Free technical library

Ethics. Lecture notes: briefly, the most important

Directory / Lecture notes, cheat sheets

Comments on the article

Table of contents

1. Basic concepts of ethics (The concept of ethics. Ethics and morality as a subject of ethics. Ethical values)
2. Ancient ethics (Ethics of the Sophists and its criticism by Socrates. Ethical teaching of Plato. Ethics of Aristotle. Hellenistic schools and the emergence of individual ethics)
3. Ethics of the Middle Ages (Basic provisions of Christian ethics. Augustine the Blessed and theological justification of morality. Synthetic ethics of F. Aquinas)
4. Ethics of the Renaissance (Anti-Christian ethics of E. Rotterdam. Skeptical ethics of M. Montaigne)
5. Ethics of the New Age (Ethics of B. Spinoza. Axiomatic method of proof of morality. R. Descartes' rational ethics. Ethics of C. A. Helvetius. Common good)
6. Ethical teachings in German classical philosophy (Ethics of I. Kant. Hegel and the metaphysical foundations of ethics. Anthropological ethics of L. Feuerbach)
7. Non-classical concepts of ethics (Ethics of A. Schopenhauer. Voluntaristic ethics of F. Nietzsche)
8. Ethical teachings in Russian philosophy (Ethics and philosophy of unity. V. S. Solovyov. The problem of freedom and the justification of ethical problems. N. A. Berdyaev. Ethics of non-resistance to evil by L. N. Tolstoy)
9. Ethics of the XNUMXth century (Ethical searches in existential philosophy. Analytical philosophy. Analysis of moral language. Principles of justice by J. Rawls)
10. Political ethics (Moral and politics. Ethics of a political leader. Democratic system and the problem of the formation of a new ethics)
11. Economic ethics (Entrepreneurial (business) ethics. Corporate ethics. Charity)
12. Environmental ethics (Nature and society: the evolution of relationships. The ecological crisis and the formation of environmental ethics. The concept of sustainable development)
13. Violence and non-violence (The concept of violence and non-violence. War: moral and ethical problems. Violence and the state)
14. Death penalty (Historical background of the death penalty. Crime and punishment: ethical aspect. Ethical arguments against the death penalty)
15. Bioethics (Bioethics and medical ethics. The Hippocratic Oath. The problem of euthanasia. Organ transplantation and cloning: moral problems)

1. The concept of ethics

The concept of "ethics" comes from the ancient Greek ethos (ethos). 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. For example, Heraclitus believed that the ethos of man is his deity. Such a change in the meaning of the concept expressed the connection between the circle of communication of a person and his character.

Understanding the word "ethos" as a character, 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.

They differ, on the one hand, from affects, the properties of the body, and, on the other hand, from the dianoetic virtues, the properties of the mind. In particular, fear is a natural affect, and memory is a property of the mind. 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 introduced the term "moralis" (moral). He formed it from the word "mos" (mores plural), which, as in Greek, was used to denote character, temperament, fashion, cut of clothing, custom.

Cicero, for example, talked about moral philosophy, referring to the same field of knowledge that Aristotle called ethics. In the XNUMXth century A.D. e. the term "moralitas" (morality) appeared in the Latin language, which is a direct analogue of the Greek concept of "ethics".

These words, one of Greek, the other of Latin origin, entered the modern European languages. Along with them, a number of languages ​​have their own words that mean the same thing that is understood by the terms "ethics" and "morality". In Russian, such a word has become, 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, ethics primarily means the corresponding field of knowledge, science, and morality (or morality) is 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 is 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. In a language that claims scientific rigor, an important meaning is given, first of all, to the distinction between the concepts of ethics and morality (morality), but even this is not fully maintained. So, sometimes ethics as a field of knowledge is called moral (moral) philosophy, and the term "ethics" is used to refer to some moral (moral) phenomena (for example, environmental ethics, business ethics).

In lectures, we will adhere to the position that "ethics" is a science, a field of knowledge, an intellectual tradition, and use the terms "morality" or "morality" as synonyms and understand by them what is studied by ethics, its subject.

2. Ethics and morality as a subject of ethics

What is morality (morality)? This question has been a key, initial one in ethics throughout the history of this field of knowledge. It covers approximately two and a half thousand years.

Various philosophical schools and thinkers gave a variety of answers to it. 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 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 it 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.

As a result, some researchers compare moral philosophers with architects, whose professional vocation is to design and create new buildings.

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.

Morality comes in two different forms:

1) as a characteristic of a person, the sum of moral qualities and virtues (truthfulness, kindness);

2) as a characteristic of relations in society between people, the sum of moral rules ("do not lie", "do not steal", "do not kill").

Thus, the 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 was 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. There is an example in Plutarch's "Biographies" that confirms this.

Once, during a competition, a pentathlete unintentionally killed a man with a dart. Pericles and Protagoras, the famous ruler of Athens and philosopher, talked all day about who is to blame for what happened, or the dart, or the one who threw it, or the one who organized the competition.

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, then they mean that he is evil and cruel. The value of morality as a qualitative certainty of the human soul was substantiated by Aristotle.

Reason enables a person to correctly, objectively, balanced reason about the world. Irrational processes sometimes proceed independently of the mind, and sometimes depend on it. They proceed at the vegetative level.

They depend on the mind in their affective, emotional manifestations. In what is connected with pleasures and sufferings. Affects (passions, desires) can arise taking into account the orders of the mind or contrary to them.

Thus, when passions are in agreement with reason, we have a virtuous, perfect structure of the soul. In another case, when passions dominate a person, we have a vicious structure of the soul.

Morality can thus be considered 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, mainly, of course, restraint in relation to affects, egoistic 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.

But one should not think that asceticism is the main moral virtue, and the diversity of sensual life is a serious moral vice. 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. Ethical values

Let's look at some core ethical values.

Pleasure. Among the 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 utility seems to manifest himself as completely earthly.

Pleasure (or enjoyment) is the 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"). At the heart of this teaching lie! 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 mindset is expressed as follows: "Enjoyment is the goal of human life, good is everything that 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 "principle of pleasure" 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, and 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.

Of course, for each individual, pleasure is pleasant and therefore desirable. As a result, it can be of value to the individual in itself and determine and influence the motives of his actions.

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.

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.

Can pleasure be a fundamental moral principle? Three approaches can be found in the history of philosophy. The first positive one belongs to the representatives of ethical hedonism. Another negative one belongs to religious thinkers, as well as universalist philosophers (V.S. Solovyov and others). They criticized hedonism, they believed that the variety of predilections, tastes, attachments does not allow recognizing pleasure as a moral principle. A third approach was developed by the eudemonists (Epicurus and the classical utilitarians). Eudemonists denied the unconditionality of sensual pleasures. But they accepted sublime pleasures, considering them genuine, and regarded them as the universal moral basis of actions.

Benefit. This is a positive value based on interests, a person's attitude to various objects, the comprehension of which makes it possible to maintain and improve his social, political, economic, professional, cultural status. The principle of utility can thus be expressed in the rule: "Proceeding from your own interest, take advantage of everything."

Since interests are expressed in the goals pursued by a person in his activity, it can be considered useful that which contributes to the achievement of goals, and also that due to which the goals are achieved.

Utility as a result 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).

The principle of benefit was also criticized from various social and moral positions - patriarchal and aristocratic, religious, revolutionary and anarchist. But no matter from what positions the criticism was carried out, one way or another, a socioethical problem was posed in it: the desire for benefit is self-serving, immense concern for success leads to ignoring obligations, the consistently pursued principle of utility leaves no room for humanity, but from the point of view of the life of society, it largely feeds the centrifugal forces.

As a value, utility is in the interests of people. However, accepting utility as the only criterion for actions leads to a conflict of interest. Entrepreneurship is considered to be the most characteristic expression of human activity as an activity aimed at achieving profit through the production of goods and the provision of various services.

Firstly, they are necessary for a society of private consumers and, secondly, they are able to compete with similar goods and services offered by other manufacturers Patriarchal, traditionalist conceptions oppose the public interest to the principle of utility And the orientation towards utility in this case is interpreted as self-interest, utility itself is recognized and highly valued only as a general utility, as a common good.

Justice. Etymologically, the Russian word "justice" comes from the words "truth", "righteousness". In European languages, the corresponding words come from the Latin word "justitia" "justice", indicating its connection with legal law.

Justice 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: distributive (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 is 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. Justice presupposes a certain level of agreement among the members of society regarding the principles by which they live. These principles may change, but the understanding of justice will depend on what rules have been established in a given society.

Mercy. In the history of ethics, merciful love as a moral principle has been recognized in one form or another by many thinkers. Although quite serious doubts were also expressed: firstly, whether mercy can be considered an ethical principle and, secondly, whether the commandment of love can be considered an imperative, all the more fundamental. The problem was seen in the fact that love, even in the broadest sense, is a feeling, a subjective phenomenon that is not amenable to conscious regulation. Feelings cannot be imputed ("you can't order your heart"). Thus, feeling cannot be considered a universal basis for moral choice.

The commandment of love was put forward by Christianity as a universal requirement, which contains all the requirements of the Decalogue. But at the same time, both in the sermons of Jesus and in the epistles of the Apostle Paul, a difference is outlined between the law of Moses and the commandment of love, which, in addition to the theological significance, also had an essential ethical content. The ethical aspect of distinguishing between the Decalogue and the commandment of love was perceived in modern European thought.

According to Hobbes, the norms of the Decalogue forbid intrusion into the lives of other people and significantly limit the claims of each to the possession of everything. Mercy liberates, not limits.

It requires one person to allow another everything that he himself wants to be allowed to him. Pointing to the equality and equivalence of the golden commandment, Hobbes interpreted it as a standard of social relations.

Thus mercy is the highest moral principle. But there is no reason to always expect it from others. Mercy must be considered a duty, and not a duty of a person. In human relations, mercy is only a recommended requirement. Mercy can be imputed to a person as a moral duty, but he himself has the right to demand from others only justice and nothing more.

LECTURE #2

1. Ethics of the Sophists and its criticism by Socrates

The ethics of antiquity was addressed to man. "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 the 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's withdrawal into his own, inner world.

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 significance of morality, morality. This reason, and perhaps the fact that the sophists too exaggerated the role of individual creativity, moral values ​​and put forward, therefore, an acceptable positive ethical program, oriented the development of philosophical thought in ancient Greece in the direction of increasing interest in moral problems.

Socrates (469399 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 the testimonies of contemporaries about the features of his life and death. All this allows us to judge the main provisions of his ethical teachings.

In particular, the very facts of Socrates' biography are an example of moral deeds. The fate of the philosopher became a real embodiment of such a human ideal, which he substantiated in his ethical teaching. According to the provisions of Socrates, only a life that does not contradict beliefs can have meaning.

A manifestation of the essence of a person is an act, and the best way of self-realization of a person is his moral activity. Such truths Socrates not only proclaimed, but also proved them at the cost of his own life.

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 initial idea of ​​Socrates is not accidental (moral activity should be guided by knowledge of morality) and functional (it is impossible to create an ethical program without forming a system of interrelated concepts).

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. And also the philosopher laid the foundation for the eudemonistic tradition in ethics, believing that the meaning of the life of every person, the highest good, is the achievement of happiness.

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 intrinsic value of morality: morality itself is not subordinated to the natural human desire for happiness, but, on the contrary, happiness directly depends on the moral character (virtue) of a person. In this regard, the task of ethics itself is specified: 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.

The teaching of the famous ancient Greek thinker was the basis for the emergence of stable traditions of later ethical ideas. At the same time, the wide variety of his ideas and the absence of any strict, unambiguous design made it possible to develop them in different directions. This was already manifested in the attitudes of the closest students of Socrates, as well as in the ethical teachings of the Cyrenian and Cyrenian Socratic schools. On the one hand, in their search for truth, both the Cynics and the Cyrenaics start from Socrates' teaching on happiness. They also have in common with the thinker their initial individualistic attitudes, but now the conclusions to which they come are different.

In particular, Aristippus from Cyrene, who became the founder of the Cyrenian school, considered the highest good a person's desire for pleasure, pleasure. As a result, morality turns out to be secondary for him (as well as reason, which helps a person to avoid all the suffering associated with an excess of pleasure).

In accordance with this position, a person was offered not a long path of mental and moral perfection, as taught by Socrates, but the enjoyment of every moment of his being. But already the disciples of Aristippus, who apparently realized the fact that the principle of hedonism, adopted by the thinker, destroys morality and thus makes it impossible to formulate an ethical theory, sought to limit his "omnipotence" (they affirmed the role of moderation, reason, the priority of spiritual pleasures ).

Some result of the first experience of ethical reflection on a hedonistic basis can be considered the teaching of Hegesias, who called for suicide if the sum of life's sufferings was greater than the sum of pleasures. Cynics Diogenes of Sinop, Antisthenes considered the highest good to be the inner freedom of a person, his self-control, as well as disregard for everything external, asceticism.

The thinkers of this school very clearly outlined the rigoristic line of understanding of morality itself: virtue is valuable in itself, thus, the sage who has it does not need anything else.

Thus, the ideas of human inner freedom and the priority of spiritual values ​​have become extremely important for understanding the meaning of morality. In this school they were practically absolutized, that is, they were brought to the extreme, which led to their significant deformation.

Of course, the denial of pleasure as the basis of morality is quite legitimate. But the complete exclusion of pleasures from the life of a virtuous person, which the Cynics aspired to, is already an extreme.

In the further development of ancient philosophy, the thoughts of the Cynics were reflected in Stoicism, and the Epicureans became the followers of the teachings of the Cyrenaics. Thus the Sophists, Socrates and his disciples developed their ideas within an individualistically oriented ethic.

2. The ethical teaching of Plato

The teachings of Plato (427347-XNUMX BC) are 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. As a result, the thinker came to the proof of the dualism of the existing world.

He believed that there is a visible world of phenomena and a supersensible, otherworldly world of ideas. Socrates, by his life and death, 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. Continuing the study of this problem, Plato presented the existence of these analogues in the form of an autonomous primordial world of some ideal entities. He admitted that beyond the limits of the world invisible to man, in a "smart place" there is a peculiar class of ideas, objects, of which general concepts are a special reflection.

The tragic death of Socrates really was able to activate similar sentiments: "The world in which the righteous must die for the truth is not a real, genuine world." The world of eternal ideas is where the true truth lives.

Directly Plato's ethical concept can be divided into two interconnected 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 sensible 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 its 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 must have courage, and the lower classes must have 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 that 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 being in it representatives of each class, since the “order” proposed by Plato in society would not bring happiness to anyone.

But the very desire of the philosopher to combine personal and social good, to synthesize truth and goodness, proper and existing, his effort to justify the existence of an objective source of morality turned out to be unusually fruitful for the further development of ethical ideas. It should be noted that the philosopher did not see the morality of an individual person outside of its connection with the whole, with society. 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.

3. Ethics of Aristotle

The work of Aristotle (384322 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.

There is an opinion that Aristotle's ethical writings were edited after his death by his sons, Nicomachus and Eudemus. 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 the citizen, the problems of educating citizens and caring for the common good of people. 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" and creative ("creative"). The first philosopher attributed philosophy, mathematics and physics; the second ethics and politics, and the third art, crafts and applied Science.

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

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. Cognition of the universal is the finding 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. "Ethics" (the doctrine of morality) was understood by Aristotle, as well as by other ancient philosophers, 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, "every reasoning is directed either to activity or creativity, or to the speculative ...". This means that through thinking a person makes the right choice in his actions, striving to achieve happiness, to put into practice the ethical ideal.

Thus, the practical sphere of life and various types of productive human activity are impossible without thinking, therefore they are included in the sphere of science, although these are not sciences in the strict sense of the word.

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. This philosopher and 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.

