in the death of the patient. This is, in fact, the killing of a patient by a doctor with the informed consent of the latter. As well as physician-assisted suicide (Physician assisted suicide, or NOT). In this case, the doctor prepares a lethal drug that the patient injects himself.

2. Cases in which the doctor, with the patient's consent, stops prescribing drugs that prolong the patient's life, or, conversely, increases the dose (for example, painkillers, sleeping pills), as a result of which the patient's life is reduced. Mainly, this is the use of opioid analgesics.

Supporters of euthanasia consider it possible for several reasons.

1. Medical - death acts as a last resort to end the incredible suffering of the patient.

2. The patient's concern for loved ones "I don't want to burden them with myself."

3. Selfish motives of the patient himself "I want to die with dignity."

4. biological - the need to destroy inferior people because of the threat of degeneration of the human race, due to the accumulation of pathological genes in the population.

5. principle of expediency - the termination of long and unsuccessful measures to maintain the life of incurable patients in order to be able to use the equipment for the treatment of newly admitted patients with a smaller volume of lesions.

6. Economic - the treatment and maintenance of life of a number of hopeless patients is associated with the use of expensive drugs and devices.

Opponents of euthanasia in any form give the following arguments.

1. Religious moral guidelines - "Thou shalt not kill" and "Love thy neighbor for the sake of God" (self-purification and the path to salvation through caring for seriously ill people).

2. Medicine, for example, knows rare cases of spontaneous cure of cancer, even the very development of medicine is a fight against death and suffering (the discovery of new means and methods of treatment).

3. With an active social position of the whole society, almost complete rehabilitation of disabled people with any degree of disability is possible, which allows the patient to return to life as a person. The most active and consistent opponents of euthanasia are representatives of the clergy. It is they who consider any kind of euthanasia as killing a patient by a doctor or as condoning the patient's suicide, which in any case is a crime of the laws laid down by God.

56. Organ transplantation and cloning: moral issues

During the XNUMXth century, people faced the consequences of seemingly outstanding scientific and technological achievements. The same thing happened with organ transplantation, cloning. On the one hand, thanks to organ transplantation, doctors were able to save hundreds of lives of hopeless patients and prolong their lives. But at what cost? One day people will find ways to deal with both rejection and the side effects of medications. But moral and religious problems remain.

It is unlikely that the idea of transplanting the organ of a newly deceased Christian could have come to mind before. Thus, the peace of the deceased person is disturbed. And this can already be considered an outrage, since the desire to maintain physical integrity even after death is characteristic of every person. In addition, society faced another problem - the trade in human organs.

Term "clone" means "twig", "escape". Another thing is animal cloning!

Already during experiments on animals, scientists encountered negative side effects.

As for human cloning, an ethical question immediately arose. This problem is widely discussed by the public. The following are often put forward arguments against cloning.

1. The formation of a person as a person is determined not so much by biological heredity as by family, social and cultural environment. And almost all religious traditions indicate that the birth of a person, his birth is determined by God, and conception should occur naturally! What if unscrupulous people want to clone themselves? What will happen then?

2. People do not have the moral right to create copies of their own kind. Every child born must be treated as a person, not a copy of another person!

3. When cloned, a person is a commodity, human trafficking is a criminal area.

4. It is not permissible to deprive any person of life, a ban should be introduced on experiments with human embryos.

5. Scientists should not strive to "improve" human genes, as there are no criteria for an "ideal person".

6. Why deprive nature of genetic diversity?

7. Suddenly a clone, a copy will be a freak? Also put forward positive aspects of cloning.

1. Therapeutic cloning results in the formation of embryonic stem cells that are identical to those of the donor. They can be used in the treatment of many diseases.

2. Reproductive cloning creates a clone of the donor. It can help infertile couples to have a child - a copy of one of the parents.

3. The creation of children with a planned genotype will allow us to multiply brilliant people in the laboratory.

Today, humanity is at a crossroads: whether to continue work on cloning or to stop research.

Author: Zubanova S.G.

We recommend interesting articles Section Lecture notes, cheat sheets:

▪ Criminology. Crib

▪ Customs law. Crib

▪ Age-related psychology. Crib

See other articles Section Lecture notes, cheat sheets.

Read and write useful comments on this article.

<< Back

Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:

Artificial leather for touch emulation 15.04.2024

In a modern technology world where distance is becoming increasingly commonplace, maintaining connection and a sense of closeness is important. Recent developments in artificial skin by German scientists from Saarland University represent a new era in virtual interactions. German researchers from Saarland University have developed ultra-thin films that can transmit the sensation of touch over a distance. This cutting-edge technology provides new opportunities for virtual communication, especially for those who find themselves far from their loved ones. The ultra-thin films developed by the researchers, just 50 micrometers thick, can be integrated into textiles and worn like a second skin. These films act as sensors that recognize tactile signals from mom or dad, and as actuators that transmit these movements to the baby. Parents' touch to the fabric activates sensors that react to pressure and deform the ultra-thin film. This ... >>

Petgugu Global cat litter 15.04.2024

Taking care of pets can often be a challenge, especially when it comes to keeping your home clean. A new interesting solution from the Petgugu Global startup has been presented, which will make life easier for cat owners and help them keep their home perfectly clean and tidy. Startup Petgugu Global has unveiled a unique cat toilet that can automatically flush feces, keeping your home clean and fresh. This innovative device is equipped with various smart sensors that monitor your pet's toilet activity and activate to automatically clean after use. The device connects to the sewer system and ensures efficient waste removal without the need for intervention from the owner. Additionally, the toilet has a large flushable storage capacity, making it ideal for multi-cat households. The Petgugu cat litter bowl is designed for use with water-soluble litters and offers a range of additional ... >>

The attractiveness of caring men 14.04.2024

The stereotype that women prefer "bad boys" has long been widespread. However, recent research conducted by British scientists from Monash University offers a new perspective on this issue. They looked at how women responded to men's emotional responsibility and willingness to help others. The study's findings could change our understanding of what makes men attractive to women. A study conducted by scientists from Monash University leads to new findings about men's attractiveness to women. In the experiment, women were shown photographs of men with brief stories about their behavior in various situations, including their reaction to an encounter with a homeless person. Some of the men ignored the homeless man, while others helped him, such as buying him food. A study found that men who showed empathy and kindness were more attractive to women compared to men who showed empathy and kindness. ... >>

Random news from the Archive

Breath betrays the criminal 09.06.2002

English criminalists have developed a method for detecting DNA molecules that any of us release with microscopic skin particles, hairs and even droplets of saliva that fly apart when coughing and just breathing. A criminal can wear rubber gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints, but he is unlikely to be able to breathe, drop skin flakes, or commit crimes in an airtight spacesuit.

The method has already been tested by the London police when investigating computer thefts. As a result, the detection of such crimes increased by 20 percent.

Other interesting news:

▪ Intel Celeron 3215U and 3765U processors

▪ Mercedes electric cars with wireless charging

▪ Volcanoes and plague

▪ Cat vaccination

▪ Found a way to fight flesh-eating bacteria

News feed of science and technology, new electronics

Interesting materials of the Free Technical Library:

▪ site section Spectacular tricks and their clues. Article selection

▪ article Foreign economic activity. Crib

▪ article Which publishing house agreed to publish the first Harry Potter book? Detailed answer

▪ Article Glomerulonephritis. Health care

▪ article Low-budget metal detector. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering

▪ article Capacitor capacitance meter with self-calibration. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering

Leave your comment on this article:

All languages of this page

Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews