What is behavior: concept, types. Rules of behavior

The world around us is constantly changing: entire epochs go into the past, scientific and technological progress develops, new professions appear and people themselves become different. This means that the rules of behavior in society also do not stand still. Today you can no longer meet the curtsies and bows that were relevant in previous XXI century centuries. So how should one behave in modern society? Learn about it right now!

What are "rules of conduct in society" in general?

Often a person does not even think about the fact that this voluminous concept has a more compact version, which is used mainly in social science classes at school or by sociologists - these are “social norms”. Speaking in scientific language, the meaning of this term lies in the existence of common established patterns of individual behavior that have evolved over a long period of time in the course of the practical activities of society. It is this activity that generates standard models correct, expected and socially approved behavior. This includes many different categories: customs and traditions, aesthetic, legal, religious, corporate, political and a number of other norms and, of course, the rules of behavior in society. The latter may differ depending on the country, age and even gender of a particular individual. Nevertheless, in general there are universal rules and norms of behavior in society, following which, there is no doubt that success in communication and interaction is guaranteed!

First meeting and acquaintance

The rules of conduct established by society state that in the case of acquaintance, one should submit:

man - woman;
the youngest in age and position - the oldest in the same categories;
those who came later - already present.

At the same time, the person they are introduced to is mentioned first in the appeal, for example: “Maria, get acquainted - Ivan!” or “Alexander Sergeevich, this is Artyom!”.

When people get to know each other, it is recommended to briefly describe them in order to start a conversation and specify who the “organizer” of the acquaintance is this person: “Elena, this is my brother Konstantin, he is a geologist.” Then the girl will have the opportunity to continue the conversation, for example, asking Konstantin about the features of his profession, asking in more detail about family matters, etc.

Greetings

The rules of conduct in society also regulate the manner in which people greet each other. So, men are the first to address women with a salutatory word, and those who are younger in position and / or age - to the elders.

However, it must be borne in mind that, regardless of social status and age, a person entering the room should always be the first to greet.

When two couples meet, the girls/women are the first to greet each other, then the men greet them, and only after that the gentlemen exchange greetings among themselves.

When shaking hands, the first to give the hand is the one to whom the stranger was introduced, but at the same time, the lady is always the man, the elder is the younger, the leader is the subordinate, even if the employee is a woman. The rules of conduct adopted in society indicate: if a seated person is given a hand to shake, he must stand up. A man should take off his glove, for ladies this condition is optional.

If at a meeting one of the couple or company greeted the person they met, then the rest are encouraged to greet him as well.

Politeness and tact

The rules of conduct in modern society also require a person to be tactful and relaxed in communication, which will allow him not to be considered unpleasant and unethical in certain circles.

So, it is highly recommended not to point a finger at a person. You should not interfere in the conversation of outsiders when they discuss personal topics and are not in the mood to accept another interlocutor. Attentive and intelligent people they will not belittle the dignity of others in communication, interrupt the speaking interlocutor, raise incorrect and unrecommended topics in a conversation (for example, about political views, religion, painful moments of life, etc.). When communicating with an unfamiliar person, it is especially recommended to stick to neutral topics, such as sports, hobbies and hobbies, culinary passions, travel, attitudes towards cinema and music, and others - then all participants in the conversation will have a positive impression of communication.

Do not belittle the meaning of the existing so-called magic words, namely, “sorry”, “please”, “thank you”, “goodbye”. The familiar appeal to “you” is not recommended to be used even by successful people who have successfully realized themselves in life, because this is a sign of a lack of elementary culture and education. The rules of human behavior in society are optimal models established for everyone, regardless of financial condition, social status, standard of living, etc.

Correct speech

The rules of behavior in society require a person to be able to correctly express their own thoughts, because, as you know, whoever thinks harmoniously speaks in exactly the same way.

You should speak at a moderate pace, calmly, not too loudly, because attracting too much attention to yourself by raising your tone is the wrong approach to business. The interlocutor should be captivated by his own erudition, breadth of views and knowledge of certain areas of life.

Unnecessarily complaining about your problems or “pulling out” the interlocutor for a frank conversation, when he demonstrates a clear unwillingness to share his innermost, is considered bad manners.

Mood

In addition, the norms and rules of people's behavior in society require for the period of interaction and conversation to put aside existing life difficulties, bad mood, pessimism and a negative attitude towards something. It is only possible to say something like this close person. Otherwise, there is a risk of being misunderstood by the interlocutor, leaving an unpleasant aftertaste from the conversation. It is also not recommended to talk about bad news, otherwise there is a great chance at a subconscious level to "attach" to your person an association with everything bad, bleak, unpleasant.

What tone should be set?

Of course, the conversation in the company is best given a light-hearted, half-joking, half-serious tone. You should not clow too much in the hope of winning the attention of others, otherwise you can forever get a reputation as a jester with narrow thinking and a look at things, which will later be difficult to get rid of.

How to behave in a cultural place, at an event or at a party?

It is considered offensive to laugh out loud, openly discuss others, stare at someone in a public place where people come to relax and unwind.

It is recommended to turn off the mobile phone in quiet places, such as cinemas, theaters, museums, speeches and lectures, etc., beforehand.

When moving between rows of seated people, it is necessary to face them, and not vice versa. In this case, the man goes first, the woman behind him.

With the manifestation of feelings, such as kisses or hugs, it is better to wait and not demonstrate them in front of the public, because such open tenderness may be unpleasant for some.

At exhibitions, you should not take pictures where it is prohibited, as well as touch the exhibits.

If a person was invited to visit, he needs to take care to come as accurately as possible at the indicated hour. Being late or arriving too early means being tactless and disrespectful towards the owner of the house.

The optimal time frame for making a visit, which should not be like a snowball for the host, is considered to be from 12 noon to 20 pm. At the same time, it is impossible to stay up late when they are not asked about it, because in this way you can simply violate the plans of another person and his time schedule. An empty-handed visit, with another, uninvited, person, able to alcohol intoxication- all this can become the reason that in the future the host, most likely, will no longer want to host such an unethical individual as a guest.

As you can see, it is not difficult to follow the simplest social rules of behavior, the main thing is to start, and then they will become a habit and, as a result, will bring a lot of benefits!

Code of Conduct

AT modern societies there are no clearly defined boundaries between people (as it was in ancient India). For this reason, it is believed that morality and norms of behavior should be are the same for all people.

Deviations from this rule, of course, are noticed and recognized by everyone, but are considered something undesirable, which could be avoided if people were better. In fact, the norms and rules of behavior of people operating in different fields of activity, must differ, or people will not be able to behave adequately. Moreover, these norms are not yet fully compatible with each other.

This is not even about morality and ethics, but about something much more primitive - that is, about what people generally expect from each other. No one, as a rule, thinks that all people will behave highly morally towards him. But everyone expects the behavior of others to at least reasonable. It may be good or bad, but not meaningless. In this case, the person is said to be behaving "normally".

So, normal behavior is behavior that is as expected. In this case, norm is a set of social expectations about the behavior of people in a particular area of activity.

The rules apply to all aspects of behavior (for example, there are norms of cooperation, but there are also norms of conflict).

Definition of Normal Behavior

AT general case, normal behavior in any area of activity can be considered any behavior that does not destroy social relations, forming this area of activity.

Thus, in any society, damage or unauthorized use of another's property is considered a violation of the norms of behavior, since such behavior violates (and thereby destroys) relationships property, accepted in this society. At the same time, the same actions in relation to members of other societies are sometimes regarded as normal and permissible, since they do not violate social relations in given society.

Of course, such a definition may be too broad: in any particular society, there are many duties and prohibitions that have been formed due to rather random circumstances. But all the necessary norms that take place in any society are the same, because they are equally motivated. The totality of such norms constitutes what is sometimes called "natural law".

It should be noted that norms of behavior are not necessarily consistent with each other. It often happens that behavior that does not violate social relations in one area (and in this sense is normal) violates them in another area. Contradictions between norms of behavior can be called social contradictions. Apparently, they (to one degree or another) took place in all societies known to us.

Values

value we will call the unity of the norms of behavior adopted in a certain field of activity. Or, in another way: value is something that cannot be contradicted by any of the norms of this sphere.

Values are usually not so much understood as experienced people - as something that causes easily recognizable emotions. The most salient property of values from this point of view is that they are aspirations: people want to public relations corresponded to these values, and do not want the opposite.

This does not mean that values are something incomprehensible. On the contrary, all of them can be described in a rational way, which will be done below.

Digression: individualism and collectivism

In what follows, we will use the words "individualist values" and "collectivist values". In the sphere of power and the sphere of communal relations, human behavior is collectivist and in the sphere of property and cultural sphere - individualistic. Accordingly, a person whose behavior is more related to the first two areas of activity can be called a "collectivist", and in the opposite case, an "individualist". In addition, "collectivism" and "individualism" are called emotional attitude to one's own behavior.

Here, "collectivism" is understood not so much as an attachment to the society of other people, but rather the fact that in some situations a person in general takes into account other people, puts his behavior depending on them behavior. This behavior may be morally reprehensible, but it continues to be collectivist as long as it focused on other people.

Individualism, in turn, does not at all imply misanthropy, hatred or contempt for others. A person may think to himself that he loves people, and really love them, but this does not prevent him from remaining an individualist. Individualism is understood here as a behavior in which a person does not take into account behavior of others, does not consider it necessary to think about them and in general does not bind his behavior with someone else, but acts on the basis of some of his own considerations. This does not mean that he ignores the opinions of other people, does not listen to any advice, etc. An individualist is ready to listen to someone else's opinion - but only if it is justified by something impersonal, such as logic. But this means that he "listens" not to another person, but to his logic. Someone else's opinion becomes significant for him only in this case. He can act according to someone else's opinion and for other reasons - for example, because he is forced to do so. But even in this case, he considers force, not with people. He can carefully observe the conventions and rules of decency, but only because he does not want trouble. All this does not prevent him from being an individualist.

On the other hand, a collectivist can be a much more uncomfortable and unpleasant person. There are many varieties of "bad collectivism", of which any communal apartment can be an example. But when we see a person doing something only because to other people (or to another person) it will be Nice(or unpleasant), we encounter collectivist behavior. The individualist in all cases will consider this nonsense, since he really no matter to others.

Core Values

There are only five core values, four of which correspond to areas of activity, and one - to activities in general. Accordingly, four values are associated with the norms of behavior in each of the spheres, and one - with a necessary condition for any activity in general.

Sphere of communal relations: justice

In the realm of communal behavior, relationships between people are of paramount importance. It should be recalled that the main relations in the sphere of communal relations symmetrical. The concept of justice is reduced to the requirement that symmetrical relations between people be equisymmetrical, that is, that all people could take an equal part in common affairs. At the same time, since relationships, not actions, are fair or unfair, justice is rather equality. opportunities act, but by no means identity results actions.

The idea of justice is not equivalent to the idea of "equality" in the sense of "sameness". “Sameness”, of course, satisfies the criterion of symmetry, but is its simplest case, something like a “trivial solution” in mathematics, moreover, it is unrealizable and undesirable for people themselves, even remaining within the framework of purely communal relations. On closer examination of the very idea of justice, it takes the wording "to each his own" and boils down to the idea that all relations in society must have their reverse side, the action must be equal to the reaction, etc., etc. Of course, relations property and power are perceived from this point of view as something unjust in itself (and as a source of all sorts of injustices), and quite rightly, since these relations are inherently asymmetrical.

The idea of justice makes sense only in relation to many people, to the collective. It is based on comparison of people. The concept of justice regarding one person is meaningless. (Robinson on his island, while he was alone, simply did not have the opportunity to do right or unfair). On the other hand, this idea is not something "positive". Justice has no content. Justice does not require that "everyone should be fine." She demands that everyone be in some sense equally good or equally bad- more often even the latter, since it is easier to arrange. The main thing is that it be everyone and equally(i.e. symmetrical). What exactly will be the same for everyone - not so important.

When it comes to the "idea of justice", one might get the impression that one is discussing theories or concepts as to what justice is. There really are such theories, there are quite a lot of them and they interpret this issue in very different ways. But we are not talking about theories, but about the facts of behavior. In this case, justice can be defined as follows: justice is what people are waiting from communal relations, from the behavior of other people in this area. These expectations are not caused by reflections on good and evil, but by the properties of the communal relations themselves.

The idea of justice is that all relations between people would be symmetrical - directly or "in the end".

One more thing. It has been said that the idea of justice is empty. This is not an attempt to condemn the idea itself. We do not condemn the very existence of society - and the idea of justice is a natural consequence of its existence. In addition, society really needs it, although it may not be sufficient for its normal functioning. Justice, in order for it to make sense, you need something else fill.

This idea is meaningless for this reason. The very concept of "symmetry" is rather vague. This is especially true for complex forms of symmetry - when not "everyone is the same", but "one compensates for the other." Let's take a family for example. If the husband himself earns money, prepares food and washes the dishes himself, generally does everything himself, and the wife only lives on his means and uses him as a free servant, no one will call this a fair state of affairs. But let's say she sits with baby. It is intuitively clear that "one is worth the other", and the situation seems to be more fair.

In real life, the question "what is worth what" is a fundamental problem, and it is precisely the problem of justice. This also applies to prices in the most direct, monetary sense of the word. Everyone understands that there is a concept of "fair price". By the way, this is not a concept of property - completely fair prices would make "economic life" completely impossible.

The situation in which relations between people are in most cases fair can be called differently, but the reverse situation in most cases is called inequality(although it's not a very accurate word).

Ownership: benefit

It is quite obvious that the relation of possession is asymmetric, more precisely, antisymmetric, that is, it excludes symmetry. The difference between the owner and everyone else is very great: he can do with his property what everyone else is not entitled to do.

The sphere of property also has its own norms of relations, and, accordingly, its own value. You can call it an idea. benefit. If communal relations are to be fair, then the ownership relationship must be useful for those who join them (primarily for the owner).

Again, remember that we are not talking about theories. Let's take the most primitive understanding of benefit - the benefit that everyone wants for himself. It boils down to "It's better than it was before.""Best" usually means multiplication wealth, health, possessions in general.

So the idea benefits is that property relations should promote multiplication objects of property (both material and any other), and not damage or destruction of them.

A peculiar variant of such a value as utility is good. Kindness can be defined as "benefit to another." "Do good" means "do something useful for another person", "give him something" or "do something for him". (By the way, the very word "good" in many languages originally meant "property", which has been preserved in Russian everyday speech to this day) However, the word "good" has some additional meanings, which will be discussed below.

Of course, the benefits can be desired and yourself and others. We only note that in itself the benefit (and, accordingly, good) nothing to do with fairness- primarily because it does not involve comparison with other people. Here a person compares himself (or another) with yourself the same (or with him), and not with others. The idea of good, moreover, is not an idea superiority over others. A person who wants well for himself does not want to feel better than others, namely, to make him feel better than he was before, or what is now. A person compares his position not with other people (he may not even think about them), but with his own past (or present) position.

This is especially noticeable when the benefits are brought not to themselves, but to another - say, to their child or beloved woman. In such cases, good is done despite on whether it's fair or not. "I gave my beloved a mink coat because I wanted to see her happy," says the thief who stole the item. Did he do good? Objectively speaking, yes. Her he certainly wanted to "do good", no matter at whose expense. In a less dramatic situation, the father, wanting to help his son, arranges for him to get into a prestigious university “by pull”, although this is extremely unfair to all other applicants. He just doesn't think about them.

It should be noted that the idea of utility is not only asymmetric, but also asynchronous. She assumes comparison of two different points in time(past and present, or present and future). "To do something good" always means "to do something better than It was".

Utility is no more meaningful idea than justice. As already mentioned, to wish good (for oneself or another) means to wish possession something that doesn't exist right now. "Better" is understood here in this sense. But ideas about what exactly should have and is it worth it to have it in general, in the very idea of utility no. These ideas must come from somewhere else. At the everyday level, everything is simple: “better” for yourself means “how can I I want to", or "as I think useful to yourself", and for the other, a mixture of "like to him want "(according to my ideas) and" how he will be better"(again, according to my ideas). These ideas may be wrong in both cases. Let's imagine two situations. In the first situation, the parents forbade the child to eat chocolate, because he had a skin rash from chocolate. Loving grandmother secretly gives her grandson a chocolate candy, because her grandson begged her for it. Did the grandmother do good? Yes, according to her own ideas. Let us take another, opposite case. The daughter wants to get married, but the mother forbids her because she thinks young man wrong pair. The mother then says: "I am doing this for your own good." Moreover, she really thinks so. Is she doing good? Yes, according to your ideas. Is she right in her views? And if so, in what sense?

The norms of behavior arise when the empty concepts of utility and justice begin to be filled with something. The public (but empty) idea of justice and the individual (but again empty) idea of utility must turn into a set of ideas about what is worth(fairness) and what has value(benefit). These ideas vary from society to society and are largely historically determined.

A society in which most of the relationships between people useful, usually considers himself prosperous(or at least striving for prosperity). In the opposite situation, relationships between people become destructive, or exhausting society as a whole.

Authority: Dominance

A separate problem is combination benefit and justice. As has already been said, what is useful is not necessarily just, and justice in itself is not connected with usefulness.

Furthermore, protozoa forms of benefit and justice simply deny each other. There is nothing fairer (and less rewarding) than a large graveyard. But the ultimate wish for good (“let everything be as you want”), if it came true, would lead to extreme injustice (after all, Nero and Caligula just “did what they wanted”, and one should not think that others on their place would not want something like that).

Nevertheless, there is a value that somehow brings together utility and justice. It is interesting that it is not similar to either one or the other. It's an idea superiority dominant in the sphere of power relations.

Its dual nature is closely related to the dual nature of power - as possession topics part which the possessor himself is, that is, the relationship PS . If a justice- social value benefit- individualistic superiority in some way is both. Recall the definition of justice - "let everyone will be equally", and the definition of benefit (or good) -" let to me(or someone) will better".

Excellence can be defined as follows: "let to me(or someone) will be better than everyone the rest", which usually sounds like "I better(stronger, more powerful, more significant) than others."

Incompatibility justice and superiority has always worried people who are trying to come to some kind of non-contradictory position in life. With a more or less consistent consideration of the issue, each time it turned out that the desire for superiority is absurd and meaningless, if this desire is measured by criteria of utility or justice. In this place, entire philosophical systems and scientific theories arose, hypotheses about the "instinct of power", about the "will to power", allegedly innate for humans and in general for all living beings, were composed. Lev Gumilyov in his books called the same phenomenon "passionarity" and defined it as something opposite"healthy instincts" of a person, including the survival instinct. Long before this, Nietzsche distinguished between the "will to live", based on the instinct of self-preservation, and the "will to power", which (and only it!) can inspire action. against this instinct.

The idea of superiority most strongly expresses the very essence of the power that unites people. This is not surprising, since it is power relations and power behavior that implement both components of this force ( PS). This is where it shows up most clearly. "Leader first brings people together around myself", they speak of domineering behavior. But this also means that at his disposal is some amount of force that connects people together, some energy that is usually dispersed in society. This is usually caused by the fact that in society itself this force remains less. Great leaders and emperors usually arise in epochs of social chaos and disorder, when the force that united people in society seems to be weakening. But in fact, it cannot disappear anywhere - it simply passes into a free state, and it turns out to be possible to take possession of it. The desire to have power is the desire to have this power at your disposal, nothing else. This is superiority. In the limit, one can wish for superiority not over some specific people, but over society as a whole.

Superiority is as empty an idea as the first two. It does not contain any indication of how and in the name of what one person seeks to rise above all the others, why he tries to unite them and where he will lead them. Specific types of superiority vary widely across cultures.

* By the way, it's "better" as a rule does not look like it only heavy

Comment. Kindness as a manifestation of superiority

One of the traditional problems associated with human behavior is the "problem of charity". It is easy to explain by pragmatic reasons a person's propensity to harm others (it's just that in many situations it benefits the one who does it: to take bread from the hungry in order to eat it yourself). It is more difficult to explain the not so rare cases of exactly the opposite behavior (give your bread to the hungry), especially if gratitude is not expected.

However, there is one good reason for giving to charity, and that is to achieve and demonstrate one's own superiority. In this sense, the Indian potlatch is a pure expression of such goodness-superiority, when the distributed material goods are "directly" exchanged for prestige.

Sphere of culture: freedom

Finally, there is something opposite to the idea of superiority. It's an idea freedom, emerging in the field of culture. It arises from the corresponding behavior of people and is reduced to the idea independence from the relations of participation, ownership and especially power.

Fifth value: life

Social relations are possible only if there are people who enter into them. Therefore, Existence participants in social relations can also be defined as a special value.

It should be noted that life is the same public value, like everyone else, more precisely - their condition. Life as a value should not be confused with the "self-preservation instinct", and even more so reduce the former to the latter. Nor is it the ultimate value, "by definition" more valuable than all the others. People can sacrifice their own (and even more so someone else's) life for the sake of realizing some other value.

Other values

There are no other values associated with the behavior of people in society. Of course, such concepts as truth, beauty, etc., can also be called values, since they are normative objects. But these are not social values; they cannot be considered all together.

Digression: The Origin of Values

All four core values are subhuman origin. They are generated by society, not by people - and a semblance of society already exists in pack animals.

This does not mean that a dog or a rat has some concept, say about justice (or some other value), but they sometimes demonstrate behavior, which can be considered fair, and with good reason. The wolf, dragging food to his she-wolf, instead of eating it himself, makes her good. What he thinks at the same time and whether he thinks at all is not essential here. The same wolf fighting another wolf will not kill the opponent after he has turned his tail. Kill the one who gave up and retreated not fair. As regards the desire to superiority here, probably, it is not even necessary to give examples. Most of the time that animals are not looking for food is spent establishing what zoologists call "pecking order." Equally obvious is the desire to independence(freedom) - it is enough to try to lock a wild beast in a cage to be convinced of this.

The hierarchy of values and relations between the spheres of behavior in animals are biologically set and depend on the species. good example can serve as "cat" and "dog" behavior. All cats are more or less individualists, dogs can form huge packs with a very complex hierarchy within them. One cannot say that the tiger consciously "professes" some kind of "values". He behaves in a certain way, without thinking about what his actions are called. Nevertheless, his behavior fits perfectly into a certain classification, the same one that fits the behavior of a person.

Relationships between values

All five values are trying to be realized in one society. In practice, there is always friction between them, since it is usually difficult to achieve the realization of all values \u200b\u200bat once.

Particularly acute conflicts arise between opposing values. A classic example is the conflict between the ideas of justice and superiority. The very existence of power clearly contradicts the idea of justice - and, on the other hand, power is necessary in order for there to be at least some justice in society. The idea of superiority and the idea of justice must somehow be combined. The simplest is the combination according to the scheme: "justice for myself, superiority over others." These kinds of societies need something external, some kind of enemy to overcome. This somehow justifies the existence of power and law enforcement agencies.

There are many other, much more complex and sophisticated options for solving the same problems. This applies both to society as a whole and to its parts, up to any (however small) stable association of people. In any team, in any organization, in general, everywhere and everywhere, people have to somehow solve all the same problems.

Hierarchy of values

One of the simplest and most widely used ways to order values is to establish a hierarchy. This means that some values are considered "more important" than others. As a rule, as a result, a kind of scale is built up, where one value comes first, then another follows, and so on. Accordingly, some areas of activity are beginning to be considered more important than others.

At the same time, most of the most significant features that divide society into so-called "classes" or "strata" are usually associated precisely with the dominant values. A society in which one sphere of behavior dominates will support predominantly those norms of behavior that are characteristic of this dominant sphere. The way it is. This gives rise to a kind of hierarchy of norms of behavior: despite the fact that everyone recognizes the necessity and inevitability different ways behavior, one of them begins to be considered the best, most worthy, and the rest - more or less vile and vile. Because the estimate is some idea, then it can be imposed even on those who themselves behave differently and even can't afford oneself to perform actions approved by this idea.

In this case, the leading value can be any of the above. Which of them will become the main one in each case depends on historical reasons. This is not to say that one option has fundamental advantages over others. The division of people into "noble" and "vile" in paramilitary societies obsessed with the idea of superiority is no better and no worse than the division into "rich" and "poor" where it is customary to "make good", and this, in turn, is not better and no worse than closed communities, divided into "us" and "them" (where the best is recognized as a quiet life and good relations with neighbors), or "free" and "not free". In the most primitive case (when life is recognized as the dominant value), society is divided simply into the strong ("healthy") and the weak.

It would seem that in this state of affairs there can be only five types of social structure. Actually it is not. Even if the first and main value has already been determined, it is very important what kind of behavior will be recognized. second by importance. Third the place is also worth something, although it is no longer as important as the first two. Only when all four the steps of the pedestal are occupied, we can talk about the type of this society. For example, in the Middle Ages mentioned above, the second most important values were religious ideas, supported by the then intellectuals. This determined the specifics of the medieval world. If the second place of honor belonged to values from another sphere, we would have a completely different society.

In addition, it is essential distance between recognized values. It is not constant: as the importance of different areas of behavior increases or decreases, it changes like the distance between horses on a racetrack. It happens that two "social ideals" go, so to speak, corps to corps, and sometimes one so much overtakes all the others that, against the background of its success, the differences between them seem insignificant. In this respect, the history of the rise of bourgeois ethics (that is, the imposition everything society as a model) is quite remarkable. For example, in the "heroic period" of primitive accumulation, the second main value after wealth was superiority. When the time of the sharks of capitalism and the concentration of capital passed and the time of the "consumer society" came, the sphere of communal relations moved to the second place in the hierarchical list.

Norms of relations within the fields of activity

Within the spheres of activity (that is, between people who behave in the same way) there are some norms of relations. As a rule, they are much more stable and definite than between people whose main interests are in various fields activities.

Norms of relations include norms of cooperation and norms of conflict. In any field of activity, both always happen. Moreover, the norms of conflict tend to be more clearly defined, since there are always more conflicts.

Conflict behavior

Conflict is a situation in which some people consciously and purposefully try to bring damage others. The word "damage" is not synonymous with the expression "unpleasant experiences". Whether a person experiences or not, and what exactly he experiences, is psychology. Damage is deprivation, which comes down to the fact that the victim is deprived of some opportunities.

The four types of damage that can be caused to a person in their respective areas of activity are as follows. Firstly, a person can be deprived of his property, or the right to independently engage in some business. All this can be expressed in words "take away".

Secondly, a person can be deprived of the opportunity to participate in some kind of joint activity, that is, to be a member of some team or community. This can be expressed in the word "isolate", or, more simply, "kick out."

Further, a person can be deprived of the achieved superiority, which is perceived as humiliation. Finally, he can be put in such conditions that he will have to do something that he previously could not do - which is loss of freedom.

It is necessary to distinguish between damage and the means of causing it. For example, murder is not a separate type of damage, but an extremely powerful means of causing it. It always pursues one of the goals mentioned above - for example, to take possession of a person's property, or to remove him from society ("remove").

Ownership conflict

Obviously, in the sphere of property relations, the main cause of conflict is the intention take away. This is due to the fact that “natural” conflicts in this area impersonal These are conflicts of interest, not people. The most acceptable type of conflict in the sphere of property (the "normal state of affairs") is considered to be competition.

Free competition is impersonal - opponents do not fight each other personally and directly. They may not even be aware of each other's existence or not be interested in it. In fact, this is the struggle of one result with another. It's like running sports. Runners - each in his own lane, and can't interfere with each other pushing or tripping. They are isolated from each other. They are judged by a third party. After all, it is possible to compete not even with another runner, but with a "result" that could have been achieved a year ago; it doesn't change things.

Competition is a situation where competitors cannot interfere with each other directly. To blow up someone else's plant is no longer competition, but a criminally punishable act. In short, the basic rule of competition is this: a person can do whatever they want with their property(including hurting the interests of other people), but cannot violate the property rights of others.

Conflict in the sphere of communal relations

If in the sphere of property there are conflicts of interest, and not people, then in the sphere of communal relations people can interfere each other, tripping and grabbing the legs, and this is considered normal. If we continue sports comparisons, then this is no longer reminiscent of running, but of wrestling.

In the sphere of communal relations, too, there are rules for dealing with conflicts. First of all, it must be borne in mind that in this area it is generally not customary to achieve something, to achieve, and so on. Achievement- This is a concept from the spheres of power and property. The sphere of communal relations is the sphere symmetrical relations. From all that has been said, it follows that the most acceptable reason for a conflict in the sphere of communal relations is not so much the intention to get something or do something yourself, but rather not to let another get it or do it. This may be a desire to besiege, not to allow, not to give, not to let in, not to allow, or - if all of the above did not help - at least to take revenge.