The morality of the individual, which is based on reason and will, must bring goals and desires, needs in line with the interests of the entire state. Aristotle thus comes to the idea that the source of morality itself must be sought in state relations.

Paying tribute to the established tradition, Aristotle also considered happiness to be the highest good. But the thinker introduced many new shades into this concept. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is a special state of satisfaction that a person receives from a 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 performing moral deeds. He considered the main conditions on the path to happiness: moral and intellectual perfection, friendship, health and the presence of external benefits, an active civic position. Unlike Plato, Aristotle denied the innate nature of human virtues, which gave him the opportunity to talk about issues of moral education. Virtue is directly related to a socially significant action and has a normative character. The moral qualities of a person are not what is given to him by nature, but what must be brought up in him by society. Since morality is based on reason and will, it is possible to distinguish dianoetic and ethical virtues. Aristotle at the same time proposed a specific approach to determining the measure of virtue. In particular, courage, according to the philosopher, depends on who we are talking about, about a baby or an athlete. And also Aristotle substantiated the idea that every virtue is the middle between two extremes (courage, therefore, is the middle between cowardice and courage).

Aristotle's doctrine of friendship is the first experience of posing and solving the problem of communication. Other ideas of Aristotle were also of great importance for the further development of ethics. In particular, Aristotle in his teaching developed the themes of freedom of choice and responsibility in morality, the unity of ethics and politics, etc. Many of Aristotle's provisions were even out of time, were not adequately understood by contemporaries, but were developed in later times.

4. Hellenistic schools and the origin of individual ethics

Cynics. The Cynic school became one of the most "tenacious" in the history of ancient philosophy; the last representatives of this trend lived out their lives already in the era of the dominance of Christian ethics. As for Socrates, the material for the philosophical reflection of the Cynics was the life of the Greek policies of the period of their decline and decay.

Proceeding from the opposition "nature is law" introduced by the sophists, the cynics proclaim the slogan "Back to nature" as a program of practical action. The movement towards primordial nature, 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, and the sports and festive feeling of life preached by the aristocracy.

Idealizing the primitive state, adhering to nominalism in logic and denying the reality of concepts, the Cynics focused their attention not on natural philosophy, but in the field of studying the nature of people.

The practical philosophy of the Cynics was carried out within the framework of a fundamental program of "revaluation of values". Reassessment of values ​​as a large-scale spiritual and practical practice for the Cynics consisted primarily in changing public perceptions in the field of morality.

Criticism of existing norms and production of new ones, through a return to the primitive Golden Age, was reflected in the denial of the classical ideal of harmony as a perfect body-intelligent model.

Comprehensive criticism of social inequality, shortcomings in the education system, men and women, marriages of convenience, etc. was supported by theatrical events of a critical and educational nature (accusatory poetry, street scenes, etc.).

Marginalism, the semi-barbarian origin of the Cynics, the atmosphere of the crisis of the polis system gave birth to anti-patriotic remarks uncharacteristic for Greece. The norm of social consciousness enshrined in Aristotle, according to which the world is divided into Greeks and barbarians, was sharply rejected by the Cynics.

Proceeding from the solution of the antithesis "nature is law" in favor of nature, the Cynics believed that laws and the state destroyed the natural balance, the natural happiness of people. Claiming not for a socio-practical reorganization of the world, but only for a change in the spiritual climate, the Cynics saw their task in their own reorganization to an even greater extent.

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 (wit and resourcefulness were considered the main weapon of the cynic).

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

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

Epicureans. The famous Hellenistic philosopher Epicurus expressed the main postulates of his ethical teachings in the so-called tetrapharmakon (four medicines).

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 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."

The Tetrapharmakon is both 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. Every living being, from the moment of its birth, strives for pleasure, rejoices in it as the highest good, and, to the best of its ability, tries to avoid suffering as the greatest evil; in doing so, it submits to the suggestion of nature itself. No one avoids or criticizes pleasure as such: it is only abandoned when it entails great suffering. No one loves suffering and is not subjected to it for its own sake: it is chosen only where it leads to pleasure or deliverance from great suffering.

According to Epicurus, only that pleasure is valuable, which abolishes suffering. With the cessation of suffering, pleasure does not increase, but only diversifies.

Epicurus does not recognize a neutral state, for him pleasure is the absence of suffering, such an absence of suffering is the highest goal and measure for evaluating individual actions and individual pleasures.

Since all pleasure is conditioned by the removal of suffering caused by certain needs or deprivations, worries or fears, the surest means to the removal of suffering and lasting pleasure is the possible liberation from needs and the complete deliverance from fears and worries.

Philosophy explains the vanity of human life and frees us from fears, showing the insignificance of death and the true measure of pleasure and suffering. Together with the fear of the gods and the fear of death, the most formidable ghosts that poison human life also disappear.

Fear of suffering or external disasters disappears for one who has known the true value of life and the measure of suffering. All human needs are divided into those, without the satisfaction of which it is either possible or impossible to do. The intense suffering caused by the failure to satisfy some necessary natural need either passes quickly or leads to death. Thus, people will be able to live without satisfying the need that causes it, and then suffering is bearable.

If we live, then we have other pleasures that compensate for suffering, because where there is no suffering, there is satisfaction. With a long and unconditional preponderance of suffering over pleasure, life must cease, and as long as there is life, there is also pleasure from it.

Therefore, as Epicurus declares, all our concerns should be directed to the preservation of mental and bodily health and equanimity of spirit. Peace of mind is achieved by contentment and fearlessness, and contentment and fearlessness are given by wisdom. Hence the need to accustom oneself to the most modest and moderate way of life, which is beneficial to both soul and body. The less we are satisfied with, the less we depend on fate, the more fearlessly we look into the future, knowing that the necessary is easy to get, and the most difficult is the vain or superfluous.

Stoics. The Stoics, like most ancient philosophers, considered happiness to be the highest goal of all human striving. They taught that everything in the world obeys the laws of the world, but only a person, by virtue of his mind, is able to cognize them and consciously fulfill them. The most general attraction of nature is the desire for self-preservation. For each being, only that which serves his self-preservation can have value and contribute to his bliss.

Therefore, for rational beings, only that which is in accordance with reason has value; this is the only bliss that needs no other conditions. And in the same way, on the contrary, the only evil is depravity. Everything else is completely indifferent, whether it be life, health, honor, property, etc., since this is neither good nor evil.

The whole difference between man and animal in the sense of their free will lies in the fact that in man, rational (logical) thinking is added to the primitive mental functions. Since a person acts as a rational being, he is not always free to agree with the idea that he should perform this or that action.

The basis of a person's practical freedom is theoretical freedom, that is, freedom that makes it possible to disagree with an error.

Least of all can pleasure be considered a blessing, teach the Stoics. It is a consequence of lower activity when the latter is properly directed (for right conduct, of course, brings real pleasure), but it cannot be the goal of activity. Since only one virtue is good for a person, the pursuit of it is a common law of human nature; and this notion of law, duty, is more strongly emphasized by the Stoics than by the former moralists. But along with reasonable drives, we also have unreasonable ones, which Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, reduced to four main affects - pleasure, lust, grief and fear. Affects are something unreasonable and painful, therefore they must not only be moderated, but also exterminated. In contrast to passions, virtue is the structure of the soul, corresponding to reason. Its first condition consists in correct views of what is to be done and what is to be abstained from, for, as Zeno says, "we always strive for what we consider good, but it is in our power to agree with any opinion about what is good. or deny him consent."

Therefore, the Stoics considered virtue as knowledge, and vice as ignorance, and reduced all affects to false judgments of value. But they imagined this moral knowledge to be so directly connected with the strength of the spirit, and that with the same success it was possible to discern the essence of virtue in the very strength of the will.

Virtue and depravity are properties that do not allow differences in degree, therefore there is nothing in between them, you cannot have them in part, but you can only either possess or not possess them, be either virtuous or vicious. The transition from stupidity to wisdom is instantaneous: those who strive for wisdom still belong to the fools.

The sage is the ideal of all perfection, and since this is the last condition of happiness, he is also the ideal of happiness. Only the sage is free, beautiful and rich, because he has all the virtues and all knowledge, is free from all needs and suffering.

On the other hand, the fool is vicious and unhappy, he is a slave, a beggar, an ignoramus; a fool cannot do anything good Fools, as the Stoics believed, are all people with a few exceptions, even with regard to the most famous statesmen and thinkers, the Stoics recognized only that they, to a somewhat lesser extent than other people, have common shortcomings.

LECTURE #3

1. 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 his sake, 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 involves forgiveness of offenses, readiness for compassion and help to those in need. It is with this period that the emergence of the "golden rule" of morality, recorded in the Bible, is connected: "So, in everything you want people to do to you, do the same to them ...".

In contrast to Stoicism, which was focused on a strong personality capable of finding everything in itself, Christianity addresses the "poor in spirit", the needy, all who need comfort and help. For those who despair, Christian morality promises atonement for suffering and eternal bliss in the other world.

The principles of early Christianity differ significantly from its later forms, which subordinated philosophical and ethical thought to their dogmatics. In the process of becoming an official ideology and "conquering" the European world, Christian morality undergoes evolution. Christian thinking began primarily with the development of ethical foundations.

In the first centuries of Christianity, a very special structure of thought arose, which was focused on antiquity, holiness and correctness. The idea that the world is open, proclaimed and finite (the idea of ​​eschatology) gave rise to an understanding of the need to learn to expect this end, to consciously master the rules of such an expectation.

In further preaching, from universal love, Christian ethics moves to the persecution of dissidents, from proclaiming the equality of people and the rejection of wealth to justifying social inequality.

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".

It should be noted that Christian ethics, initially contributing to the knowledge of God, was included in the composition of contemplative philosophy, which was understood as the religious-philosophical contemplation of God, "caught" in an act of intuition. With such a formulation of the question of the highest good, evil was understood as a lack of good, while in relation to the sinfulness of a person, his guilt was the highest evil.

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.

2. 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 the Blessed (354430). He is considered one of the most significant representatives of the era of patristics. The ethics of the thinker is characterized by the awareness 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. It is characteristic of God, since God is the creator, that is, the one who is initially in relationship with what he creates. Willpower is a measure of volitional differences Since God is good, he is the creator of all that is good. His will cannot cause sin.

At the same time, he creates beings with free will, and therefore is not responsible for the different (and evil) arrangements of the created wills that arise due to their relationship to each other. God, as the creator of the Universe, also determined the hierarchical order of conditions that determined the hierarchical order of things in the human world. 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.

Although, according to Augustine, predestination is the beginning of the world according to the Word of God. Will, since it is a sign of relation, may or may not be, but predestination is a necessity. The predestination of the thinker is identical with foreknowledge, or foreknowledge, God foreknew everything that has to be in our will.

But the dispositions of the will can be either good or bad. They become good when a person orients his life towards the good.

In this case, Augustine believes that true being is identical with life, thought and bliss. According to Augustine, man's desire for a blissful being characterizes the Christian philosopher, since love for wisdom is love for God, and he is wisdom itself.

Wisdom is also the knowledge that makes the philosopher blissful. 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).

Further, according to Augustine, courage, communication, purification of the heart and, finally, wisdom follow. The philosopher overcomes this path using animation, sensuality, creative abilities, appeal to virtue, calmness, finding God with a spiritual gaze and contemplating him, which is wisdom.

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.

Being exists because it is illumined by divine light, it contemplates, loves. Augustine's concept of grace is connected with the solution of questions about the essence of evil, vice, and also the sinfulness of man. Everything that is created by God, by the nature of its creation, is good, which is not in direct relationship with the highest good of God. The highest good is simple and eternal.

The source of God-created goodness is nothing. This good is both temporary and changeable, it is connected with the highest good and the idea of ​​communion. A sign of communion is a feeling of happiness or unhappiness. Vice is that which harms nature, and therefore vice is unnatural to us. Criticism of vice is proof of the goodness of nature.

Vice, therefore, is not a natural evil, but a moral one, understood as a diminution of the good because it is impossible to admit that good is the source of evil. Evil will, therefore, is not a replenishment, but a decrease. Its beginning is in the deviation from the highest being. Knowledge implies ignorance, "that of which I know that I do not know it." The disposition of the will, therefore, can be evil, not as a result of ignorance, but because of "conscious ignorance." Bo1 can use for good and evil will.

Thus, 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.

3. Synthetic ethics of F. Aquinas

The synthetic ethics of Thomas Aquinas (12251274-XNUMX) was based on the provisions of Aristotle, but comprehending it in the context of Christian doctrine. Thomas thus tried to synthesize morality and religion. Slender in its structure, rather ingenious ethics of F. Aquinas is internally very contradictory, which is the result of the initial installation.

All the ethical constructions of Thomas, in fact, refute his plan and prove the opposite, the impracticability of the harmony of religion and morality, the unity of which can occur only through subordination, but not equality. F. Aquinas, who considered the problems of ethics in works: "Comments on the "Nicomachean Ethics"", "The Sum of Theology", "The Sum Against the Pagans".

F. Aquinas singled out three parts of ethics: monasticism, by which he meant the conditioning 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, unlike Augustine the Blessed, denied the self-determination of the will. He believed that the will is oriented from the outside by reason, an external drive that gives it 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. Since the latter is won through a series of goals, the moral assessment of the goal will depend on its significance in the system of order of goals and as a result.

The highest goal, which in itself is the highest good, is, according to the teachings of F. Aquinas, the achievement of perfection, namely the likeness of God.

Just like Aristotle, F. Aquinas distinguished between the highest good and the benefits of a different kind that people honor: wealth, fame, honors, power. The thinker considered bliss to be incompatible with evil. Thus, it is self-sufficient, that is, it does not depend on external goods.

This is neither the good of the body, nor the good of the soul, nor the ability of the soul (some kind of action, habit). The highest good, the highest goal is neither inside a person nor outside him, it is located above a person, and only a contemplative mind can comprehend and achieve it.

Freedom in F. Aquinas, as in Aristotle, 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.

To assess the morality of an action, two volitional positions are important, both ends and means. With a bad purpose, action cannot become moral. And vice versa, with a good goal, it is necessary to use worthy means. Evaluation of specific goals and means a person carries out with the help of conscience.

The movement towards the good, according to the teachings of Thomas, determines the presence of virtue, which he understands as a good quality of the soul leading the right life. A person cannot use such a quality 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. Although the will is more virtuous, since it is a skill of action, the principle of which becomes the will.

To a large extent, faith is also a virtue, since as an object of reason it is completely determined by the will. The ability of a person to think, the goal obtained from the will, which consists in finding a way to the good, is also a virtue, which the philosopher calls prudence.

Thomas also divides the virtues into intellectual, moral and theological. Moreover, the intellectual virtues are the virtues of the state, which is the basis for the virtues of the will (in particular, they are: prudence, ability to advise, prudence).

Moral virtues refer, according to the concept of Thomas, to that part of the soul that governs the desires of man. Moreover, reasonable desires constitute the virtue of justice, which he, together with prudence, restraint and strength, considers the main one. The highest virtue, according to Thomas, is love, or mercy, which is a consequence of the interaction between God and man.

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 violation of laws (both social and rational and divine, according to one another). 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.

LECTURE #4

1. Anti-Christian ethics of E. Rotterdam

The main theme in the ethical works of 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 interconnected. Knowledge is designed to strengthen faith, to understand the Holy Scriptures. In his work "The weapon of the Christian warrior" Erasmus wrote: "... Paul prefers five words spoken with understanding to ten thousand words spoken in vain ..."; "The one who has to fight ... with the whole cohort of vices ... he is obliged to prepare two types of weapons - prayer and knowledge. Pure prayer leads the feeling to heaven, as if to a fortress impregnable for enemies; knowledge strengthens the mind with saving thoughts. One is begging, the other indicates, what to pray for. Knowledge indicates what to ask in the name of Christ…". Before Erasmus, Thomas Aquinas spoke about the harmonious relationship between faith and knowledge.

