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

Morality- the norms of behavior accepted in society and ideas about this behavior. Morality also refers to moral values, foundations, orders and prescriptions. If in society someone commits acts that are contrary to the designated norms, then they are called immoral.

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

How is morality formed?

morality of man largely dependent on himself. Only the individual is responsible for what happens to him. It depends on how ready she is to follow the established orders in society, whether a person will be successful, accepted by others. The development of morality, moral concepts occurs in the parental family. It is those first people with whom the child begins to interact in the early stages of his life that leave a serious imprint on his future fate. So, the formation of morality is significantly influenced by the immediate environment in which a person grows up. If a child grows up in a dysfunctional family, then from an early age he develops a wrong idea about how the world works and a distorted perception of himself in society is formed. As an adult, such a person will begin to experience tremendous difficulties in communicating with other people and will feel discontent on their part. In the case of raising a child in a prosperous average family, he begins to absorb the values ​​of his immediate environment, and this process occurs naturally.

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

Functions of morality

Few people really have a question, why do we need morality? This concept consists of many important components and protects the conscience of a person from unwanted actions. For the consequences of his moral choice, the individual is responsible not only to society, but also to himself. There are functions of morality that help it to fulfill its task.

• Evaluation function related to how other people or the person himself determines the actions committed by him. In the case when self-assessment occurs, a person is usually inclined to justify his own actions by some circumstances. It is much more difficult to bring actions to the public court, because society is sometimes inexorable when evaluating others.
• Regulatory function helps to establish norms in society that will become laws designed for universal observance. The rules of behavior in society are assimilated by the individual at a subconscious level. That is why, getting into a place where there are a large number of people, most of us after some time begin to unmistakably follow the unspoken laws adopted in this particular society.
• Controlling function is directly related to testing the extent to which an individual is able to follow the rules established in society. Such control helps to achieve a state of "clear conscience" and social approval. If an individual does not behave appropriately, then he will necessarily receive condemnation from other people as a feedback.
• Integrating function helps to maintain a state of harmony within the person himself. Performing certain actions, a person, one way or another, analyzes his actions, “checks” them for honesty and decency.
• educational function is to enable a person to learn to understand and accept the needs of other people, to take into account their needs, characteristics and desires. If an individual reaches the state of such an inner breadth of consciousness, then it can be said that he is able to take care of others, and not just about himself. Morality is often associated with a sense of duty. A person who has duties to society is disciplined, responsible and decent. Norms, rules and orders educate a person, form her social ideals and aspirations.

moral standards

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

• Prudence is an essential component of any strong person. It implies that the individual has the ability to adequately perceive the surrounding reality, build harmonious connections and relationships, make reasonable decisions, and act constructively in difficult situations.
• Abstinence involves a ban on staring at persons of the opposite sex who are married. The ability to cope with one's desires, impulses is approved by society, unwillingness to follow spiritual canons is condemned.
• Justice always implies that for all the deeds committed on this earth, sooner or later retribution or some kind of response will come. A fair treatment of other people is, first of all, to recognize their value as significant units of human society. Respect, attention to their needs also apply to this item.
• Fortitude is formed due to the ability to endure the blows of fate, to endure the necessary experience for oneself and constructively get out of a crisis state. Perseverance as a moral norm implies the desire to fulfill one's destiny and move forward, despite difficulties. By overcoming obstacles, a person becomes stronger and can later help other people to go through their individual trials.
• industriousness valued in every society. This concept is understood as a person's passion for some business, the realization of his talent or abilities for the benefit of other people. If a person is not ready to share the results of his work, then he cannot be called hardworking. That is, the need for activity should not be connected with personal enrichment, but with serving the consequences of one's work to as many people as possible.
• Humility achieved through long suffering and repentance. The ability to stop in time, not to resort to revenge in a situation where you have been greatly offended, is akin to a real art. But for real strong man has tremendous freedom of choice: he is able to overcome destructive feelings.
• Politeness necessary in the process of human interaction with each other. Thanks to it, it becomes possible to conclude deals and agreements that are beneficial for both parties. Politeness characterizes a person with better side and helps her constructively move towards a given goal.

moral principles

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

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

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

MORALITY

MORALITY

M. belongs to the number main types of normative regulation of human actions, such as customs, traditions and others, intersects with them and at the same time differs significantly from them. If in law and organization-zats. regulations, prescriptions are formulated, approved and carried out in specialist. institutions, the requirements of morality (as usual) are formed in the very practice of mass behavior, in the process of mutual communication of people and are a reflection of life-practice. and historical experience directly in collective and individual ideas, feelings and will. Moral norms are reproduced daily by the force of mass habits, decrees and assessments of societies. opinions, beliefs and motives brought up in the individual. The fulfillment of M.'s requirements can be controlled by all people without exception and by each individual. The authority of this or that person in M. is not connected with c.-l. official powers, real power and societies. position, but is a spiritual authority, i.e. due to his moral qualities (example) and the ability to adequately express morals. requirements in one way or another. In general, there is no separation of the subject and object of regulation, which is characteristic of institutional norms, in M..

Unlike simple customs, the norms of M. are not only supported by the power of an established and generally accepted order, by the power of habit and the cumulative pressure of others and their opinions on the individual, but "receive an ideological expression in general fixed ideas (commandments, principles) about how it should be done. The latter, reflected in societies. opinion, at the same time they are more stable, historically stable and systematic. M. reflects a holistic system of views on social life, containing this or understanding of the essence ("appointment", "meaning", "goals") society, history, man and his being. Therefore, the morals and customs prevailing at the moment can be evaluated by M. from the point of view of its general principles, ideals, criteria for good and evil, and the moral outlook can be critical. relation to the actual accepted way of life (which finds expression in the views of the progressive class or, on the contrary, conservative social groups) . In general, in M., in contrast to custom, what is due and what is actually accepted does not always and not completely coincide. In class antagonism. society norms universal. morality has never been fulfilled entirely, unconditionally, in all cases without exception.

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

Moral requirements for a person do not mean the achievement of some particular and immediate results in a certain way. situations, but general norms and principles of behavior. In a single case, practical actions can be different, depending on random circumstances; on a general social scale, in the total result, the fulfillment of a moral norm corresponds to one society or another. the needs displayed in a generalized form by this norm. Therefore, a form of expression of morals. rules are not rules ext. expediency (to achieve such and such a result, you need to do something like this), but an imperative requirement, an obligation, which a person must follow in the implementation of his most diverse goals. The moral norms reflect the needs of man and society not within the boundaries of the defined. private circumstances and situations, and on the basis of a huge historical. experience pl. generations; so with t. sp. of these norms can be evaluated both the special goals pursued by people, and the means of achieving them.

M. is separated from the originally undivided normative regulation into a special sphere of relations already in a tribal society, it takes a long time. the history of formation and development in a pre-class and class society, where its requirements, principles, ideals and assessments acquire meaning. least class character and meaning, although along with this, the general human being is also preserved. moral standards associated with common human conditions for all eras. hostels.

In an era of social and economic crisis. formations arises as one of his expressions of the dominant M. Moral crisis bourgeois society is part of the general crisis of capitalism. The crisis of tradition values bourgeois M. is found in the "loss of ideals", in the narrowing of the sphere of moral regulation (amoralism bourgeois politics, the crisis of family and marriage relations, the growth of crime, drug addiction, corruption, "escapism" and "rebellion" of youth).

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

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

Lenin V.I., On the Communist. morality. [Sb.], M., 19752; Kon I. S., M. communist and M. bourgeois, M., I960; Bek G., On Marxist Ethics and Socialist. M., per. With German M., 1962; Selzam G., Marxism and M., trans... s English, M., 1962; X and y k and n I. 3., Structure and moral and legal systems, M., 1972; Gumnitsky G. N., Osn. problems of theory M., Ivanovo, 1972; Moral regulation and personality. Sat. Art., M., 1972; Drobnitsky O. G., Concept M., M., 1974; Titarenko A. I., Structures of morals. consciousness, M., 1974; M. and ethical. theory, M., 1974; Huseynov A. A., Social morality, M., 1974; Rybakova N.V., Moral relations and them, L., 1974; M. developed socialism, M., 1976; morals. and personality, Vilnius, 1976; Social, structure and functions M., M., 1977; Petropavlovsky R.V., Dialectics of progress and its morality, M., 1978; Anisimov S. F., M. and behavior, M., 1979; Shishkin A. F., Chelovech. nature and morality, M., 1979; Moralny, M., 1980; Fundamentals of the communist M., M., 1980 ; The definition of morality, ed. G. Wallace and A. D. M. Walker, L., ;

O. G. Drobnitsky.

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

MORALITY

(from lat. moralis - moral)

that area from the realm of ethical values ​​(cf. Ethics), which is recognized above all by every adult. The size and content of this sphere change over time and are different for different countries. different peoples and strata of the population (many morals and unity of ethics). Main problems in morality are questions about what is a "good custom", what is "decent", what makes it possible life together people, in which everyone refuses the full implementation of life values ​​(food consumption, sexuality, the need for security, the desire for significance and possession) in favor of the implementation (least of all by understanding what is considered right) social values ​​(recognition of the rights of others. personality, justice, truthfulness, trustworthiness, fidelity, tolerance, courtesy, etc.); cm. Rule. The dominant morality of all peoples and at all times, in addition to social values, also includes those that are regarded by religion as good behavior (love of neighbor, charity, hospitality, veneration of ancestors, religious worship, etc.). Morality is an integral part of the individual microcosm, it is one of the moments that determine the picture of the world for the individual.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

MORALITY

(from lat. moralis - moral) - a form of society. consciousness, a set of principles, rules, norms, by which people are guided in their behavior. These norms are an expression of the definition. real relations of people to each other and to various forms of human. community: to the family, work collective, class, nation, society as a whole. The most important specific trait M. is morals. actions and motivations. The basis of such an assessment is the ideas that have developed in society, among this class, about good and evil, about duty, justice and injustice, about honor and dishonor, in which the demands on the individual from society or class, societies are expressed. or class interests. Unlike law, the principles and norms of M. are not fixed in the state. legislation; their implementation is based not on the law, but on the conscience and society. opinion. M. is embodied in mores and customs. Stable, firmly entrenched norms of morals. behaviors that pass from generation to generation constitute morals. tradition. The content of M. also includes morals. beliefs and habits that together form morals. personality consciousness. M. manifests itself in the actions of people. morals. behavior is characterized by the unity of consciousness and action.

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

Moral views of people changed following the changes in their social life. In each era as a whole or its constituent antagonistic. worked out such criterion M., to-ry with objective necessity followed from their material interests. None of these criteria could claim to be universally valid, since in a class society there was not and could not be a unity of the material interests of all people. However, in M. advanced societies. forces contained universal. M. of the future. They are inherited and developed by the , designed to forever end the exploitation of man by man and create a society without classes. “Truly human morality,” wrote Engels, “standing above class contradictions and any recollection of them, will become possible only at such a stage in the development of society, when not only the opposition of classes will be destroyed, but its trace in practical life will also be erased” (“Anti- Dühring", 1957, p. 89).

Progress in the development of society naturally led to progress in the development of M. "... In morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, progress is generally observed" (ibid.). In every historical epoch of a progressive nature were those moral norms, to-rye met the needs of societies. development, contributed to the destruction of the old, obsolete societies. building and replacing it with a new one. The bearers of morals. progress in history has always been revolutionary. classes. Progress in the development of M. lies in the fact that with the development of society, such norms of M. arose and became more widespread, to-rye raised the dignity of the individual, socially useful labor, brought up in people the need to serve society, between fighters for a just cause.

M. is the oldest form of society. consciousness. It originated in a primitive society under the direct. the influence of the process of production, to-ry required the coordination of the actions of members of the community and the subordination of the will of the individual to common interests. The practice of relationships, which developed under the influence of a fierce struggle for, was gradually fixed in customs and traditions, which were strictly observed. The basis of morality was primitive and primitive collectivism characteristic of tribal society. The man felt his inseparable from the team, outside of which he could not get food and fight against numerous enemies. "The security of an individual depended on his kind; ties of kinship were a powerful element of mutual support; to offend someone meant to offend him" (Archive of Marx and Engels, vol. 9, 1941, p. 67). Selfless devotion and fidelity to one's clan and tribe, selfless protection of relatives, mutual assistance, in relation to them were the indisputable norms of M. of that time, and in the clan its members showed diligence, endurance, courage, contempt for death. A sense of duty was laid in joint work, a sense of justice was born on the basis of primitive equality. The absence of private ownership of the means of production made M. one for all members of the clan, for the entire tribe. Each, even the weakest member of the clan felt its collective strength behind him; this was the source of the self-esteem inherent in the people of that time.

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

At the same time, it would be wrong to idealize the M. of the primitive communal system and not see its historically determined limitations. Harsh life, an extremely low level of development of production, the impotence of man in front of the still unknown forces of nature gave rise to superstitions and extremely cruel customs. In the genus, the ancient custom of blood feud got its start. Only gradually did the wild custom of cannibalism disappear, which had been preserved for a long time during military clashes. Marx in the abstract of the book " ancient society"indicated that both positive and certain negative moral qualities developed in the tribal society. "At the lower stage of barbarism, the highest properties of man began to develop.

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

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

With the advent of the slave Society began the period of the existence of class M. Private undermined and then destroyed the collectivism of tribal society. Engels wrote that the primitive community "... was broken under such influences that directly appear to us as a decline, a fall in comparison with the high moral level of the old tribal society. robbery of the common property - are the heirs of a new, civilized, class society; the most vile means - theft, deceit, treason - undermine the old classless tribal society and lead to its death "(ibid.). Private property freed slave owners from the need to work; produces. was considered unworthy of a free man. In contrast to the customs and mores of a tribal society, M. slave owners considered social inequality as a natural and fair form of humanity. relations and defended private ownership of the means of production. Slaves, in essence, stood outside M., they were considered as the property of the slave owner, "speaking".

Nevertheless, the new M. was a reflection of a more high level development of society and, although it did not apply to slaves, it covered a much broader people than either a tribe, namely, the entire free population of the state. Morals remained extremely cruel, but the prisoners, as a rule, were not killed. Subjected to morals. condemnation and cannibalism disappeared. Individualism and associated with it, to-ry came to replace primitive collectivism and from the time of the slave owners. Mentalism underlies the morality of all exploiting classes and was at first a necessary form of self-affirmation of the individual (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 236). At the same time, the best that was created in morals. consciousness of the tribal system, did not die at all, but received in new conditions new life. Many of the simple norms of morality and justice that originated in tribal society continued to live among the free artisans and peasants of the era of slavery. Along with the militia of slave-owners and its variety for the oppressed—the slavish militia of humility and obedience—the militia of protest of the oppressed against oppression arose and developed among the masses of slaves. This militancy, which aroused indignation at the inhuman conditions of the slave-owning system and developed especially in the era of its decline, reflected the contradictions that led to the collapse of the slave-owning society and accelerated its collapse.

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

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

Int. inconsistency and exploitative essence of bourgeois. Mathematics manifested itself when the newcomer to power found herself face to face with the proletariat rising up to fight. Promised bourgeois. Enlighteners, the realm of reason and justice turned out to be in fact the realm of the money bag, which increased the poverty of the working class and gave rise to new social disasters and vices (see F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1957, p. 241). Burzh. M., with her claim to and eternity, turned out to be narrow, limited, and self-serving M. bourgeois.

Main bourgeois principle. M., determined by the nature of the bourgeoisie. societies. relations, is the principle of sanctity and inviolability of private property as the "eternal" and "unshakable" foundation of all societies. life. From this principle follows the moral justification of the exploitation of man by man and the whole practice of bourgeois. relations. For the sake of wealth, money, profit, the bourgeois is ready to violate any moral and humanistic ideals. principles. The bourgeoisie, having achieved dominance, “... left no connection between people, except for naked interest, a heartless “chistogan”. In the icy water of selfish calculation, it drowned the sacred awe of religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, petty-bourgeois sentimentality. It turned the personal into an exchange value. .." (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 426).

In the bourgeois M. received its finished expression inherent in one way or another M. of all exploiting classes and selfishness. Private property and competition divide people and put them in hostile relations with each other. If in the struggle against feudalism bourgeois. individualism still contributed to a certain extent to the formation of personality, its liberation from feuds. and religious fetters, then during the period of the domination of the bourgeoisie it became a source of hypocritically masked or open immorality. Individualism and egoism lead to the suppression of the truly human. feelings and attitudes, to the neglect of societies. debt, suppress and mutilate the development of personality.

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

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

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

In the communist M. receives the further development of the socialist. collectivism, mutual assistance of members of the socialist. society in labor, in societies. undertakings, in study and life. This one, which is developing in all directions during the period of extensive construction of communism, is based on the genuine collectivism of societies. relations. Thanks to the dominance of the socialist ownership of the means of production is the property of morals. consciousness of members of society becomes that simple that "..., the good, the happiness of each individual is inextricably linked with the good of other people" (Engels F., see Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 535).

Contrary to the slander bourgeois claims. ideologues, communist M. does not require the dissolution of the individual in the team, the suppression of the individual. On the contrary, the principles of the communist M. open wide scope for the all-round development and flourishing of the personality of every working person, because only under socialism "... the original and free development of individuals ceases to be a phrase ..." (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed. ., vol. 3, p. 441). One of the conditions for the development of high morals. personality traits (a sense of dignity, courage, integrity in beliefs and actions, honesty, truthfulness, modesty, etc.) is an individual in the socialist. team. In the owls society building communism, pl. millions of workers participate in the management of the state. deeds, show creativity, initiative in the development of socialist. production, in the struggle for a new life.

For morals. socialist relations. society is characterized by a new society.-useful labor, to-ry is estimated by society. opinion as high morals. business (see Communist Labor). morals. the quality of owls. people became about societies. good, high consciousness of societies. debt. Owls. people are peculiar to the socialist. Homeland and socialist. internationalism.

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

Family relations in the socialist. In society, they are freed from material calculation; love, mutual respect, and the upbringing of children become the basis of the family.

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

Its full development of the communist. M. will receive in the communist. society where morals. relations will play the role of ch. human regulator. behavior. Together with the improvement of the communist societies. relations will be constantly improved and communistic. M., will increasingly reveal truly human moral relations.

V. Morozov. Moscow.

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

L. Azarch. Moscow.

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

MORALITY

MORAL (lat. Moralitas) - the concept of European philosophy, which serves for a generalized expression of the sphere of higher values ​​and obligation. Morality generalizes that slice of human experience, different sides which are denoted by the words “good” and “evil”, “virtue” and “vice”, “right” and “wrong”, “duty”, “conscience”, “justice”, etc. Concepts of morality are formed in the process of understanding , firstly, the correct behavior, proper character (“moral character”), and secondly, the conditions and limits of the will of a person, limited by his own (internal) obligation, as well as the limits of freedom in conditions of externally specified organizational and (or) normative orderliness .

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

According to one of the most common modern approaches, morality is interpreted as a way of regulating (in particular, normative) people's behavior. Such an understanding takes shape in J.S. Mill, although it was formed earlier - the idea of ​​morality as a certain form of imperativeness (in contrast to the understanding of morality as predominantly the sphere of motives that dominated in Enlightenment thought) in different options found in Hobbes, Mandeville, Kant. Several approaches and levels are distinguishable in the perception and interpretation of the imperativeness of morality. Firstly, a nihilistic attitude towards morality, in which imperativeness is not accepted as such: any ordering of individual manifestations, in the form of everyday rules, social norms or universal cultural principles, is perceived as a yoke, the suppression of the individual (Protagoras, Sade, Nietzsche). Secondly, a protest against the external coercion of morality, in which morality itself can also be expressed - an individualized attitude to existing mores or a denial of external, official, hypocritical submission to social norms; the inherent value of morality is interpreted as its insubordination from outside to given and self-reliant norms and rules (S. L. Frank, P. Janet). Thirdly, the interpretation of the imperativeness of morality as an expression of the need for expedient interaction in society. Understanding morality as a set of “rules of conduct” (Spencer, J.S. Mill, Durkheim) will prevent it from becoming more common system(nature, society) and the criterion of the morality of actions is their adequacy to the needs and goals of the system. In line with this understanding of imperativeness, morality is interpreted not as the power of supra-individual control over the behavior of citizens, but as developed by the people themselves and fixed in the “social contract” of interaction between people (sophists, Epicurus, Hobbes, Rousseau, Rawls), a system of mutual obligations that people as citizens of one community take over. In this sense, morality is conventional, variable, prudential. Fourthly, consideration of moral imperativeness from the point of view of its specificity, which lies in the fact that it is more motivating than prohibitive: moral sanctions addressed to a person as a conscious and free subject are ideal (Kant, Hegel, Hare). Fifthly, the understanding of the mutual and self-limitations imputed by morality, as indicating that its peculiarity is that morality sets the form of volition; the fulfillment of the requirement directly depends on the person, fulfilling the requirement, he, as it were, proclaims it himself. Such is the peculiarity of non-institutionalized forms of regulation of behavior. Related to this is the fact that the morality of actions is determined both by the content and result of the action performed, and to no lesser extent by the intention with which it was committed, which significantly distinguishes morality from law-abidingness, opportunism, servility or diligence. The “internally motivating” nature of the imperativeness of morality was reflected in the special concepts of duty and conscience. However, the imperativeness of morality is perceived as “internal”, that is, coming from the individual (as autonomous, self-determining and creative), with a certain, namely social or socio-communitarian point of view on morality, according to which morality is the norms existing in the Community, and the individual in his activity is conditioned by those dependencies in which he, as a member of the community, is included. With the assumption of differently interpreted transcendent principles of human activity and, accordingly, when considering a person not only as a social or socio-biological, but also as a generic, spiritual being capable of volitional and activity change external circumstances, as well as oneself (see Perfection), - the source of moral imperative is interpreted differently. A person broadcasts, and so on. represents value content in society (in relation to society). From this arises the idea of ​​virtue or moral phenomena in general as having a value in itself, not conditioned by other vital factors. Such are the various ideas about the imperativeness of morality, which reflected (in one form or another) its inherent role of harmonizing isolated interests, but also ensuring individual freedom and resisting arbitrariness - by limiting willfulness, streamlining the individual (as tending to atomization, alienation) behavior, understanding the goals to which the person aspires (in particular, to achieve personal happiness), and the means that are used for this (see Purpose and Means).

In comparison with other regulators (legal, local group, administrative-corporate, confessional, etc.), moral regulation has features arising from its specificity. In terms of content, moral requirements may or may not coincide with other types of institutions; at the same time, morality regulates the behavior of people within the framework of existing institutions, but with respect to what these institutions do not cover. Unlike a number of tools of social discipline, which ensure that a person as a member of a community is opposed to natural elements, morality is designed to ensure the independence of a person as a spiritual being (personality) in relation to his own inclinations, spontaneous reactions and external group and social pressure. Through morality, arbitrariness is transformed into freedom. Accordingly, according to its internal logic, morality is addressed to those who consider themselves free. Proceeding from this, one can speak of it as a social institution only in the broadest sense of the word, i.e., as a set of some culturally shaped (codified and rationalized) values ​​and requirements, the sanctioning of which is ensured by the very fact of their existence. Morality is non-institutional in the narrow sense of the word: to the extent that its effectiveness does not need to be ensured by any social institutions and to the extent that its coercion is not due to the presence of a force external to the individual authorized by society. Accordingly, the practice of morality, being predetermined (set) by the space of arbitrary behavior, in turn sets freedoms. This nature of morality makes it possible to appeal to it when assessing existing social institutions, as well as to proceed from it when forming or reforming them.

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

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

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

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

Another, adjacent to the previous one, conceptualization of the concept of morality is possible when building ethics as a theory of virtues. The tradition of this approach comes from antiquity, where it is represented in the most developed form by Aristotle. Throughout the history of philosophy, both approaches - the theory of norms and the theory of virtues - somehow supplemented each other, as a rule, within the same constructions, although it was the ethics of virtues that prevailed (for example, in Thomas Aquinas, B. Franklin, V, S. Solovyov or McIntyre). If the ethics of norms reflects that side of morality that is associated with the forms of organization or regulation of behavior, and the ethics of values ​​analyzes the positive content, through the norms imputed to a person in execution, then the ethics of virtues indicates the personal aspect of morality, what a person should be in order to realize proper and proper conduct. Medieval thought recognized two fundamental sets of virtues, the "cardinal" and the "theological virtues." However, along with this distinction in the history of ethics, such an understanding of morality is being formed, according to which the virtues of justice and mercy are cardinal in the proper sense of the word. In terms of a theoretical description, these different virtues indicate two levels of morality - the morality of social interaction (see the Golden Rule of morality - (Latin moralis doctrina; this. See moralist). Moral teaching, a set of rules recognized as true and serving as a guide in people's actions A dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language Chudinov A.N., 1910. MORAL [French morale] ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Moral - these are generally accepted ideas about good and evil, right and wrong, bad and good . According to these notions, there moral standards human behavior. A synonym for morality is morality. The study of morality is a separate science - ethics.