Conflicts in the sphere of communal relations, therefore, lead to the fact that people interfere each other to do certain things.

The conflict in the sphere of communal relations is usually aimed at put in place a person who stands out - it is not so important in which direction he stands out. A person who mistreats others, gains something for himself at the expense of others, deceives them, does not keep his word, and generally violates justice in any way, very quickly causes a corresponding reaction from others, even those who personally do not get hurt. This reaction may be understood people differently. In those cases when a person is distinguished by a violation of the moral norms accepted in a given society, such a reaction is called "moral indignation" and is recognized as acceptable and correct. But exactly the same reaction arises in general on everything that stands out, even in better side. A talented, intelligent, strong, capable person in the sphere of communal relations evokes exactly the same hostility and desire to put people in their place. People try to explain their behavior to themselves in different ways, for example, by attributing some vices to a prominent person (most often arrogance), or by explaining their dislike with envy, or in some other way. In fact, this is just a normal reaction within a given sphere to a phenomenon that violates its harmony. Note that in those moments when people begin to act in other areas, the attitude changes dramatically - until the relationship again passes into the social sphere, where everything starts all over again.

Emotions like “let neither me nor him get it”, “I’ll burn my hut, if only to set fire to the neighbor’s mansions”, etc., etc. is the reverse side of such good human qualities as the desire for justice and readiness to go to sacrifice for her. By the standards of the sphere of communal relations, high growth and good health can seem as unfair as stolen money or criminal connections. And people will behave in relation to an innocent, tall, healthy man, as well as to an obvious swindler, that is, to dislike and in every possible way strive to humiliate, spoil, do dirty tricks - in general, with something compensate obvious asymmetry. In the extreme case - if there are absolutely no excuses for such behavior - this will manifest itself in the fact that the person who stands out will not forgive the fact that they will forgive and excuse not standing out.

These properties of the sphere of communal relations have long evoked an ambivalent attitude. From the time of hoary antiquity, angry words were spoken about the "baseness of the crowd", hating everything high. But from the same time, it was this very crowd (this time respectfully called people) was considered a source and standard of moral norms and was opposed to the "corrupt" nobility, "jaded" owners and "conceited" intellectuals. All these nonsensical arguments are connected with the use of words like people or crowd. Saying these words, no one thinks about what he actually says. What is, for example, people? All residents of this country? Obviously not - otherwise the government, rich people, and local intellectual luminaries will fall into the “people”. Then what? Everyone who does not belong to the above categories of people? Seems Yes. But then the boundaries of the concept of "people" coincide with the boundaries of the sphere of communal relations, and denotes a set of people who (by their behavior) mainly belong to this sphere (something like the Shudra caste in ancient India). But this is not at all what they mean when they speak of the people as nation.

Conflict in the sphere of power

The rules for conducting conflict in the sphere of power relations are, as always, something like the sum of the first and second rules. In this area of behavior, the normal way to conduct a conflict can be considered a demonstration of one's superiority: do what others don't. It is also considered acceptable to do what the same person does not allow others to do.

It is typical for conflicts in this area that both competition and the creation of obstacles to other people's activities take place in them.

The conflict in the sphere of power relations is closely related to the demonstration of one's superiority. If in the sphere of communal relations "to be different from everyone else" is bad (such people are taken for fools or criminals), then in the sphere of power it is bad to be ordinary, "like everyone else", and not more significant others. There are no restrictions on the demonstration of superiority here, only one thing is important - superiority must be genuine.

It is interesting that the same people, ardently advocating for justice in his environment and intolerant stand out, internally convinced that leaders and in general "power" should consist of outstanding individuals whose terms of reference should be very large(up to dictatorial), and here the sense of justice for some reason is silent. In the head of such a person there arises a vague image of a society consisting of a people who have nothing but camaraderie and good relations, and cohorts of leaders who have nothing but power.

Behind this lies an intuition about a society in which there are only two spheres, namely, the spheres of power and communal relations, in the absence of property relations, as well as people free from society, for example, intellectuals. In modern sociological literature, such a set of ideas is called "manifestation of authoritarian consciousness." In fact, this is a completely normal way of perceiving society, although too radical and incomplete. It is difficult to prove that such a society must necessarily be “worse” (or “better”) than another equally radical and incomplete version, according to which only proprietors and intellectuals should remain in the society, and everything else should shrink to a minimum or disappear.

Cultural conflict

It remains to consider conflicts in the sphere of culture. If the rule of conducting a conflict in the sphere of power relations turned out to be a kind of sum of rules from the sphere of property relations and the sphere of communal relations, then in the spiritual sphere this rule is obtained, so to speak, by subtraction, or mutual negation of these rules. In the event of a conflict in the sphere of culture, the only acceptable form of conflict is refusal to do what others do. In the case of a person, he says something like this: "You do what you want, but I I won't do this" (listen to the interlocutor, obey orders, etc., etc.). Of course, they can answer him in the same way. Then a kind of competition in "disobedience" unfolds.

Notes:

And complete darkness, and too bright light does not allow you to see anything. Similarly, a “too clear” understanding of something does not allow us to distinguish anything.

See above for simple steps.

At the same time, one should not confuse value judgments (such as the above) with ethical ones (which will be discussed in detail below).

This formulation is available, for example, in Plato ("State", 433a-b). However, the interpretation given by Plato to this principle is erroneous: he considered justice as a situation where everyone minds his own business and does not interfere in other people's affairs (433d), that is, as stable property relations ( ^PS but not P^S). I must say that this is Plato's mistake.

The famous slogan of the French Revolution "Liberty, equality, fraternity or death!" demonstrates this, albeit in an absurd way. Death is indeed something quite fair, since it comes the same way for everyone. (By the way, the existence of immortal people would seem to other people the height of injustice - if, of course, immortals would live in the same society with mortals).

If this is not entirely true, it is not entirely his property (as anyone renting a thing can easily sense).

By the way, it's "better" as a rule does not look like it to "better" in terms of utility. Very often it looks like "worse". In order to achieve superiority over others, people embark on such enterprises that they would never agree to, if they want their own benefit (and only her). The life of a man striving for excellence heavy and the more he has achieved, the harder this life is, as a rule.

The term was formed as a result of observations of pigeons. The strongest pigeon has the right to peck everyone, but no one dares to peck him. Only the leader can peck at the next in importance, but he takes revenge on those who are weaker - and so on to the very bottom.

For example, medieval Europe was a hierarchically organized structure in which the main value was recognized superiority, understood as the possession of power and authority. Accordingly, the most remarkable and admirable was the behavior of a knight, a warrior. In the bourgeois Europe of the New Time, wealth becomes the main value (at first, as usual, property, later money), and the businessman becomes a role model.

"The main thing is victory, but we must not forget about the salvation of the soul."

In total, one hundred and twenty possible variants of the hierarchy of values can be distinguished. It is difficult to say whether all of them are realizable. It is most likely possible to pick up historical examples for many options.