But in Aquinas, faith led knowledge, and philosophy (science) served theology. 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.

He considers the heritage of pagan culture a preparatory stage for the knowledge of the divine, a source of Christian knowledge and piety. “If you devote yourself entirely to the study of the Scriptures,” he points out in Arms of the Christian Warrior, “you will be strong and ready for any attack by the enemy. However, I would not deny that an inexperienced warrior should first prepare for this military service, study the writings of pagan poets and philosophers.

If someone touches them in his youth and remembers in passing, he will not lose time ... These works mold and enliven the children's mind and in an amazing way prepare for the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, to break into which with unwashed hands and feet is a kind of sacrilege ... "" Of the philosophers, I I would prefer that you follow the Platonists, because they, both in many of their sentences and in the very features of their speech, are closest to the prophetic and evangelical style. than a tickle for the mind, then it is best to unfold the ancients, whose piety is clearer, enlightenment is richer and more ancient, and speech is not powerless, not dirty, and the interpretation is more in line with the sacred mysteries. "" If you take the best from pagan books and how bee, flying around all the gardens of the ancients, you bypass the poisonous juice, and if you suck out only the salutary and noble one, then you will return your soul to universal life.

Thus, the thinker equated the significance of the pagan culture of Ancient Greece and Rome with 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." He boldly asserted that "it may be that the spirit of Christ is spread more widely than we think, and many who are not marked in our calendars belong to the saints."

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.

On the issue 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 XNUMXrd 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 Holy Scripture 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.

Erasmus, like many other humanists, believed that scholasticism had reached a dead end in its efforts to explain Christian doctrine. The grounds for this, according to Erasmus, can be considered the ignorance of the scholastics, who are limited only by the works of Aristotle, excessive enthusiasm for pompous ideas, the formation of many contradictory trends. Erasmus in his ethical works condemns contemporary scholastic theology.

He is sure that its formalism is an end in itself, obscures the clear and simple meaning of Holy Scripture, thus casting doubt on obvious truths. He speaks of the literalism of the scholastics, of the use of Scripture by theologians in the spirit of the mores of their time. In Praise of Stupidity, Erasmus points out: “... as for theologians, people of this breed are very arrogant and irritable. With the help of their“ dismemberment ”and outlandish, just invented words, they will slip out from anywhere.

According to their arbitrariness, they interpret and explain the most secret secrets: they know according to what plan the world was created and arranged, in what ways the plague of original sin is transmitted to posterity, in what way, by what measure and at what time the eternal Christ was conceived in the womb of a virgin. There are still countless even more sophisticated subtleties regarding concepts, relationships, forms, essences and particularities that no one can distinguish with a simple eye. All these foolish subtleties are made even more stupid because of the many trends that exist among the scholastics, so that it is easier to get out of the labyrinth than from the networks of realists, nominalists, fomists, albertists, occamists, scotists. "But although Erasmus pointed out in this work to such well-known scholastics like Thomas, Albert, Duns, Scotus, Occam, the object of his caustic criticism is mainly the bearers of official philosophy who taught in university departments.It was they who reduced the formalism of purely verbal wisdom to complete absurdity.

In The Arms of the Christian Warrior, Erasmus declares: “Of the interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, most of all choose those who deviate the furthest from the letter ... After all, I see that the newest theologians very willingly cling to the letters and spend more labor on all sorts of cunning subtleties than on revealing secrets."; “No matter what kind of people you turn to, a truly spiritual person will see everywhere a lot worthy of laughter, and even more worthy of tears. He will find that many views are extremely distorted and very much at odds with the teachings of Christ. Paul, the word of God and adapting the Holy Scriptures to the mores of the times.".

To change the current situation, Erasmus proposes to cleanse the Christian doctrine of everything superficial and unnecessary, introduced into it by scholasticism, and return to the ideas and ideals of primitive Christianity and to the sources of original knowledge. "Return to the origins of the true faith, look for them where they were still divinely pure and unclouded by any dogma" that's what Erasmus wanted from the new humanistic theology. Under the origins, Erasmus understands both the Holy Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers, and pagan culture.

For Erasmus, a return to the origins, the beginnings of everything, was not just an idea, but a real practical activity. He creates a new translation of the New Testament, cleared of errors, republishes ancient authors.

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."

2. Skeptical ethics of M. Montaigne

At this stage, ethics still retains fairly strong successive ties with the medieval worldview. Skepticism is a peculiar way of establishing new ideals. The most interesting example of this is the position of Michel Montaigne (15331592-XNUMX), who managed to reflect many antinomies of moral consciousness in 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 personal or public human needs, but conflicts 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: “Contempt for life is an absurd feeling, because in the end it is all that we have, it is our whole being ...

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.

After all, the jump from the existence of vegetation to non-existence is less burdensome than from the existence of joy and prosperity to the existence of sorrow and torment. "Respect for nature as a worldview is also very characteristic of most Renaissance thinkers. The main goal of a person is to listen to nature.

And the surest remedy for a person, which helps him overcome difficulties, is moderation, only it allows him to avoid excesses that destroy the personality, allows it to stay within the limits set by nature. “The sages have taken great pains to warn us against the snares of our passions and to teach us to distinguish true, full-fledged pleasures from those that are mixed with worries and which are clouded by them. For most pleasures, according to them, tickle and enthrall us only to strangle to death, as did those robbers whom the Egyptians called filetes. And if a headache began to torment us before intoxication, we would beware of drinking too much. But pleasure, in order to deceive us, goes ahead, covering its companions with itself.

Books are pleasant, but if, immersed in them, we lose, in the end, health and vigor, our most valuable asset, isn’t it better to leave them too? ” Montaigne also believed that we notice beauty and grace only when they appear before us artificially elevated, pompous, but if they are hidden behind simplicity, they easily disappear from the field of our primitive vision.

Their charm is hidden, only a very clear and pure look can catch their radiance. Thus, to see them, you need a special mindset. Those who are satisfied with a superficial glance will certainly not notice what is inside. Montaigne criticized people for not being able to confine themselves to what is most necessary in anything. They want as much love, wealth and power as possible. Their greed has no limits. The same is evident in the pursuit of knowledge. It is possible to change the situation by the will of the mind.

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. "The madness of judging what is true and what is false, on the basis of our knowledge" is the expression of one of the skeptics, a student of Pyrrho, Montaigne accepted and proved. "The wisest man in the world, when asked what he knows, replied that he only knows that he knows nothing. Most of what we know is only a tiny fraction of what we know." 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.

“A lot of abuses are born in the world, or, to put it more boldly, all abuses in the world arise from the fact that we are taught to be afraid to openly declare our ignorance and that we should supposedly accept everything that we are not able to refute. We talk about everything instructively and confidently.

According to Roman law, it was required that the witness, even when talking about what he saw with his own eyes, and the judge, even when deciding what he knew for sure, used the formula: "It seems to me." You begin to hate everything plausible when it is passed off as something unshakable. I love words that soften the boldness of our statements and bring some moderation into them: "maybe", "in all probability", "partly", "they say", "I think" and the like. And if I had to bring up children, I would so diligently put into their mouths these expressions, indicating hesitation, and not determination: "what does this mean?", "I do not understand", "maybe", that they are in for sixty years they would have behaved like students, instead of portraying, as is their custom, doctors of science, barely reaching the age of ten. If you want to be cured of ignorance, you must confess it.

At the beginning of all philosophy lies wonder, its development is research, its end is ignorance. It must be said that there is ignorance, full of strength and nobility, in courage and honor in no way inferior to knowledge, ignorance, for the comprehension of which one needs no less knowledge than for the right to be called knowledgeable ... "Montaigne, thus, approaches one of the most difficult questions of philosophy.

In fact, it is very difficult for a person to know his place in the world, in the Universe. The history of mankind and philosophy has known great thinkers who were able to make various attempts to comprehend being, successful and not very successful. Humanity owes them a lot.

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."

At the same time, Montaigne does not refuse to know the world and truth; his skepticism does not have an absolute character. The difference in theories, opinions, their changeability and inconstancy only testify to the inexhaustibility of human nature and thought, but by no means about their impotence.

Montaigne's skepticism played a certain positive role in the writer's denial of various prejudices and belief in miracles. He categorically opposes the persecution of "sorcerers". Montaigne opposes man's desire to see himself as the center of the universe. He builds a new hierarchy of man in the world. "But is it only nature and man as its constituent element that are parts of the universe? Does God exist, and if so, what is it, this deity?"

During the heyday of the Inquisition in France, Montaigne, of course, could not openly answer these questions in his "Experiments", but the position of the thinker is outlined quite clearly. Montaigne offers an overview of the interpretations of the idea of ​​a deity by ancient authors and calls it the hubbub of philosophical schools. The weakness of the human mind, the writer believes, is not able to rationally substantiate faith, which can only be discovered in "revelation".

Behind the idea of ​​God, Montaigne thus recognizes the significance of some incomprehensible root cause. Having separated this root cause from everything earthly and worldly, he came to the boundless freedom of man in worldly affairs.

LECTURE #5

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, and reason acts as a universal means of its assertion, which also makes it possible to explain the general obligatory nature of morality. Reason must curb the egoistically directed nature of man, harmonize personal aspirations with the public good. Such an attitude, which gives rise to the illusion of the possibility of moral improvement of society through enlightenment, as well as the desire to approach morality from the point of view of natural science, neglect of its specifics, lead to the universalization of moral problems, moralizing, which is associated with hope for a moral way of resolving social contradictions.

1. 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. The desire to give ethics the status of a rigorous scientific theory, using the methods of mathematics and physics, was characteristic of the ethical research of Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza and many others.

Benedict Spinoza (16351677-XNUMX) transforms 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 portrays man in the most realistic way Each of us strives not only to preserve our being, but also to expand it by increasing our power, our perfection, in order to achieve the greatest possible independence from external causes.

The improvement of a person is accompanied by joyful feelings, and the decrease in perfection is sadness and displeasure. Desire testifies to the active beginning of a person. Man, by his nature, strives for others to live and act in the same way as he does. “And since everyone equally desires the same, everyone equally serves as an obstacle to each other and, wanting everyone to praise or love them, become for each other an object of hatred.” He believes that the main reason for this is that people's actions are directed from subject to object, distorted, since a person in everyday life is aware of his desires and actions, but does not know their real causes.

Spinoza believes that the key to understanding human actions is in his nature, the 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 a person, 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.

His ethical reasoning is also connected with the specifics of philosophical knowledge, which has axiomatic deductive and constructive approaches. Spinoza follows the Platonic image of philosophy as speculation that completely embraces reality. To the extent that philosophy tries to reach the beginnings that explain the foundation of the world, and to solve the question of what it means to be, the proof of its truth is combined with the ability to logically, consistently unfold the given fundamental principle into a complete, harmonious system, within which it is explained, justified before reason. anything that requires explanation and justification. As an ideal construction of the world, of all sciences, philosophy is closest to mathematics, and within it to geometry.

Therefore, Spinoza tries to build his reasoning on the basis of the geometric method. In antiquity, there was a tradition of the double use of the word "ethics": in the broad sense, it was called almost all philosophy dealing with human being, in contrast to natural being, in the narrow sense, ethics was understood as the doctrine of moral psychology, criteria and forms of virtuous behavior. Spinoza, creating his work "Ethics", repelled, of course, from the broad meaning of the concept of ethics.

For Spinoza, human being, which in its philosophically meaningful basis is the subject of ethics, is no different from natural being. For this reason, for him, philosophy coincides with ethics. Moral problems are centered around the concepts of good and evil.

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, regardless of its social, cultural, religious definitions, a free individual. The concept, therefore, of ethical universalism is embedded in its definition of substance (“that which exists in itself and is represented through itself, that whose representation does not need the representation of another thing from which it should be formed”). The realm of universal ethics is the knowing mind; since reason is, along with extension, one of the two known attributes of substance, it means that the ethical field is as close as possible to the field of the substance itself, and the ethical way of life is commensurate with the divine. Such a limitation of the field of philosophical knowledge meant a radical break with the previous tradition, which considered ethics in the context of the doctrine of society and the state and tied both to sacred texts.

2. Rational ethics of R. Descartes

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

R. 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 physico-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 different meanings 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 the traditional for metaphysics, directly ethical theme of power over passions ... He calls "to make efforts to instruct and guide" human passions, to refrain from extremes. At the same time, Descartes is convinced that "those people who are especially excited about passions can enjoy life to the greatest extent." Thus, the thinker does not give any moral precepts. He does not assume the role of moralizer or preacher, but is an independent observer.

The ethical position of the philosopher of selfhood is found in the basic procedure that Descartes developed in his conception, the cogito procedure. His developments in the field of anthropology as a physico-physiological study are also considered ethical. Carefully and consciously built life strategy, the researchers also refer to the ethical teaching of the philosopher, as they believe that it is his ethical gesture and the internal condition of his philosophizing.

3. Ethics K. A. Helvetia. common good

K. A. Helvetius (17151771-XNUMX), just like Holbach, interpreted man in a psychophysiological key (man is a purely physical being). 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.

His discourses on politics and morality develop the ideas of B. Mandeville ("The Fable of the Bees"). 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 the benefactors, and it also induces the 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, the content of those changes from one era to another. Therefore, we can only talk about relative, not absolute morality. As a result, when a person seems to revere virtue, he needs to remind himself that in fact he bows to power. The respect he gives to virtue is transitory, but the respect shown to strength is permanent.

Every man can claim that he loves virtue for its own sake. Although, the thinker believes, there can be no virtue without interest. Virtue is loved not for its own sake, but for the sake of the successes to which it leads. Humanity is the result of education.

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 genuine 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. In a society built in accordance with the true principle of the social contract, education should be through enlightened reasoning, moral examples, laws that delay the operation of vices and develop virtues.

Education must be carried out from early childhood. It should be secular, not religious; and the clergy should not participate in education at all, because religion brings with it fanaticism and intolerance. 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. If he accepts "physical sensitivity" as the basis of morality, the rules of the latter will cease to be contradictory and will turn out to be clear and precise principles.

Lecture number 6.

1. Ethics of I. Kant.

Formulation of the categorical imperative

The main problem of I. Kant's ethics is 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 lies in the fact that the thinker explains human freedom by the domination 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, while in a person it gives rise only to the desire for satisfaction that an instinctive reaction would lead to. As a result, in an act of will, motivation is autonomous, and the certainty of will is defeated by a 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, and 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. A person'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 for 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. The moral law is a non-empirical law, since it does not appear as a result of the generalization of human behavior. In the same way it cannot arise, since it concerns only what should be, and not what is. It is based on moral ontology, but not on experience. Experience cannot provide us with examples of moral behavior, since it is impossible to establish from the outside whether someone lives according to the law or whether his behavior is only superficially consistent with behavior that would have a moral law as its basis.

I. Kant is convinced that knowledge of the law does not become a problem. The law determines each a priori. Thus, knowledge of the law is determined neither by education nor upbringing, nor is it determined by direct knowledge. Any person, without realizing it, finds the essence of the nature of human elevation above nature and animals and his equality with others. A person who is required to bear false witness realizes that he should not do this, and understands this on his own.

The inexpressible knowledge of the law is a fact of the human mind. As a result, the moral law not only originates from "reason", but it originates from "pure reason", that is, we know about it a priori. In the formula of the moral law, "natural natural law" the concept of "nature" is considered paradoxical. "Nature" here does not mean an external reality that does not depend on man, but a relationship that is determined by rules or a "law" that applies equally to both parties.

Because "nature", according to I. Kant, is understood as "the being of a thing, determined by a general law", he can also consider the reciprocity of obligations, trust agreements, deposits, etc. as examples of "nature" itself. Promises and trust can only work because there is a general contract, a rule, a "law", which assumes that things in nature in a certain sense of the word will exist only due to natural laws.

According to I. Kant, the moral significance of relations that are based on an agreement, the observance of which obliges the parties, follows from the fact that the categorical imperative has a peculiarity not only to limit one's own egoism, but also to limit oneself so as not to destroy human society built on the basis of mutual relations type of contract, agreement, preservation, etc.

This "second nature" will suffer if a person takes the position of natural egoism. Moral behavior will only have the goal of not harming another by its behavior, in order to preserve the form of human society as "second nature". The content of the moral imperative also shows that the direction of Kant's ethical teaching is not identical with Christian ethics. Kant believes that moral behavior was strengthened and fixed by cases of reciprocity, since in them people show that they are not animals. At the same time, Kant does not consider such behavior to be disinterested service, help, sympathy, etc.

Thus, in particular, Kant understands doing good only in the sense of broader obligations that do not have such an obligation as those whose non-observance destroys "nature". These duties do not refer to "strict" and "inevitable" duties, but only to "deserved" and "accidental" ones. Characteristic of the ethics of I. Kant is the thesis that the moral significance of our behavior is given by intent. Therefore, the ethics of I. Kant are often spoken of as "the morality of intent." The ethical rigor of I. Kant is explained by the fact that he allegedly taught to act, regardless of the consequences, even if they were suicidal. It should also be noted that a certain autonomy of intention is a necessary element of every ethics that proceeds from the subjective will and distinguishes between choice and action, intention and its implementation.

The moral theory of I. Kant does not allow exceptions from 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 pledged 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 (eg, 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 - a feeling of respect for the law, because it belongs to the general moral value.

The ethics of I. Kant contains arguments about the freedom of man. Freedom is also manifested in the ability of activity 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 human freedom 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 "Criticism pure mind." 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 sensible 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 moral behavior, we come to certain conclusions that cannot be reached with just theories.

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.

2. Hegel and the metaphysical foundations of ethics

The principle of historicism, which was adhered to by G. W. F. Hegel (17701831-XNUMX), allowed him to make a turn from the ethics of inner conviction to a socially oriented theory of morality. Hegel, unlike Kant, turned not to revealing the essence of morality, but to determining its role in the system of social relations. Therefore, in Hegel's philosophy of absolute idealism, ethics occupied a rather modest place. 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.

In the doctrine of morality, which is an area of ​​personal beliefs, the philosopher dialectically analyzed the following concepts: intent and guilt, goodness and conscience, intention and good. At the same time, he expressed a significant number of very productive ideas. So, in particular, noting that "a series of actions of the subject is he," Hegel set the task of obligatory implementation of a person's internal moral conviction in actions, since "the laurels of desire alone are dry leaves that have never turned green."

Of course, it should be remembered that the philosopher's active human activity is limited to the sphere of the spirit, although even the very formulation of this problem evokes a positive response, as does the recommendation to set great goals for oneself ("to want something great") when determining 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."

Thus, 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. What did Hegel understand by morality? In his teaching on this issue, the philosopher draws the following conclusions. Morality is the second (public) 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.

Although it is generally accepted that the model of harmonization of personal and public good proposed by him is untenable. The doctrine of the "objective spirit", which "discerned" the main features of morality, is opposed to reality itself, is above it.

Therefore, morality is not able to have any significant impact on the real world. The philosopher also proposed to "consider invalid all disharmonic, disordered, full of conflicts and selfish chaos reality, i.e. the living life that living individuals live, and to see the harmony of logical connections underlying being, the mind hidden behind historical empiricism, i.e. discovered by philosophy and in philosophy itself the existing rational reality.

3. Anthropological ethics of L. Feuerbach

The doctrines of morality developed by Kant and Hegel could not come close to practical reality. In all likelihood, it was precisely this circumstance that forced L. Feuerbach (18041872-XNUMX) to renounce speculative concepts and turn to the natural immediacy of man. Although the naturalistic traditions, with which the philosopher linked his hopes for the formation of a "vital", concrete, effective ethics, have, in all likelihood, already exhausted their functional capabilities. Therefore, Feuerbach's plan itself did not properly materialize, but only took the form of an instruction on morality, which is based on love and is indefinite in terms of content.

The originality of Feuerbach's ethical views is connected not so much with the positive attitude he proposed (his ethics of "tuism", the egoistic relationship between "I" and "you"). It also consists in a great critique of idealistic and religious ethics, his conviction in the dominance of precisely the materialistic orientation in ethical research.

One can also find in Feuerbach many interesting ideas concerning individual ethical problems (in particular, his discussion of egoism, the characteristics of group egoism, as well as a description of the moral meaning of love, etc.). At the same time, Feuerbach did not manage to offer a more functional version of the harmonization of relations between the existing and the proper, the ideal and reality, compared to idealistic ethics.

Thus, the ethics of the New Age to some extent summed up the results of the classical period in the development of ethical consciousness, focusing on the main traditions of the study of moral principles identified back in antiquity.

But, despite the diversity, depth and richness of the ideological potential, it has not yet presented fundamentally new models for resolving moral problems, although a high level of their theoretical awareness has been achieved (especially in the concepts of Kant and Hegel). To this day, these concepts remain a model of rationalistic analysis. The significance of the ethical teachings of the representatives of German philosophy mentioned above is very great. It is their names that symbolize the ideas of ethical classics, and the concepts developed later are based on them.

LECTURE No. 7. Non-classical concepts of ethics

Late XNUMXth early XNUMXth centuries usually referred to in the literature as a transitional period from classical to postclassical ethics. If the first could be characterized mainly as contemplative, rationalistic, oriented towards creation and search for the essence of man, which forms the basis of moral values, then the second is distinguished by an irrational orientation, the search for human individuality, and the desire for an unschematized life. In order to comprehend the features of the emergence of a new ethics of the twentieth century, it is necessary to mention those teachings that occupied an intermediate position during the transition from the classical to the postclassical period. Although these concepts originated in the second half of the XNUMXth century, they largely laid the foundation for subsequent developments in the ethical world of the XNUMXth century, anticipated the implementation of "revaluation of values", questioned traditional ethical ideas, although they grew on the cultural soil that gave rise to the highest examples of classical doctrines. morals.

1. Ethics of A. Schopenhauer

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (17881860-XNUMX) rejected in his teaching many principles of the classical philosophical tradition, in particular its notion that morality should be formed on the basis of rationality. Turning mainly to human subjectivity, he drew attention to the inexhaustibility of the psyche, primarily its volitional component, to the importance of intuition, the impulsive components of spiritual experience.

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. The first is the spatio-temporal area of ​​phenomena, ideas, and the second is 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 the mysterious world of will, incomprehensible to human thought, which he understands as a “blind desire for life”, an inexplicable, irrational “desire”, which permeates everything around, including the person himself.

The thinker in his works either departed or returned again to this idea, but all the ethical reflections of A. Schopenhauer in one way or another always turned out to be connected with it. 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, and not at all the desire of a person for happiness or the fulfillment of his duty, that constitutes the initial provisions of morality. A. Schopenhauer claims that compassion also contains a certain mystical element. He believes that compassion "is an amazing and, moreover, mysterious process. It is truly the mystery of ethics, its primary phenomenon and boundary pillar."

At the same time, the philosopher argued that its occurrence is natural, because each person is doomed to suffering, which are the result of eternal dissatisfaction of the will and which make it possible to feel the sharp pain of another. 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.

Thus, A. Schopenhauer, in his teaching, offered ethics other guidelines compared to the classical European tradition. In his ethical writings, he opposed the omnipotence of reason and denied the authority of a universally significant, depersonalizing and subordinating individual. But the pathos of asserting individuality was accepted by A. Schopenhauer's compatriot, who turned out to be a more consistent and radical "crusher of the classical foundations."

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 for 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 a person, which is necessary to protect his rights and dignity, cannot be regarded as an injustice to the offender.

The requirement to prevent injustice, directly understood as a ban on injustice against others, has another ethically very important aspect not to commit injustice to others, as well as to 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.

2. Voluntaristic ethics of F. Nietzsche

Perhaps F. Nietzsche was the most original of all moralists. He asserted morality, criticizing and even denying it. The philosopher was guided by the fact that the forms of morality that have historically developed and dominated in European society have become the main obstacles to the elevation of the human personality, as well as in the process of establishing sincere relations between people. F. Nietzsche generally understood philosophy as ethics.

Therefore, the sources of his ethics can be considered not only works whose titles contain moral terms ("Beyond Good and Evil", "Human, Too Human", "On the Genealogy of Morals"), but also all his main works, the most programmatic, namely: "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", "The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music".

F. Nietzsche, whose works have an almost mystical attraction for people with very different views and beliefs, will apparently always remain a very strange figure, unambiguously not understood. There is a special problem of perception of his ideas by different researchers.

It should be noted that the special, unusual point of view, from which F. Nietzsche considered seemingly ordinary things, was also reflected in the unique style of his philosophical writings.

The whimsical, unusual style of his works directs the reader to a different rhythm of thinking, as if stammering on continuous paradoxes and contradictions, thereby involuntarily arousing suspicion of some kind of hoax. Often it is simply impossible to secure for F. Nietzsche any of the positions he takes.

It is difficult to capture with the utmost certainty the features of his own "face", in general, to establish himself on some kind of stable ground, without at all risking running into another "provocation", all this upsets the usual, convenient background of thoughts and directs to an independent search for meaning outside the accepted coordinate system, at your own risk.

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, mindsets, as well as prohibitions and generally accepted imperatives, 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.

He himself claims: "We must free ourselves from morality .. in order to be able to live morally." Thus, a person 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 we are talking about a strong or weak will, and writes that morality is "the doctrine of power relations in which the phenomenon of" life "" arises. It is an organic property of a person, a measure of his will to power. Morality, the virtue of a noble a person, in particular, a philosopher, an aristocrat, this is a direct expression and continuation of his strength.

He himself is virtuous thanks not to some far-fetched norms and self-coercion, but to nature itself, due to the conditions of life and his nature.

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. The superman in the understanding of the thinker 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 proposed by F. Nietzsche, the morality of the "superman", who rejects life-destroying reason and chooses virtu (strength) as 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 universally significant, established stereotypes) anticipate the ethical searches of the twentieth century and largely determine their new, non-traditional appearance.

In line with the ideas of the "philosophy of life" existentialism, probably the most influential spiritual trend of the century, takes shape.

LECTURE #8

The original features of the ethical searches of Russian philosophy took shape in the 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. As one of the clearest manifestations, one can cite the statement of F. M. Dostoevsky that the "Russian idea" is contained in the "realization of all ideas." 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 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.

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 single out some general characteristics of the method of philosophizing of these thinkers, then first of all we should pay attention to the irrationalist tendency, to one degree or another expressed in their work. It was largely due to a complex of both socio-economic and ideological and theoretical conditions.

The crisis state of the Russian Empire, a significant aggravation of social contradictions gave rise to the depreciation of moral principles and an ideological void that had to be filled with something. The Russian intelligentsia, confident in the need for fundamental changes, painfully searched for the answer to the question: what to do? Or, as S. Frank put it: "What should I and others do to save the world and justify my life for the first time."

The confusion, the very 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-nomistic 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 the spiritual life of a person is his religion…”.

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. "The construction of philosophical ethics as the highest judgment of all human aspirations and deeds is ... the most important task of modern thought."

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.

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

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 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 VS 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).

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

A prominent representative of the second direction of the idealistic branch of Russian philosophy was Nikolai Aleksandrovich 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; proved the opposition of the "philosophy of tragedy", capable of seeing the essence of morality and the "philosophy of everyday life", only gliding over the surface of human existence. The philosopher also singled out genuine and inauthentic morality.

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

Later, L. Shestov brought this denial in his works to an extreme degree. He did not recognize all common values ​​(morality, communication, freedom, reason), believing that "everything can be sacrificed to find God." In this "philosophy of the absurd" there is, without any doubt, a hidden meaning that has yet to be understood.

The key problem in the teachings of N. A. Berdyaev, just like that of V. S. Solovyov, 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 paths often diverged.

Throwing between pessimism (mainly in relation to reality) 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 overcome evil and suffering, give life a true meaning.

Outside of appeals to God, it is simply impossible to comprehend the "fatal mystery of life". "God as the fullness of life is the basic assumption of any life. This is what makes life worth living and without which life would have no value." Representatives of the second direction, and together with them N.A. Berdyaev, measure the values ​​of life on an absolute scale, although the starting point of their search is different, namely, the desire to assert the right of the individual, to make it possible to break from inauthentic being to genuine. If we try to isolate the theoretical context common to V. S. Solovyov and N. A. Berdyaev for the search for the meaning of the life of Russian idealists (the complexity, depth, and at the same time the inconsistency of which is not easy to highlight), then it can be reduced to the following.

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. So, for example, trying to resolve the opposition of self-will and necessity, N. A. Berdyaev, who preached "morbid individualism", contrary to his own aspirations to show the absolute indeterminacy of freedom, nevertheless considers "free refusal from self-will" as a mandatory moral attitude of the individual.

The formulation and solution of the question of the ideal and reality by Russian philosophers gives us the opportunity to understand how they tried to solve the problem, which way to go. 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. It gives rise to doubts among its authors about its feasibility in reality. V. S. Solovyov’s initial hopes for a special role for Russia in the “local” reorganization of reality are later replaced by sorrowful reflections that the Russian people have no consciousness of their destination at all, therefore “the hour of his historical vocation has not yet struck.”

At the established stage of spiritual development, the hope for religious transformation becomes extremely problematic for N. A. Berdyaev, as a result, the philosopher argued that "we live in a world of madness." And for his successors, there was no task at all to transform the world, they were interested in man only as an isolated subject who follows the path of mystical insights “without knowing where”, “without knowing why”, striving to receive salvation in faith, “cancelling the mind”. The interest that naturally revived not so long ago in the works of Russian idealists is, of course, a positive phenomenon.

I would only like to object to the 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. Today, first of all, a serious, thoughtful analysis of Russian philosophy is needed, since even the teachings of V. S. Solovyov have not yet been fully comprehended.

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 examples of Russian ethical thought can at least to some extent stimulate the process of moral improvement of the individual.

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

Understanding the meaning of life as an ideal, movement towards the infinite is given in the Bible. Jesus Christ, whose teaching, in essence, is the metaphysics and ethics of love, 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. L. N. Tolstoy considered the fourth of these Christian commandments to be the main one (“do not resist evil”), which means a complete ban on 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, it means to do what the one who is being abused does not want. 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 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.

If, Leo Tolstoy believes, everyone, making non-resistance, thinks about the salvation of his soul, then this, first of all, will become the road to human unity. The primary task that humanity has to solve is to overcome social conflicts that have taken the form of moral confrontation. How to find a solution, to avoid a clash of people, when some consider evil what others consider good? For thousands of years, people have sought to solve this problem by opposing evil with evil, using fair retribution on the principle of "an eye for an eye."

They considered it fair that evil must be punished, the kinder ones simply have to curb the more evil. But how can we determine where the evil is and who is more kind and who is more evil? After all, the essence of the conflict lies precisely in the fact that we do not have a common definition of evil. It cannot be, says L. N. Tolstoy, that the kinder ones dominate the more evil ones.

In the Bible, it is Cain who kills Abel, and not vice versa. In these circumstances, when there is no consensus on the issue of good and evil, only one decision should be correct, which will lead to agreement, no one should respond with violence to what he considers evil .

Speaking differently, no one should act as if he knows what evil is. Thus, Leo Tolstoy considered non-resistance as the application of the teachings of Christ to the social life of people. Non-resistance to evil in its understanding is the only effective form of combating evil. Violence, especially state violence, is largely based on the assistance of those against whom it is used. As a result, even a simple non-participation in violence, carried out through non-resistance, is already its weakening.

