Brief dictionary of moral concepts. What is morality in modern society and what are its functions? What does morality mean to me?

Hello, dear readers of the blog site. How often do we hear "This is immoral!" or "He has a low level of morality." What do these words mean? What is morality, why look for it in others and cultivate it in yourself?

Something about morality, spirituality and maybe even religiosity comes to mind. If not saints, then very good people are introduced - kind and wise.

General definition

The definition of morality appeared in our language in 1789 in the dictionary of the Russian Academy.

In fact, it is a set of attitudes, values, internal norms and rules that determine a person's behavior in a given situation.
These values are based on the ideas of justice, honor, dignity, compassion, kindness, honesty, peacefulness and other "good" categories.

A person absorbs all these concepts from childhood along with mother's milk, that is, he acquires in the family circle, then among friends, teachers and other significant adults. In other words, it acquires

Morality is something that is instilled in a person through education.

In this regard, its level may differ in different individuals, depending on what kind of people raised them. An evil mother is unlikely to teach a child to be sacrificial and patient with others, and an honest mother to steal.

Morality and morality in philosophy (ethics)

In everyday life, the terms morality and morality are used as synonyms, although in the philosophical paradigm (?) they are completely different.

The first means the internal beliefs of the individual - his own rules of behavior, formed in the process of growing up and becoming a personality. The second concept is the external norms that society requires us to comply with.

But this is not the only interpretation. In philosophy, the following definition of the difference between morality and morality is also found. First, let me remind you that both of these terms are the subject of study of the science of ethics - the basis on which its principles are built. Thus, about the moral and moral values of a person.

Must be (theory). This is what people get into when they study ethics. But after all, we are all different, and reading the same book can draw different conclusions. That's just morality determines in practice how well morality lay down in a person. In fact, these are the realizations of theory (morality) in practice.

Rules of morality

What do you need to do and what you need to be so that they say about you that you are a moral person? In fact, everything is simple:

address others with respect and by name;
smile kindly to the interlocutor;
be careful;
respect others;
be honest.

The most important thing that should be present in all these points is a sincere desire to behave in this way, to be like this not only outside, but also inside, that is, it must be in character.

Golden Rule

In addition to these qualities, there is a golden rule of morality, presented in the form of a wise parable, which says that once on the banks of a large river, a dialogue took place between a wise teacher and his follower. The student asked a question:

“Master, you know so much about goodness and peace, justice and spiritual purity. You say that people should be honest, work diligently and not be lazy, eradicate passions and vices in themselves, respect others, take care of their bodies, and much more. Can you put it all together and call it in one word?

The teacher became thoughtful, was silent for a long time, and then smiled and said:
“That word is reciprocity. And it means the following: treat others the way you want to be treated.»

This rule was called golden, it formed the basis of the concept of morality. It can also be expressed in other words: do not do to others what you do not want yourself.

Morality is a person's determination of his own values and respect for the same values that belong to other people.

Proverbs are worldly wisdom. For example, a phrase read in a hairdresser's when I was about six years old, probably, became a defining phrase for me. She said:

"Nothing is so cheap and valued so dearly as courtesy".

Even as a child, I was stunned by her genius, and what is remarkable, there is a real truth in it that helps me to establish contacts with people. How easy it is to be polite and how much it can give. Extra thanks, please. And do not say them, and the attitude towards you will be different.

As for the topic of morality, these proverbs and expressions are well suited here:

And here is some more folk wisdom:

What goes around comes around
Take care of your clothes again, and honor from a young age
To a good hello, kind and answer.
As we are to people, so are people to us.
For good, expect good, for bad, bad.
Doing evil, do not hope for good.
Whoever follows evil will not find good.
Good to sow - good to reap.
Virtue is rewarded.
As you lay down, so you sleep.
As it comes around, it will respond

Pay attention to how often and in different ways the golden rule of morality described above is played up in proverbs. Still, our people are amazingly smart. Wise!

moral education

In the personality (?) of moral qualities, their cultivation, of course, in the first place should be dealt with by the family in which the child grows up. Moms and dads, grandparents from the earliest years should instill in the baby the concepts of good and evil, good and bad deeds.

I think there are many different ways, but the main ones are:

personal example- the child copies the behavior of his parents, introduces it into his life strategy, so it is worth doing more good, good deeds. Even if an adult says that fighting is bad, but he fights himself, the offspring will not hear words (or from him), but will imitate actions;
reading good fairy tales, parables and proverbs about morality. Stories form imaginative thinking, emotions and feelings corresponding to it, which become the basis of the inner world.

A person who grew up in such conditions cannot be immoral. It is enough for adults to pay attention to this issue during childhood and school years - then this worldview becomes “ingrown” into the psyche, automatic. Changing it is difficult, and sometimes impossible.

Problems

Unfortunately, modern society is increasingly relegating morality to the far corner, putting it in personal benefits and interests. The latter force people to go over their heads towards their goals: to betray friends, to substitute relatives and friends.

It is believed that decline in moral and moral standards began with the First World War, when it was subject to depreciation. During the period of socialism, the burning of churches and the renunciation of God also dealt a big blow to human values.

At the moment, this problem has touched, which in turn led to the corruption of youth, a large number of children without fathers or even abandoned by both parents. The demographic crisis, crime are also the consequences of that decline.

People began to forget what morality is, the definition and essence of this concept. And it is foolish to think that someone else will solve this problem for us: everyone must start with himself.

Good luck to you! See you soon on the blog pages site

What are moral values?

Every citizen of the country must have in his head his own template and embodiment of values that can be called unusual. There is no right decision, each person has his own path and awareness of in which direction it is worth moving and where exactly to start your path. The thing is. that each person unconsciously tries to repeat the act or even the fate of another person. It's just that this is the psychology of each of us, we tend to make stereotyped decisions that often become disappointments. And in the creative years it is not easy at all, because a person, in fact, is a very vulnerable being and often gets lost in this or that situation, trying to find a way out of it. Loyalty instantly turns into hypocrisy, and kindness becomes deceit.

But what about morality? What is meant by this concept? Is it really the very understanding of life and the assessment of the actions of not only one's own, but also other people? This, in fact, is a special choice, in conscience, which a person makes consciously, on the one hand, but not on the other hand.

Characteristics of morality

Is it possible to characterize the concept of “morality” with one precise formulation? If there is such a term, it is definitely worth highlighting its key qualities that allow you to describe the word. The category of moral qualities includes: honesty, kindness, sincerity, decency, politeness and, most importantly, compassion. Each person can find in this series the qualities that he possesses. Do not forget that there is also love, with respect and mutual understanding. As one folk wisdom says, that there is no true love without mutual respect. Right now, you can consider this term on the example of certain professions, and it can be noted that a judge is justice, a soldier is courage, and for a doctor, the most important quality is compassion. Is it possible, with the help of some kind of leverage, to achieve the manifestation of these qualities in an adult or in a child? Thanks to education, you can do this, but moral education can be called a complex and at the same time an unusually purposeful process in which no pauses are allowed. You either educate a person every day, or you don't educate him at all. This is the close interaction between the pupil and the person who calls himself the educator.

How is a person's morality formed?

The teacher must have the very moral qualities that were listed above. To educate a moral personality will require a colossal amount of time, patience, and not every teacher can do this. You can ask quite a logical question, why not? It's just that everyone is convinced that it is his technique that is the most effective, but in this case it is better not to conduct any experiments. For such people, the new is often inaccessible, but only by combining several techniques can the desired result be achieved. The educator, first of all, must take care of himself and set a personal example in various life situations.

For example, each individual situation should be analyzed, explained and interpreted from the point of view of the methods used. Do not forget that there are a number of age-related characteristics of the individual and there must be a special readiness to perceive this or that information, analyze it, and also understand it. Everyone has morality, in one form or another. Only now, for some, she “sleeps” in a sound sleep, while for others she doesn’t, and anyone can wake her up. There are many ways to do this, you need to try to pay special attention to human behavior.

Morality and Morality

Usually morality is put on a par with morality, therefore they are often used as synonyms and most people do not even try to consider any difference in these two concepts. Morality is a set of certain principles, as well as standards of behavior of other people, which in various situations have been developed by society. Morality is a public point of view and if a person tries to follow the established set of rules, he can be characterized as a moral person. On the other hand, if he ignores the rules of morality, then his behavior is characterized as immoral.

It is also worth mentioning that now any religion calls every person to respect a number of basic moral values. But only in society, freedom and human rights are still at the head, so some commandments have gradually lost their relevance. Few people even go to church once a week and give to the service of the Lord. The crazy rhythm of life and a busy schedule sometimes does not allow you to escape from these vices. From this angle, you can safely consider each of the commandments. Classical values for each of us that directly relate to the values of property and human life remain in force.

Morality is a person's internal assessment of the norms of his behavior and his actions from the point of view of goodness. Moral is what a person sees in his actions not just as acceptable, but good and good. Immoral - bad, unacceptable, harmful, ethically ugly and unworthy of a person.

Morality is not characteristic of children: the concept of "good" for them is very vague, and they are not interested in looking at their behavior from any point of view. Children often live from the position of "like" - "not like", and not all, growing up, become moral people.

An ethical person treats morality as a guiding star: all our earthly turns make sense only insofar as we are on the right path. The moral meaning of any word and deed is the first thing such a person thinks about, what he is guided by, regardless of whether anyone looks at him or not.

But there are not many ethical people among ordinary people.

Are there many people among us who are interested in this, who choose to be decent? We are forced to disappoint: in Russia today there are fewer of them than in other European countries.

Ordinary people treat morality like a fence: let it be, until it gets in the way. We ourselves remember morality when someone violates our borders, and we are quite ready to climb over the fence when we really need or want to, but no one sees. Not every adult person is a moral person, depending on his awareness and development of positions of perception, a person looks at his behavior with different moral depth. With little awareness, a person can do bad deeds and not consider himself immoral precisely because he does not see or think about what he is doing. A person with stereotyped thinking instead of constant searches and fittings "is it good or not?" mindlessly accepts common formulas sometimes of not the highest quality.

What is "moral" and what is not - it can be very difficult to decide. Is lending moral or immoral? Good deed or not? Is sex before marriage acceptable or immoral? Can a man have four wives? In different cultures and at different times, these issues are resolved in very different ways.

The first position of perception prompts a person to formulas of morality such as: "Good is what is good for me. And everything that is against me is immoral."

Bushman's view: "If I stole the cows, that's good. If they stole my cows, that's evil."

The more developed a person's position of perception, the more people in his morality he thinks of the good for others. The following can be accepted as a general formula: "It is moral that which makes a person healthy and happy without causing significant harm to others. And that which deprives a person of happiness and harms his health is immoral."

Don't forget about other people. For example, if your behavior concerns not only you, then you need to take into account the interests of your partner. If what is happening concerns not only the couple, then the interests of others must be taken into account. Your freedom ends where another person's life begins. "The freedom of my fist ends in front of another person's nose."

Conflicts are very difficult when individual freedom collides with the conservative views of others. Frank, long and heartfelt kisses of a loving couple in a subway car seem to them their free right, but for an elderly lonely woman sitting next to them, it seems like wild promiscuity. It seems that mutual correctness is needed in these conflicts. Let people be brought up in your opinion wildly, but it is not necessary to beat their moral (moral) feelings with your freedom (in their perception - promiscuity). But also, no one needs to call obscene, immoral everything that goes beyond your usual and rigid limits, it is immoral in this case to be aggressive and stick offensive labels.

Morality is opposed not so much by pragmatism as by narrow-mindedness. A pragmatist can be a person of high morality if he realizes that this is beneficial to him, at least from the point of view of prospects.

A pragmatic leader can instill morality if he sees that it gives an increase in profit over time. If the pragmatist is not accustomed to and does not know how to look far, he is decent only in the area of observation of a policeman or out of habit.

Morality and Morality

Morality is often mistakenly identified with morality. But these two concepts, if you look, carry the opposite meaning. And although in some dictionaries morality is still interpreted as a synonym for morality, let's try to figure out why this is not worth doing.

Morality is a system of norms and values adopted in a particular society, designed to regulate the relationship of people.

Morality is the strict observance by a person of his internal principles, which at the same time bear a universal, universal character.

Morality and morality are fundamental philosophical categories that are under the jurisdiction of the science of ethics. But the meaning they carry is different. The essence of morality is that it prescribes or prohibits specific human actions or deeds. Morality is formed by society, and therefore it always meets the interests of a certain group (national, religious, etc.). Think about it, even crime families have their own morality! At the same time, they are necessarily opposed by another part of society - with its own foundations and norms, and from this it follows that there can be a great many morals at the same time. Usually, morality is fixed in a law (code), in which certain norms of behavior are enshrined. Each act of a person according to this law is evaluated by society negatively or positively. Interestingly, in the same society, morality can change beyond recognition over time (as, for example, happened in Russia in the 20th century), dictating directly opposite principles of behavior.

Morality, on the other hand, is unchanging in content and extremely simple in form. It is absolute and expresses the interests of man (and mankind) as a whole. One of the main moral guidelines is the attitude to another as to oneself, and love for one's neighbor, which means that morality initially does not accept violence, contempt, humiliation, infringement of someone's rights. The most moral act is the person who performs moral deeds without even thinking about it. He just can't act differently. Morality is aimed primarily at self-affirmation, and morality - at a disinterested interest in another person. Morality is closest to the ideal, to the universe.