Morality has its own characteristics.

Signs of morality:

1. The universality of moral norms (that is, it affects everyone equally, regardless of social status).
2. Voluntariness (no one forces you to comply with moral standards, since such moral principles as conscience, public opinion, karma and other personal beliefs are engaged in this).
3. Comprehensiveness (that is, moral rules apply in all areas of activity - in politics, and in creativity, and in business, etc.).

moral functions.

Philosophers identify five morality functions:

1. Evaluation function divides actions into good and bad on a good/evil scale.
2. Regulatory function develops rules and norms of morality.
3. educational function is engaged in the formation of a system of moral values.
4. Controlling function monitors the implementation of rules and regulations.
5. Integrating function maintains a state of harmony within the person himself when performing certain actions.

For social science, the first three functions are key, since they play the main the social role of morality.

Moral norms.

morality Much has been written throughout the history of mankind, but the main ones appear in most religions and teachings.

1. Prudence. This is the ability to be guided by reason, and not by impulse, that is, to think before doing.
2. Abstinence. It concerns not only marital relations, but also food, entertainment and other pleasures. Since ancient times, the abundance of material values ​​has been considered a brake on the development of spiritual values. Our great post- one of the manifestations of this moral norm.
3. Justice. The principle “do not dig a hole for another, you will fall yourself”, which is aimed at developing respect for other people.
4. Persistence. The ability to endure failure (as they say, what does not kill us makes us stronger).
5. Diligence. Labor has always been encouraged in society, so this norm is natural.
6. Humility. Humility is the ability to stop in time. It is a relative of prudence with an emphasis on self-development and self-contemplation.
7. Politeness. Polite people have always been valued, since a bad peace, as you know, is better than a good quarrel; and courtesy is the basis of diplomacy.

Moral principles.

Moral principles- These are moral norms of a more particular or specific nature. The principles of morality at different times in different communities were different, and accordingly the understanding of good and evil was different.

For example, the principle of "an eye for an eye" (or the principle of talion) in modern morality is far from held in high esteem. But " golden rule of morality"(or the principle of the golden mean of Aristotle) ​​has not changed at all and still remains a moral guide: do to people the way you want to be done to you (in the Bible: "love your neighbor").

Of all the principles that guide the modern doctrine of morality, one main one can be deduced - principle of humanism. It is humanity, compassion, understanding that can characterize all the other principles and norms of morality.

Morality affects all types of human activity and, from the point of view of good and evil, gives an understanding of what principles to follow in politics, in business, in society, in creativity, etc.

Origin, essence, historical types and forms of morality

In any society, there are certain norms that regulate the relationship between its members, a certain organization of their behavior. Compliance with the norms of social life is inevitable, because. they contain indications of what kind of behavior the corresponding actions can be attributed to - is it good or evil, honestly, is it fair or shameful, in a word, they evaluate what is “good” and what is “bad”. All, even serious violations of them, concern only details, only individual norms. What is morality? What is its essence? What role does it play in the life of society and the individual?

The essence of morality cannot be understood without finding out how it arose, what are its origins. Morality is the most ancient form of human consciousness, its beginnings can be seen already in primitive society. Moreover, in accordance with a number of scientific theories, in particular, with the theory of Charles Darwin about the origin of the moral feeling in humans, the source of all ethical concepts and the entire subsequent development of morality is the social instinct inherent in both man and all social animals, that is the source and basis of the moral principle is nature itself.

The corresponding point of view is supported by the outstanding representative of Russian ethical thought P.A. Kropotkin, who noted that “Darwin, who knew nature, had the courage to say that of the two instincts - public and personal - the public instinct is stronger, more persistent and more permanent than the second. And he was certainly right. All naturalists who have studied the life of animals in nature, especially on continents still sparsely populated by man, would certainly be on his side. The instinct of mutual aid is indeed developed throughout the animal kingdom, because natural selection supports it and ruthlessly exterminates those species in which it somehow weakens. In the great struggle for existence waged by every animal species against hostile climatic conditions, the external environment of life, and natural enemies, great and small, those species have the greatest chance of survival which adhere more consistently to mutual support, while those which do not, are dying out. And we see the same thing in the history of mankind.” Thus Darwin concluded that the social instinct is the common source from which all moral principles have developed.

Our primitive ancestors lived among animals and with them, says P.A. Kropotkin. Animal psychology was the first psychology studied by man. Among his closest relatives, monkeys, man saw hundreds of species living in large communities, where all members of each community were closely connected with each other. He saw how monkeys support each other when they go foraging, how they carefully move from place to place, how they unite against common enemies, how they render each other small services, pulling out, for example, thorns and prickles that have fallen into the fur of a comrade how they crowd together in cold weather, and so on. In a moment of danger, they showed amazing feelings of mutual affection, not to mention the affection of mothers for their children and old males for their group. The primitive savage saw and knew that even among predatory animals there is one universal law: they never kill each other.