In addition, Tolstoy does not deny the possibility of resisting evil, he speaks of non-resistance to evil by physical force, violence. This, in turn, 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 paradise, but to transform relations in society for the better, striving to change the spiritual foundations of life, to achieve peace among all people.

L. N. Tolstoy also believes that the commandment of non-resistance to evil binds the teachings of Christ into a single whole only when a person understands it not as a simple saying, but as a law that knows no exceptions, mandatory for execution.

Some exception to the law of love is the recognition that there are also cases of morally justified use of violence. But if one assumes that someone, or under some circumstances, can resist by violence what he considers evil, then anyone else can do it. 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.

If we allow even one case of "justified" murder, then we make possible the appearance of an endless succession of others.

The thinker also believed that the utilitarian argument in favor of violence, according to which violence is justified in those cases when it can stop greater violence, is also untenable. At the moment when we kill a man who raised a knife over his victim, we can never know with complete certainty whether he would have put his intention into action or not, something would not have changed at the last moment in his mind.

When a criminal is deprived of his life, then again, no one can be one hundred percent sure that the criminal will not repent, will not change, and that this execution will not become a useless cruelty. But even if we have a hardened criminal in front of us who would never change, the execution cannot be fully justified, because the execution has such an impact on the people around, especially those close to the executed, that it gives rise to twice as many enemies. Violence has the ability to reproduce itself on an expanding scale. The principle "do not judge" indicates not only the action in a civilized court, but also the fact that elements of revenge can be traced in value judgments.

LECTURE #9

On the one hand, the ethics of the twentieth century asserts its right to exist, claiming the status of a universal all-human and universal value, on the other hand, it seeks to underestimate its significance, refuses to theorize in favor of purely applied problems, or even declares its "death" in the modern world. . Enormous diversity within the framework of any chosen status of ethical knowledge: the new ethics offers various ways of comprehending and properly expressing moral values ​​(rational, intuitive, emotional, religious, etc.); 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.

1. 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.

Introduced in the 1920s "philosophy of existence" (translated from Latin existentia "existence") gained great popularity after the Second World War, attracting significant segments of the population of Western European society among its adherents.

Its most famous representatives include: M. Heidegger and K. Jaspers in Germany; A. Camus, J.P. Sartre, G. Marcel in France, and to the predecessors of S. Kierkegaard (Denmark); N. Berdyaeva, L. Shestova (Russia). It should be noted that 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.

The innovation of the existential worldview in relation to the previous ethical tradition was manifested on many issues.

First, it should be noted its thematic feature, namely, the extraordinary focus on the meaningful questions of life. 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.

In addition, the truth in this process of reflection is not associated with the results of scientific and theoretical knowledge, but exclusively with the subjective state of consciousness, which is reflected in feelings, emotional experiences, mainly of the negative spectrum of despair, anxiety, fear, boredom, disgust.

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 from time immemorial for a finite and mortal person. What could the existentialists observe through this “window”? Doomed to forever dwell in history, the meaning of which is simply impossible to unravel, caught in an incomprehensible, absurd, catastrophic world that is devoid of tolerable value certainty, a person is forced, in search of an absolute guideline, to abandon the relative certainties of reality, “take them out of brackets” and strive to the depths of his own “I”. In the manifestations of his life experience, in experiences and dispositions of the spirit, he can find them some inner basis, 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."

No matter how specifically the representatives of existential philosophy explain this main concept in connection with the essence of man (for example, existence precedes essence (Sartre), existence is essence (Heidegger)), the general context is undeniable: a person is “thrown into the world” without any general, destined for him essence, he independently creates it in the process of his existence.

Moreover (and in this, again, existentialism opposes the classical tradition), this mysterious reality is assimilated by an inner sensation and has self-evidence and does not need rational proof (scientific methodology only makes rough and destroys the "gentle" spiritual substance of existence) and is found in a continuously lasting life renewal and becoming.

Thus, existentialism seeks to eliminate the opposition "subject to 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.

In this regard, it should be noted that the very problem of corporality is being posed, which turned out to be very popular in the formation of postmodern cultural strategies. G. Marcel, in particular, believed that existence "is built according to the type of my body," i.e., a person's emotional-sensory entry into the environment allows him to feel any situation as "an extension of his own body." The ethical component of existentialism is also connected with the idea of ​​the ambiguous position of a person, the bifurcation of his existence into genuine and inauthentic. The realm of the non-genuine is set by natural and social coordinates, which thus predetermine the possibility of depersonalization, manipulation, standardization, i.e., this is the world of the general, prescribing certain roles to the individual and, for this reason, hostile to it.

Authenticity is existential being, the revelation and manifestation of "selfhood" and individuality, the creation of oneself in spite of and outside any external sphere. In accordance with this, the moral "space" also bifurcates, its authenticity already implies a "rebellion for the return of individuality", one's own acceptance of moral values, opposition to generally valid rules.

It should be noted that this position is fraught with a very deep contradiction, which manifests itself in the existential interpretation of all ethical problems: consistency in carrying out a relativistic attitude leads to the problematic value of morality as a regulator capable of orienting a person in the social world.

True moral values ​​are extraordinarily unique, the individual has no external support during their choice and implementation, so he remains alone with himself. As G. Marcel wrote about this: "In reality, everything happens between me and myself." Although one can, of course, prefer untrue being and "freeze in the image of a character" (Sartre), but only those who understand the moral inferiority of this choice will be able to discard the hypocritical conventions of society and plunge into the mysterious depths of selfhood. But at the same time, he risks, since there are no guarantees for a successful outcome.

Moreover, only dysfunctional, filled with suffering, terrible "boundary situations" (on the verge of life and death) most fully clarify the meaning of existence. Leaving no hope for at least a slightly comfortable, cozy arrangement, existentialism sharpens the tragedy of all human existence to the limit, opposing it to the "reckless silence of the world" (Camus), as well as despair about the meaninglessness of any particular situation.

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 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 "does himself", then he thereby assumes responsibility for everything that happens: any ongoing events in which a person is involved are his events, therefore, he is responsible for them.

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 very complex standing of the human spirit is described by existentialists in different ways: the fear of freedom (Kierkegaard), the way of being freedom (Sartre), the "grasping of nothingness" (Heidegger), etc.

Having found himself in an alien, hostile world, thus doomed to confront him and his non-selfhood, accepting the burden of loneliness and responsibility, a person, in addition, feels the problematic formation of his existence, since freedom is always a "risk zone", its consequences are simply impossible " calculate." It is understandable that a tragic feeling of anxiety stemming from this state, getting rid of which is simply impossible, and not necessary, since anxiety, among other things, indicates a person’s concern for his authenticity and helps to “grope” the way to it. Freedom is found in choice, in some 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. However, an ordinary person cannot be completely and completely isolated from external circumstances, therefore he manifests freedom within each specific situation offered from the outside.

If there is no possibility of preferring the situation itself, then you can choose an attitude towards it: accept it as "one's own", reject it, put up with it. In addition, the "size" of the situation can be opposed to "dimensionlessness", the scope of the creative manifestation of one's individuality. The absence of a generally valid criterion for distinguishing between good and evil leads to the deliberate justification of any content of the choice, which emphasizes the immoralistic setting of existentialism.

The external assessment of any act does not make sense, since the "outside view" is alien to the subject of freedom, is not able to influence his unique choice and has no right to an evaluating opinion.

At the same time, self-assessment is also extremely difficult, since the “jump into the unknown” (Jaspers) realized in preference can be completely absurd, and the action can precede any motivation that is determined “backdating”. Nevertheless, existentialists do not consider freedom to be an absolute “freedom to do whatever you want” (Sartre), referring primarily to conscience, the purpose of which is to get into the most secret corners of the human soul, activating it to the most frank actions.

The basis for choice, therefore, is the greatest sincerity of existential impulses and the very willingness to take responsibility for everything that happens. The reflections of the existentialists sharpened to the limit, largely due to the unique artistic and philosophical style, a number of ethical problems, highlighting them from a different point of view compared to the classical tradition, and riveted attention precisely to those issues that were once underestimated or not discussed at all. .

The new, “very special” meaning of the concepts standard for ethical reflection, the unnatural subordination of topics, the concern for the internal “authenticity” of a real person, and much more not only drew attention to the existentialism of representatives of philosophical and ethical knowledge, but also contributed to the widespread dissemination of existential moods in the sphere of creative intelligentsia. in almost all countries.

At the same time, it should be noted that the deep duality, blurring of outlines, and especially the practical adaptation of the ideas of existentialism, which revealed numerous paradoxes, led first to its crisis and later to its death as an independent philosophical movement. But the ideological influence of the "philosophy of existence", assimilated by the ethical thought of other directions of the last century and partially fixed in the worldview orientations of a wide range of people, has not been lost today.

2. Analytical philosophy. Moral language analysis

Other areas of ethics of the twentieth century are associated with a focus on the ideals of the scientific study of morality. I would like to define this line of development as rationalistic, in contrast to the one described above, but this is impossible for the reason that the "spirit" of irrationalism "hovers" to a large extent here as well.

Formalistic ethics, analytical school. 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, analytic philosophy sought not just to declare it the sphere of "pseudo-judgments" (using the "language of science", as was the case in emotivism), but to determine its specificity. By 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 better reflect on 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, it is also combined with rationality and voluntary action. To prove this, R. Hear formulated the principle of "universalizability", which to a certain extent is opposed to the emotive principle of "tolerance" (after all, not a single moral judgment can claim to be true, and therefore, according to R. Hear, from the "two opposite modes of action" they define no one can be preferred", 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.

At the same time, this provision is in direct contradiction with his other ideas, which nullify the significance of everything universal in the sphere of morality. So, in particular, speaking about a person's choice of certain moral principles, R. Hear insists on the complete voluntariness of such a choice, which should be based only on personal psychological acceptability.

Whatever importance R. Hear and other representatives of the school of analytics put into the rationality and universal validity of morality, this did not save them from subjectivism, since the choice of strategic moral ideals and principles by a person, in fact, has no basis, except for some amorphous emotional and psychological mood. Constantly “bumping” in their own reasoning on their own thesis about the impracticability of a scientific, rational justification of the starting principles of morality, the philosophers of the analytical school willy-nilly return to the idea of ​​the “neutrality” of ethics, to conclusions that “do not have the character of meaningful judgments” (R. Hear).

Intentions to bring moral philosophy closer to reality are not realized, which largely predetermines the contradictory and eclectic nature of the analytical metaethics of the 1950s. Seemingly convinced that metaethics lacks effective possibilities for solving vital issues, analysts either attribute them to the domain of faith (like Toulmin), or only partially return to previously rejected doctrines (in particular, M. Schlick tries to give a new explanation of eudemonism, R. Hear uses utilitarian-type argumentation). Thus, "linguistic reality" becomes the basis of innovative creativity within the boundaries of the "formalistic image" of the ethics of the XNUMXth century.

Of course, its introduction into the circle of problems that are subject to ethical research enriched the "color palette" of the doctrine of morality, contributed to the emergence of new aspects in understanding the world of moral values.

However, the final isolation from the moral realities of metaethics, which turned out to be only able to explain their linguistic reflections, a very one-dimensional, simplified view of reality, did not allow the ethical thinking of the past century to linger on this for a long time, directing it to the search for new options.

3. Principles of justice J. Rawls

Justice in ethics is considered primarily as a problem of equality. The simplest concept of the principle of justice is the requirement 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.

In accordance with this, the definition of justice given by J. Rawls can be divided into two principles:

1. Every person should 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.

For a very long time, this principle, to a greater or lesser extent, remains the basis of the system of social justice for many countries with a mixed economy (for example, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden).

In some cases, this state of affairs is very close to the principle of justice that Marxists adhered to in relation to a perfect communist society: "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 "To 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 unless a sufficiently high level of offsetting benefits explains the socioeconomic or economic activity of those who receive these benefits.

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.

What is justice as a principle of individual behavior, i.e. precisely as a moral principle? While the idea of ​​justice is associated with us, as a rule, with the law and, thus, with severity, severity (for example, we say about the law that it is "strict but fair"), as a moral idea, it first of all establishes a boundary individual whim.

As a rule, the duty of justice is also negative. It opposes selfish motives and keeps a person from causing harm to another, suffering. Justice calls to respect the rights of another person and, thus, not to encroach on someone else's property, freedom. What is an encroachment on property does not require special explanation. It should be noted that the concept of infringement on property includes not only its theft or destruction, but also the appropriation or retention of the found thing, as well as the temporary use of the property of another person without special permission or in excess of the given permission.

Copyright infringements, which are also specific in their nature, are infringements of copyright, which may not cause direct material damage to its owner and therefore not be perceived as an injustice and a violation of individual rights.

Encroachment on a person consists in inflicting not only physical harm on him, but also moral insult and resentment. It can be expressed in various forms: annoyance, anxiety, suspicion, insult or slander. And also an encroachment on a person includes shifting to others, using cunning and violence, one's own worries and duties.

A special type of violation of duties can be considered treason, which philosophers called double injustice.

It takes place in those cases when some people, entering into an agreement and assuming any obligations, not only violate them, but also use this agreement and the rights given to it, their special position, causing damage to the partner precisely in what he was called to protect him.

LECTURE #10

1. 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. mos "temper". Another meaning of this word is law, rule, ordinance. 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 relations, moral consciousness, moral behavior.

It should be noted that 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 connections between them (N. di B. Machiavelli and T. Hobbes) to the recognition that morality and politics can be equated with each other (moralizing approach). The interaction of morality and politics is diverse and multifaceted.

Political struggle is inevitably accompanied by a clash of moral attitudes. Politics is characterized by certain tactics and strategies, as well as laws that 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, but, as many facts from Russian history show, in the direction of trampling it.

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.

The problem of the interaction of politics and morality can be resolved in different aspects from different angles of view. For example, the concept of 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-centricism and person-centrism.

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. The individual is a means, 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-individual" did not even arise, not because there was harmony, that 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.

2. 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 advisory activities to the extent that they are involved in political power.

Ethical norms encourage a political leader to success in business and life, but in such a way that, pursuing his own interest (popularity, career, fame, desire for power, game motivations, etc.), he could correlate such an orientation with his responsibility for deeds. He must ensure that they contribute to the public good and benefit others, rejecting the motives of political hedonism, as well as the desire to revel in power over people and situations, demonstrating their power potential. The ethics of a political leader, of course, aims him at comprehending his political activity, professional vocation, his perception of his work as faithful service to society (which must be distinguished from fanatical service to any idea).

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. And also the politician should be able to work in contact with other politicians, opponents or partners in political coalitions.

It is assumed that he has such moral qualities as truthfulness, fidelity to written and oral obligations, regardless of whether it is beneficial or unprofitable to do this in each particular case, the absence of political cynicism in statements and actions, a persistent dislike for scandals, behind-the-scenes intrigues, demagoguery, unscrupulousness in business relations, as well as to direct corruption.

At the same time, the ethics of a political leader is by no means selfish. It does not prohibit intricate combinations and deceitful actions in complex, intricate political games, and also does not condemn various kinds of political maneuvering, behavioral and verbal rigidity, the desire of public politicians to show themselves in a favorable light.

Political ethics is based on the leader's ability to combine adherence to principles with the need to make forced compromises, on a realistic, by no means romantic understanding of the interests and objectives of politics, on the most complete understanding of the consequences of his decisions and actions taken.

As a result, it bears signs of consequentiality. Moreover, in an "open society" a politician cannot ignore the demands made by the canon without risking irreparable compromise, without dooming himself to political isolation, loss of respectability as a special kind of political capital, and denial of confidence in the political line pursued.

Regular deviation from the norms of ethics, from the rules of decency of behavior in the political field can lead to the fact that a dangerous myth takes root in society about engaging in politics as a deliberately "dirty business".

This state of affairs can only deflect decent people from getting involved in politics, from realizing their civic duty. Also dangerous is the myth about the likelihood of a radical moralization of politics, which shows it as a deliberately "clean thing."