Human morality

Morality is the desire of a person to evaluate conscious actions, the state of a person on the basis of a set of conscious norms of behavior inherent in a particular individual. The conscience is the spokesman for the ideas of a morally developed person. These are the deep laws of a decent human life. Morality is an individual's idea of evil and good, the ability to correctly assess the situation and determine the typical style of behavior in it. Each individual has his own standards of morality. It forms a certain code of relations with a person and the environment as a whole, based on mutual understanding and humanism.

Morality is an integral characteristic of a person, which is the cognitive basis for the formation of a morally healthy person: socially oriented, adequately assessing the situation, having an established set of values. In today's society, in general use, there is a definition of morality as a synonym for the concept of morality. The etymological features of this concept show the origin from the word "nature" - character. For the first time, the semantic definition of the concept of morality was published in 1789 - "The Dictionary of the Russian Academy".

The concept of morality combines a certain set of qualities of the personality of the subject. Primarily it is honesty, kindness, compassion, decency, diligence, generosity, empathy, reliability. Analyzing morality as a personal property, it should be mentioned that everyone is able to bring their own qualities to this concept. In people with different types of professions, morality also forms a different set of qualities. A soldier must necessarily be brave, a fair judge, a teacher an altruist. Based on the formed moral qualities, the directions of the subject's behavior in society are formed. The subjective attitude of the individual plays a significant role in assessing the situation in a moral way. Someone perceives civil marriage as absolutely natural, for others it is like a sin. Based on religious studies, it should be recognized that the concept of morality has retained very little of its true meaning. The ideas of modern man about morality are distorted and emasculated.

Morality is a purely individual quality that allows a person to consciously control their own mental and emotional state, personifying a spiritually and socially formed personality. A moral person is able to determine the golden measure between the self-centered part of his self and sacrifice. Such a subject is able to form a socially oriented, value-defined civic consciousness and worldview.

A moral person, choosing the direction of his actions, acts solely according to his own conscience, relying on the formed personal values and concepts. For some, the concept of morality is the equivalent of a “ticket to heaven” after death, but in life it is something that does not really affect the success of the subject and does not bring any benefit. For this type of people, moral behavior is a way to cleanse the soul of sins, as if to cover up their own wrong deeds. Man is a being unhindered in his choice, has his own course of life. At the same time, society has its own influence, is able to set its own ideals and values.

In fact, morality, as a property necessary for the subject, is extremely important for society as well. This is, as it were, a guarantee of the preservation of humanity as a species, otherwise, without the norms and principles of moral behavior, humanity will eradicate itself. Arbitrariness and gradual degradation are the consequences of the disappearance of morality as a set of trailers and values of society as such. Most likely, the death of a certain nation or ethnic group, if it is headed by an immoral government. Accordingly, the level of life comfort of people depends on the developed morality. Protected and prosperous is that society, observance of values and moral principles, in which respect and altruism, above all.

So, morality is internalized principles and values, based on which a person directs his behavior, performs actions. Morality, being a form of social knowledge and relations, regulates human actions through principles and norms. Directly, these norms are based on the point of view about the impeccable, about the categories of good, justice and evil. Based on humanistic values, morality allows the subject to be human.

In everyday use of expressions, morality and morality have the same meaning and common origins. At the same time, everyone should determine the existence of certain rules that easily outline the essence of each of the concepts. So moral rules, in turn, allow the individual to develop his own mental and moral state. To some extent, these are the "Laws of the Absolute" that exist in absolutely all religions, worldviews and societies. Consequently, moral rules are universal, and their non-fulfillment entails consequences for the subject who does not comply with them.

There are, for example, 10 commandments received as a result of direct communication between Moses and God. This is part of the rules of morality, the observance of which is argued by religion. In fact, scientists do not deny the presence of a hundred times more rules, they come down to one denominator: the harmonious existence of mankind.

Since ancient times, many peoples have had the concept of a certain "Golden Rule", which carries the basis of morality. Its interpretation has dozens of formulations, while the essence remains unchanged. Following this “golden rule”, an individual should behave towards others in the same way as he relates to himself. This rule forms the concept of a person that all people are equal in terms of their freedom of action, as well as the desire to develop. Following this rule, the subject reveals its deep philosophical interpretation, which says that the individual must learn in advance to realize the consequences of his own actions in relation to the “other individual”, projecting these consequences onto himself. That is, the subject, who mentally tries on the consequences of his own act, will think about whether it is worth acting in this direction. The golden rule teaches a person to develop his inner instinct, teaches compassion, empathy and helps to develop mentally.

Although this moral rule was formulated in antiquity by famous teachers and thinkers, it has not lost its relevance in the modern world. “What you do not want for yourself, do not do to another” - this is the rule in the original interpretation. The emergence of such an interpretation is attributed to the origins of the first millennium BC. It was then that a humanistic upheaval took place in the ancient world. But as a moral rule, it received its status of "golden" in the eighteenth century. This prescription emphasizes the global moral principle according to the relationship to another person within various interaction situations. Since its presence in any existing religion has been proven, it can be noted as the foundation of human morality. This is the most important truth of the humanistic behavior of a moral person.

Considering modern society, it is easy to notice that moral development is characterized by decline. In the twentieth century, there was a sudden fall in the world of all the laws and values of the morality of society. Moral problems began to appear in society, which negatively influenced the formation and development of humane humanity. This fall has reached even greater development in the twenty-first century. Throughout the existence of man, many problems of morality have been noted, which in one way or another had a negative impact on the individual. Guided by spiritual guidelines in different eras, people put something of their own into the concept of morality. They were able to do things that in modern society terrify absolutely every sane person. For example, the Egyptian pharaohs, who, fearing to lose their kingdom, committed unthinkable crimes, killing all newborn boys. Moral norms are rooted in religious laws, following which shows the essence of the human personality. Honor, dignity, faith, love for the motherland, for a person, fidelity - the qualities that served as a direction in human life, to which some of the laws of God reached at least to some extent. Consequently, throughout its development, it was common for society to deviate from religious precepts, which instilled in the emergence of moral problems.

The development of moral problems in the twentieth century is a consequence of the world wars. The era of the decline of morals has been stretching since the First World War, during this crazy time, a person's life has depreciated. The conditions in which people had to survive erased all moral restrictions, personal relationships depreciated exactly, like human life at the front. The involvement of mankind in inhuman bloodshed dealt a crushing blow to morality.

One of the periods when moral problems appeared was the communist period. During this period, it was planned to destroy all religions, respectively, and the moral standards laid down in it. Even if in the Soviet Union the development of the rules of morality was much higher, this position could not be held for a long time. Along with the destruction of the Soviet world, there was also a decline in the morality of society.

For the current period, one of the main problems of morality is the fall of the institution of the family. Which entails a demographic catastrophe, an increase in divorces, the birth of countless children in unmarried. Views on the family, motherhood and fatherhood, on the upbringing of a healthy child have a regressive character. Of certain importance is the development of corruption in all areas, theft, deceit. Now everything is bought, exactly as it is sold: diplomas, victories in sports, even human honor. This is just the consequences of the decline of morality.

The education of morality is a process of purposeful influence on a personality, which implies an impact on the consciousness of the behavior and feelings of the subject. During the period of such education, the moral qualities of the subject are formed, allowing the individual to act within the framework of public morality.

The education of morality is a process that does not involve interruptions, but only close interaction between the student and the educator. To educate a child's moral qualities should be by example. Forming a moral personality is quite difficult, it is a painstaking process in which not only teachers and parents take part, but also the public institution as a whole. At the same time, the age characteristics of the individual, his readiness to analyze, perceive and process information are always provided. The result of the education of morality is the development of a holistically moral personality, which will develop together with its feelings, conscience, habits and values. Such education is considered a difficult and multifaceted process that generalizes pedagogical education and the influence of society. Moral education involves the formation of feelings of morality, a conscious connection with society, a culture of behavior, consideration of moral ideals and concepts, principles and behavioral norms.

Moral education is carried out during the period of study, during the period of education in the family, in public organizations, and directly includes the self-improvement of the individual. The continuous process of educating morality begins with the birth of the subject and lasts throughout his life.

The problem of morality

The concept of "morality" comes from the root "nature" and appeared in the Russian language in the 18th century, becoming a synonym for the concept of "morality". Often the concepts of "morality" and "morality" are identified. But this is not true. Morality is an external factor that regulates human relations. Morality is those internal qualities of a person that determine the conformity of his behavior with the norms accepted in society. G.V. Plekhanov argued: “If a person draws all his sensations, knowledge from the external world and from the experience acquired from this world, then it is necessary, therefore, to arrange the world around him in such a way that a person receives from this world impressions worthy of him, so that he gets used to truly human relationships, so that he feels like a man. If rightly understood personal interest is the basis of all morality, then care must be taken to ensure that the interests of the individual coincide with the interests of mankind ... ". We see that morality in his understanding is all that a person acquires from experience and the world around him.

Morality is a philosophical concept, it is a person's internal assessment of the norms of behavior from the point of view of goodness. The moral is that which in the actions of a person is good and good, that which is the basis of humanity, and the immoral, in turn, is unacceptable, ethically ugly and unworthy of a moral person. This is a kind of unwritten inner law of the human soul, which he must follow and continue to observe in the course of his life. This is the law of kindness and responsibility, love, conscience, good being.

Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the true concept of "morality" is little known to modern society, primarily because the meaning is greatly distorted. We try to keep up with the times, we try to match the fashion, we speak as it is fashionable, we behave as our “standards” are attributed to us. It turns out that society propagandizes, imposes immorality on us? And it follows from this that it is not fashionable to be moral.

At one time, Heraclitus understood morality as wisdom, following natural laws, while Democritus considered the inner world of man. The ideal of morality for him is a sage who scorns the vanity of life. He said: "Not out of fear, but out of a sense of duty, one should refrain from bad deeds." Democritus emphasized such values as justice, truth, honesty, warm trusting relationships between people.

The youth has ceased to be ashamed of the topic of depravity. Moreover, living in a “civil marriage” has become the norm. We won't go far. Ask your grandparents: “Was it acceptable for a woman and a man to live without a stamp in their passport?”. There will be a definite answer. Now, on the contrary, “prodigal cohabitation” is supported, considering it to be beneficial for the couple. The concept of responsibility to the family is leveled, there is no experienced strong, inextinguishable family hearth. He lived, did not suit, left. It would seem that this is so? There is a new normal, after all we have pluralism. If you want - enter into a "civil marriage", if you want - keep chastity before the wedding. No one is forcing us to live according to the charter. You are responsible for your own actions. It is worth believing that because of such freedom in choice, a person loses a piece of morality.

Chastity is an absolute virtue. This is a kind of “pure soul”, which plays an important role in the formation of the soul and personality. The question arises: “Why is there such a tendency that it is a shame to be chaste?” In fact, many girls are ashamed to be such, not to mention guys. It turns out that young people are ashamed of spiritual and bodily purity. Today, such purity is rare, and should be valued even more. But, unfortunately, it is not appreciated, but on the contrary, it causes ridicule, as if it were some kind of ugliness. But ugliness in no way depends on a person, either he is born as such, or circumstances have developed. Keeping cleanliness is a personal choice.

Even Pitirim Sorokin wrote in his book: “... the sexualization of people's consciousness leads to the destruction of the family: an increase in divorces, an increasing inability to life together, the decline of parental love, the rejection of childbearing and the increase in the number of abandoned children. Since promiscuous sex life undermines the physical and mental health, morality and creative possibilities of its adherents, it has the same effect on a society, a significant part of which is depraved people. And the greater their number and the more depraved behavior, the more severe the consequences of this for the whole society. Thus, it adversely affects society, its moral state, ethics and its values.

Moral values are what in ancient times the Greeks called "ethical virtues", the ancient sages considered benevolence, justice and prudence to be valuable. And in Christianity, Islam, moral values are unambiguously associated with God, with faith and family.

The family is a very influential social community. First of all, it is the most important factor in the formation of a moral person, it passes on social experience from generation to generation, ethno-cultural traditions, thereby contributing to the moral education of society. And it is no secret to anyone that upbringing, orientation in culture and other most important categories of the human soul largely depend on family education.

Family tradition is a category that belongs to the process of creating by family members the norms and values that govern family life. Like morality, family traditions are an unwritten law. These traditions educate family members, affect the child's attitude to himself as a person, to other people and to the whole world. Family, social traditions and norms are certainly a kind of base in the process of moral education of children. Now imagine for a moment what will happen if the family ceases to observe these established traditions. It is not difficult to guess that the family will cease to exist, and if the family ceases to honor traditions, then society will give a “crack”.

Therefore, do not forget about public education. The younger generation is obliged to educate not only the family, but also society, in particular educational institutions. Of course, education in itself in no way guarantees a high spiritual and moral upbringing, since a person’s upbringing depends only on himself, it is manifested in everyday behavior, his attitude towards other people.

Thus, the education of youth morality and a decent cultural level is the most important task in the process of becoming a person.

Moral education by educational institutions is by no means an easy task, since the moral foundations in the family do not always coincide with the requirements of the school. In addition, this is painstaking work, the results of which are visible after a long time. Moreover, focusing education solely on morality is not correct. At the same time, it is necessary to develop the labor, mental, aesthetic, physical, creative and other abilities of the child. And this, as a rule, is a very serious and difficult task that falls on the shoulders of the educator.

In turn, the educator himself must meet the requirements of both professional and spiritual. Otherwise, what will an educator teach who does not observe cultural and moral traditions? And what is the demand for it?

Educational institutions in Russia have introduced programs that help students educate themselves both physically and spiritually. For the most part, they are aimed at patriotic education, at the joint work of the school and the family, at a healthy lifestyle, and the aesthetic development of children. The child must form internal incentives for the development of personality. He must instill in himself such qualities as duty, tolerance, love, mercy, honor, conscience, dignity and others. When a child is helped to cultivate all these qualities in himself, he perceives them much better. And when these feelings are brought up, the child correctly forms an attitude to the world around him.

In the process of growing up, an independent moral education falls on a person. Now he himself must be responsible for his actions and actions. By the time of growing up, he should have formed a system of moral values, which he will later teach his children. As a rule, among such values are love, family, kindness, happiness, the value of life, philanthropy and others. And depending on what values a person puts in priority, it is determined what his actions will be - moral or immoral. And therefore it is worth saying that morality is an exclusively independent choice of a person.

Foundations of morality

The life of every person is inextricably linked with such concepts as morality and spirituality. A moral person who lives in full accordance with the moral laws of human society and the Cosmos, which are described in all, without exception, great spiritual teachings (the Bible, the Koran, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Vedas, the works of the spiritual teacher O.M. Aivankhov, etc. .) achieves maximum harmony with nature and is able to reveal all his intellectual, creative or athletic abilities. So what is morality and spirituality? And how do these concepts affect a person's life?

The morality of a person largely depends on the presence of positive and negative character traits. Thanks to the positive (moral) qualities of character (honesty, kindness, diligence, mercy, justice, patience, masculinity, etc.), a person has the opportunity to live with a clear conscience according to the laws of God, and achieve his main spiritual destiny - likeness to God.

Negative (immoral) character traits (vanity, selfishness, pride, envy, malice, cruelty, etc.) determine the moral instability of a person and his lack of confidence in himself and life. An immoral person is unsure of the choice of his actions and behavior, and therefore is able to commit various kinds of crimes, to which the Devil tempts him. Immoral deeds are a direct path to the death of Soul and body.

Spirituality is inextricably linked with morality, since an immoral person cannot be spiritual. A person with a large number of positive qualities in the Soul is not characterized by the manifestation of immoral acts in society, and his individuality is spiritual. A person whose Soul is dominated by cruelty, cunning, unscrupulousness, deceit, greed and selfishness, in certain life situations, is always ready for an unseemly act, and is unspiritual in his individuality.

A moral and spiritual person has a healthy Soul, which determines not only the psychological, but also the physical health of a person. This is exactly what Teacher O.M. Ivankhov, when he argued that the most important thing is to learn how to live correctly. The ability to live correctly makes a person stronger, and allows you to gain spiritual and physical strength. Therefore, it is very important to strive to become a moral person, purifying one's Soul from vices, and, thanks to the purity of one's Soul, to fulfill one's main spiritual task - becoming like God.

In addition, one should not forget that after completing its earthly journey, the human Soul comes to Heaven, where it is presented with an account of spirituality and morality or lack of spirituality and immorality during human life. Their number predetermines where a person will go - to Hell or Paradise.

Examples of Morality

Only a morally developed person can carry out moral deeds. Examples of such can often be found in literary works or cinema, which carry a certain charge of wisdom to the reader and viewer. In any novel or story there are heroes whose behavior can be encouraged for courage, dedication, and ethics. Thus we learn about the sublime destiny of the individual.

All this takes place against the backdrop of a certain era, its way of life and ideas about right and wrong behavior. In order to make the reader think, the authors create situations in which the characters on the pages of books perform moral deeds. Examples abound in Tolstoy's War and Peace.

We can talk about a whole chain of difficult moral problems that are solved in the course of the story. Even looking at the life of one of the main characters, A. Bolkonsky, one can notice moments of perfect peace, which are replaced by military difficulties. He selflessly sacrifices his own life for the sake of his native land, which deserves all praise and approval.

Also, a lot about morality and spiritual purity can be learned from a large number of fairy tales. Take the same "Cinderella", written by Charles Perrault. The main character is hardworking, despite all the bullying, she helps her unloving relatives. There is no anger or hatred in her heart.

Of course, you should not let others push you around, but letting go of resentment is really a skill that everyone should learn. It is very important to keep peace and purity in the soul. This is a feat for the benefit of not only others, but also your own heart in the first place.

Life is full of sharp turns, but this should not knock a good man off his feet, he must remain strong and steadfast without losing his love for the world. Another storehouse of wisdom for children, and for adults, can be considered the story "The Scarlet Flower", written by Aksakov. There is also love for the father of the main character, and the ability to see things hidden behind appearance and bright attributes, to look into the inner world of even the most terrible monster.

Not only did Anastasia surrender for the sake of her relatives, she also managed to feel the brightest sides of the personality of her new owner, helped him return to balance and beauty. A truly pure, kind person can do this.

The system of values and aspirations of the individual must always remain harmonious and not interfere with the development of either a person or the world around him. It is necessary to cultivate pure convictions in oneself, strive for good goals, not go over heads, but achieve everything in legal ways, strive for self-development and show will.

Each person wants to express himself, but this must be done in constructive ways that do not destroy anything in the process. You are free to do as you please. Since every person deep down wants everyone to be happy and live in peace, you should listen to your deepest impulses, and you will find the right path.

Take a closer look at your surroundings, but always make the choice yourself, carefully weighing everything. Somewhere in the middle lies the desired balance, the golden mean, finding which you will find peace, happiness and psychological health.

Morality and health

To preserve and restore health, it is not enough to passively wait for the nature of the organism to do its job sooner or later. Do not rely on drugs as the only cure. First of all, you need to pay attention to the main components of your lifestyle. One who adheres to rational principles healthy lifestyle life, rarely resorts to medication.

A person must do something himself. For every action, a motive is needed - a vital impulse that determines the action to satisfy any human need. The totality of motives - motivation to a greater extent determines the way of life. Therefore, the motivation for a healthy lifestyle is very important for maintaining health. Health should take the first place in the hierarchy of human needs.

Installation (adjustment) for a long healthy life is an important objective factor of health. It is the focus on health that motivates positive goal-oriented behavior, where any achievement is seen as a victory. Maxim Gorky, whose difficult life was complicated by a serious illness, believed that willpower helps better than all medicines.

High demands on one's personal qualities are inseparable from the desire to maintain health. Issues of morality are inextricably linked with the requirements of hygiene. The moral level of a person to some extent serves as a measure of health. Morality is based on the inner conviction of people, their habits.

Moral instability contributes to an idle lifestyle. The morality of people prone to the use of alcoholic beverages suffers especially. It is the moral duty of every person to take care of the well-being of those close to him, in particular the health of family members. In turn, the family serves as a moral support for a person. An effective means of moral education of the younger generation is the example of adults.

Moral education should in many ways develop in children directness, sincerity, the habit of telling the truth, treating elders politely, and other useful habits. “A good habit,” wrote the famous Russian teacher K.D. Ushinsky, - there is a moral capital invested by a person in his nervous system, this capital grows incessantly, and a person uses interest from it all his life. And a bad habit is a morally unpaid loan, which is able to starve a person with ever-increasing interest, paralyze his best undertakings and bring him to moral bankruptcy.

The formation of the correct image of a person is influenced by proper physical education, the fulfillment of feasible labor duties, and respect for the work of adults. The upbringing of the moral qualities of the younger generation is easier done in a team. A positive factor contributing to the development of a person in moral terms is the correct sexual education. Lack of control over one's feelings and desires brings with it spiritual emptiness, physical fatigue, waste of health, and premature wear of the body. All this is on the way to a long and happy life.

The right way of life is available to everyone, its advantages are undeniable. To be healthy, you need to spend your youth wisely. Moderation and abstinence in the way of life of a person, a life that is alien to excesses and perversions, contributes to the preservation and increase of health reserves. Back in the XII century. the famous Syrian doctor A. Faradj wrote: “Moderation is nature's ally. Therefore, when you eat, when you drink, when you move, and even when you love, be in moderation.”

Of course, this requires great willpower of a person, the ability to control oneself, which helps to suppress weaknesses and subordinate one's desires to reason.

Law and Morality

Law and morality, or morality, are types of social norms, i.e. rules of socially significant behavior of members of society. These are the most important and widespread regulators of social relations. All social norms are closely interconnected, although they have their own specifics. For legal science, questions of the relationship between law and morality are of priority interest.

Ancient philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, Democritus, Cicero) pointed out the significance of these two types of norms, their similarities and differences. Russian scientists (V.S. Solovyov, I.A. Ilyin and others) emphasized that law is a minimum of morality or legally formalized morality. Law is a means of realizing the moral and humanistic ideals of society. Without morality, law is unthinkable.

So, law is understood as a system of obligatory formal norms that represent the will of the state, based on the ideas of goodness, justice, humanism, protected by the state will, the power of state coercion.

Morality, on the other hand, is a set of historically emerging and developing life principles, views, assessments, beliefs and norms of behavior based on them that determine and regulate people's relations to each other, society, state, family, team, and the surrounding reality. Morality includes psychological moments - emotions, interests, motives, attitudes, etc. However, the main thing in morality is the idea of good and evil.

Morality implies not only a value attitude of a person towards others, but also towards oneself, self-esteem, self-respect, awareness of oneself as a person.

The relationship between law and morality is quite complex. It includes such components as unity, difference and interaction of law and morality.

The unity of law and morality is that:

They are varieties of social norms, and therefore have a single normative basis;
- they ultimately pursue the same goals - the ordering and improvement of public life, the development of the individual, the protection of human rights, the promotion of the ideals of humanism and justice;
- have one object of regulation - public relations (only the volume is different), they are addressed to the same people, layers, groups, collectives;
- as normative phenomena, they determine the boundaries of the proper and possible actions of subjects, serve to harmonize the interests of the individual and society;
- are the most important tools for establishing and maintaining discipline and order in society;
- act as fundamental general historical values, indicators of the social and cultural progress of society.

The difference between law and morality is as follows:

Methods of establishment and formation. Legal norms are created or sanctioned, as well as supplemented, changed and canceled by the state. Therefore, law expresses the state will of the people and acts as a state regulator. Moral norms arise and develop spontaneously in the process of people's practical activities. For a moral norm to be recognized as having the right to exist, it is sufficient that it be recognized by the participants in social communication themselves. Morality has a non-state character;
- Methods of provision and nature of responsibility. Law is enforced and protected by the state through a coercive apparatus that monitors the implementation of the rule of law and punishes those who violate them. Illegal actions entail legal liability, the procedure for imposing which is regulated by law. Morality is based on the power of public opinion. Violation of moral norms does not entail state intervention. The issue of responding to violations is decided by the society itself, the public collective. The violator is subjected to moral condemnation, censure, measures of social influence are applied to him - reprimand, remark, expulsion from the organization, etc.;
- form of expression. Legal norms are enshrined in special legal acts of the state (laws, decrees, resolutions), grouped by sectors and institutions, systematized into codes, charters, collections that make up legislation. Moral norms arise and exist in the minds of people, do not have clear forms of expression. However, moral norms may be contained in literary and religious monuments, chronicles, manuscripts, may follow from the articles of laws. But still, morality is a relatively free, internally unsystematic education;
- the nature and ways of influencing the consciousness and behavior of people. Law regulates the relationship of subjects in terms of their legal rights and obligations, legal and illegal, legal and illegal. Morality - from the standpoint of good and evil, honest and dishonorable, noble and ignoble, conscience, duty, etc. Therefore, the norms of law, in comparison with the norms of morality, are more detailed, accurately indicate the desired option of behavior, are distinguished by clarity, formal certainty, and establish a sanction in advance;
- the scope and level of requirements for a person. Morality regulates a much wider range of social relations than law. Law regulates only the most important areas of the life of society (power, property, justice, etc.), leaving such relations as friendship, love, partnership, etc. outside the framework of regulation. Moreover, the intrusion of law into these spheres would be anti-democratic, inhumane. Morality, on the other hand, penetrates into all cells of society; all types and forms of human relationships are amenable to its assessment. Accordingly, the level of requirements for human behavior is higher in morality, although the law provides for rather severe sanctions. Morality condemns any form of dishonesty, lies, slander, does not tolerate any antisocial behavior, reconciles people's actions with the category of conscience, commands to observe not only the law, but also duty;
- historical fate. Morality is older than law, it has always existed and will exist in society, while law appeared only with the formation of the state.

Law and morality closely interact with each other. They support each other in streamlining social relations, positively influencing the individual, shaping legal and moral culture and legal awareness among citizens. Their demands largely coincide: what encourages law also encourages morality. Law and morality are united in the negative assessment of offenses, especially crimes. Law prescribes the observance of laws, morality achieves the same, and this is not surprising, because law is based on morality. Sometimes legal norms directly follow from moral ones: “do not kill”, “do not steal”, “do not bear false witness”. Law and morality "cooperate" in the administration of justice, the activities of justice and law enforcement agencies. The power of laws is increased a hundred times if they are based not only on power, but also on morality. In turn, the operation of morality, as well as other social norms, to a large extent depends on a well-functioning legal system.

However, sharp contradictions, collisions, and discrepancies often arise between law and morality. In general, no society has yet been able to reach the heights of morality, just as law has never expressed the fullness of moral imperatives. Contradictions are already in the very specifics of law and morality, in their above-mentioned differences, in the fact that law is more conservative, while morality is mobile and dynamic. In addition, discrepancies are caused by the complexity and inconsistency of life situations themselves. Although the law is based on morality, this does not mean at all that the law automatically consolidates all the trends of morality. For example, there are "immoral" rules of law, such as the death penalty; court decisions may differ from the moral assessment of the situation.

Today, the moral foundations of our existence have been undermined, legal and moral nihilism is flourishing. Contradictions between the right and morality have become aggravated. The threshold of moral requirements for the individual has been lowered. Overcoming these phenomena is a prerequisite for the social, legal and spiritual revival of Russia.

The essence of morality

Knowing moral values, it is not difficult to follow them, the main thing is to want to. A person who understands that one cannot survive in the world alone, and a lonely life is not so good, will not create conflicts from scratch. This means that he follows some established rules, lives in such a way as not to infringe on his rights, but also not to interfere with others. Moral behavior is morality.

What is the point?

It so happened that all over the world moral values are almost the same. All of them are aimed at the highest human ideals, such as: respect for elders, love for one's country, charity, loyalty and devotion, helping others, honesty, diligence. In fact, all values are expressed either in "kindness to others", or in "work for your own benefit without harm to others."

What do values give us, except for the rules that must be followed:

Law. The code of any country says one thing: treat another well, otherwise punishment will follow. Moral values are a set of rules that help to live together in society and manage people's lives. Without such laws, the world would turn into chaos;
Clear conscience. If you do not harm anyone, then there will simply be no feeling of guilt;
Pride. Satisfaction with yourself and your actions aimed at improving the lives of others. It is always pleasant to do selfless good;
Good relationships and connections. People love good people. It is obvious that following moral standards is simply beneficial;
Health. A person who strives to become better, does good and loves the world, has better health, because he is not subject to stress, depression, negative destructive emotions.

Despite the obviousness that following moral values is primarily good for oneself, many consider this to be a suppression of the will, limits, boundaries that block the path to freedom. However, when faced with a bad attitude towards themselves, they are surprised, angry, upset, even revenge.

The conclusion is simple: there is no need to obey the rules, just behave towards others the way you would like them to behave towards you.

moral education

Moral education is the formation of concepts, judgments, feelings and beliefs, skills and habits of behavior that correspond to the norms of society. Previously, they used to say more simply: "education of morals", hence the name.

From the point of view of practical psychology, behind the words "moral education" is the practice of social learning, which is carried out by quite traditional methods: through teaching and accustoming, the development of moral habits, by demonstrating attractive examples and through organizing the environment of the moral environment, where moral norms with the help of a mechanism social infection becomes the property of all members of a particular community.

Traditionally, there are differences in the male and female approach to the education of morality: the female approach focuses on care, mercy, compassion, pity and other values of the humanistic approach (V.A. Sukhomlinsky’s approach), while the male approach prefers the approach of moral duty: exactingness , order and responsibility (A.S. Makarenko's approach).

The specific content of moral education largely depends on a particular country, a particular society, a particular school, and even a particular family, where the education of this very morality takes place. In a religious society, moral education will primarily take care of observance of religious precepts, respect for religious texts and religious hierarchs; in a secular society, respect for the law, the police and, in general, for adults who support accepted norms and orders in society.

One can argue whether people are born initially good or not (most likely, people are born different), history shows that if morals are not specially educated, people only deteriorate. Living a moral life like decent people is a bit of a strain, but ordinary people always want to live easier and simpler. And when they are left behind, they make their lives easier. Morals are declining.

Men stop shaving, women stop combing their hair, everyone starts cursing and believing that someone else is to blame for all the troubles...

Who is involved in maintaining or educating morality? Those who are interested or profitable. The history of mankind remembers many people who set a fairly high bar for moral life: these are the founders of world religions (Christ, Mohammed, Buddha), and many worthy people who did it simply because they considered it their personal duty. We will name only those who are better known to our readers: Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, in Russia - Seraphim of Sarov, Leo Tolstoy ... To one degree or another, if not about education, then at least maintaining morality has always been cared for by the state and the church. The state is purely economically interested in the better observance of laws and the reduction of criminality; in addition, the education of patriotism, traditionally a part of moral education, strengthens the power of the state and contributes to the success of its foreign policy. The church is obliged to deal with issues of morality in accordance with its charter, although to a greater extent it does not care about morality in general, but specifically about the churching of parishioners.

The religious life of Israel clearly shows that there is no mutual understanding between the religious fanatics of Judaism and the supporters of a respectable, moral life. If you think that men and women can be together in a public place, or if you decide to work on Saturday, even for the benefit of people, you may be in big trouble. You will be stoned because religion and morality are not the same.

In modern Russia, almost the only serious force of secular moral education is, oddly enough, business. In a situation where neither the family nor the school is involved in moral education, business has to take it upon itself: from incomprehensible boys and girls who come to work to bring up responsible and decent people who can be entrusted with projects and who can interact in a civilized manner with other civilized people: they can negotiating and fulfilling agreements, are able to prevent conflicts with difficult people and meet clients with sincere goodwill.

moral standards

Moral norms are a set of all types of relationships between people that arise in the process of living together. Moral norms are a social concept, as they affect the problem of living an individual in human society. They, in fact, represent the requirements that society imposes on each individual person. It is society that determines how relationships between its members should be built. Society also makes an assessment of human behavior. Very often these assessments do not coincide with individual ones: what an individual considers good for himself can cause a negative assessment of society, and, conversely, society often forces a person to do what is undesirable for him.

The fact that moral norms are of a social nature has developed historically. After all, the moral consciousness of a person is formed under the influence of his environment, on the basis of moral ideals and moral authorities. Therefore, we can say that norms are something that exists outside of a person, but is directed at him. But the picture would be incomplete, if not to say that by absorbing norms from the outside, a person begins to become aware of them, fix them in his mind, and, ultimately, they become part of himself. Thus, moral norms are an interweaving of social attitudes and the personal consciousness of each person.

Moral norms determine human behavior, and society makes an assessment of it - whether it is moral or immoral. There are no clear and fixed criteria for such an assessment; at different times, the same moral norms were considered moral and immoral.

Moral norms in society exist in the form of prohibitions and commands. Prohibitions have a negative form and represent those norms of individual behavior that are undesirable for society as a whole. Commands, on the contrary, have a positive form and give a person freedom in choosing the type of behavior within the framework of generally accepted norms. Historically, prohibitions have always preceded commands. Cohabitation of individuals in human society requires some suppression of the individualism of each person, which can become dangerous for society, on which relationships of assistance and mutual assistance between people are then built.

Development of morality

Morality (the ability to make moral judgments) is closely related to cognitive development.

Its levels (according to the theory of the French researcher L. Kolberg) have the following gradation:

1. Pre-moral (up to 10 years).
2. Conventional (from 10 to 13 years old): orientation to the principles of other people and to laws.
3. Postconventional (from age 13): a person judges behavior based on their own criteria.

In addition, there are a number of stages:

1. At the first stage, the child evaluates the deed as good or bad in accordance with the rules he has learned from adults; he tends to judge actions by the importance of their consequences, and not by the intentions of a person (“heteronomic morality”), the judgment is made depending on the reward or punishment that this act may entail.
2. At the second stage, an action is judged in accordance with the benefit that can be derived from it, and the child begins to judge actions according to the intentions that caused them, realizing that the latter are more important than the results of the committed act (“autonomous morality”).
3. The third difference: the judgment is based on whether the act will receive the approval of other people or not.
4. At the fourth stage, the judgment is made in accordance with the established procedure and the official laws of the society.
5. In the fifth stage, the justification of the act is based on respect for human rights or recognition of democratic decision making.
6. At the sixth stage, an act is qualified as right if it is dictated by conscience, regardless of its legality or the opinions of other people.

Kohlberg notes that many people never get past stage four, and stage six reaches less than 10% of people aged 16 and over.

According to the research of Carol Gilligan, the moral principles of men and women differ (for the former they are based on self-affirmation and justice, while for the latter they are more focused on caring for another person and self-denial) and the development of morality takes place in different ways.

In women, it consists of 3 levels, between which there are transitional stages:

The first is self-preoccupation, or selfishness. A woman is focused on satisfying her desires, and she is interested in those who are able to satisfy her needs and provide for her existence. In the transitional stage (usually after marriage), a woman is still focused on her well-being. But it can also take into account the interests of other people, as well as the ties that unite it with them.
The second level is self-sacrifice (usually after the birth of a child). A woman strives first to satisfy the needs of other people (child, husband), and then her own or refuses her desires, behaves in accordance with the expectations of other people, focusing on caring for her neighbor and self-denial. During the transitional phase, she tries to balance meeting the needs of others, for whom she continues to feel responsible, and taking into account her own.
The third level is self-respect. Reaching it, a woman understands that only she herself is able to make a choice regarding her life, if it does not harm people connected with her by family or social ties. She begins to take into account her own needs more and more, but not to the detriment of others. In this sense, the third level of moral consciousness develops into the morality of non-resistance.

Laws of morality

There are various systems of ethics: the ethics of Ancient Greece, the ethics of Hinduism, the Confucian ethics. Each of them offers its own model of morality, bringing to the fore a limited number of key, all-encompassing concepts: humanity, respect, wisdom, etc. Such concepts receive the status of moral principles, or laws on which the building of ethics rests.

All other, private moral concepts are grouped around moral laws, performing the functions of their internal justification and argumentation. For example, humanity as a moral principle or law is based on such concepts as compassion, sensitivity, attentiveness, willingness to forgive or help. The moral law of reverence is realized through respect, delicacy, modesty, obedience, tact, reverence for the world.

Different systems of ethics use a different set of moral laws. In ancient Greece, courage, wisdom, and justice were among the main moral principles (cardinal virtues). In Confucian ethics, common in China and Japan, there are five so-called constancy: humanity, justice, decency, wisdom, honesty. Christian ethics puts faith, hope, mercy in the first place.

Moral philosophers sometimes offer their own model of morality. For example, the famous Russian philosopher of the nineteenth century. V. S. Solovyov put forward the idea of three main virtues: shame, pity, reverence. The basis of the model proposed by the German-French thinker A. Schweitzer (1875-1965) is the value of life as such, and from here he derives one all-encompassing moral law - "reverence for life."

Schweitzer writes: "A man is truly moral only when he obeys the inner impulse to help any life he can help, and refrains from doing any harm to the living."

We are talking about the main, universal laws that are repeated in one combination or another in various systems of ethics. The value of these laws lies in the fact that they fix the most important moral duties in moral experience. They serve as designations for the constant states of consciousness that have developed in the process of education: humanity, justice, respect, rationality, etc. These are virtues that Aristotle called "habitual inclinations" to commit moral acts. It is known that the ways (means, techniques) of implementing each moral principle are very diverse. They depend on the individual characteristics of a person, on the conditions and circumstances of a particular life situation, on the traditions of moral thinking and behavior that have developed in a given society. Let us dwell on the five moral principles that are most often encountered in systems of secular ethics and reflect the most important and best that has been deposited in the moral experience of mankind - humanity, respect, reasonableness, courage, honor. Well-established functional connections are established between them in the sense that each of them supports, enhances and expresses everything else. These principles, while retaining relative independence, are significant only as a means of the most complete, accurate and successful implementation of the principles of philanthropy. Reverence ensures benevolence and respect in contacts with the world, courage organizes and mobilizes the efforts necessary to achieve moral goals, the role of intellectual censorship of behavior is assigned to reason, and sensual-emotional to honor.

Humanity is a system of positive, unifying feelings and reactions: sympathy, understanding, sympathy. In its highest manifestations, it includes a conscious, kind and unbiased attitude not only towards people, but also towards nature, flora and fauna, and the cultural heritage of mankind. This is the ability and readiness of the individual to transfer the natural love for himself and his loved ones to other people, to the whole world around him, bearing an overanimal character.

There is a common obligation for the inhabitants of our planet: in any, even the most difficult situations, to remain human - to behave in accordance with the moral level that people have risen to in the process of evolution. “If you are a man, then behave like a man” - this is the universal formula of moral and anthropological identity. The duty of humanity is a kind and active participation in everything that happens around. This is loyalty and conformity to oneself, one's social nature. No one can be considered human just because he does not harm anyone. Humanity as a property of a person is made up of everyday altruism, of such acts as understanding, gain, service, concession, favor. This is the ability to enter into the situation of other people, to help them at least with good advice and words of participation. After all, situations when people need moral support are not so rare. Sometimes sympathy is the same as helping with a deed.

The nutritious internal environment of philanthropy is the complicity inherent in human nature, compassion, empathy. In the language of psychology, this is empathy - the ability to enter into someone else's emotional state of a person, to sympathize with him. Empathy is characterized as a "warm entry" into the role of another person, in contrast to the "cold entry", when it is not accompanied by sympathy and goodwill. In accordance with the idea and general orientation of humanity, sympathy should be assessed as a moral obligation and an important moral quality of a person, opposite to such properties as callousness, heartlessness, moral deafness.

Of course, we respond to the experiences of other people not only because of purely emotional responsiveness, but involuntarily. Empathy is formed and maintained through the efforts of the will, under the control of moral principles and rules. In order to enter the personal world of another person, to share his joy or sorrow, you sometimes have to overcome yourself, leave aside your own worries and experiences. Being empathic is difficult, it means being responsible, active, strong and at the same time subtle and sensitive (K. Rogers). Hence the concept of the development of "personal power" (personal power) put forward by him in the process of personality-centered upbringing and education.

In everyday life, a significant part of empathic actions is performed almost automatically, out of habit. They are among the so-called simple volitional actions, correlated with simple norms of morality. Simply put, in such cases, we behave in the proper way, humanly out of habit, perceiving this as something quite natural and not burdensome.