When these two meanings of the word "people" are confused, confusion arises. A classic example of such a misunderstanding is the endless talk about the innate properties of the Russian people. If you listen to them, then the Russian people are characterized by a heightened sense of justice, a willingness to defend it, high morality - and, on the other hand, lack of initiative, envy of someone else's success, the desire to "divide everything", leveling, etc., etc. But after all, all of the above are properties of human behavior in the sphere of communal relations, and nothing more. The fact that all this is attributed specifically to the Russians only means that the social sphere plays a big role in the life of this people. This, in turn, is connected not with the people themselves, their history, geography or anything else, but simply with the state of affairs that takes place in real moment. By the way, as soon as the sphere of communal relations loses some ground (say, the influence of the sphere of property or the sphere of power increases), the behavior of the same people changes, moreover instantly. At the same time, the behavior of just those people changes the most. from which it was least expected. The reason for this is simple: the most predictable are precisely those people who follow the rules of behavior in each area, so to speak, automatically, without thinking. But as soon as they find themselves in another sphere of behavior, they just as automatically begin to behave in the same way as there received.

Despite the fact that disobedience is a seemingly purely negative thing, it can be expressed explicitly, demonstratively. For example, everyone observes the norms of politeness regarding a certain person, but someone does not greet him and does not shake hands. This behavior looks very eloquent.

Unfortunately, we are not always taught this in school. But many people are interested in the rules of behavior among friends and in a society of unfamiliar people. How to make the culture of etiquette a part of your life and become a welcome member of any company?

The norms and rules of behavior in society apply to all forms of human interaction with the outside world. Educated behavior implies that a person reacts correctly to any events and does not respond with outbursts of anger to negativity.

The formation of personality begins in childhood, so most of the responsibility for education lies with the parents. It is adults who should instill in the child love for loved ones, respect for others and, of course, good manners. And you need to do this not only with words, but also with your own example.

The next stage of personal development is self-education. Persistent and purposeful movement along this path forms character, allows you to consciously develop the most valuable human qualities in yourself and learn the rules of behavior accepted in society. There should be no excuses here, because today there are all the necessary resources for self-education - a wide network of libraries, theaters, television, the Internet. The main thing is not to absorb the entire flow of information, but to learn how to select the most valuable grains of truth.

To develop a culture of behavior, focus on aesthetic self-education. It develops a sense of beauty, teaches you to correctly understand and perceive the beauty of nature and art, to enjoy communication in a positive way. But it is worth making a reservation: it is not enough just to know and apply the rules of conduct adopted in our society. Lies and pretense are unacceptable here - in the heart of a truly educated person there is only a place for natural politeness, sensitivity and tact.

Listen first, then speak. Do not interrupt the interlocutor - you will have time to express your point of view later.

Basic norms and rules of behavior in society

Kindness and attention to others are the most important rules of social behavior. But the list of good manners is quite extensive. Let's consider the main ones:

Think not of yourself, but of others. Surrounding people prioritize sensitivity, not selfishness.
Show hospitality and friendliness. If you invite guests, treat them like your closest people.
Be polite in communication. Always say welcome and farewell words, thank for the gifts and services rendered, not only in word, but also in deed. A thank you letter, although it seems like a relic of the past, will be appropriate and pleasant for the recipient.
Avoid boasting. Let others judge you by your actions.
Listen first, then speak. Do not interrupt the interlocutor - you will have time to express your point of view later.
Don't point your finger at people and don't look piercing gaze. This confuses them, especially the disabled.
Do not violate someone else's personal space - for example, do not get too close to unfamiliar people and use stuffy perfume. Never smoke in public without asking the permission of the interlocutors, especially in the presence of non-smokers - no one likes it.
Avoid criticism and complaints. A person with good manners tries not to offend people with negative statements and does not complain about fate.
Remain calm in all situations. Anger not only leads to unnecessary conflicts with others, but also brings dissonance into one's own inner world. Control your speech so as not to raise your voice, even if you start to get nervous.
Be punctual. Being late shows that you don't know how to plan your day and don't value other people's time.
Keep your word. An unfulfilled promise can lead to real tragedy in the life of the person you hope for.
Pay back your debts promptly. Failure to comply with this rule often causes not only the termination of friendship and good relationships, but also serious enmity.

In business, it’s not enough to just be a well-mannered person, but by following the rules of business etiquette, you will achieve success much faster.

Proper behavior in business society

In the business environment, as well as in social life, there is a certain etiquette. It largely repeats the basic rules of human behavior in society, but it also has its own nuances. Knowing the rules of business etiquette, you will gain recognition in the world of successful people, you will be able to quickly build a career or promote your own company to a leading market position. Of course, in business it is not enough to be just a well-mannered person, but following the rules of business etiquette, you will achieve success much faster.

Punctuality. One of the fundamental postulates of the business world is “time is money”. You can perfectly negotiate, present charismatic presentations, professionally manage staff, but ... "theft" of someone else's time through eternal delays negates the entire effect of positive qualities. A non-punctual person does not inspire trust and respect and is unlikely to find permanent partners among successful large companies. Correct behavior in a society of business people requires a clear planning of the working day and complete control over the course of events.
Dress code. Appearance is a visiting card of a person, which tells about his character and inner world more than any words. A provocative appearance shows a protest against the laws and foundations of society, and this is not accepted in the business world. But a strict business suit, a neat hairstyle and harmoniously selected accessories indicate that a person is ready to obey the universal rules and work in a single team.
Grammatically correct speech. Muttering under your breath or slang words will nullify even the most correct appearance. If you do not have an innate gift for expressing thoughts clearly, work in this direction. Speech to the point, without unnecessary lyrical digressions, will help you find a common language with colleagues and clients and will be a good help for moving up the career ladder.
Compliance with trade secrets. In life they do not like talkers and gossips, and in the business world they do not like disloyal employees. Disclosure of company secrets can not only cause dismissal, but also cause difficulties with subsequent employment - the spy immediately falls into the unofficial "black list" of unreliable employees.

Respect. A professional always shows courtesy to his partners, clients and colleagues. The ability to listen to other people's arguments without arguing or criticism and to discuss disagreements in a constructive and positive way is an invaluable quality of a business person.
Mutual assistance. You need to help colleagues in word and deed, especially those who have recently worked with you. In most cases, good returns to us a hundredfold.
A responsibility. Everyone knows that work has to be done. However, many employees spend working hours chatting and doing personal things. This is a direct irresponsibility in relation to the common cause. Half the trouble if it affects only the loafers themselves. But the failure of an important project can leave the company without profit, and employees without salaries.
Telephone etiquette. Business negotiations on the phone require a special approach, because at a distance with the interlocutor it is impossible to establish visual and emotional contact. To leave a positive opinion about yourself, do not interrupt the interlocutor, speak clearly and clearly, ask questions only on the case. Speaking of telephone etiquette within the company, then try to avoid personal calls during working hours - they distract the attention of other employees and position you as a frivolous chatty person.

