Lecture
Basic concepts:
imperativeness; generalized nature of the requirement, all-control nature of the regulation; non-institutional regulation; personal form of moral requirements; morality; antinomies in morality; moral law; universality of moral demand; society; personality; freedom; moral structure; moral consciousness; moral deed; moral relations; good; debt; rigoristic tradition; conscience; honour; dignity; moral feelings; norm; moral quality; moral principle, moral ideal; higher moral values; humanizing function; regulatory function; value-oriented function; cognitive function; educational function.
At first glance, morality looks like some rules of behavior: in relation to other people, to society and to oneself. In any case, they are formulated in the imperative mood: they indicate not what is, but how it should be. The property of morality to demand a certain behavior is called imperative (from Lat. Imperative - to command).
Moral norms do not contain recipes for all occasions, they are generalized . Unlike custom, which regulates all the details of behavior, or law, which seeks to formulate its articles very clearly and strictly, morality indicates a general positive direction in behavior that the individual specifies, in relation to the situation. The extremely generalized requirement of morality is one: do good! The value of more particular moral ideas depends on the general orientation of the worldview: for example, the principle of hard work in traditional, bourgeois and Soviet morality has a different meaning.
Moral requirements have an all-pervasive nature: there is no such sphere where moral regulation does not work , there is no such phenomenon that would not be subject to moral evaluation. This feature also distinguishes morality from custom and law, having local distribution and regulating well-defined areas of relations.
There are no special public institutions to maintain morality , this is non-institutional regulation. While to maintain law and order there are relevant bodies: the prosecutor's office, the police, the court, in morality, this function is assumed by public opinion and the conscience of the individual . By and large, external control in morality is not effective, it rests on the self-control of the individual and society.
Moral requirements have a personal form , i.e. these are the requirements that the person turns to itself . They function when they become a person’s own conviction. Therefore, the form of the moral requirement: "I have to ..." (and not "you have to ...", as we usually say to each other).
So, morality is a way of non-institutional regulation of human behavior with the help of requirements that have a personal form, generalized and pervasive in nature .
Along with the listed simple signs, morality also has a set of contradictory properties.
Antinomy (in logic) - this is a contradiction between judgments, each of which is logically provable. Antinomies in morality are contradictory properties of morality , the presence of each of which can be supported by logical arguments.
The first antinomy in the discourse on morality arises when we ask ourselves the question of the author of moral rules .
First, society requires appropriate behavior from the individual. However, society itself may be poorly organized, and guided by completely immoral principles. It is unlikely that a person should respect the “morality” of a totalitarian state or the “morality” of a society of bandits. Evaluating social mores, we compare them with a kind of "true model", which should correspond to a good society.
Secondly, the person himself acts as a moral authority for himself, guided by his own judgments about good and evil. However, thinking about the rules of morality that we consider our own, we invariably discover that humanity has developed them a long time ago, and they are not at all our personal invention. Adhering to some moral views, we believe that we not only like them, but they are also correct, have an objectively positive meaning.
Thirdly, the Lord God can be considered the source of moral rules. Meanwhile, contrary to the dogmatic attitude, throughout history, people continue to impose moral requirements on the behavior of God, as if they have some kind of “objectively correct” measure, independent of the Lord or of themselves.
It turns out that on the one hand , moral rules come from the individual, society or God, and in this sense are subjective .
On the other hand , the moral law exists as if it has no author, it comes from everyone and at the same time, from nowhere, does not rely on anyone's authority. Moral and immoral differ in criteria, independent of social, personal and even divine tastes. Despite the fact that morality exists in the imperative, there is no master. The moral law, like the law of nature, is formulated as impersonal, objective in content.
So , the moral law exists as an objective one, but it acts due to the subjective conviction of an individual, society or another subject . At the same time, of all the subjective convictions of the individual, morals are those that can claim to be objective .
The second antinomy occurs when you get acquainted with the manners of different times, different nations, classes, classes, groups.
On the one hand , there are countless ideas of people about the good and the proper, reflecting the historical conditions, lifestyle and group interests. Everyone has "their own morality." On the other hand , each historical system of morality considers “its own moral” universal, universal human, moral rules are formulated as universal. The universality of moral rules does not mean that all people fulfill it or at least share it (there are no such rules at all). “Equal” in all systems of morality forms a set of commonplace truths, such “common” for all morality would be poor, primitive, limited in its application. The universality of the moral requirement implies that if a certain rule is declared as moral, the subject undertakes to fulfill it in relation to all people without exception ; “My morality” should be realized as universal, and not to demand its observance from others.
Thus , the moral rules are historically diverse and universal at the same time. The universal principle is inherent in all historical systems of morality, but does not exist separately from them .
Third antinomy arises from the analysis of the motives of moral actions, trying to understand what motivates a person who acts morally. On the one hand , man in morality is driven by practical expediency . Respectful behavior makes it easier for us to coexist with other people. Morality is useful , so we all cling to it in the interests of personal and social well-being. So thought the French materialists of the XVIII century, N.G. Chernyshevsky and many others, seeing in morality the everyday instruction about the "mechanics of universal happiness."
On the other hand , in practice it is known that virtue does not always bring success in everyday affairs. Rather, on the contrary, excessive scruples hinder the pursuit of their goals, and for prosperity it is advisable to break moral rules. Sometimes it seems that the evils are even necessary for the public good. The love of luxury stimulates production, adventurism leads to geographical discoveries, and the passion for profit revives trade, as shown by B. Mandeville in the famous "Fable of the Bees." Morality is unprofitable, useless , and truly moral, we usually consider an act committed unselfishly , without a backward thought and without a special purpose. Good is done for its own sake, “out of the goodness of the soul”, “of good will,” the moral motive is “disinterested.” Focusing on moral values, we strive not only to achieve something in this world, but to improve ourselves. That is, it is not a pragmatic goal that is pursued, but a humanistic goal: to make man a Man, to make him something better than a biological individual that eats, multiplies and produces the means to eat and reproduce again.
