Lecture
Basic concepts:
value; higher moral values; fatalism; voluntarism; moral freedom; "Freedom from ..."; "Freedom for ..."; the situation of moral choice; moral conflict; motive; stimulus; intention; decision; act; effects; assessment; self-esteem; deed; inherent tradition; transcendental tradition; hedonism; eudemonism; utilitarianism; sociologism; religious teachings; philosophies; happiness.
Value is a concept that expresses the significance that something has for us. All concepts of morality have a value aspect. Higher moral values - the meaning of life, freedom,
happiness - represent ideas that organize the moral world of the individual as a whole and have a regulatory impact on its behavior . Therefore, each individual must determine them independently, because these problems are personal, even intimate. It is impossible to give specific advice and recipes, so we will outline only possible ways of reasoning about the nature of higher moral values.
The question of freedom is a “damned question” of philosophical and ethical thought. Despite the fact that freedom is the undoubted value of human existence, its theoretical justification is a significant complexity. In addition, for morality, freedom is a practical problem. Indeed, without freedom, moral actions are impossible, since they, by definition, are accomplished by the free choice of the individual. However, if a person has freedom, this implies the possibility of free choice of evil. It turns out that both the absence and the presence of freedom are in some sense disastrous for morality. The theoretical challenge is to connect freedom and morality.
In philosophical and ethical thought there are two extreme points of view on the problem of freedom :
1. Fatalism , according to which everything in the world has unambiguous causes and effects, and therefore human actions are predetermined by forces beyond our control (God, fate, physical laws, etc.). Guided by fatalistic notions, it is not difficult to come to immoral behavior: since nothing depends on me, you can act as you please; I am not to blame for all my abominations, they are programmed from the outside of my soul.
2. Voluntarism (from the word “will”), according to which a person is absolutely free in moral decisions and must act on the basis of his own essence, his convictions and desires. Guided by such convictions, a person also naturally comes to immoral behavior under the slogan “I want something, I turn it over.”
Ethics seeks to resolve the eternal antinomy of freedom and necessity, defining moral freedom as the dialectical unity of moral necessity and subjective voluntariness of actions . Moral freedom is a motivated due to personal values. The task of ethics is to show that true freedom is within morality. Thus, the choice of good leads to moral freedom , the choice of evil leads to immoral freedom. In any case, the choice of evil is the result of a person’s lack of freedom. Under external pressure or under the influence of his own passions, man neglects moral considerations for the sake of other values. When committing immoral acts (seemingly free), a person often becomes bound by their consequences. What began of one's own free will continues under the will of circumstances. Therefore, ethics constantly warns that the choice of evil is the path to moral lack of freedom , a dead end road.
The first stage of moral freedom is “freedom from ...” “Negative” freedom implies liberation from external dependence . Usually, external moral dependence is dependence on the authority of parents, the opinion of a peer group, the pressure of social moral stereotypes. A growing personality (usually in adolescence) necessarily seeks to declare his free will " to do what I want ." What we want is located mainly in the ordinary layer of life, these are the objects to which a person is attracted. Following one's inclinations is the realization of a passive vital attitude, “swimming with the flow” of one's psyche. If we carefully consider what we want, we find out: the banality of our desires (eat and sleep), the lowness of our desires (“free life” is reduced to drunkenness and debauchery), the stupidity of our desires (in the tales of “three wishes” no hero managed to think of something worthwhile). Finally, it turns out that the most important desires with this approach are not only not being satisfied, but not even detectable.
The second stage of moral freedom - “freedom for ...” , positive freedom - implies an awareness of why you need moral freedom, why will you use it . It is the freedom to do what I really want . Such an act implies the active introduction into the world of his moral attitude, and accordingly assumes the existence of such an attitude in man. Positive freedom means that a person has the ability to build life not in spite of, but thanks to moral laws , the ability to organize his life according to his morality, i.e. follow your conscience, observe your dignity, strive for your ideal, fulfill your duty. Since the interpretations of these concepts are diverse, this general recipe is carried out individually.
If “freedom from ...” is, most often, freedom without morality, then “freedom for ...” is freedom within morality. In this case, the moral is experienced by the individual not as dogmatic fetters, but as a sphere of personal creativity. Moral freedom allows him to “here and now” realize himself in a concrete kind of good. This freedom is hindered only by inner limitations, inability and unwillingness to work on yourself, on the development of your moral world.
The way of realization of moral freedom is the moral choice of the individual. This is a choice not only between behaviors, but, more importantly, between values embodied in different versions: between honest and dishonest, virtue and vice, and ultimately between good and evil. However, difficult choices are also possible between different moral values: duty and conscience, honor and dignity. Consider the main types of situations of moral choice.