It is perhaps impossible to list all the rules and norms of human behavior in society and at work. To pass for a well-mannered person, do not forget the basics of the culture of etiquette and show people the attitude that you wish yourself.

unlike the original ones, these are the norms of direct regulation of people's behavior, social relations. They indicate the mutual rights and obligations of the subjects, the conditions for the implementation of these rights and obligations, the types and extent of the state's reaction to offenders.
A specific feature of a directly regulatory legal norm is its representative-binding nature, according to which it establishes mutual subjective rights and legal obligations protected and guaranteed by the state for the participants in public relations (subjects). As a result of such a purposeful regulatory impact of a norm - a rule of conduct on one or another actual social relation, the latter acquires the character of a legal one, and its participants become subjects of this legal relationship.
In the norms - rules of conduct, the original legal norms receive logical development and detail.
Norms - rules of conduct are thoroughly studied in legal science. The definition of a legal norm and its theory as a whole, until recently, focused exclusively on norms - rules of conduct, leaving out of sight many other types of normative prescriptions related to the original, starting norms.
In the legal literature, norms - rules of conduct are sometimes divided, taking into account their purpose, into regulatory and protective ones. Without objecting in principle to such a division, emphasizing the functional orientation of the relevant norms, we note, following some other authors, the conditionality of this classification, because protection is one of the methods of regulation, as a result of which the same norm can be simultaneously called regulatory, and protective.
General and special rules. They differ in their degree of generality and scope. General norms are prescriptions that cover, as a rule, all legal institutions of a particular branch (criminal law norms on probation, suspension of sentence execution, civil law norms on limitation of actions, etc.). These norms are grouped into a common part of the industry and regulate generic objects. Unlike them, special norms are prescriptions that relate to the starting institutions of a particular branch of law and regulate any particular type of generic social relations, taking into account their inherent features. Special norms detail general prescriptions, correct the temporal and spatial conditions of their implementation, ways of legal influence on the behavior of the individual. In doing so, they ensure the smooth and consistent implementation of the general rules of law. Special norms form in their totality a special part of a particular branch of law. An example of special rules are: the rules of sale, donation, contract, capital construction and other transactions in civil law; norms providing for responsibility for hooliganism, robbery, theft and other elements of crimes in criminal law, etc.
2. On the subject of legal regulation (by branches of law) ". norms of state, administrative, financial, land, civil, labor, criminal and other branches of Russian law. Qualitative homogeneity and relative autonomy of certain social relations determine the peculiarity and certain isolation of those regulating them legal norms, which in their totality constitute a branch of law.
Industry standards are divided into substantive and procedural.

2. Social norms are general rules of conduct

This means that the requirements social norms not designed for individual person like, for example, individual rules, but on all people living in society.

Moreover, the rules apply constantly, continuously, in a relationship all cases which are provided for by the rule.

In short, social norms establish a permanent, general criterion against which people's behavior must be correlated.

3.Social norms are binding rules of conduct

Since the norms are designed to streamline social relations and coordinate the interests of people, the requirements of the norms are protected by the power of public opinion, and, if necessary, by state power coercion.

In this way, social norms - these are general rules of conduct, continuously operating over time in relation to an indefinite circle of persons and an unlimited number of cases.

Types of social norms

All existing social norms can be classified on three grounds:

1. By area of regulation social relations social norms are divided into:

- rules of law- obligatory rules of behavior of people, established and protected by the state;

- moral standards- rules of conduct that are established in society in accordance with the moral ideas of people about good and evil, justice and injustice, duty, honor, dignity. They are protected by the power of public opinion and (or) the inner convictions of a person;

- norms of custom- these are the rules of behavior that have developed as a result of a long repetition by people of certain actions, fixed as stable norms;

A special role in primitive society belonged to such a variety of customs as rituals. A ritual is a rule of conduct in which the most important thing is a strictly predetermined form of its execution. The content of the ritual itself is not so important - it is its form that matters most. Rituals accompanied many events in the life of primitive people. We know about the existence of rituals of seeing off fellow tribesmen for hunting, taking office as a leader, presenting gifts to leaders, etc.

Somewhat later, in ritual actions, they began to distinguish rites. Rites were rules of conduct, consisting in the performance of certain symbolic actions. Unlike rituals, they pursued certain ideological (educational) goals and had a more serious impact on the human psyche.

- norms of traditions- these are historically developed and transmitted from generation to generation generalized rules related to the maintenance of family, national and other foundations;

- political norms- these are general rules of conduct that regulate relations between classes, social groups related to the exercise of state power, the way the state is organized and operates.

- economic norms- are the rules of conduct that regulate social relations associated with the production, distribution and consumption of material goods.

- norms of public organizations(corporate norms) are the rules of conduct that regulate social relations within various public organizations between their members. These standards are set by public organizations and are protected by measures provided for by the statutes of these organizations.

-religious norms as a type of social norms arise in the era of primitiveness. Primitive man, aware of his weakness before the forces of nature, attributed to the latter a divine power. Initially, the object of religious admiration was a real-life object - a fetish. Then a person began to worship any animal or plant - a totem, seeing in the latter his ancestor and protector. Then totemism was replaced by animism (from lat. "anima" - soul), i.e., faith in spirits, the soul, or the universal spirituality of nature. Many scientists believe that it was animism that became the basis for the emergence of modern religions: over time, among supernatural beings, people identified several special ones - gods. This is how the first polytheistic (pagan) and then monotheistic religions appeared;

2. By way of education social norms are divided into spontaneously educated(norms of rituals, traditions, morals) and norms, formed as a result of the conscious activity of people(rules of law).

3. According to the method of fastening social rules of conduct are divided into written and oral. Moral norms, customs, traditions, as a rule orally are passed down from generation to generation. In contrast, legal norms acquire a binding character and state protection only after they have been written confirmation and publication in special acts (laws, resolutions, decrees, etc.).

In modern society, there are two main types of social norms (rules of conduct): socio-technical and proper social. Rules are used to regulate human behavior in its relationship with nature, technology, or in the sphere of social relations. The diversity of human activity in society leads to a variety of rules of conduct, the totality of which ensures the regulation of relations.

Social norms can develop spontaneously or be created; consolidated and expressed orally or in writing.

The relationship between law and morality includes four components: 1) unity, 2) difference, 3) interaction, 4) contradiction.

1. The unity of law and morality is expressed in the following features:

Varieties of social norms, i.e. they have the same normative basis;

They pursue the same goals and objectives: the socialization of society;

They have the same object of regulation - public relations; the requirements of law and morality for social relations coincide. However, law and morality regulate social relations to a different extent;

Determine the boundaries of the proper and possible actions of the subjects of public relations;

They are superstructural phenomena, which makes them socially of the same type in a given society;

Both law and morality act as fundamental general historical values, indicators of the social and cultural progress of society. In general, law is morality erected into law.

2. The difference between law and morality consists in the following characteristics:

Various ways of establishment, formation. Legal norms are created or sanctioned, canceled, changed or supplemented only by the state, since law expresses the state will of society. Moral norms, in turn, arise and develop spontaneously, in the process of people's practical activities. At the same time, morality is unofficial (non-state) in nature;

Law and morality have different methods of ensuring them. Behind the legal norms is the apparatus of state coercion, potential and possible. At the same time, the legal norms enshrined in laws are generally binding. Morality is based on the power of public opinion. Violation of moral norms does not entail the intervention of punitive state bodies;

Various forms of external expression, fixation. Legal norms are fixed in the legal acts of the state, they are grouped, systematized. Moral norms, in turn, do not have such clear forms of expression, are not taken into account, are not processed, but arise and exist in the minds of people;

Different character and way of their influence on consciousness and behavior of people. Law regulates the relationship between subjects in terms of their legal rights and obligations, while morality approaches human actions from the standpoint of moral values;

Different nature and order of responsibility for violation of legal and moral norms, respectively. Illegal actions entail legal liability, which is procedural in nature. Measures of responsibility in the form of public influence are applied to the violator of moral norms.