Outside of interpersonal connections and relationships, there is a clearly defined, largely highly institutionalized layer of the culture of empathy associated with the creation of a human-friendly living environment in the construction of residential and industrial premises, the design of industrial products, the greening of cities, etc. Various aspects of not only natural , but also of the man-made environment, in order to find out to what extent it meets the national and universal standards of an empathic, aesthetic attitude to the world. In a word, there is, and quite realistically, a powerful layer of culture, formed under the influence of sympathy, empathy, mutual assistance. We call it a culture of empathy, meaning by this a system of principles and norms developed by mankind, sympathetic, understanding, aesthetically sustained thinking and behavior.

Remaining a well-organized and coordinated whole, the culture of empathy is clearly divided into an individual-personal and socially oriented culture of empathy. In the first case, we are talking about the skills and abilities of empathic thinking and behavior of an individual. Empathy acts here as an important personal property, and in such cases one speaks of the character of an individual: his kindness, responsiveness, sensitivity. In contrast, a socially oriented culture of empathy is a characteristic of society as a whole. It includes a system of standards for a prosperous life, approved and supported by the state.

Sensitivity occupies a special place in the complex palette of moral concepts and feelings that make up philanthropy. As one of the personality traits, sensitivity is an alloy of moral attention, moral memory and moral understanding.

Moral attention is an ethical interest or a special form of curiosity or inquisitiveness, the ability to identify, recognize the experiences or states of a person and respond to them in a kind, human way. Mere observation is not enough for this; requires morally motivated, heartfelt attention. No wonder they say that the eyes look and see, but it is the heart, the soul that truly recognizes and highlights the joy or sadness of another person. Moral attention sets a certain tone, a certain, ethically verified direction of external attention, contributes to the formation of a special type of personality that subtly feels the feelings of people. The manifestations of moral or positive attention include questions about health used in communication, congratulations on a joyful event, condolences, all kinds of warning gestures, movements, and actions. In all cases, this is concern for other people, a pleasant and flattering evidence of significance for them.

Gratitude is Important integral part humanity. This is a manifestation of attentiveness, sensitivity, nobility, indicating that a good attitude is noticed, accepted, appreciated. Gratitude implies a willingness to return kindness for kindness, love for love, respect for respect. Ingratitude destroys this harmony and deals a significant blow to the foundations of morality. Therefore, not a single significant good deed, word, or impulse should be left without attention, without a moral response.

Gratitude not only completes the building of humanity, it expands the horizons of philanthropy, acts as a spring that accumulates the necessary spiritual and moral energy, and sets in motion the mechanism of new benefits. If gratitude falls out of the moral system, humanity will lose much of its inner strength and energy. As a result, this can so weaken the motivation for philanthropic deeds that it becomes tantamount to the destruction of morality. It was not in vain that I. Kant emphasized that gratitude bears the seal of special responsibility, responsibility for the state and fate of morality as a whole. He believed that gratitude should be regarded as a sacred duty, that is, a duty, the violation of which (as a shameful example) can, in principle, destroy the moral motive of beneficence.

The paradox, however, lies in the fact that ethics obliges to do good deeds without counting on gratitude, so as not to reduce, not to destroy the moral value of the act. They say: "Do good and forget about it." Having helped someone, it is unworthy to complain that you were not thanked for it; It is indecent to remind a person of the services rendered to him. Even in a conversation with third parties, one should avoid reporting one's good deeds. There is a contradiction between noble self-sacrifice and the expectation of gratitude.

Such a contradiction affects the foundations of the inner world of the individual and requires its resolution. It is recommended to displace information about your own good deeds and not to forget about the good deeds of other people, and above all about the services rendered to you personally. In the end, it all comes down to ensuring that everyone knows, remembers, and appropriately fulfills his duty of humanity and gratitude, and, if possible, concentrates on the kind attitude of those around him, and not on the extent and form in which his own deeds are recognized.

Reverence is usually associated with politeness, benevolence, courtesy, good manners, which generally correctly reflects the essence of this moral principle.

But the philosophical understanding of respect is wider than the ordinary. This concept contains a respectful, reverent, poetic attitude towards the world as a miracle, an invaluable, divine gift. The principle of respect obliges us to treat people, things, natural phenomena with gratitude, accepting all the best that is in our life. On this basis, in ancient times, various kinds of cults were formed: the cult of trees, the cult of iron, the cult of animals, the cult of heavenly bodies. In fact, they reflected a reverent attitude towards the universe, a small part of which is every person who is called to become a useful link in the world. In a famous poem by N. Zabolotsky, this is said about this:

Link to link and form to form. The world in all its living architecture is a singing organ, a sea of pipes, a clavier, Not dying either in joy or in a storm (Metamorphoses).

The ethical immunity of a person (in our understanding) is an unconditional human right to respect, regardless of age, gender, social or racial affiliation. A personal legal field of the individual is established, into which no one should interfere, any encroachment on the honor and dignity of a person is condemned.

Ethical immunity establishes equality of rights to the elementary respect and recognition of every person, whether it be a high-ranking official, a child or a beggar tramp. This is how a democratic character structure is formed, in which, according to A. Maslow, the central place is occupied by "the tendency to respect any human being just because it is a person." Taking into account and under the control of ethical immunity, generally accepted rules of mutual treatment arise, develop and operate, a certain level or the necessary minimum of ethical legality is maintained.

Morality attitude

Moral relations are the relations that develop between people when they realize moral values. Examples of moral relations are relations of love, solidarity, justice, or, on the contrary, hatred, conflict, violence, etc. The peculiarity of moral relations is their universal character. They, unlike law, cover the entire sphere of human relations, including the relationship of a person to himself.

As already noted, it is pointless from a legal point of view to judge a suicide, but from a moral point of view, a moral assessment of a suicide is possible. There is a Christian tradition to bury suicides outside the cemetery behind its fence. The problem for ethics is the moral attitude to nature. The problem of nature in ethics appears as a scandal. By the "ethical problem of nature" we mean the problem of analyzing what constitutes morality, the goodness of nature itself, as well as the problem of analyzing the moral attitude to nature, in general, everything that is connected in morality and ethics with the natural factor. Beginning with Aristotle, the proper ethical analysis of morality had as its main subject a person, his virtues, his behavior and attitudes. And therefore it is logical that for such a "properly ethical" approach, nature at best could be perceived as certain natural moral feelings, as innate transcendental imperatives of the mind. Nature in itself, as well as our living smaller brothers, turned out to be of no interest for ethics, the attitude towards nature seemed adiaphoric. But such an attitude towards nature is contrary to our moral feelings, our intuition of good and evil. We will always see a certain meaning in Eastern ethical teachings that preach love for all living things, the Christian prayer “Let every breath praise the Lord”, in the noble principle of “reverence for life”. It is impossible not to recognize the evidence of truth expressed in the following beautiful words: “A man is truly moral only when he obeys the inner impulse to help any life that he can help, and refrains from doing any harm to the living. He does not ask how much this or that life deserves his efforts, he also does not ask whether and to what extent she can feel his kindness. For him, life is sacred. He will not pluck a leaf from a tree, he will not break a single flower, and he will not crush a single insect. When he works at night by a lamp in the summer, he prefers to close the window and sit in stuffiness so as not to see a single butterfly that has fallen with burned wings on his table. If, walking down the street after rain, he sees a worm crawling along the pavement, he will think that the worm will die in the sun if it does not crawl to the ground in time, where it can hide in a crack, and transfer it to the grass. If he passes by an insect that has fallen into a puddle, he will find time to throw a piece of paper or a straw to him to save him. He is not afraid of being ridiculed for being sentimental. Such is the fate of any truth, which is always ridiculed before it is acknowledged." It is also necessary to comprehend the fact of the beneficial influence of nature on man. Forest, mountains, sea, rivers, lakes not only physiologically, but also spiritually heal a person. A person finds comfort and relaxation, inspiration in nature, in communion with it. Why do our favorite places in the forest or on the river bring us such joy? Obviously, this is connected not only with associations and previous impressions that awaken in the mind with familiar images, but the familiar paths, groves, glades, steeps that we perceive, bring peace to our soul, freedom, spiritual strength. If there is no positive moral value in nature itself, in its creations, then such a fact of its spiritual and healing function remains rationally inexplicable. Another fact that we believe indirectly testifies to the morality of nature is the ecological problem.

But, similarly, the environmental explosion became a reality because initially the moral value of nature itself was “destroyed” in the minds of people. Man ceased to realize that in nature there is both good and evil. Ethics also has a certain fault in this, which, striving for scientificity, also shared the shortcomings of science, in particular the one that “science always encounters only what is allowed as an accessible subject by its way of representation.” This is the limitation of any ecological analysis. Ecology studies nature by methods accessible to it, and, above all, by empirical ones, but for which the transcendence of nature itself is inaccessible. This in no way means that environmental studies are not needed - no, they are necessary both from a theoretical and practical point of view. However, they can and should be supplemented with philosophical, ethical studies addressed to a different, axiological layer of natural existence, which are also naturally limited in their own way. The choice of a person as a conscious emotional being is always of an interested, valuable nature, and what has no value for a person cannot move him to work. Environmental data, in order to become an imperative of human behavior, must themselves "become" values, the subject must still see their value aspect. Ethics, starting from concrete scientific material, should help a person to realize the value of the world around him. It is possible and necessary to talk about the morality of nature, living and inanimate, as the totality of its moral values, about the moral attitude of man to nature, but it is pointless to raise the question of the morality of nature itself, meaning by the latter a system of certain values of good and evil, coupled with a certain consciousness, relationships, actions. Nature is not a living being, it is not spiritualized, it has no freedom of choice either in good or in evil. Man seems to be morally undeveloped precisely in relations with nature. And this is already manifested in our modern language, in which there are simply no words to designate the values of inanimate and living nature. There is a very important problem of improving the language through the development in it of the "language of morality", which can reflect the whole world of moral values. And here it is possible and necessary to use the language of our ancestors, who were closer to nature, perceived it more syncretically, through the unity of sensual, rational and intuitive forms. We must turn to the experience of the peasants, who are not as alienated from nature by rational culture as modern man. But this appeal must be critical, taking into account the moral discoveries of culture. It is impossible not to admit that "inanimate nature" has "revealed" and will still "reveal" to man the infinite variety of its objects, their connections, although the limitations of this uniqueness and unity are undeniable. Infinite diversity here appears as a boring monotony, deadening, evoking melancholy and even horror in its similarity to an undeveloped, small individuality. So boring is the gray desert, blinding with light and suffocating with heat, although its billions of yellow grains of sand do not absolutely repeat each other. Just as majestic, but also boring is the snow-covered tundra, monotonous in the white color of its myriads of sparkling snowflakes, between which there are also no identical ones. Majestic, but boring dead calm mirror of the sea. It seems that the endless, black expanse of space, in which small bright points of stars twinkle at great distances, is also boring, although majestic.

This boredom of "inanimate nature" is associated with its inexpressive individuality, attached to the good and majesty of infinity, primarily through quantity. But the truth is that nowhere is it more clear and complete for a person to realize the infinity and transcendence of the very value of being, as in the same monotonous, monotonous cosmos, sea, desert. It is more difficult to see, to feel the uniqueness of everything that exists here and the unity that also takes place here, including the unity of one’s own human “I”, i.e. living and rational being, with inanimate and unreasonable, it is more difficult to realize oneself as a creative subject of the noosphere. Life and mind "inanimate nature" are not rejected, not destroyed, they have the opportunity to assert themselves. And the living mind itself can either realize or destroy this possibility, stepping on the path of confrontation. To educate morally a person who would be able to realize the morality of nature and consciously create the noosphere, the ecosphere is the most important task of culture. The next most important element of morality is moral activity. Moral activity is the practical realization of the values of good and evil, realized by man. The “cell” of moral activity is an act. An act is an action that is subjectively motivated, implies freedom of choice, has a meaning and therefore evokes a certain attitude towards itself. On the one hand, not every action of a person is a moral act, on the other hand, sometimes a person’s inaction appears as an important moral act. For example, a man does not stand up for a woman when she is insulted, or someone keeps silent in a situation where you need to express your opinion - all such inactions are negative moral deeds. On the whole, one can not single out so much human actions that are not moral deeds, but simply actions-operations. A moral act presupposes free will. Free will manifests itself as an external freedom of action and as an internal freedom of choice between different feelings, ideas, assessments. It is precisely where there is no freedom of action or freedom of choice that we have actions-operations for which a person does not bear moral responsibility. If there is no freedom of action or freedom of choice, then a person does not bear moral responsibility for his actions, although he can emotionally experience them. So, the driver is not responsible for the fact that he knocked down a passenger who violated the rules traffic when it was physically impossible to stop the car due to its inertia. The driver himself, as a human being, can very deeply experience the tragedy that has happened. The totality of actions is a line of behavior with which a way of life is associated. These relationships indicate the meaning of actions for a person.

Formation of morality

In the process of educating a personality, the formation of its morality is of exceptional importance. The fact is that people, being members of a social system and being in a variety of social and personal relationships with each other, must be organized in a certain way and, to one degree or another, coordinate their activities with other members of the community, obey certain norms, rules and requirements.

That is why in every society a wide variety of means are developed, the function of which is to regulate human behavior in all spheres of his life and activity - at work and at home, in the family and in relations with other people, in politics and science, in civic manifestations, games and etc. Such a regulatory function, in particular, is performed by legal norms and various decrees of state bodies, production and administrative rules at enterprises and institutions, charters and instructions, instructions and orders of officials, and, finally, morality.