I. The choice between moral and immoral behavior , which in a normal situation a person always commits in favor of morality. However, under the pressure of circumstances (if the life of a person is threatened, threatened by his relatives, if there is a large material interest), a person can “break” and choose evil. The question is what kind of pressure and what kind of temptation a person is able to overcome in the name of his morality. If a person respects his moral principles, then its strength is surprisingly high.
Ii. The choice between different types of moral behavior:
· The choice between debt and inclinations has traditionally been interpreted by ethics in favor of debt, for inclinations usually lead a person’s life “down the slope”. However, under the guise of addiction may be hiding a certain debt. For example, when parents want their son to choose a certain profession, and he seeks another, then the filial duty prescribes obedience to parents. Meanwhile, there is such a duty of the individual as not to bury his talents in the ground, but to realize them for the benefit of society;
· The choice between one’s interests and those of others in classical ethics was interpreted as a choice between immoral egoism and moral altruism. Meanwhile, the interests of the individual include his moral interests, which should not be ignored in order to please someone else’s selfish or ambitious aspirations;
· The choice between personal beliefs and public opinion is more problematic. Typically, the conscience of the individual is considered the most important authority in the decision of moral conflicts. However, the conscience of a particular individual can be lazy, and the individual does not have sufficient personal development, therefore, the corrective power of public opinion should not be discounted when determining how moral a particular choice turned out to be;
· The choice between different types of responsibilities of the individual. Thus, the debt of gratitude towards a person who has made us good and a principle of principle may arise, according to which it is necessary to condemn the behavior of this person if he deviates from moral standards. For a woman, her civic duty may conflict with the maternal duties of protecting her child. The totality of the moral duties of a person is not built according to the logical criteria of the “prohibition of contradiction,” because moral choice often turns out to be a difficult and even painful act.
The acute situation of moral choice is called moral conflict . It arises in the soul of a person when, when realizing one moral value, another is destroyed, no less dear to it. When resolving moral conflict, it is recommended to follow the principle of “least evil”, i.e. of the two is not enough moral action to choose the least bad. Such an act, of course, is not good, but it becomes a way out of the situation. The developed person at the same time feels moral dissatisfaction and partly guilt for the inevitable imperfection of his decision.
Contradictions of moral freedom are manifested in the structure of the act, which consists of the following set of elements: motive - intention - goals and means - decision - act - consequence - assessment (self-assessment).
The deed begins with a motive , an internally conscious impulse to action . At the level of motive, a person resolves those internal contradictions of choice, which were discussed above. The motive provides a rationale for what will happen. The motive is so important that it is often considered the defining element of the act. What impulses moved me, what values were chosen, and determines the meaning of the act. Unlike a motive, a stimulus is an external factor that influences behavior.
The motive smoothly flows into the intention - the desire to perform an action to achieve a certain moral goal . The motive sanctifies the content of intentions, makes them good or criminal. If the motivation unfolds in the mind as a reasoning, then the intention is the attitude, the focus of the mind to translate spiritual designs into life.
It is very important to think over exactly how you are going to realize your intentions, otherwise the result will not coincide with the expected. (“They wanted it better, but it worked, as always.”) Intentions and consequences often do not coincide in moral sense, which is why every act is a risk. A person is often mistaken about what is good and what is really bad, and therefore even the best of intentions sometimes lead to disastrous results. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” says biblical wisdom.
To get a clear idea of intentions, you must not only set a goal , but also choose the means to achieve it. The purpose of an act can be concrete and practical: to go to a higher educational institution, dig up a bed, write a letter - in moral terms it is important that this goal be morally positive. The noble goal inspires us to do significant things, but when we begin to think about how to achieve it, the problem often arises: what means to achieve the desired? It is clear that the means must be effective; however, in striving to achieve one’s by any means it seems that a good end justifies any means. But if the road to justice runs through violence and betrayal, it is unlikely that the new justice will suit anyone. And what right to talk about justice are people who are capable of low and immoral acts? So it turns out that it is impossible to “first” steal and deceive, and “later” with the money received to help people. No "later" comes, the goal achieved by improper means, is the wrong goal.
A decision is an act of will that allows one to move from moral intentions to actions ; determination allows us to overcome both ourselves and the circumstances in order to establish moral values in reality. In an extreme situation (on fire, in reconnaissance, with the release of hostages), the intentions of everyone are obviously moral: to achieve the goal with a minimum of casualties. The success of such an enterprise depends on the ability of participants to make quick and definite decisions. In a relaxed situation, ethics recommends considering the behavior options in detail before taking a decision in order to take into account the various moral interests of the participants. No wonder folk wisdom advises: "measure seven times."
So, having made a decision, we execute the plan, commit the act (a moral act can be both action and inaction) and look at the consequences . Comes the turn of the assessment and self-assessment of what happened. Since an act is an integral act, it is evaluated in the unity of all its elements : intentions are compared with consequences, moral purity of motives, the adequacy of the chosen means are checked. It is clear that if the noble motives of a person turned into excellent results, then this behavior is admirable.
Since all the preliminary preparation for the act takes place in the consciousness of the individual, the external evaluation of its actions is difficult. Public opinion tends to assess the consequences and can only suggest the motivation behind them. Self-esteem is no less important for the inner life than praise or censure of others; an inner voice will appreciate not only actions, but also yourself. The final self-esteem becomes the basis for further activities, its experience is included in the motives of the next act.
The problem of the meaning of life is generated by the special nature of human existence - it is individual being-to-death . Awareness of one’s finiteness makes one think about the meaning of such a fleeting existence, during which even material goals, not to mention spiritual ones, cannot be achieved. The loss of meaning in life devalues all moral activity of a person, therefore “the struggle for meaning” is one of the main tasks of ethics.
Solving the problem of the meaning of life begins with an answer to the question: does earthly human life have independent value? There are two traditions in the history of ethical teachings that answer the question posed diametrically.
The immanent tradition suggests that earthly life has value , in any case, some of its parties are very attractive. The task of the individual is to actively use the allotted time to join these morally valuable aspects of reality. The immanent tradition believes that the meaning of life is in life itself , in its real manifestations. It is only necessary to determine which particular manifestations of life give it moral value:
· Hedonism comes from the fact that the meaning of life lies in pleasures , in enjoying life (the Kirenike school). However, ethics have long fixed the transitory nature of pleasures, as well as the destructive effect of pleasures on a person who focused exclusively on them;
· Eudemonism is built on the idea that the meaning of life is to achieve happiness , which is thought of as the realization of the most important rational goals of a person (Aristotle, Feuerbach). It is not difficult, however, to show that the meaning of life cannot be reduced to its goals, however meaningful. On the contrary, these goals chosen by us in life should be endowed with meaning from a certain moral source;
· Utilitarianism is based on the fact that the meaning of life is to receive benefits (the egoistic variant) or to bring benefits (the altruistic variant). Such views were held by English utilitarianists of the 18th century (Bentham, Mill). Meanwhile, when considering the antinomies of morality, the non-identity of “moral” and “useful” was noted. Even an altruistic “service to people” can be devoid of real meaning.
· Sociologism is focused on the fact that the meaning of life lies in successful activity in society (Karl Marx, “the theory of rational egoism”). This can be both the realization of one’s moral standards in a given social system, and the revolutionary transformation of society in the name of “better morality”. The problem is that morality is not only a social, but also a spiritual phenomenon, the moral meaning of life cannot be drawn only from its social component.
So , the immanent tradition gives an optimistic orientation to everyday life. However, it elevates some private values to the rank of life meaning. При практической реализации такой установки можно прийти к выводу об относительности всех ценностей, и, в конечном счете, о бессмысленности жизни.
Трансцендентная традиция предполагает, что земная жизнь не обладает самостоятельной ценностью , так как она всегда несовершенна, несправедливо устроена, непригодна для реализации истинных ценностей. Для личности земное существование является испытательным или подготовительным периодом по отношению к подлинной жизни. Предполагается, что смысл придается жизни некой ценностью, находящейся за пределами этой жизни (трансцендентной ценностью). Данная традиция реализуется в двух основных вариантах:
· религиозные учения базируются на том, что смысл придается жизни Богом . Если Творец всего сущего предусмотрел смысл каждого элемента сотворенного им мира, то задача личности — осознать свое божественное предназначение, что и придаст ее существованию абсолютный смысл. Постижение этого смысла возможно благодаря вере ;
· философские учения интерпретируют трансцендентный смысл жизни как проистекающий из идеального закона , по которому развивается все бытие. В роли такого закона может выступать карма (в буддизме как этико-философском учении), дао (в даосизме), «мир идей» у Платона или «абсолютная идея» у Гегеля. Познать закон, при согласии с которым жизнь становится осмысленной, возможно с помощью разума .
Итак , трансцендентная традиция позволяет придать смысл самому ничтожному существованию. Даже если повседневная жизнь человека лишена удовольствий, счастья, пользы и социальных успехов, она может получать оправдание «в высшем смысле». Однако , при трансцендентном подходе возникают трудности, связанные с тем, что утверждение о существовании объективного смысла жизни и абсолютной жизненной ценности плохо согласуется с человеческой свободой. При практической реализации можно разувериться в том, что между трансцендентными ценностями и земным существованием есть связь, и прийти к выводу о бессмысленности жизни.
Приведенные рассуждения показывают, что проблема смысла жизни порождает очередную моральную антиномию. С одной стороны, смысл должен присутствовать непосредственно в земном существовании, с другой стороны, смысл жизни не может сводиться только к смыслу повседневности.
Природа счастья противоречива , поэтому его практическое достижение наталкивается на существенные препятствия, а размышления о нем образуют ряды антиномий :
1. С одной стороны , счастье является следствием морального образа жизни . Сам создатель этики, Аристотель, считал, что ее цель — научить человека, как стать счастливым благодаря добродетели. Этим полагается, что только хороший человек может быть счастлив. С другой стороны , наблюдения показывают, что счастье не зависит от нравственных заслуг индивида и распределяется по прихоти фортуны. Известно, что на долю очень хороших людей выпадает и много страданий.
2. On the one hand , happiness depends on reason . Since man is a rational being, human happiness is a consequence of intelligent life, and intellectual achievements are a necessary component of happiness. On the other hand , happiness is an irrational state , to which an excess of reason only harms. "Only fools are happy," says a popular proverb.
3. On the one hand , happiness is the acquisition of the missing in life , it must be “sought”, “mined” by active efforts. On the other hand , happiness is the absence of loss , freedom from suffering, the enjoyment of what you have.
4. С одной стороны, счастье — это итог жизни . Древние греки даже считали, что о том, был ли человек счастливым, можно судить только после его смерти. Счастье есть удовлетворенность жизнью в целом. С другой стороны , счастье — это момент жизни , актуальное переживание счастливого «мига», в быстротечности которого мы убеждаемся на личном опыте. Но без этих мимолетных состояний вряд ли можно оценить в финале жизнь как счастливую.
5. С одной стороны , счастье предполагает некое объективное положение вещей , составляющее наше счастье. С другой стороны , счастье — это субъективное переживание , без которого предпосылки не становятся действительным счастьем. Однако и субъективная эйфория сама по себе вряд ли является признаком настоящего счастья, счастье предполагает наличие некоторых объективных причин его испытывать.
6. On the one hand , ideas about happiness are dictated by the social environment . The society offers the individual certain sets of values, having found that he should be happy. In the traditional morality for happiness you need to build a house, plant a tree and raise a son who will continue the tradition. In Soviet morality for happiness, it was necessary to take part in the revolutionary, military and labor victories of his people. In consumer society, happiness is associated with an account in a Swiss bank, a villa in the Canary Islands and the latest model car.
On the other hand , each person has his own unique happiness , so individual in configuration that no one can “give” or “take away”. Ethics usually focuses attention on this, difficultly organized aspect of happiness, encourages a person to seek his inner spiritual sources.
The conditions of happiness are simple, but difficult to achieve in social practice.
First, the optimum satisfaction of material needs has long been considered the condition of a happy life. The presence of material well-being, a certain comfort of existence for most people are very significant and represent a prerequisite for a positive assessment of life. Poverty, hard work for the extraction of daily bread, limiting spiritual needs and the possibility of their realization, are often perceived as determinants of misfortune.
In the history of culture, a different attitude to the sphere of material being, represented by the principle of asceticism , is also shaped . Asceticism prescribes the renunciation of external goods, the suppression of sensual needs in order to achieve more important, spiritual goals.
Understanding the ascetic tradition allowed to determine the role of material goods in human life as a means to achieve spiritual goods. Therefore, the condition for happiness is not the maximum, but the optimal satisfaction of material needs, where the optimum is closer to asceticism rather than luxury.
Secondly, happiness is associated with self-realization of the individual , the disclosure of its internal potencies, spiritual wealth. The way of such self-disclosure is communication, friendship, love, creativity. Despite the self-evident value of these manifestations of personality, it is not so easy to find true love, true friendship, constructive creativity, meaningful communication. Achieving this aspect of happiness implies active work on oneself, but the quality of the achieved happiness, its strength is incomparable with purely material satisfaction.
The study of higher moral values should contribute to the reader's own reflections on the problems posed.
Comments
To leave a comment
Ethics
Terms: Ethics