At present, all political institutions, formations, primarily state ones, are called upon to stop the negative aspirations of certain figures at the right time, and, if necessary, replace them with other leaders whose actions meet the needs of society, as well as the requirements of laws and morality.

Negativism, accusation, and scourging of "enemies" also pose a danger to a political leader. Historical facts confirm the need to promote political leaders of a new, democratic type to leading positions, who are able to wage a genuine struggle for influence in society of citizens who prove the ability to manage both in word and deed. The most typical mistake of modern leaders is the substitution of the goal with the means to achieve it. This happened more than once in history, but this phenomenon is also found in modern conditions. Both at the macro and micro levels.

Studies have shown that people have different reactions not only to the qualities of a leader, but also to the means of agitation that he uses. Students, in particular, show the attitude of leaders towards competitors.

In this case, it must be borne in mind that politics is not only relations between classes, national and social groups about power, but also relations about the effective use of all forms and types of power, about the expedient management of paramount social processes.

Perhaps many problems would not have arisen between leaders of different ranks if both sides did not suspect each other of a tendency to usurp power. For this reason, it is necessary to be guided here not by the question: "Are you applying for power?", but by the question: "What are your abilities, awareness in social and political affairs?" 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 and leaders 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 any leader, or seriously underestimate his actions, his capabilities, abilities, and not use them himself. In this case, much also depends on the immediate environment, the so-called "team", or the circle of assistants, advisers, consultants, experts, etc. It is clear that everyone is obliged and entitled to play only their role and not succumb to the temptations of politics and power.

In our time, the transition to the democratization of political life does not at all insure the leader against the same possibility of slipping into the cult of personality. We know that Stalin's personality cult taught Russians a lot. But it is impossible to say with complete certainty that all the conclusions have already been drawn and that all the lessons have been learned by us.

Leadership problems have become aggravated today in connection with the general politicization of life, the intensification of political rivalry, as well as political struggle. Unstoppable political ambitions, claims, populism can cause significant damage. The issues of forming a leader's "team" and involving young leaders in active political activity are becoming increasingly important in our time. 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.

In Russia, in the first years of perestroika, the sympathy of society was often attracted by people of the word, who thought figuratively and owned oratory. At present, the views of society have turned to people of action, practical deeds, true spokesmen for the political interests of the people.

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

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.

LECTURE #11

1. Entrepreneurial (business) ethics

Entrepreneurial (business) ethics is 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) the income received, which presupposes the presence of a market-competitive environment for 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.

At the same time, it is possible to focus only on external activity restrictions, as well as reducing their value significance to the level of etiquette rules and, thus, reassessing the role of moral considerations proper.

It is also possible to rely on internal motives, that is, a sense of duty and moral feelings (for example, good will, conscience, sympathy, etc.).

In this case, entrepreneurial ethics arises, and the total amount of life attitudes, value orientations, and appropriate motivation creates the professional ethos of capitalist management.

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, serving 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 sanctions of public and group opinion.

Economists are not unanimous on specific interpretations of this issue. For example, M. Friedman and his school believe that the actions of entrepreneurs are morally acceptable if they are aimed at achieving profit and do not conflict with legal restrictions. At the same time, F. Hayek and his followers argue that the norms and rules of "fair play", the standards of economic behavior should not be interpreted situationally, since they have the character of an unconditional order. The legal obligations of an entrepreneur (paying taxes, fulfilling contracts or debt obligations, ensuring certain working conditions and environmental safety measures, fair competition requirements, maintaining business reputation, etc.) receive additional significance as a moral obligation, without which only legal regulation proves to be an insufficient barrier to illegal and immoral behavior.

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

In addition to the quite natural desire for performance and profit, an entrepreneur may have other personal motives for activity that have a moral meaning: the desire for independence from guardianship of various types, self-realization, a penchant for charity, a desire to help specific people, their associations, etc.

Entrepreneurial ethics substantiates, justifies and encourages selfishness as an orientation towards one's own interest and benefit, since they are carried out within the socially given framework of economic behavior.

It is necessary to distinguish honest selfishness (namely, selfishness in the framework of fair play for market success) as a norm of business ethics from negative changes in this norm. Violation of the values ​​of public morality is easily found in all types of human activity, and entrepreneurship is no exception.

And in the practice of a perfectly mature business, the norms, values, prohibitions and permissions of entrepreneurial ethics, which have to exist in an area of ​​increased moral hazard, are violated.

And in the most advanced countries, business today is sometimes accompanied by acts of fraud, "shedding responsibility", unbridled (not observing the agreed rules) egoism, which is not able to cope with the temptation of the power of money, the pressure of arguments of cynical profit, heartlessness, sad pragmatism.

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, analogous 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.

Unlike Western Europe, where the mentality of medieval cities, the ethos of capitalism, and especially the ethics of Protestantism were at the heart of entrepreneurial ethics, in Russia the spiritual sources of this ethics were the service ethos of a class society, which contributed to the formation of moral qualities and character traits that are 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. At the same time, the same ethos delayed the formation of formulas of private life, personal success, personal responsibility, and dignity that are essential for entrepreneurial ethics.

2. Corporate ethics

Entrepreneurial ethics also regulates 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 economy of an enterprise must be transparent not only for management, but for the entire team. The dedication of employees of all ranks, which raise the prestige of the enterprise, should be encouraged. First of all, a person should feel that the team appreciates him, then he will appreciate the team even more and try even harder at work.

In order for a person to treat his business conscientiously, with a soul, and not like a day laborer, 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 is 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.

3. Charity

Charity 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 (approximately since the 1960s, when the so-called non-governmental organizations began to develop especially rapidly), 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.

Widespread world practice shows that charity, as a rule, is the other side of a successful (sometimes clever) business.

But at the same time, it is by its nature the opposite of business: business is acquisitive, focused on making a profit, on accumulating funds in order to invest them and extract even more profit. Philanthropy, according to the inner meaning of this activity, is disinterested, with its help funds are distributed, profits are wasted.

For all that, the seeming opposition of charity and entrepreneurship is denied by the fact that in social terms they often represent different sides of the same coin. It is no coincidence that almost at all times philanthropy, to the same extent as entrepreneurship, revived both greedy interest, and skepticism, and the suspicion that this, of course, although necessary, is quite often a dirty business.

On the one hand, in charity, no doubt, they saw a great blessing and the possibility of salvation for many, even those who had completely lost hope. On the other hand, a source of social and moral evil, "self-deception of an unclean conscience" was ripening in charity.

What is charity: ethics or social engineering? Rethinking the importance of charity in the life of society has prepared the intellectual ground for replacing the fundamental and pragmatic priorities of charity, for changing the opinion about charity as an element and factor in public life.

In the second half of the XIX century. in the case of philanthropic organizations, mainly American, there was a radical change: charity was less and less seen as a way of distributing benefits to the poor; its task was seen in the improvement of the state of society as a whole.

For example, it is recognized that charity should provide people not with commodities, but with the means by which they can help themselves; support, therefore, most definitely lies in the fact 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 philanthropy, 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 by Confucius, to teach how to fish, and not just distribute them.

The problem is not so simple. What about the order of work, in particular, in the face of an economic downturn and rising unemployment? Is it worth spending money on charity, training and job creation when there is very little money (for example, enough only to organize a small course of study, but not to provide a job in the profession) and you have to choose between providing specific assistance to a specific person in need and organizing conditions for so that those who are in distress today do 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.

The very issue of organized assistance is not homogeneous in its tasks. At the same time, this problem does not arise in such a way that it is necessary to stop distributing food and money and start distributing knowledge and skills to the workers. People, of course, need help, and in varying degrees.

Someone today does not have enough money to, for example, organize an exhibition of exotic butterflies, and someone does not know how to feed his child. Therefore, the forms of assistance should be varied, both in terms of the object of charity (whom they help) and the subject (what they are helping at present), and in terms of the social functions of the assistance provided (what tasks should be solved by charitable assistance).

At present, advanced industrial societies can afford the maintenance of very large masses of low-income people.

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

However, it would be wrong to believe that with their help it is really possible to resolve many 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 socioethical and moral nature. 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.

In this connection, the reflections of L. N. Tolstoy and F. M. Dostoevsky on the phenomenon of charity are of interest. In fact, historically they can be attributed to the same time when in Western Europe and America there is a significant rethinking of the very social mission of charity.

In Russia at that distant time there were no conditions at all for the development of the principles and methods of philanthropy. But there was no doubt that the principles and methods of charity must meet moral criteria.

Both F. M. Dostoevsky and L. N. Tolstoy, in their criticism of charitable practice, very accurately noted the most important ethical problems. But in the same way, the controversy about charity was translated into a broader, undoubtedly morally and spiritually significant, but problematically different channel of the general ethical tasks of a person, ways of his self-understanding and improvement.

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. Here, both understanding and sympathy, solidarity will be needed in order to realize the commandments of love.

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. Ethical and pragmatic engineering approaches to the phenomenon of charity significantly complement each other.

It must be borne in mind that moral criticism of charity acts primarily as an important contribution to overcoming moral distortions in philanthropy. Charity is also manifested as an indicator of moral maturity, but not the perfection of a person. In the course of criticism of charity, undoubtedly fundamental criteria were proposed, which introduced calculation and diligence into charitable activities.

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. , the overall assessment of specific charitable programs is based on their contribution to the well-being of society and improving the well-being of its individual citizens.

LECTURE #12

1. Nature and society: the evolution of relationships

Environmental ethics 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 the English and Northern European literature, environmental ethics is a growing direction of philosophical and ethical research, focused on revising the value foundations of Western civilization, 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 the simplest tools about 3 million years ago. It is possible to associate with this time the beginnings of its characteristic influence on the environment. In the future, tool activity improved, and the overall effect of its impact on the environment gradually increased. The amount of energy expended to meet human needs also increased, and it is this indicator that is usually considered as the power-to-weight ratio.

It is also known that 25003000 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 80100 thousand kcal of energy per day. And in industrialized countries, the daily average per capita energy consumption is 250300 thousand kcal. According to V. Nebel, the existence of a person in the modern world, when the energy expended is converted into muscle strength, is ensured by the labor of 80 slaves. As a result, the population of the Earth, if it is reduced to a biological measure, should be increased by 100 times.

In addition, in terms of its impact on the environment, the energy of a technical society is very different from the muscular one. This inevitably leads to disruption of the functioning of ecosystems, environmental pollution and other anti-environmental costs. The biological coefficient of population should be multiplied by tens and hundreds of times.

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. Man removed or partly destroyed almost all natural mechanisms of population homeostasis in relation to his population. Abiotic causes have almost no effect on its abundance.

3. Impact on the functioning of ecosystems. Humans almost completely destroyed some ecosystems and their large blocks. In others, a person significantly violates their processes, principles, patterns of development (food chains, impact on the dynamics of ecosystems, changes in the boundaries of ecological niches).

4. 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, in particular: the constancy of living matter; transport and scattering functions of living matter, destruction and concentration functions. For example, human intensification of destructive phenomena in the biosphere (thousands of times in comparison with natural processes) occurs as a result of extracting resources from the bowels and using the surface of the lithosphere.

5. Consequences of differences in the rates of social and technological progress. The social component in our time is decisive in human activity, its impact on the environment. Social and technogenic structures are characterized by low environmental efficiency. Only 23% of the product needed by a person is extracted from the resources. Such phenomena are largely explained by the discrepancy between the pace of development of social and technical structures.

6. Change in the time factor of the formation of biospheric processes. The period of development of the biosphere, which is associated with human activity, is considered in this case as "noogenesis". It was preceded by a period of "biogenesis". These periods cannot be compared either in duration or intensity of the modification of biospheric processes.

7. Alienation of man 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.

2. The ecological crisis and the formation of ecological 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 that the latter could not perceive will 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 is one of the states of the environment, nature, biosphere. It may be preceded or followed by other states or environmental situations. An ecological crisis is a change in the biosphere or its blocks over a large area, which is 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 period, for example, five orders of reptiles—dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, pterosaurs, and others—died out within a short period of time).

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 511 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.

The Romans, after the conquest of North Africa, brought its lands almost to a critical state by predatory plowing and grazing of large herds of horses, which were used for military purposes.

Also, the result of primitive irrigated agriculture was the destruction of natural systems, and with it the death of civilization in the Nile Delta, in Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece and some other areas. Common to all anthropogenic crises is that the exit from them is accompanied by a decrease in the population, its migration, as well as social upheavals.

The peculiarity 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.

The latter has reached enormous proportions in our time. Man has approached the maximum allowable limits for the withdrawal of water from rivers (approximately 10% of the runoff). In general, people today involve in the production and consumption of such an amount of matter and energy that is hundreds of times greater than its biological needs.

It is estimated that every day humanity needs about 2 million tons of food, 10 million tons of clean drinking water. The consumption of resources and energy for industrial purposes is much higher. Approximately 300 million tons of substances and materials are mined and processed daily, about 2 billion m3 of water is withdrawn from rivers and other sources, about 30 million tons of fuel are burned, and more than 65 billion m3 of oxygen are consumed. People have destroyed almost completely some landscapes within natural zones.

For example, there are very few virgin forests left: 2/3 of their area has been destroyed, and the remaining ones often bear traces of human activity. The territory occupied by forests has now decreased from 75 to 25%. The complexity of the ecological situation in our time is also connected with the fact that humanity cannot refuse the achievements of technological progress, the use of natural resources.

With the rapidly growing technical equipment and the explosive growth of the world population, human impact on the environment is increasing. In our time, previously rejected plans for the transfer of water from the northern rivers to the southern regions of the former Soviet Union are being considered.

They assumed the movement of about 150 km3 of water per year (this is more than half of the annual flow of the Volga). There is also a project to water the Sahara, which will require the construction of a dam in the lower reaches of the river. Congo and the reversal of its course. One of the latest projects provides for the delivery of 200 billion m3 of fresh water in the form of icebergs from the Antarctic. Existing projects for changing the direction of ocean currents cannot be considered fantastic.

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 likelihood 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.

Currently, about 250 thousand people die every year from disasters in the world, and the damage from disasters is about 40 billion dollars annually. Despite the increase in the protection of the population from disasters, the damage from them still does not decrease.

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 due to the creation or preservation of natural or artificially created ecosystems (parks, squares, botanical gardens, etc.) within urban settlements. Settlements that combine urban development with an indispensable variety of architecture and natural landscapes are called ecopolises, or eco-city. 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), the preservation of less than 50% of the area under 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.

The main questions that are raised at the same time: the ethical problems of science and technology, demilitarization, etc., the code of environmental management, environmental imperatives. Utilitarian concepts are also discussed: the needs of future generations, the conservation of biological diversity as a multipurpose resource in the future, etc.

In environmental ethics, there are two main areas of anthropocentrism and biocentrism.

Supporters of anthropocentrism understand a person, his activity as the reasons for the existence of a given world (the world "for people") or as criteria for all values.

The versions of anthropocentric concepts also include social ecology, which proposes a decrease in the creative power of natural evolution in favor of the goals established by culture ("second nature") for the formation of harmonious social relations, a non-hierarchical, ecologically oriented, organic tribal society, which restores complementary relations with the natural environment.

The tragic experience of the XNUMXth century. testifies to the insufficient effectiveness of calls to return to traditional morality and the need to find the most effective social instruments.

In this regard, the themes of animal rights, as well as plants, lands, oceans and the whole planet as a whole, appear in the environmental movement. The protection of the rights of different forms of life takes on normative forms, in many respects similar to the movement for the rights of different groups of people in recent history (in particular, the rights of women, "colored" people, children, etc.).

The concepts of freeing animals, refusing to use them in science (for experiments), for commercial and sport hunting, for commercial agricultural breeding are widely discussed. The problems of self-value of diverse forms of wildlife are raised, as well as socio-psychological aspects of their rights, guardianship approach to the rights of animals and plants.