There are significant differences in how various legal norms, laws, administrative rules and instructions of officials, on the one hand, and morality, on the other, influence people's behavior. Legal and administrative norms and rules are binding, and a person bears legal or administrative responsibility for their violation. Violated, for example, a person this or that law, was late for work or did not follow the relevant official instructions - bear legal or administrative responsibility. Even special bodies have been created in society (court, prosecutor's office, police, various inspections, commissions, etc.), which monitor the implementation of laws, various resolutions and mandatory instructions and apply appropriate sanctions (from Latin sanctio - the strictest resolution) to those who violate them.

Another thing is morality, or morality. The norms and rules that relate to its sphere do not have such a binding character, and in practice their observance depends on the individual himself. When this or that person violates them, society, acquaintances and strangers have only one means of influencing him - the power of public opinion: reproaches, moral censure and, finally, public condemnation, if immoral actions and deeds become more serious. Let's take the same belated example. If a person is late for work, an administrative penalty (warning, reprimand, etc.) may be imposed on him. But if the same person was late for a meeting with his acquaintance and the latter was forced to wait for him for a long time, there are no sanctions, and the acquaintance can only reproach him or make a comradely remark.

As we can see, the observance of moral norms and rules is not based on coercion, but mainly on the consciousness of the individual himself, on his understanding of these norms and rules and the need to comply with them. In ethics - the philosophical science of morality - there are two main moral categories - good and evil. Compliance with moral requirements, their support by a person is usually associated with goodness. Violation of moral norms and rules, deviation from them is characterized as a moral evil.

Understanding this encourages a person to behave in accordance with the moral requirements of society, to improve his behavior, which at the same time means his moral development. True, the very nature of morality and its content play an important role here. The morality of the fascist totalitarian state, for example, corrupted people, aroused misanthropy in them and led to the degradation of the individual. Only the morality of a humane and democratic society, which itself has a progressive character, contributes to the real progressive development and improvement of the individual. It is in this direction that the moral development of the world community takes place, if we keep in mind the prevailing lines in its moral evolution.

But moral improvement is supported not only by the force of public opinion. An important role in this is played by moral customs, habits and traditions that are cultivated in society. People have long noticed that the morality of a person cannot be based only on his moral consciousness, that it becomes stronger when the observance of moral norms and rules acquires the character of habitual ways of behavior and activity. This, as will be shown below, has great importance for education. Here we emphasize the following point. Since the observance of the moral requirements of society ultimately depends on the individual himself, since he acts as the guardian and subject of moral progress, it is quite clear what great importance moral education acquires, increasing its content and pedagogical effectiveness. Many public figures, writers and teachers have long believed that moral education not only has a decisive influence on the formation of positive personality traits, but is also the main task of the school and should be at the center of its educational activities.

Modern Morality

Morality from the moment of its inception and consolidation in the minds of people is the core, the basis of any society. People, evaluating the behavior of others, are guided by the principles of morality, which are not something material, but have social significance. The morality of a person can be judged by his actions, as they reflect the internal motives and thoughts of a person, form the attitude of those around him.

At present, it is often said about the decline of morality in modern society. Material values are put in the first place, and moral values go by the wayside. In primitive society, there was the concept of "taboo" - a categorical prohibition of any actions or motives, and it was associated with fear of something deadly. Most often it was the fear of punishment, and this, most often, death, which was sentenced by the tribal community for violating a taboo. Does modern society really need to be mortally afraid in order to be moral?

The fact that people are less and less guided by morality is objectively noticeable, and is expressed in disrespect for each other, in the inability to behave in society, in the number of interpersonal conflicts, in arguing with elders, in a careless attitude towards other people's work and cultural monuments, etc. .

Previously, there were initially no orphanages and nursing homes, but now there are. And in them are not only childless representatives of the older generation, but also those who have several children, who are quite arranged in life. And now these children have not found a corner in their house for their parents, who have dedicated their whole life to them.

The behavior of young people can often be called outrageous. Girls less and less correspond to the image of modesty, femininity and meekness, and young men lose the qualities inherent in a real man. The one who is cunning, impudent, who can step over the interests of others without remorse, survives.

In recent years, adolescent aggressiveness has become widespread.

A crowd of angry teenagers is capable of committing no less evil than adults. Although, it would seem, where does this hatred come from, when serious duties have not yet been assigned to them, and life should be carefree and easy?

Attitude to study is increasingly dependent on financial capabilities. Teachers and teachers do not enjoy due respect and authority, and students and students are increasingly acting immorally towards them, not considering that they are adults and at least for this they need to be respected and treated properly.

We hear so often about murders that we are already accustomed to them and are not at all surprised by these facts. The murder of a person in the eyes of some has become something ordinary, and not a serious sin and crime.

All these examples show that morality in our society is losing its significance. The times when kindness, honesty, fidelity, courage, respect for others, mercy were at the head of society, and shame and conscience were the measure of human dignity, are fading into the past, and these concepts become only a memory of the time when art, beauty, nobility.

What do people need now? Easy money, entertainment, carefree life, and children are passionate about phones, computers, the Internet, music of different styles, and youth associations such as emo, hippies, punks, whose activities and ideology often lead to degradation.

Commercialism has reached such proportions that even dreams have become material - a "cool" phone, computer, car, company. If you are not dressed like that, they turn away from you, you lose money - you lose friends, etc.

Morality in society

The scientific and technological revolution, generating new technologies, cannot but change social communication and social reality, reshaping all spheres of human life. Ethics cannot remain aloof from changes. The new social structure requires new norms and guidelines. New realities pose new questions for a person, actualize the old problems of good and evil, self-awareness, the boundaries of what is permissible, etc. The issue of the decline of morals and the rejection of universal values, the negative impact of the Internet and social networks is being discussed more and more loudly.

The question naturally arises as to what this influence really is. Is this influence predominantly negative? How are ethical norms transformed in the information, technogenic society? What is the vector of these changes?

At the beginning of the 20th century, philosophical thought experienced fear of the strengthening of the scientific and technical nature of culture. One of the first to express these concerns were J. Ortega y Gasset, M. Heidegger, W. V. Weidle. The negative consequences of the technization of society were obvious: the uprising of the masses, the destruction of familiar traditions, the decline of morals and art, the depersonalization of man. But do not forget that this was only the beginning of understanding the role of science and technology, and it was an industrial stage, the structures of which tried to “throw off” traditions from the ship of modernity in the course of modernization.

Later, the assessment of the role of technologies in the life of society, and therefore the assessment of their impact on morality, became ambiguous. Some researchers continue to adhere to the point of view of the negative impact of scientific and technological revolution on the ethical side of civilization, speaks of the destruction of moral foundations, norms and traditions. For example, S. N. Nikitina is convinced that “the scientific and technological revolution is capable of removing such concepts as morality and human feelings from everyday life, because they are outside the scope of scientific analysis and do not belong to the world of logic and mathematics, which are characteristic of technologically saturated modernity” . Interestingly, long before this researcher, Immanuel Kant made a fundamental attempt to build ethics precisely as a science, that is, on the basis of logic, without assuming that morality could be outside the scope of scientific analysis. Of course, it can be objected that in the time of the great German thinker, the problem of the impact of technology on humans was not yet as acute as it is today. And the type of rationality in those days was different - classical. And these circumstances could prevent us from seeing the essential facets of the problem of the relationship between morality and scientific and technological progress. But we note that already in the era of the formation of an industrial society, such historical processes took place that were a direct consequence of the improvement of technology. The emergence of manufactories and the spread of machine tools caused a series of riots in England that went down in world history under the name "Luddite uprising", believing that machines that deprive a huge number of workers of work are the root of social evil. The further spread and development of science and technology led to a number of serious social transformations, including an anti-normative revolution in the field of ethical thought, accompanied by the emergence of a new type of non-classical rationality that changed the relationship between science and ethics.

François Laruelle believes that in the context of scientific and technological revolution in the field of ethics "the task is to reconcile the scientific basis of ethics and its absolute transcendence, without resorting to the mediation of a philosophical Decision that prevents this synthesis." What is the obstacle created by philosophy to the synthesis of transcendence and the scientific basis of ethics? The main drawback of the "ethical-technological" method of building the subject's behavior, from the point of view of F. Laruelle, is that philosophy replaces its own goals of ethics with goals external to ethics (i.e., philosophical), giving a person a possible ethics, and not a real one , and this "possible" ethics, which is outside the boundaries of a particular person and his circumstances, claims to be an immoral transformation of the essence of a person instead of revealing the real basis of his existence at a given time. The way out of this situation lies in the “non-ethical application of ethics”, since “the radical beginning of ethics lies in the scientific position itself”, and “ethics is not intended to transform a person ... but to transform a non-technological way of acting that claims to technologically transform a person, so to put technology at the service not of new philosophical goals, but exclusively of the very essence of man.

We will not delve into reflections on the ability of science to deal with the problem of the essence of man, which has not yet been resolved by philosophy itself, but we note that this concept is very similar in structure to the political philosophy of N. Machiavelli, who formulated a new for his time ethos of politics - to proceed circumstances, not transcendentally given absolute moral ideals. On the other hand, as V. S. Stepin notes, the new type of rationality that is being formed in the course of the fourth scientific and technological revolution, which he calls post-non-classical, includes a new type of integration of truth and morality, goal-oriented and value-rational action”, “immanently includes reflection on values , resonates with ideas about the connection between truth and morality, characteristic of traditional Eastern cultures.

The modern version of the first industrial revolution is the robotization of industry today. One of the significant differences is that cases of mass destruction of robots so far exist only in Hollywood blockbusters. So far, experts disagree on the scale, timing and consequences of mass robotization in developed countries, but at least two things are obvious: it is inevitable and it is necessary to minimize the risks of this process. This minimization also implies the formation of a new ethics. The formation of a new moral paradigm is impossible without taking into account the spread of information and communication technologies. Informatization of society leads to the formation of a culture that is in many respects opposed to traditional culture with its reliance on a stable set of traditions. As R. A. Nurullin writes, “Internet culture, unlike the traditional one, is not prohibitive, but permissive, as it were, denies the moral aspect of traditional culture.” In this regard, he believes that "virtual permissiveness can be considered as a condition for the formation of real morality."

Of course, ideas about the connection between the decline of morals and the spread of information technology did not arise from scratch. There are studies that support this connection. Thus, Manfred Spitzer, in a book devoted to the analysis of the impact of digital technologies on the human brain, cites a lot of data, according to which multitasking, hyperlinking of Internet communications affect mental activity, destroy the ability of self-control, create serious Internet addiction, giving rise to new models of social behavior and morale. -ethical attitudes. In particular, he comes to the conclusion that when using modern technologies, even absolutely normal people cease to adhere strictly to moral standards: as soon as they go online, they begin to lie more. This was shown by a study that compared real personal conversations and communications via e-mail or via SMS. Most of the lies were found in emails. This kind of effect is not surprising, since electronic means of communication distance people, making it easier to lie and making it possible to distance oneself from oneself in one's virtual identity, freeing oneself from pangs of conscience.

One can agree with R. A. Nurullin that the new social reality can contribute to the formation of a new morality. It seems that the feeling of a crisis of culture and morality arises, among other things, because the old norms no longer correspond to the new circumstances. The sharp surge in the activity of fundamentalism in recent years is associated with the desire of supporters of traditional ethical systems to defend the old system of values, not taking into account the realities of the changed world. To some extent, this can be regarded as the ethical Luddism of the post-industrial age. Such a feeling loses its sharpness if one tries, as F. Laruelle suggests, to look at ethical problems "from within" the emerging socio-cultural reality. That is, in our opinion, the moral situation of modernity is perceived as a “decline in morals” only if we evaluate it from the point of view of the morality of a pre-industrial or industrial society that exists on the basis of ethical paradigms that no longer correspond to the changed social reality.

On the one hand, technological progress creates opportunities for the development of society, increases the degree of freedom, and promotes self-realization of a person, which can be considered a positive consequence of progress. For example, E. Toffler believes that information technologies create a new personality, which in the society of the second technological wave (industrial) would be considered a rebel and troublemaker. The individualism and innovativeness of people in modern society are based on the ability to question authority, those who are looking for socially significant activities, who are not afraid to take responsibility. He calls such a system of personal qualities the ethics of the producer-consumer. The revolution of means of communication leads to the demassification of the media, which play a huge role in the transmission of norms, values and role models, which are the basis of morality. These circumstances give rise to an ambivalent situation. In a dense stream of diverse information, you can choose any system of norms and values, any model for self-identification, because. the emerging social reality is multicultural, and polycentric, thanks to the growing cross-cultural communication. As a result, a personality arises with a “configurative” or “modular” base, composed, like a mosaic, from fragments of the traditions of the past and acquiring a polyphonic character.

But on the other hand, this process, as well as the acceleration of social time, gives rise to the problem of personal identification, which is directly related to ethical norms, since identity implies the assignment of a certain value system, adherence to tradition. It is no coincidence that a number of researchers pay special attention to the crisis of identity in modern culture.

This crisis is connected, on the one hand, with the demassification discussed above. The mass society of previous eras was more integral, because. based on a narrow paradigm of moral standards. Modern world in the course of globalization, it mixes cultures and destroys ethical hierarchies, priorities and systems, which blurs identities and norms of behavior. On the other hand, scientific and technological progress creates a socio-cultural reality in which there is no time left for the formation of a sustainable way of life that would be able to give rise to a tradition. Life is changing so rapidly that a person does not have time to take shape, to “settle” one ethical system, as the emerging changes require its transformation.

John Naisbit believes that modern society is poisoned by high technology and lists the signs of this poisoning:

1) preference for quick solutions in all areas;
2) a combination of fear of technology with admiration for it;
3) mixing objective reality with fantasy;
4) perception of violence as a norm;
5) love for technology as a toy;
6) life in alienation and absent-mindedness.