The concept and types of legal relations.

ON- general relations settled legal norms*, cat participants. have subjective rights and legal. responsibilities. Software allows you to "translate" abstract legal entities. norms into the plane of personified connections, i.e. on the level of subjective rights and legal. responsibilities for these subjects.

* this is coming from the state andprotected by himobligatory formally defined prescription, expressed as a rule of conduct or starting establishment and isebeing the state regulator of general relations

The software has a complex composition structure:

1) subject Software is the participants of legal relations, possessing the corresponding subjective rights and legal obligations. Sign - legal personality (a legally fixed opportunity to have P. and O., independently implement them, and also be responsible for the results of one's behavior). Legal personality = legal capacity + desp.

2) object Software - 2 points of view: 1) this is what the rights and obligations of software subjects are aimed at, about which they enter into legal action. connections (goods themselves); 2) what this software is aimed at - the behavior of the subjects of this software, aimed at various kinds of material and non-material benefits (and not the benefits themselves).

3) yur content ON - subjective right and legal duty. (+ there is an opinion that the content of the software is the actual behavior aimed at the implementation of sub. rights and obligations).

Jur. duty- a measure of legal proper conduct, established to satisfy the interests of an authorized person (+ (VN) the need to perform certain actions or refrain from doing them; the need for a legally binding person to respond to pro-authorization requirements addressed to him; not to bear responsibility for non-fulfillment of the requirement) .

Subjective law (Konopch) -

Composition and content of legal relations.

Jur. duty- a measure of legal proper behavior, established to satisfy the interests of an authorized person (+ (VN) the need to perform certain actions or refrain from performing them; the need for a legally binding person to respond to legal requirements addressed to him; not to bear responsibility for non-fulfillment of requirements) .

Subjective law (Konopch)- this is a legally guaranteed type and measure of the possible behavior of an authorized person, established. legal norm, which consists of 3 powers (- the right to own actions (inaction) / - the right to demand an action (inaction) from another person / - the right to protection - the ability to resort to state. coercion) and follows from objective law.

material content(actual) (definite actions in which the rights and obligations of the parties are realized).

+ ??Volitional content(State will, embodied in the rights of the norm and arising on the basis of legal relationship, as well as volitional acts of its students).

The concept and types of subjects of legal relations.

Subjects- these are participants in legal relations with appropriate subjective rights and legal obligations. Sign - legal personality (a legally fixed opportunity to have P. and O., independently implement them, and also be responsible for the results of one's behavior). Legal personality = legal capacity + desp.

There are the following types of subjects of legal relations; individual and collective.

1 TO individual subjects(individuals) include: 1) citizens; 2) persons with dual citizenship; 3) stateless persons; 4) foreigners.

Stateless persons and foreigners can enter into the same legal relations on the territory of Russia as citizens of the Russian Federation, subject to a number of restrictions established by law: they cannot elect and be elected to representative bodies of power in Russia, hold certain positions in the state. apparatus, serve in the Armed Forces, etc.

2) K collective subjects relate: 1) the state as a whole (when, for example, it enters into international legal relations with other states, in constitutional and legal relations - with subjects of the federation, in civil law - regarding federal state property, etc.); 2) state organizations; 3) non-government organizations (private firms, commercial banks, public associations, etc.).

Collective entities have the qualities of a legal entity in private law relations. According to Part 1 of Art. 48 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation "a legal entity is an organization that owns, manages or manages separate property and is liable for its obligations with this property, can acquire and exercise property and personal non-property rights on its own behalf, bear obligations, be a plaintiff and a defendant in court"

The concept of legal personality.

Subject of law - this is a software participant with acc. subjective rights and legal responsibilities.

Legal personality – legal a fixed opportunity for a person to have rights and obligations, independently exercise them within the framework of a specific software, and be responsible for the results of his behavior. Pravosub. \u003d legal capacity + legal capacity.

Legal personality including:

1)Legal capacity is a potential ability persons act as a bearer of subjective rights and obligations.

In subjects-individuals: arises from birth and ends with death; comes immediately in full; restriction is not allowed.

For collective entities: starts from the moment of their official recognition (registration).

-general- this is the ability of any person or organization to be a subject of law as such, in general.

-branch- jur. the ability of an individual entrepreneur or organization to be a subject of a particular branch of law. In each industry, the timing of its onset can be. are not the same (Marchenko).

-special - the ability to be a member of the PO arising in connection with holding a certain position (president, judge, member of parliament) or belonging to certain categories of subjects of law (employees of a number of Vehicle, law enforcement organs, etc.).

2)legal capacity- the actual ability of a person by his conscious volitional actions to acquire and exercise rights, create duties for himself and fulfill them (+ in Romashov: ..and also bear responsibility).

Capacity is associated with the mental and age properties of a person and depends on them.

* Types of individual legal capacity by volume:

1) full from the age of 18 (from the age of 16 - marriage, emancipation in the GP) - can realize the basic rights and obligations.

2) incomplete:

Partial (from 14 to 18 years old) - can independently realize only a part of their potential P. and O. This is due to circumstances of an objective nature.

Limited - associated with the forced restriction of a previously fully capable individual (either a measure of responsibility (N: deprivation of a driver's license), or a measure of preventive or remedial character (N: restriction in the desp-ty of an alcoholic)

* Types of individual capacity by character:

General (implement the main P. and O.)

Special (due to a special legal status and depends on many factors (occupation, citizenship ..)

The legal capacity of collective entities arises simultaneously with the legal right at the time of registration. Types: general, special.

*Art. 27 of the Civil Code (emancipation): A minor who has reached sixteen years of age may be declared fully capable if he works under an employment contract, including under a contract, or, with the consent of his parents, adoptive parents or guardian, is engaged in entrepreneurial activities.

Object of legal relationship: concept and types.

Software object- this is what the rights and obligations of software subjects are aimed at, about which they enter into legal action. connections.

People always participate in software for their own interests.. This goal is achieved through rights and obligations that ensure the receipt of certain benefits ( what gives prosperity, satisfies needs)

There are 2 approaches to understanding this category:

1) the behavior of the subjects of this software, aimed at various kinds of material and non-material benefits (and not the benefits themselves).

2) according to the second approach, objects can be:

a) material goods, objects of the material world - things;

b) the results of the spiritual, intellect. creativity (art or documentaries, scientific and art books, etc.)

c) the behavior of people - their certain actions or inactions, as well as the consequences, results of this or that behavior;

d) personal indigence. and other social good, cat. serve to meet the needs of the participants in the software and about the cat's parties have jur. obligations and subjective rights. (honor, dignity)

Central Bank and documents (money, shares, diplomas, certificates).

The concept and classification of legal facts. actual composition.

YurFact- specific life circumstances with which the law associates the emergence, change and termination of legal relations. YurFact- these are specific life circumstances, with a cat. the law binds the onset of various jur. consequences.

At legal the fact indicates the hypothesis of the rule of law.