The rejection of anthropocentrism, or outright biocentrism, is the general attitude of most philosophers of this very broad and variegated trend, which includes advocates of individual animals and plants, non-anthropocentric holists, deep ecologists, neopragmatists, ecofeminists, Taoists, etc.

Biocentrists consider all living beings and other parts of the Earth's ecosystem to have not only value for themselves (self-worth), but also internal value, that is, independent of human interests. Biocentrism turns a human being into an arrogant "king of nature" into one of the members of the biotic community.

This is most aptly noted in O. Leopold's definition of the good: everything that contributes to "preserving the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community" is good. The value reorientation of our consciousness should take place in the spirit of respect and love for the Earth and all its "children". It contrasts sharply with the prevailing consumer attitude of modern society. Although it remains an open question whether the necessary reorientation is due to the emergence of new moral feelings or to an increased sensitivity to a permanent relationship with our natural environment.

Currently, environmental ethics is based on metaphysical interpretations of various fields of science: ecology, evolutionary biology, quantum physics, as well as on the traditions of culture, and in many respects on the traditions of the Eastern worldview (Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Zen Buddhism). The direct predecessors of environmental ethics include the "Ethics of the Earth" by O. Leopold and the "ethics of reverence for life" by A. Schweitzer.

3. The concept of sustainable development

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

The concept of "sustainable development" was 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 UN, 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 spheres. It is believed that only in a world with a healthy socio-economic environment can there be a healthy environment. "that in a world where there is so much need and where the environment is deteriorating, a healthy society and economy is impossible." This, however, does not mean that economic development should stop, it should go "on a different path, ceasing to destroy the environment so actively."

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

These are both issues directly related to environmental problems (prevention of climate change, combating desertification, the work of various environmental associations, environmental education, etc.), and those on which the solution of environmental problems indirectly depends.

The range of such questions concerns almost all kinds of human activity. These are the renewal of industrial and agricultural technologies, the fight against poverty, the change in consumption patterns, the development of sustainable settlements, the strengthening of the role of different segments of the population, etc. They are combined into four sections of the "Programs of Action ...": "Social and Economic Aspects", "Conservation and rational use of natural resources", "Strengthening the role of key populations", "Means of implementation".

The adopted Statement and two Concepts concern such fundamental problems as prevention of climate change, conservation of forests and conservation of biological diversity. These documents, perhaps for the first time at a high level, emphasized the role of the bioecological component in solving the problems of preserving the environment surrounding humans.

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 dated 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. They contain measures to ensure environmental safety, protect the environment, restore disturbed ecosystems and participate in solving global environmental problems.

In publications concerning the decisions of the UN Conference, it is noted that some of them are not specific enough and look more like a statement of intent than proposals for resolving specific issues. This thus creates the impression that there are no significant and even more unclear problems in the implementation of the decisions of the Conference. Only the will is needed.

Therefore, such provisions have caused a well-founded discussion. For example, academician N. N. Moiseev, who has been working on solving global environmental problems for a long time, has a negative attitude even to the very term "sustainable development".

He argues that at present, as well as in the near future, one cannot speak of any sustainable development. The course towards sustainable development impermissibly simplifies the current ecological state and does not instruct people and humanity as a whole on the reality of the difficulties that they will inevitably have to face before they find ways to solve the main environmental problems. It is correct, according to N. N. Moiseev, to talk now not about sustainable development, but about the strategy of the transition period.

LECTURE #13

1. The concept of violence and non-violence

The concept of 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 drastic ban on it "Thou shalt not kill" marks the boundary that separates morality from immorality. At the same time, public consciousness, as well as ethics, allow situations of morally justified violence. In understanding violence, there are two extreme approaches, absolutist (broad) and 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 forms 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 the individual, the cause of which lies in other people, as well as social institutions. 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 at least two shortcomings: the actual 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 more 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, and is not linked to the internal motivation of his behavior.

At the same time, if motivation is not taken into account, it is impossible to understand the phenomenon of violence. For example, there is the pain of a dislocated leg. And there is pain from the baton of a policeman. If in the physical sense there may be no difference between them, then in the moral sense the difference is enormous.

The difficulties associated with the concept of violence are resolved if it is placed in the space of free will and analyzed as one of the varieties of power-willed relations in society between people. I. Kant defined strength as "the ability to overcome great obstacles. The same strength is called power if it can overcome the resistance of that which itself has strength."

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 ordinary case: paternalistic power, the power of the father;

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

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

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

Two points are essential in the concept of violence.

1) that one will interrupts another will or subjugates it to itself;

2) the fact that this is realized through an externally limiting influence, physical force.

The concept of violence has a very specific and strict content, it cannot be identified with any form of coercion. Violence as a certain form of social relation must be distinguished, on the one hand, from the instinctive natural properties of a person, and on the other hand, from other forms of coercion in society, in particular, paternalistic and legal.

The main argument in favor of violence is that without it it is impossible to resist hostile forms of evil (for example, tyranny).

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, Gandhi argued, 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, which is active non-violent resistance, overcoming the situation of injustice, but in other non-violent ways.

Non-violence differs from violence mainly in the understanding of 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 means to unjustly slander him. 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. A person can be kind. Therefore, in relations between people there is always the possibility of cooperation.

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.

2. 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 war, then it is best to imagine a fight between two fighters. Each of them seeks to force the other to fulfill his will with the help of physical violence; his immediate goal crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance."

War, in his understanding, is an act of violence, which 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, scarcely worth mentioning, restrictions that it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany the violence without actually mitigating its effect.

K. von Clausewitz also gives another comparison of war: "Fight in large and small transactions is the same as cash payment in bill transactions, no matter how remote this payment is, no matter how rarely the moment of realization comes, someday its hour will come."

But he also 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. Also, the smaller our political goal, the lower the price it has for us and the easier it is to refuse to achieve it, and for this reason our efforts will be less impressive.

This is true, the same political goal can have different effects not only on different peoples, but also on the same people in different eras a political casus belli will cause great tension, far exceeding the significance of this casus belli, and cause a real explosion.

War in human society, war sometimes 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. What remains special in it refers only to the originality of its means. Thus, taking into account the validity of the thesis about the close connection between war and politics, it is necessary to agree with the generally recognized position.

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.

Already in the works of ancient philosophers one can read about the ideas of the world, although this topic was considered mainly as a question of relations between the Greek states. Ancient philosophers tried only to eliminate internecine wars. For example, in terms of the ideal state proposed by Plato, there are no internal strife at all and warriors who distinguished themselves in the "second greatest kind of war" in the war against external enemies are honored.

Aristotle has a similar opinion on this issue. The ancient Greeks considered foreigners as enemies and believed that they and everything that belongs to them is good prey, if all this could only be taken over. Perhaps the main reason for this is the level of economic development of society. Hence the direct transition to the problem of slavery, a concept from another era.

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 Church condemned the internecine wars of the Middle Ages, which was clearly reflected, for example, in the history of Russia.

In particular, Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kyiv urged the Russian princes not to conduct hostilities during Lent. The Christian Church was also the initiator of the establishment of the so-called Peace of God 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.

First of all, churches, monasteries, travelers, women and items necessary for agriculture fell under the protection of the World of God. 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.

It can be argued that the criticism of war in the Middle Ages was limited by the ethical ideas of Christianity and the ideal of a common peace remained peace among the Christian peoples of Europe. The XNUMXth century brought to mankind two world wars unprecedented in scale before, and further exacerbated the significance of the problem of war and peace.

During this period, the pacifist movement developed, which originated in the United States and Great Britain after the Napoleonic Wars. It rejects all violence and wars, even defensive ones. Some modern representatives of pacifism argue that wars will disappear when the level of population on earth becomes stable; others are developing measures to which the "warrior instinct" of man could be translated. Such a "moral equivalent", in their opinion, can be the development of sports, especially competitions that are associated with a risk to life.

The researcher of the problem, J. Galtung, tried to go beyond the narrow framework of pacifism. His concept affirms "the minimization of violence and injustice in the world", then only the highest human values ​​will be able to 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 technical 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 lies the key to solving problems," 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.

Although another important conclusion from the foregoing is just as obvious: the analysis of the concepts of the world requires a thorough effort. A very deep and consistent philosophy of peace must be built, the most important component of which must be the dialectic of peace and war in development.

At the same time, the problem of the philosophy of the world cannot be dissolved in narrowed academicism, overly focused on the controversy around the definitions and relationships of some concepts that relate to this field of research and ideology (the connection between war and politics is inextricable).

The universal commensuration of the problems of war and peace gives great relevance to the cooperation of pacifists, social democrats and conservatives, believers and atheists. Many approaches to the philosophical interpretation of the world, ideological pluralism are closely connected with political pluralism. The various components of the peace movement are in an uneasy relationship with each other.

They can develop from a complete confrontation of ideas to fruitful joint action. In such development, the global task is recreated to find the best forms of cooperation between various social and political forces in order to achieve a common goal for human society. Peace is a universal human value, therefore it can only be achieved through the joint efforts of all peoples.

3. 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.

Violence is institutionalized in the state. This cannot be understood as if the talion was not a social institution. Talion was also a normative system, but it was carried out as a result of spontaneous actions of interested parties.

Although it was a custom developed in detail to ensure the principle of equivalent in various circumstances, nevertheless, each member of the primitive collective had the right to explain it and the unconditional obligation to fulfill it. In the state, everything is different.

Here the right of violence is formalized by law. Laws are made differently than custom, in a more elitist way. For each case of the use of violence, the law is established as a result of a special procedure that involves an objective, comprehensively balanced investigation and discussion The violence that the state practices 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 made also another important step in limiting violence.

In the state, violence is often replaced by the threat of violence. The German researcher R. Shpeemann in his work "Moral and Violence" 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 coercion 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.

The subject of the dispute was and remains the question of how to qualify the third method of influence, which is the main one in the experience of modern societies. Aristotle singled it out in a kind of category.

Together with involuntary actions that are realized by a person not of his own free will, and arbitrary actions in which he fulfills his desires, Aristotle singled out a special class of mixed actions that a person performs on his own, of his own free will, but under the strict pressure of circumstances, when something becomes their alternative. worse than these actions themselves, in the extreme case death.

Such, in particular, is the behavior of a person who does something shameful at the request of a tyrant in order to save loved ones, or the behavior of merchants who throw their property overboard during a storm so that the ship does not sink. T. Hobbes argued that such actions must be considered voluntary, free, since a person has a choice, although it is very narrowed; the fear of death cannot be identified with death itself.

Many theorists of non-violence in our time, on the contrary, hold the view that these actions must be reduced to servitude. In their view, the threat of violence can itself be violence.

If the violence used by the state is considered in itself, as a final state and a permanent condition for the existence of a person, then it cannot but cause a negative moral assessment.

No matter how legal, institutionalized and extremely cautious state violence may be, it remains violence and in this sense it is directly opposite to morality. At the same time, all the noted properties can be interpreted as factors that give violence scope. A monopoly on violence can lead to its excess. The institutionalization of violence gives it anonymity and dulls its perception.

The possibility of indirect use of violence (manipulation of consciousness, hidden exploitation, etc.) expands the scope of its application. The attitude towards state violence may be different if we consider it in historical development and take into account that in relation to violence there was a pre-state period and there will be a post-state one.

State violence, like the talion that preceded it, is not a form of violence, but becomes only a form of limiting violence, a stage on the way to overcoming it. The monopoly on violence limits its source to the extent that allows society to exercise targeted control over it.

The institutionalization of violence includes it in the space of actions, the legitimacy of which converges with reasonable validity. Indirect forms of violence are evidence that in its effectiveness it can be replaced by other means.

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.

LECTURE No. 14. The death penalty

1. 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 is primarily a murder that 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 particular, 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 the Russian judicial code of the XVI century. the death penalty was prescribed for 12 types of crimes, and in the code of 1649 for more than 50 cases. Today in England the death penalty has been completely abolished, while in Russia it has been suspended.

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 exceptionally painful and amazing forms of human imagination (for example, impalement, throat pouring with metal, boiling in oil, etc.).

The Criminal Code of Emperor Charles V was published in the middle of the XNUMXth century. It operated in a number of European countries almost until the very end of the XNUMXth century. This document ordered that death sentences also be carried out in the form of burning, quartering, wheeling, drowning, burial alive, etc. No less cruel was the death sentence to the rebel and leader of the rebellious Russian peasants in the XNUMXth century, Emelyan Pugachev: "Pugachev to inflict the death penalty, quarter, stick the head on a stake, smash the body parts into four parts of the city and put them on wheels, and then burn them in the same places.

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. Currently, 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.

2. 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.

But since about the 1764th 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" (1997). After her, many social thinkers began to link the principle of humanism with the demand for the complete abolition of the death penalty. Her decisive opponents were K. G. Marx, A. N. Radishchev, L. N. Tolstoy, V. S. 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 XNUMX in accordance with 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.

3. Ethical arguments against the death penalty

Although a review of the historical dynamics of the death penalty problem shows that it is increasingly losing its ethical sanction, losing the support of society and gradually being forced out of legal practice, nevertheless, a negative view of the death penalty has not yet become indisputable. Discussions on this problem continue at the present time. Let us first consider the arguments that some authors put forward "for" the death penalty, and then the possible objections to them.

Are there any ethical arguments in favor of the death penalty?

We are talking here about ethical, moral arguments, taking into account which the death penalty can be considered justified, not just taken by force, possible, but actually justified, i.e. necessary from the point of view of social welfare, justice and humanism. 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.

Equivalence in punishment is also not observed because the forces of the executioner and the victim become obviously unequal. Everyone understands that an adult who kills a child whom he could disarm or punish in some other way is committing an unjust act, even if the child has already done bloody deeds before. The killer, whatever he may be, is weaker in the face of the state and society than such a child is in front of an adult.

Finally, the death penalty cannot be considered an equivalent punishment when it is used for crimes other than murder. But even in cases of murder, it does not become equivalent, since it does not take into account the various shades of guilt of the convict.

2. The death penalty may not be fair to the person to whom it should 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, which is based on the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and indeed this deterrent effect itself, may seem significant only at first glance. With a deeper approach, it 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. And further, in the event that the death penalty was really practiced only for the sake of intimidating others, then over time they would not come to carry it out secretly.

In the application of the death penalty, as in all other cases, the punishment is not the reason that prevents the crime, since the offender commits his crime not for the reason that he agrees with the severe punishment that follows for this crime and is already ready to bear it, namely because he hopes to escape punishment.

And perhaps the most important thing: statistically, empirically, researchers of this problem have established that the use of the death penalty does not reduce in society such crimes for which it is applied, for this reason, its abolition does not increase them. This is primarily true of murders in society, the presence or absence of such a punishment as the death penalty does not affect their quantity and quality.

There is a well-known example in the literature that clearly supports the argument that the death penalty has a disciplining effect on others through intimidation.

In 1894, during the public execution of a criminal in France, one of the curious spectators climbed a tree in front of the guillotine in order to better see the spectacle. They wanted to first remove him from the tree, and for this reason they remembered well. Interestingly, just a year later, this man was executed in the same square and for the same crime committed by a criminal who was subjected to public execution.

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 just does not compensate for anything.

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. But, firstly, the conditions for serving the sentence can be made more acceptable, and secondly, if we are talking about a humane attitude towards the criminal, then it would be more correct to allow the criminal himself to choose the death penalty or life imprisonment. In general, only such an action should be considered humane (moral), for which the consent of the one (or those) whom it directly concerns is obtained.