Among these signs, one can see two that are directly related to morality: the perception of violence as the norm and a life of alienation and absent-mindedness. Although, one way or another, all the signs listed by John Naisbit lead to ethical aspects.

The new circumstances of the technogenic society give rise to new horizons and problematic points in the ethical field. The perception of violence as a norm is conditioned, firstly, by the freedom of access to information on the Internet, including information containing violence, which is becoming habitual. This familiarity is associated not only with the frequency of reports of disasters and the number of victims, but also with the fact that information in the virtual environment is no longer perceived as irreparable due to the blurring of the boundaries between the objective world and the virtual one: consciousness continues to play a game that can be “reloaded”. ' if something went wrong.

Secondly, “digitized” violence is perceived differently than direct violence. It acquires a significant share of conventionality, is aestheticized, which reduces the negativity of its perception. What used to accompany a person's life directly is forced out into the virtual environment. Of course, in a sense, this allows you to neutralize, "sublimate" the undesirable in real life. But such a repression without serious consequences is permissible only if the psyche is stable. A person with a weak will and an inability to control himself runs the risk of losing the boundary between realities.

Finally, what John Naisbitt calls the love of technology as a toy, coupled with a preference for quick fixes in all areas, drives the technology race in the consumer society. For a civilization of disposable things, it is easier to replace a broken or boring thing than to repair or rethink. Disconnected by high technology, people inevitably begin to treat each other more casually and in the long term indifferently. And even the popular advertising slogan "Call your parents!" reflects a certain degree of this indifference, since it does not call to come, replacing live communication and a real meeting with virtual ones. Undoubtedly, morality is under strong pressure due to the rapid growth in the importance and cost of technology and the same rapid depreciation of human life.

The development of science and technology inevitably affects morality, creating ethical bifurcation points. The analysis of such problem points can and should be the subject of a separate study. And we still don’t know exactly how humanity will emerge from these points: will it turn out to be “beyond good and evil” or remain “too human”.

More important, in our opinion, is the question of what are the causes of the spiritual and moral crisis that arose in the course of progress. It seems that the very creative nature of modern technologies can serve as an explanation for this. Creativity can be based on one of two types of creativity: intensive or extensive. Intensive creativity has an existential character associated with metaphysical problems. It is, so to speak, humanitarian accented. The technogenic society represents a type of culture when the extensive type of creativity, characteristic of scientific and technical creativity, dominates. Extensive creativity is associated with the desire to influence the world by creating new things: mechanisms, machines, technologies and other material values (for more details on the characteristics of the types of creativity, see our other publications). This type of creativity is spreading more and more in society, giving rise to technical progress and increasing comfort, but at the same time creating problems in the ethical area, because. this type of creativity is characterized by a decrease in interest in ethical issues. And we see how a technogenic society depersonalizes a person, valuing technology above life, and comfort above relationships.

The way out of this situation can be the establishment of harmony between the two types of creativity, when technogenicity will be corrected by the humanitarian basis of public communications. The desire of F. Laruelle to rid the relationship of ethics with science from the influence of philosophy, I think, is too radical. Of course, philosophy in the new circumstances must change itself in order to be productive in understanding the problems that arise before humanity. Perhaps this will require a return to the myth. Not to the naive myth of the prehistoric era, but to the myth of the post-non-classical era, which retained from its predecessor its syncretism, harmony and humanitarian orientation. Let us turn to the ideas that allow the efforts of harmonization to acquire a practical orientation.

One of them belongs to the already mentioned John Naisbit, who formulated the principle of "high technology - deep humanity", which consists in understanding that technology is not neutral, and in order to preserve humanity, we must equalize technology, art, natural science and religion, accepting a technology that preserves humanity and, by rejecting a technology that suppresses and destroys it. This is achievable when new technology becomes old, being replaced by more and more new ones. Then it acquires the properties of a symbol, awakening a feeling in a person.

Another idea, due to Roland Barthes, says that it is necessary "to change the self-consciousness, structure and goals of scientific discourse - this is perhaps the task of modernity, despite the fact that at first glance the humanities are now firmly on their feet", and to make science literature, sensitive to the human situation. True, Roland Barthes has in mind the humanities. But this sensitivity, as we see, is necessary for science in general. The humanization of science is quite possible, as evidenced by the scientists themselves from the field of natural sciences. Thus, the physicist Fridtjof Capra, considering the physics of the living in one of his books, integrates the approaches of various disciplines and types of cognition. He refers to the concept of "deep ecology" proposed by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess. In contrast to the "superficial" ecology, in the "deep" ecology there is no anthropocentrism and - quite in the spirit of ancient hylozoism - there is an idea of human life as a particle of the living cosmos. Undoubtedly, this idea has something in common both with ancient Eastern philosophical ideas and Christianity, and with modern concepts of the noosphere and co-evolution.

And another aspect of morality, adequate to the technogenicity of modern society, is the constant increase in risk. A line has already taken shape in social philosophy that regards modern society as a society of risk. The self-consciousness of a person in an emerging type of society cannot be, as K.V. Khramova believes, risk-conditioned, i.e. taking into account the possible hazards of the activity. Based on this, it can be assumed that one of the aspects of a new type of morality should be the adoption of risky decisions, the consequences of which may well take on a global scale due to the network nature. social structure.

Having traveled this path, acquiring the features of literature, coordinating the extensive type of creativity inherent in it with the intensive one, science will be able to turn its face to man and his problems. Then humanity has a chance to develop a new ethics that is in harmony with technology, and create a technology that does not destroy morality.

Categories of morality

The moral-historical concept correlates with being. The system of values that exist in the form of universal unconditional principles of being, the system of unwritten laws, some of which reflect generally accepted norms and assessments of human actions. Morality is manifested in relation to the family, to the Motherland, to the people, to the collective, to the other, to oneself. Morality is formed together with the personality, constituting the principle and way of its being, it is inseparable from each specific "I".

It is determined by responsibility to the team and to oneself. The rules that people follow in relation to others are the norms of morality.

1) Good and evil;
2) Honor;
3) Conscience;
4) Dignity;
5) Justice;
6) Responsibility;
7) Debt.

The list of moral categories is extensive, it includes concepts that characterize:

A) moral standards
b) moral values,
c) moral qualities,
d) moral principles,
e) moral ideals.

Humanism, disinterestedness, patriotism, sensitivity, responsiveness, diligence, conscience, kindness, honesty, benevolence, courage, mutual assistance, duty, responsibility, dignity, justice, conscientiousness, adherence to principles, purposefulness, dedication, determination, accuracy, modesty, self-respect, courtesy thrift, generosity, indifference, irresponsibility, callousness, unscrupulousness, opportunism, betrayal, money-grubbing, selfishness, self-confidence, arrogance, envy, cowardice, carelessness, shamelessness, rudeness, hypocrisy, tolerance, discontent, devotion, shyness, pride, implacability, evil , kindness, decency, shame, etc.

In the ethical sense, the ideal presupposes some universal, i.e. not changing depending on circumstances, persons, individual tastes, standard. The moral world of a person is a world of values that are expressed in moral categories.

Good and evil. The main categories of morality traditionally include good and evil - the central concepts of moral consciousness. The first denotes the undoubted positive qualities that society as a whole or an individual adheres to, and the second denotes absolute negative ones. People's ideas about good and evil, duty and conscience have historically changed, expressing the interests of different classes, strata, political regimes, changing eras and forms of religions.

In ancient times, the idea of an irresistible connection between good and evil was deeply comprehended. One of the ancient sages said: whoever has not recognized and experienced evil cannot be truly, actively good.

Without a readiness to resist evil, it is not enough to understand evil and resist evil. This in itself will not lead to good. Good is practically affirmed in the rejection of evil.

Virtue and vice. Virtue is a moral category that expresses the totality of only positive qualities and actions of a person, in contrast to vice, which personifies the sum of negative qualities and actions. Let's compare two series of ethical concepts: good and evil, virtue and vice. How do they differ? Good and evil express abstract concepts of benefit and harm to a person, they are absolute and do not belong to any of the people. Virtue is the embodiment by a specific person of the principles of goodness, either in his character or in the sum of actions. In the same way, vice is the sum of the qualities and actions of a person. True, there is a broader understanding of virtue and vice - as moral values (similar to good and evil), expressing some abstract norms of behavior. Honesty, generosity, generosity, compassion, etc. - these are virtues, and deceit, stinginess, pettiness, callousness, etc. - vices.

In fact, virtue is not abstract, it is achieved through a long practice of doing good deeds and deeds. People become just by always acting justly, prudent by acting prudently, courageous by acting bravely and decisively. Knowing what virtue is does not mean putting it into practice.

The word "virtue" has two meanings. In one it is used as a designation of a personal quality, and in the other - as a generalized indicator of a person's character. By nature, a person is really either moral (virtuous) or immoral (evil).

If good exists in the singular, then there can be many virtues, then they denote the specific moral qualities of the individual. In this case, a person is said to have many virtues: he is punctual, sober in his lifestyle, reasonable, fair (protects the offended), merciful (helps the poor and orphans), courageous and honest. But a person can also have a lot of vices (negative qualities): he drinks, is untidy, unrestrained in words and rude in deeds, breaks a given word, is vindictive, prone to pride, etc.

Already in antiquity, philosophers considered how many virtues a person can have and how best to systematize them. One of the first to propose a typology of virtues was the great ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). He distinguished between rational and moral virtues, or, in other words, the virtues of the mind and the virtues of character. The former develop in man through learning; such are wisdom, intelligence, prudence. The latter are born from habits-mores: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Concretizing the concept of "virtue", Aristotle builds a theoretical scheme of virtues and vices. Here virtue appears as a golden mean between various extremes. Thus, in relation to danger, courage is the mean between courage and cowardice; prudence is the mean between licentiousness and coldness of feelings; between flattery and servility, modesty is the middle between shamelessness and timidity, etc. In Aristotle, the knowledge of virtue is closely connected with the practice of good deeds. According to his teaching, if a person knows one thing, but acts differently, then he does not have knowledge, but an opinion, and he should achieve true knowledge that can stand the test in practical activity.

The paradox of virtue lies in the gap between knowledge and deed: through education, schooling, reading books, exposure to print and television, people in a civilized society as a whole know what virtue is, but many (and sometimes most) act viciously. What is it - abstract knowledge that, in principle, cannot be put into practice, or some features of human behavior? Possibly the second. After all, we demand virtue from others and are indignant when they act viciously, especially towards us. But when it comes to ourselves, we behave not in the way that is right, but in the way that pleases us. Addressing virtue to others, we protect ourselves from the painful choice between the pleasant and the proper, make life easier for ourselves and again move away from the fact that the soul must work. The duality of man, the discord of personality consist in the contradiction, and then the clash of spiritual commandments - the knowledge of virtue and carnal aspirations.

In the list of human virtues, duty occupies one of the places of honor. Duty is a person's awareness of the unconditional need to fulfill what is commanded by the moral ideal and follows from it. Psychologically, duty is perceived as the need to perform certain actions. In Russian, the words "duty" and "duty" are used as synonyms.

Shame. Unfulfilled duty leads to a feeling of shame in a person. This is another moral category. Shame - a) an internal control mechanism, b) a person's awareness of his inconsistency with accepted norms or the expectations of others, which means the appearance of guilt. Shame is completely focused on the opinions of other persons who can express their condemnation of the violation of norms, and the experience of shame is the stronger, the more important and significant these persons are for a person. Therefore, an individual may feel shame - even for random, unintended results of actions or for actions that seem normal to him, but, as he knows, are not recognized as such by the environment.

Conscience. The ethical category “conscience” is inextricably linked with the feeling of shame. Conscience is the ability of a person, critically evaluating his actions, thoughts, desires, to realize and experience his inconsistency with the due - failure to fulfill his duty. Conscience is independent of the opinions of others. The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus at the turn of the 5th and 4th centuries BC advised: "Do not do anything obscene even in private, learn to be ashamed of yourself more than others." What does it mean? Conscience demands to be honest when no one can control you. Subjectively, it can be perceived as someone else's voice inside a person, the voice of the "other self". Hence, two opposite conclusions about the nature of conscience are drawn. One is that conscience is the voice of God, the other suggests that conscience is the generalized and internalized voice of significant others. In both cases, conscience is interpreted as a special form of shame.

Conscience is formed in the process of socialization and education, through constant instructions to the child about “what is good and what is bad”, etc. In the early stages of personality formation, conscience manifests itself as the "voice" of a significant environment (reference group) - parents, educators, peers, as a command of some authority, and, accordingly, is found in fear of possible disapproval, condemnation, punishment, and also in shame for one's actions. We often reproach someone who accidentally caused us trouble: “Aren't you ashamed?!” What are we trying to achieve with this? We appeal to his conscience, hoping to find in his soul a hidden store of moral principles that will make the guilty man regret his deed.

Conscience speaks to us in the language of eternal truths, and in their name it addresses the dignity of the individual. Conscience is the responsibility of a person to himself.

In the throes of conscience - not only contempt for oneself, but also a desire to correct a mistake, to answer for a misconduct. Pangs of conscience mark the beginning of correction, the first steps towards moral improvement, since in condemning oneself there is already a certain remorse, regret for what one has done and the intention not to do this in the future. The content of the concept of "remorse of conscience" consists in the recognition of one's guilt.