P.A. Kropotkin notes that for our Stone Age ancestors, sociability and mutual assistance within the clan should have been considered a matter so common in nature, so universal that they could not even imagine life in a different form. For primitive man, the life of a solitary creature seemed strange and unusual, contrary to the nature of living beings. In most cases, if the hermit is not a sage who temporarily retired from the world to consider his fate, or not a sorcerer, he is an “outcast”, expelled from his environment for some serious violation of the mores of the hostel. He did something so contrary to the usual way of life that he was thrown out of his society.

Based on Similarity Analysis in Psychology and Behavior primitive people and animals P.A. Kropotkin concluded that it was public life is the natural order of life. In this identification, one might even say - in this dissolution of the "I" of a particular person in his clan and tribe, lies the germ of all ethical thinking. Self-affirmation of "personality" came much later. In the minds of primitive savages, the main place is occupied by the clan with its firmly established customs, prejudices, beliefs, prohibitions, habits and interests.

In this constant identification of the unit with the whole lies the origin of all ethics, from which all subsequent concepts of justice and still higher concepts of morality have developed.

Thus, already primitive man had to learn to identify his "I" with the public "we", working out the initial foundations of morality. He saw how insignificant everyone would be in the face of a formidable, harsh nature, if he ceased to be part of the family. He got used, as a result, to limit his will to the will of others, and this is the basic principle of morality. Since there is a hostel, it inevitably develops known forms life, certain customs and mores, which, being recognized as useful and becoming habitual ways of thinking, pass into instinctive habits, and then into rules of life, which are placed under the protection of superstition and religion.

Otherwise, than C. Darwin and P.A. Kropotkin, considers the issue of the origin of morality, the largest Russian philosopher of the XIX century V.S. Solovyov (1853-1900). Recognizing that, despite all the diversity of the degrees of spiritual development in the past and present of mankind, all individual deviations and the ever wider influences of race, climate and historical conditions, there still exists an indecomposable foundation of universal morality, V.S. Solovyov considers Charles Darwin's point of view on the exclusively social nature of human morality and its convergence with the social instincts of animals to be erroneous, arguing that there is a special human nature with all its hallmarks between which the most important place is occupied by moral traits. In his opinion, primary, natural morality is nothing but a reaction of spiritual nature against the suppression and absorption that threatens it from lower forces - carnal lust, selfishness and wild passions. The ability for such a reaction in a person makes him a moral being, but remaining indefinite in its actual strength and scope, it cannot by itself justify the moral order in humanity.

Being a deeply religious person, V.S. Solovyov seeks to substantiate the religious principle of morality, assuming the existence of something that is higher than us, on which each of us depends. This feeling arises and manifests itself, first of all, in the relation of the child to the parents, since the idea of ​​the Divine is embodied for the infant in the living image of the parents.

Any rational being, according to V.S. Solovyov, comes to the realization of his dependence on something invisible and unknown. It is impossible to deny such a dependence, because we are in fact subject to the absolute, whatever we may call it.

Noteworthy is the point of view on the origin of morality of the largest German-American philosopher and humanist of the 20th century, psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1900-1980), who, like V.S. Solovyov, that the source of the norms of moral behavior should be sought in the very nature of man, that moral norms are mediated on his innate qualities and the violation of these norms leads to emotional and mental decay. Man, in his opinion, is not Blank sheet paper, on which culture writes its letters, he is a being endowed with energy and organized in a certain way, which, in the process of adaptation, develops specific responses to the influence of external conditions.

The difference between man and animals is that he adapts to external conditions not by changing his own nature and adapting to one type of conditions for which he has developed specific adaptive reactions, and in this case he would have reached a dead end of specialization, which is the fate of each animal species, making impossible story. On the other hand, a person cannot adapt himself to any conditions in general, without opposing those that are contrary to his nature, and in this case he would have no history.

Human evolution, in accordance with the theory of E. Fromm, is based on a combination of adaptive abilities and stable qualities of human nature, which makes him never stop searching for conditions the best way meeting his internal needs. It is the moral factor that plays a decisive role in historical events, manifesting itself in one way or another in the actions of people.

Thus, despite the different points of view on the origin of morality that exist in ethical science, there is no doubt that morality has always existed, everyone is involved in it, it was formed and developed in the process of formation and evolution of human society.

Traditionally, the classification of historical types of morality is based on the formational principle of distinguishing between modes of production, according to which the following are distinguished: the morality of the primitive system, the morality of the slave-owning, feudal, bourgeois and modern society.

Morality is formed spontaneously, in the process of joint work, which required common collective efforts in the conditions of a tribal society.

Its emergence is connected with the basic social needs:

Firstly, in regulating the attitude of members of the primitive collective to work;

Secondly, in the regulation of family and marriage relations;

Thirdly, in strengthening the social unity of the clan.

It should be noted that primitive tribes have ethical requirements that are both unconditionally obligatory and desirable. Mandatory for all were the norms aimed at maintaining tribal life.

In the process of collective labor, such first moral requirements appeared as:

Compulsory work for everyone;

Discipline and work schedule;

Equal distribution of products of labor;

Mutual assistance, etc.