5. The death penalty is the easiest and cheapest way to get rid of a criminal. The Russian jurist A.F. Kistyakovsky, who himself is a resolute opponent of the death penalty, wrote very succinctly on this subject: "Its only advantage in the eyes of the peoples is that it is a very simple, cheap and not mind-boggling punishment." This argument is not often stated openly, but it most likely marks the most genuine motive behind the death penalty. Through the death penalty, the state first of all frees itself from the criminal, showing visible strength in its actual weakness. Although this only proves that moral considerations are in last place here, used only as a cover. Thus, arguments in favor of the death penalty do not withstand moral scrutiny.

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. Citizens, thus, get an extra motive sometimes to act as guardians of justice themselves and, by committing lynching, to crack down on criminals (murderers), if they are of the opinion that government officials are very dishonestly fulfilling their duties. The proof of this corrupting influence of the death penalty is, in particular, the fact that it is practically perceived and used as a terrible vice.

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 to even find out who is acting as the executioner. The prosecutors who demand and the judges who pronounce the death sentence would never themselves agree to be its direct executors. Not to mention the legislators who instituted this measure of punishment, or the philosophers who justify it.

2. The death penalty is an anti-legal act. The basic principle of law is the balance of personal freedom

and the common good. The death penalty, which destroys the individual, also eliminates the legal relationship itself. This is no longer a right, but, as C. Becarria pointed out, "the war of a nation against a citizen." Legal punishment is invariably individualized, addressed purely to the culprit.

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 restitution of punishment is in effect, which gives permission to some extent to make cases where a miscarriage of justice is committed reversible. With regard 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 him for the harm caused by a legal error.

It should be noted that such errors are not uncommon. Scientists have calculated that, in particular, 349 death sentences were erroneously handed down in the United States alone, 23 of which have already been carried out. There is also a well-known case from Soviet practice, when, before the real murderer of the maniac was found, more than ten false killers were detained, many of whom "realized their guilt" and were sentenced to death.

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 that the criminal is completely incorrigible.

Experimental observations of scientists have shown that the death sentence often makes a deep spiritual upheaval in the person to whom it was intended. Sentenced to death begins to look at the world to a friend, 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.

It has been observed that judges who read out a death sentence feel an involuntary inner shudder. This fact, as well as the constant disgust for the profession of an executioner, the subconscious unwillingness of people to communicate with him, must be considered an implicit sign that the death penalty is in fact something unfair, deceitful. This is also evidenced by the inhuman horror associated with the murder.

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. Not only by the arguments that surround it, but also by the fact of its very existence, the death penalty tries to deceitfully bring to society the idea that murder can be a humane, reasonable act.

The relationship between the death penalty, murder and morality was very precisely formulated by VS Solovyov: "The death penalty is murder as such, absolute murder, that is, the fundamental denial of the fundamental moral attitude towards man."

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.

In many countries, including modern Russia, society as a whole is disposed to support the practice of carrying out the death penalty. Such an opinion sometimes has the power of historical inertia, is carried out to a greater or lesser degree of frankness by official ideology, and is embedded in various forms of spiritual culture.

Also, this opinion has deep roots in the historically formed emotional structure of a person. Murders, especially when they are carried out in cruel forms, cause resentment, which turns into a desire for revenge, behind which there is also a complete rejection of the murder, a desire to immediately and decisively end it. The extraordinary strength of this healthy emotional reaction completely drowns out the voice of reason.

Undoubtedly, the opinion of 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 caused sincere indignation in 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 there are gaps in these principles, too. And one of them is the death penalty. 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.

LECTURE #15

1. Bioethics and medical ethics. Hippocratic Oath

Bioethics is 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 the 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.

Are there limits to the provision of medical care, and what should they be in maintaining the life of a terminally ill person? Is euthanasia acceptable in modern society? From what time should the onset of death be counted? Since when can a human fetus be considered a living being? Are abortions allowed? These are some of the questions that confront the doctor, as well as society at the present level of development of medical science.

Bioethics is an interdisciplinary research direction that was formed 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 down by the "father of medicine" Hippocrates (460377-4 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 a standard for the construction of many modern ethical documents. In particular, the Oath of the Russian doctor, which was approved at the 1994th Conference of the Russian Association of Doctors in Moscow in November XNUMX, contains positions that are close in spirit and even in wording.

Paracelsus model ("do good")

Another model of medical ethics was formed in the Middle Ages. Its postulates were most clearly stated by the physician Paracelsus (14931541). Unlike the Hippocratic Oath, when a doctor wins the patient's social trust with his attitude, in the Paracelsian model, paternalism is the emotional and spiritual contact between the doctor and the patient, on the basis of which the treatment process is built.

In the spirit of the Middle Ages, the relationship between a doctor and a patient can be compared with the relationship between a spiritual mentor and a novice, since the concept of "pater" (Latin father) in Christianity also applies to God. The essence of the relationship between the doctor and the patient is determined by the good deed of the doctor, and the good, in turn, has a divine origin, for every good comes to us from above, from God.

Deontological model (principle of "observance of duty") Formed later. It is based on the principle of "observance of duty" (from the Greek. deontos "due"). 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 or even expulsion from the medical class.

Bioethics is also understood as the principle of "respect for human rights and dignity". Modern medicine, genetics, biology, relevant biomedical technologies have come very close to the problem of managing and predicting heredity, the problem of life and death of organisms, the control of many functions of the human body, even at the tissue, cellular level.

For this reason, the issue of respecting the rights and freedoms of the patient as an individual has become more acute than ever. Compliance with the rights of the patient (the right to information, the right to choose, etc.) is entrusted to ethical committees, which in fact made bioethics a public institution.

The considered historical models can be considered "ideal". Today, in practice, there are more realistic models that include some of the legal aspects of the described relationship.

Sometimes most of the problems appear in medical practice where neither the condition of the patient nor the procedures prescribed to him by themselves generate them. In daily contacts with patients, morally extraordinary situations generally do not arise.

The most important problem in modern medical ethics is that health care should be the right of every person, and not a privilege for a limited circle of people who are able to afford it. Today, as, indeed, in the past, medicine does not follow this path. Although this norm as a moral requirement is gaining more and more recognition today. Two revolutions played a big role: biological and social. The first revolution made health care a right for everyone. All members of society must be regarded as equal in that which is united with their human qualities by dignity, freedom and individuality. According to the human right to health care, the historically established models of moral relationships "doctor-patient" and the state of modern society, the following synthetic models of relations between a doctor and a patient can be considered acceptable.

Model "technical" type

One of the results of the biological revolution is the emergence 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 Only after the creation of the atomic bomb and the medical research of the Nazis, when no rights were recognized for the test subject (we are talking about experiments that were carried out on concentration camp prisoners), did humanity begin to realize the danger of such a position.

A real scientist cannot be above universal human values. When making important decisions, he also cannot avoid judgments of a moral and other value nature.

Sacred type model

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

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

In the works of medical sociology, one can find the position that images of the child and the parent invariably arise between the patient and the doctor.

Although paternalism in the range of values ​​deprives patients of the opportunity to make their own decisions, shifting it to the doctor. Thus, for a balanced ethical system, it is necessary to expand the range of moral standards that physicians must adhere to. 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. Protect 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 it seems to some that this may be harmful. The judgment of any group of people should not serve as an authority in deciding what is beneficial and what is harmful.

3. Protect human dignity. The equality of all people according to their moral principles implies that each of us has the main human virtues. Personal freedom of choice, complete control of one's body and one's own life contribute to the realization of human dignity.

4. Tell the truth and keep promises. The moral duty of the physician to tell the truth and keep promises made is as reasonable as it is 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. Observe justice and restore it. The social revolution increased public concern about the equity of distribution of basic health care.

Thus, if health care is a right, then this right should be for everyone. The negative feature of such a model is that the observance of all these principles is entrusted only to the doctor, which requires the highest moral qualities from him.

Unfortunately, now a similar approach in the provision of medical services is very difficult to implement due to the high level of discrimination on various grounds (material, racial, gender, etc.).

2. The problem of euthanasia

The 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.

In practice, a fairly clear classification of euthanasia is used.

Medical decision concerning end of life (MDEL). MDEL 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. Physician assisted sucide, or PAS, as well. In this case, the doctor makes 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.

This group also includes consciously informing a hopelessly ill patient about a lethal dose of the drug he is taking.

Currently, two opposing approaches to the problem of euthanasia have become widespread in society: liberal and conservative. Supporters of each of them give their arguments for euthanasia.

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 do not want to burden them with myself."

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

4. The biological 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. The principle of expediency, the termination of long-term 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. The economic treatment and maintenance of life of a number of hopeless patients is associated with the use of expensive medicines and devices.

The last three principles were already very widely used in fascist Germany: the state policy of extermination of the "inferior", the killing of the seriously wounded due to a shortage of medicines and hospital resources at the end of the war.

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 (discovery of new remedies 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 (if the choice falls on active euthanasia) or as condoning the patient's suicide (with passive euthanasia), which in any case is a crime of the laws laid down by God.

There are two very clear real-life examples of euthanasia in the literature that have generated a lot of public discussion. First of all, this is the scandal around the activities of Dr. Jack Kevorkian (USA) and the study of the true causes of death of homosexual men with AIDS in the Netherlands.

A dramatic story that took place in the United States and received a huge public outcry: for the period from 1990 to 1997. as a result of euthanasia, which was assisted by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, several dozen patients died, suffering from various forms of cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, Alzheimer's disease and other diseases that are incurable today. Jack Kevorkian even developed a special device for introducing poison into the patient's body.

It was used when the patient himself pressed a special button that set the entire mechanism in motion. And these are just the cases that the investigation was able to connect with the personality of Jack Kevorkian.

It also found that in the Netherlands, 2,1% of all deaths were preceded by a so-called medical end-of-life decision. Although euthanasia and PAS are allowed there in cases limited by law, the legality of their use is still under debate.

Many scientists believe that the incidence of euthanasia and PAS in terminally ill patients with AIDS should exceed the official 2,1%. Public attention was drawn to the analysis of data on the death of 131 male homosexuals. All of them in the period from 1992 to 1995. were diagnosed with AIDS, and they all died before January 1, 1995. The two variants of MDEL described above were equated with cases when natural death occurred (without any medical intervention), which could also shorten the life of patients.

A comprehensive study showed that 29 (22%) men died by euthanasia/PAS and 17 (13%) by other MDELs. 1/3 of these patients accepted the end-of-life medical decisions proposed by them.

Very significant differences were found in the age of patients at the time of their diagnosis: in the euthanasia/PAS group, 72% of patients were 40 years of age or older. At the same time, among those who died of natural causes, there were only 38% of them. This makes it possible to assume the presence of a relative risk of using the actual euthanasia or assisted suicide.

A likely explanation for the higher frequency of MDEL in these cases should be the awareness of patients about the course of AIDS and the ineffectiveness of modern methods of its treatment.

Thus, the known facts testify to the readiness of a number of doctors to assist in accelerating the onset of the patient's death, the readiness of a number of medical workers to assist in the rapid onset of the patient's death, and the readiness of certain categories of patients to accept the doctor's proposal for euthanasia.

This should make society seriously think about the real threat that in the near future it may turn to the moral model that F. Nietzsche described: "Sick parasite of society. In a certain state it is indecent to continue to live ...".

3. Organ transplantation and cloning: moral issues

During the XNUMXth century, people have repeatedly faced the immediate and extremely bad 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 medication side effects. 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 has faced another problem of trafficking in human organs.

The term "clone" means "twig", "escape". Cloning of plants, their vegetative reproduction was known to mankind more than 4 thousand years ago. Another thing is animal cloning! These works began in the middle of the XNUMXth century. The first experiments were carried out on amphibians.

Scientists have developed a microsurgical method for transplanting the nuclei of embryonic cells from one frog into the nuclei-deprived eggs of another individual. Normal tadpoles emerged from the embryos. Since the 1980s experiments began to clone rabbits, mice, cows and pigs. And in the 1990s. succeeded in cloning the sheep now known as Dolly the Sheep.

It developed from a sheep's egg, the nucleus donor of which was a mammary gland cell from another sheep. Dolly was an exact copy of the donor sheep.

Already during experiments on animals, scientists encountered negative side effects. First, only 80% of the tadpole embryos successfully developed, the rest died. Secondly, experiments with mice did not justify themselves at all, since most of the embryos died already in the early stages. Third, only 3% of the rabbits developed into normal animals, while others showed abnormalities.

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

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 sphere.

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? Who will be responsible for this?

Positive aspects of cloning are also put forward:

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 baby 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. There is a danger that unprincipled dictators will try to perpetuate their power by cloning themselves and thus gaining immortality. They can create an army of superhumans who will pose a threat to society. But this is still not an argument for a complete cessation of research! Under these conditions, laws are needed to regulate the ongoing processes. Since 2000, attempts at state regulation of processes have already taken place. In many countries, under public pressure, human cloning experiments have been suspended. But only restrictive measures are not enough.

Therefore, it is proposed to introduce the following restrictions by law:

1. Clones will have to be officially granted the same legal rights as any human being.

2. A currently living person cannot be cloned without their written consent.

3. A person can, at will, allow himself to be cloned after death.

4. Human clones can be carried, as well as give birth by women acting without coercion, of their own free will.

5. Prohibit the cloning of murderers and other violent criminals.

Author: Anikin D.A., Zubanova S.G.

We recommend interesting articles Section Lecture notes, cheat sheets:

▪ General surgery. Crib

▪ Theory of Government and Rights. Crib

▪ Foreign literature of ancient eras, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in brief. 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 Music tunes the child's brain for speech 28.04.2016 You cannot confuse ordinary speech with music, they are still quite different, but they have something in common, and this is common - rhythmic organization. Musical rhythm is quite an obvious thing, but speech sounds are not at all chaotic, they are distributed over syllables and words, and when we hear someone say something, we clearly feel the boundaries between syllables, words, parts of a sentence, which allows us to understand what we hear. In addition, according to some sources, the language in general is very deeply connected with music and even largely determines the structure of not only folk melodies and rhythms, but even author's musical works. But if there is so much in common between music and speech, can we improve speech understanding with the help of music? Psychologists from the University of Washington think we can - experiments have shown that musical exercises help tune the brain to language. The experiment itself looked like this: for thirty days, parents with nine-month-old babies regularly came to the laboratory to play with their children for 12-15 minutes under the supervision of researchers. In one group they played with ordinary toys - with cars, dolls, cubes, and in the other they played musical games in which it was necessary to follow the rhythm (moreover, the music was in the rhythm of a waltz, which was not easy for young children to follow). A week after the games were over, the parents and their children returned to the lab, this time using magnetoencephalography to determine the activity of different parts of the brain in infants. Sitting in the scanning device, the children listened to musical or speech fragments, and the rhythm of both speech and music was broken from time to time. In the PNAS article, the authors write that those who played music games had a stronger brain response to rhythm disturbances - this was seen in the activity of the auditory cortex and in the activity of the prefrontal cortex, which, among other things, controls attention and the ability to sense structure in that we perceive. If the brain feels interruptions in the rhythm, it means that in principle it heard it, learned it - otherwise it would not feel any changes. Of course, after musical games, one could expect that children would begin to perceive music better, but, as we see, the matter was not limited to music, as a "side effect" the brain began to respond more actively to the speech structure.

News feed of science and technology, new electronics

Interesting materials of the Free Technical Library:

▪ section of the site Visual illusions. Article selection

▪ article by Eleanor Roosevelt. Famous aphorisms

▪ What animal children are four times the size of their parents? Detailed answer

▪ article Maintenance of digesters. Standard instruction on labor protection

▪ article Who is faster? Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering

▪ article Indication of connecting electrical appliances to a 220 V network. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering

Leave your comment on this article:

All languages ​​of this page

Arabic	Hebrew	Polish
Bengali	Hindi	Portuguese
Chinese	Italian	Spanish
English	Japanese	Turkish
French	Korean	Ukrainian
German	Malay	Vietnamese

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

www.diagram.com.ua
2000-2024