Freedom. In addition to torment and remorse, there is the expression "freedom of conscience." It denotes the right of a person to the independence of his inner spiritual life and the opportunity to determine his own convictions; in the narrower and more common sense, "freedom of conscience" means freedom of religion and organized worship.

Freedom has several meanings. Legal freedom is the abandonment to oneself, non-prisonment in custody. Political freedom expresses the right of speech, the right of assembly, the press, conscience, and so on. Philosophical freedom - freedom of will, action and behavior.

In the most general sense, freedom is the absence of pressure or restriction. This meaning of the word is reflected in the dictionary of V. Dahl: “freedom” is will. But they are not synonymous. Freedom is understood as the absence of pressure, and will - as freedom from slavery, serfdom, as the absence of bondage, coercion. From the word "will" originate two negative concepts - "willfulness" and "arbitrariness", and no negative trace is drawn from the word "freedom".

Human freedom is expressed in freedom of choice. If, for example, a person is in prison or lives in a totalitarian society, then there can be no talk of any freedom in the political sense. His choice, and with it his freedom, is severely limited by someone else. But even in the absence of prison walls and political pressure, a person's freedom can be limited, for example, by philistine stereotypes, false judgments, national prejudices, and a tendency to vicious life. You have decided to marry a girl of a different nationality or from a different class, and relatives and acquaintances instruct you: she is no match for you, you will not be happy with her. The freedom of choice is limited, although no political pressure was exerted on you. Freedom is associated with conscious choice and one's own will. Man is responsible for his choice.

Mercy. It represents a compassionate, benevolent, caring, loving attitude towards another person, the desire to help everyone in need. In ancient Greece, it denoted a feeling that arises at the sight of undeserved suffering, in ancient India - love for one's neighbor. In many cultures, mercy and compassion stand out among human motives and are opposed to attraction, benefit, fame, honor. In the understanding of the outstanding Russian philosopher of the XIX century B.C. Solovyov's mercy consists in doing to another everything that he himself would like from others.

Mercy and justice (which will be discussed in more detail later) are two fundamental virtues corresponding to different areas or levels of moral experience. At the first, lower level, a person striving to become deeply moral observes the principle of justice, i.e. rewards people in proportion to their merits and sins, protects their rights without encroaching on others. On the second, higher level, his behavior is determined by the commandment of love ("Love your neighbor as yourself"), first of all, to others, and not to yourself. Helping the suffering means love for them, a manifestation of mercy. In charity, there is a willingness to sacrifice one's personal interests for the good of one's neighbor: "give to another without calculating in advance what you will receive in return." Thus mercy is the highest and justice the lowest principle of morality. The second presupposes the first. It is easier to be just than to be merciful, so the principles of justice are shared by a greater number of people, and mercy by a smaller number. Mercy is imputed to a person as a moral obligation, but he himself has the right to demand only justice from others and nothing more.

The nature of morality

In a short dictionary of philosophy, the concept of morality is equated with the concept of morality. Morality (Latin mores-mores) - norms, principles, rules of human behavior, as well as human behavior itself (motives of actions, results of activity), feelings, judgments, which express the normative regulation of people's relations with each other and the public whole (collective , class, people, society).

IN AND. Dahl interpreted the word morality as "moral doctrine, rules for the will, conscience of man." He believed: “The moral is the opposite of the bodily, carnal, spiritual, mental. The moral life of a person is more important than the material life. “Relating to one half of the spiritual life, opposite to the mental, but comparing the spiritual principle common with it, truth and falsehood belong to the mental, good and evil to the moral. Good-natured, virtuous, well-behaved, in agreement with conscience, with the laws of truth, with the dignity of a person with the duty of an honest and pure-hearted citizen. This is a man of moral, pure, impeccable morality. Any self-sacrifice is an act of morality, good morality, valor.

Over the years, the understanding of morality has changed. Ozhegov S.I. we see: “Morality is the internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person, ethical norms, rules of conduct determined by these qualities.”

Thinkers of different centuries interpreted the concept of morality in different ways. Also in ancient greece in the writings of Aristotle about a moral person it was said: “A person of perfect dignity is called morally beautiful. After all, one speaks of moral beauty in connection with virtue: a just, courageous, prudent person, and generally possessing all the virtues, is called morally beautiful.

The scientific literature indicates that morality appeared at the dawn of the development of society. The decisive role in its emergence was played by the labor activity of people. Without mutual assistance, without certain duties in relation to the genus, a person could not survive in the struggle with nature. Morality acts as a regulator of human relationships. Guided by moral standards, the individual thereby contributes to the life of society. In turn, society, supporting and spreading this or that morality, thereby forms a person in accordance with its ideal. In contrast to law, which also deals with the area of human relations, but relying on coercion by the state. Morality is supported by the power of public opinion and is usually observed by virtue of persuasion. At the same time, morality is formalized in various commandments, principles that prescribe how one should act. From all this, we can conclude that it is sometimes difficult for an adult to choose how to act in a given situation without “hitting his face in the dirt”.

But what about children? More V.A. Sukhomlinsky spoke about the need to engage in the moral education of the child, to teach "the ability to feel a person."

Sukhomlinsky believed that "the unshakable foundation of moral conviction is laid in childhood and early adolescence, when good and evil, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice are accessible to the understanding of the child only if the child sees, does, observes the moral meaning" .

One can speak about a person's morality only when he behaves morally by virtue of an inner impulse (need), when his own views and beliefs act as control. The development of such views and beliefs and the habits of behavior corresponding to them constitute the essence of moral education.

A person's morality is usually judged by his behavior, but behavior is a very broad concept and covers all aspects of a person's life. Therefore, in order to reveal its moral essence, it is necessary to single out some smallest unit that would preserve the properties of the whole. An act can serve as such a smallest unit of behavior.

An act is understood as any action or state of a person, but any action or state becomes an act only if it is considered in conjunction with the goals, motives and intentions of the individual that generate it. At the same time, actions or states in themselves, as well as the motives and goals that give rise to them, must be moral. Thus, behavior is understood as the totality of a person's actions, while highlighting external actions and the internal conditioning of actions, that is, their motivation, experience.

The moral orientation of a person is revealed not in individual actions, but in its general activity, which is evaluated, first of all, through the ability of a person to actively demonstrate a life position. The moral value of the individual lies in its readiness to affirm the ethical ideals of society in the chosen field of activity.

Principles of morality

Moral principles are the basic moral laws that all ethical teachings recognize. They represent a system of values that consolidates through moral experience the moral duties of a person. They are also called virtues. Moral principles are formed in the process of education and together lead to the awareness and acceptance of such qualities as humanity, justice, reasonableness.

The ways and means of implementing each moral principle are very diverse and depend on the individual characteristics of the person himself, the moral traditions that have developed in society and the specific life situation. The most capacious and widespread are 5 principles: humanity, respect, reasonableness, courage and honor.

Humanity is a system of positive qualities that represent a conscious, kind and disinterested attitude towards people around, all living beings and nature in general. Man is a spiritual and intellectual being, and in any, even the most difficult situations, he must remain a man, in accordance with the high moral stage of his development.

Humanity is made up of everyday altruism, of such qualities as mutual assistance, revenue, service, concession, favor. Humanity is a volitional act of a person based on a deep understanding and acceptance of his inherent qualities.

Respect is a respectful and reverent attitude to the world around us, as to a miracle, a priceless gift. This principle prescribes to be grateful to the people, things and natural phenomena of this world. Reverence is associated with such qualities as politeness, courtesy, benevolence.

Reason is action based on moral experience. It includes such concepts as wisdom and logic. Thus, rationality, on the one hand, is the actions of reason given to a person from birth, and on the other hand, actions that are consistent with experience and a system of moral values.

Courage and honor are categories that mean a person's ability to overcome difficult life circumstances and states of fear without losing self-esteem and respect for those around him. They are closely interrelated and based on such qualities as duty, responsibility and resilience.

Moral principles must be constantly implemented in human behavior in order to consolidate moral experience.

Every person even unconsciously knows what morality is. Psychologists believe that this is the identification of the free will of each individual, based on certain principles and morality. From the moment we make our first, independent decision, personal, moral qualities begin to form in everyone.

What is morality?

The modern concept of "morality" is presented to each person in his own way, but carries the same meaning. The formation of internal ideas and decisions in the subconscious originates from it, and the social position is built on it. The society in which we live is used to dictating its own rules, but this does not mean that everyone is obliged to follow them, because everyone has the right to be an individual.

Often people choose a partial deviation from their moral values in favor of a template and live their lives according to someone else's example. This leads to some disappointment, because you can lose the best years in finding yourself. Proper upbringing from a very young age makes a big imprint on the future fate of a person. Considering what morality is, we can highlight some of the qualities inherent in it:

kindness;
compassion;
honesty;
sincerity;
reliability;
diligence;
peacefulness.

Morality and moral values

Our society more and more began to believe that this is a relic of the past. To achieve their goals, many go over their heads and such actions are completely contrary to the old days. Such a society cannot be called healthy and perhaps it is doomed to a meaningless existence. Fortunately, not everyone falls into the social funnel, and honest and decent people still remain in the majority.

Being in search of the meaning of life, a person forms his character, and also brings up high morality. Everything that parents have raised in a person can eventually disappear or change in any direction. The surrounding world corrects former values, perceptions and, in general, attitude towards oneself and people, in order to create a comfortable existence. Spiritual changes are now taking place with the desire to earn more money and become financially independent.

Morality in psychology

Both ordinary people and psychologists have their own concepts of morality, from their point of view, which can be completely different and never intersect, even if they are very similar. Each of the subspecies originates in the inner world of a person, his upbringing and values. The human psyche is divided by specialists into two societies, each of which pursues its own goal:

Collective values are herd instincts that can unite against the rest with their world.
Compassionate values - based on caring for others, for the benefit of any society.

Any objective morality is tuned to finding itself as a socially secure, mature person. Psychologists believe that a person from birth is defined in the first or second subgroup, and this is controlled by the individuals who live with him and educate him. In the process of growing up and independent perception of the world, re-education rarely occurs. If this still happens, then people who have changed themselves have a very high fortitude and can go through any difficulties without changing themselves.

How is morality different from morality?

Many argue that morality and morality are synonyms, but this is a delusion. Morality is considered to be a system established by society that regulates the relationship of people. Morality, on the other hand, implies following one's own principles, which may differ from the attitudes of society. In other words, moral qualities are given to a person by society, and moral qualities are established by character and personal psychology.

Functions of morality

Since human morality is a phenomenon of social and spiritual life, it must mean certain functions that people perform in turn. Without knowing it, these tasks always occur in any modern society and, fortunately, are beneficial. Rejection of them entails loneliness and isolation, in addition to the inability to actively develop.

Regulatory.
Cognitive.
Educational.
Estimated.

Each of them is considered a goal and an opportunity for spiritual growth and development. Considering what morality is, existence without these functions is absolutely impossible. Society helps to develop and grow only to those individuals who can control the possibilities in themselves that give rise to these goals. There is no need to specifically learn them, all actions occur automatically, in most cases for the good.

Rules of morality

There are many rules that characterize morality, and we follow them almost without noticing it. Acting at the subconscious level, a person brings his mood, achievements, victories and much more to the world. Such formulations very tightly embody what morality means in all its incarnations. Relations in the world should be based on reciprocity, for a comfortable existence.

By accepting these conditions, a person can learn to be kinder, more sociable and responsive, and a society consisting of such people will be like an ideal. Some countries achieve this situation, and they have significantly reduced the number of crimes, orphanages are closed as unnecessary, and so on. In addition to the golden rule, others can be considered, such as:

sincere conversations;
address by name;
respect;
attention;
smile;
good nature.

What is the golden rule of morality?

The basis of the world and culture is the golden rule of morality, which sounds like: treat people the way you would like to be treated, or do not do to others what you do not want to receive yourself. Unfortunately, not everyone manages to follow this, and this increases the number of crimes and aggression in society. The rule tells people how to behave in any situation, you just have to ask yourself the question, how would you like? The most important thing is that the solution to the problem is not dictated by society, but by the person himself.

Morality in modern society

Many believe that the morality and morality of modern society has now fallen greatly. Ahead of the rest of the planet are those who turn people into a herd. In fact, it is possible to achieve a high financial position without losing morality, the main thing is the ability to think broadly and not be limited to patterns. Much depends on education.

Today's children practically do not know the word "no". Getting everything you want from a very early age, a person forgets about independence and loses respect for elders, and this is already a decline in morality. In order to try to change something in the world, it is necessary to start with oneself, and only then will there be hope for the revival of morality. By following good rules and teaching them to their children, a person will be able to gradually change the world beyond recognition.

moral education

This is a necessary process of modern society. Knowing how morality is formed, one can fully hope for a happy future for our children and grandchildren. The impact on the human personality of people who are considered to be authorities for him, form in him peculiar qualities that maximally influence his future destiny. It is worth remembering that upbringing is only the initial stage of personality formation, in the future, a person is able to make decisions independently.

Spirituality and Morality

Two completely different concepts very often intersect with each other. The essence of morality lies in good deeds, respect and so on, but no one knows why they are done. Spiritual kindness implies not only good deeds and behavior, but also the purity of the inner world. Morality is visible to everyone and everyone, in contrast to spirituality, which is something intimate and personal.

Morality in Christianity

A similar combination of two concepts, but all with the same different meaning. Morality and religion set themselves common goals, where in one case there is freedom of choice of actions, and in the other, complete obedience to the rules of the system. Christianity has its own moral goals, but it is forbidden to deviate from them, as in any other faiths. Therefore, turning to one of the religions, you need to accept their rules and values.