In family and marriage relations, their own norms are formed that regulate relations between the sexes, parents and children, older and younger. These norms are fixed in the form of customs, traditions, rituals, which were the main regulating force of moral relations. With the development of social life, the concept of justice in mutual relations was to come out more and more. The first rudiments of justice, in the sense of equality, are reflected in the primitive rules: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a wound for a wound." In tribal life, a person learned to follow the basic rule of any community, called the "golden rule of morality" (not to do to another what you do not want them to do to you), and to restrain those who did not want to obey this rule. Then he developed the ability to identify his personal life with the life of his family. The concept of good and evil was developed, therefore, not on the basis of what constitutes good or evil for an individual, but on what constitutes good or evil for the whole race.

Joint work, social life determined the primitive collectivism characteristic of the tribal society, which is characterized by:

Boundless devotion and loyalty to one's family and tribe;

Self-sacrifice in favor of common interests;

Attachment to relatives;

Mutual help, compassion.

In the name of the family, its members showed diligence, endurance, courage, contempt for death. In joint work, a sense of duty, justice, and self-esteem were born and tempered.

Norms, rules, customs were unified and unwritten laws of life, passed down from generation to generation and observed by virtue of public opinion. Their role in the life of society was determined by the fact that they directly rallied the team, regulated the behavior of people, acted as channels for the transfer of socially significant experience to an individual.

It should be borne in mind that the collectivism of primitive man, like morality in general, is limited. This collectivism was the law only within the tribe. "Everything that was outside the tribe was outside the law." In the tribal system, the rule "each for all" does not extend beyond its own kind.

Thus, in the life of a person from the most ancient times, two types of relationships were developed: within one's own clan and with neighboring clans, which created the basis for clashes and wars. Although already at this stage, attempts were made to streamline mutual neighborly relations. When entering a hut, it was imperative to leave one's weapons at the entrance, and even in the event of a war between the two clans, certain specific rules were necessarily observed.

The low level of development of production and man, the extremely harsh living conditions and the impotence of man in front of the elemental forces of nature gave rise to superstition and extremely cruel customs and norms: blood feud, sacrifice, cannibalism, the killing of old people and weak children.

Religious beliefs that have emerged and are developing warn against violating established norms, threatening revenge on ancestors and various spirits, establishing sacred rites that express worship of the forces of nature. The most important norms for the existence of human society (“do not kill”, “do not steal”, etc.) are placed under the protection of supernatural forces, giving morality a religious form. The moral and religious in man are so closely intertwined historically that it is extremely difficult, and often impossible, to separate one from the other.

In the future, in connection with the division of labor, the growth of productive forces and the emergence of private property, the tribal system disintegrates and classes arise, and, consequently, class morality is also formed. This historical form of morality is turning into a relatively independent form of social consciousness along with religion, law, and art. It ceases to be a system of demands addressed to all members of society, breaks down into class forms: the morality of slaves and slave owners, feudal lords and serfs, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The prevailing morality in society becomes the morality of the ruling (privileged) classes, which expressed their fundamental class interests, justified class inequality, defended and justified private property and exploitation.

It should also be noted that in addition to the considered forms (religious, class, professional, etc.) in any human society, morality appears in two main forms:

firstly, as personal qualities, usually referred to as moral qualities (courage, honesty, generosity, restraint);

secondly, as a set of social norms of behavior (“do not steal”, “do not kill”, etc.).

Moral qualities characterize a person in terms of his ability to communicate with his own kind. When they say about a person that he is simple, modest, accommodating, then we are talking about such properties that are found in his relationships with other people.

Moral qualities are, first of all, qualities of character. They are formed in the real experience of communication, struggle, cooperation of people. In this respect, they differ, and often oppose the intellectual properties of the individual, which express cognitive power, the ability to penetrate into the depths of the cause-and-effect relationships of the surrounding world.

Morality does not have its outwardly strictly and permanently delineated sphere. It is characteristic of any socially significant activity, all social relations: political decisions are characterized as humane or inhumane; economic - as fair and unfair; spiritual position - how honest or dishonorable, etc. Morality is represented in every human-to-human contact.

The whole diverse range of bodily and objective manifestations of human activity can serve as a way of expressing morality: facial expressions, gestures, speech, silence, clothing, housing, etc. - Behind all this, a certain moral position can be hidden.

General information
Morality(from lat. moralis - moral) - morality, a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations (moral relations). One of the main ways to regulate human actions in society with the help of norms. Unlike simple custom or tradition, moral norms receive an ideological justification in the form of ideals of good and evil, due, justice ... Unlike law, the fulfillment of moral requirements is sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public assessment, approval or condemnation). Along with universal human elements, morality includes historically transient norms, principles, and ideals. Morality is studied by a special philosophical discipline - ethics.

Morality:

• manifested through a system of norms, rules and assessments. Such as the rules of etiquette, etc.
  
• ideas about what is good and evil in the actions of people and human society.
• Norms and assessments of the behavior of individuals, social groups and society as a whole, based solely on the power of public opinion
• a set of norms that determine human behavior in society and are based on public opinion
• The sphere of public consciousness, in which ideas about proper behavior are concentrated
• A form of social consciousness that performs the following functions:

a) regulator of public relations

b) the regulator of relations between people