So , from morality there is a benefit, but it cannot be guided by it.
At the same time, there is no concrete benefit from morality, but it is itself a source of specific moral satisfaction. The apparent disinterestedness of moral behavior is due to the fact that morality solves non-pragmatic tasks. She, in fact, sets the task of infinite human improvement. After all, it is also necessary: to seek life goals that are not related to the specifics of today. The antinomy of practical expediency and lack of interest of the moral motive is resolved so that the benefit of morality is to create a new, intangible, non-biological, purely human stimulus in life.
Fourth antinomy is found between the social and personal side of morality. On the one hand , the society through the education system informs the individual the system of moral ideas, thereby limiting its individuality. Morality acts as a generally accepted standard of behavior; moral is one who does not violate moral rules . Of these people and consists of a large part of society, we are all, in general, good people.
On the other hand , a highly moral person does not repeat, but exceeds the mores of his social environment. Her mind negates existing mores, elevating itself over everyday life and group interests. It acts “not like everyone else”, but correctly, by asking its behavior a new norm. A huge number of literary plots is made up of the fact that the hero is struggling with the inert views of society, defending his right to a different, better morality. A highly moral person, acting outside the box, does what a real person should act, takes into account the interests of humanity as a whole . In addition, the moral person places increased demands primarily on himself , and not on others. Finally, one can stand out against the background of social mores by creative execution of well-known moral rules. So everyone usually agrees that courage and mercy are positive moral qualities, however, Alexey Maresyev and mother Teresa are unique, “the best representatives of humanity”.
So , the social rules that contribute to the elevation of the personality, and those rules of the personality that rise to the universal human ideal , are moral .
The fifth antinomy is discovered when we decide on the question of determination in morality, that is, the cause of moral actions . On the one hand , the cause of moral behavior are various factors (natural, social, physiological, etc.). Ethical teachings put forward those and other of them as the main ones determining the development of morality. On the other hand , in practice a moral person is able to act contrary to circumstances, logic, public opinion, his habits, for whatever reason, i.e. completely free. It turns out that moral behavior has no apparent reasons at all and is not determined by anything. We choose what to consider as the reasons for our behavior. Without free choice, an act will not be moral. So, to be moral, a person must become free . Freedom is not a gift, but rather a burden that must be borne if you want to be a man. Freedom is not just opposition to an external cause, it itself is the real reason for moral actions. At the same time, to be free, a person must be moral , because in morality he is free: from self-interest, from fear, from conventions, from dogma. In morality, man depends only on one
Go - from the moral law, which is personal and freely chosen. By free will, man does good, which is confirmed by personal effort as the law of his life.
So , freedom acts as a true reason for moral actions, morality is the essence of self-regulation of an individual and society according to the law of freedom .
Selected antinomies stem from the essence of morality itself, and therefore are objective in nature and serve as the source of its development.
The structure of morality consists of several elements.
Since the time of Aristotle, moral consciousness and moral actions are distinguished as such. Modern ethics adds morality to them. Thus, the structure of morality includes:
a) moral consciousness - regulatory ideas that encourage actions;
b) moral activity - actions, to the extent that they are generated by moral motives (the structure of the moral action - see the next lecture);
c) moral relations - any relations, to the extent that they are the realization of moral requirements ( relations to the family, to work, to the Motherland, to nature, as well as relations between people, if moral standards are embodied in these relations).
Moral consciousness operates with the concepts and categories that form its structure.
Good - a concept denoting positive moral value , is usually identified with the essence of morality. In this sense, good is absolutely, i.e. good is not evil, it can never be a negative value. However, good as a rating is relatively different people apply the concept of good to different objects in different ways, giving them positive value.
Debt is a concept expressing the imperativeness of morality , its imperative nature (the features of the moral requirement are discussed in the section “Properties of morality”). Formally, the main duty is the duty to do good. Rigoristic tradition considered debt to be the main concept in comparison with good, because morality was interpreted in it not as a spontaneous desire for good, but as self-coercion and obligation.
Conscience is a concept denoting an inner experience of a moral demand by a person , “being of duty”. Conscience is a control-imperative mechanism of morality, that is:
· Evaluates (controls) the degree of compliance of our moral behavior with our own moral convictions;
· Encourages action to implement their moral convictions; a developed conscience prescribes such requirements (imperatives), for the fulfillment of which no duty can be forced (for example, to accomplish a feat).
Debt is a moral requirement as an external (albeit internalized by a person), public , historically defined, differentiated (for filial duty, patriotic duty, professional debt, etc.) rationally motivated. Conscience represents the same moral requirements as internal , personal , unchanging and objective , universal and unmotivated .
The fulfillment of duty and the pursuit of conscience determine the moral value of the personality , which is fixed by the concepts of honor and dignity.
Honor is a concept for designating the moral status of an individual as a representative of a social group (military, professional, girlish, etc.). Honor is acquired by doing the proper for this group of behavior, expresses the moral connection of the individual with this group. Honor is formed as a result of a public assessment of the merits of a person, his public recognition. Negative reaction of public opinion can lead to loss of honor.
Dignity - a concept to denote the moral self-value of the individual . It is inherently given to man from birth, expresses his moral belonging to humanity and is experienced as an individual's assessment of his moral merit . Self-esteem does not imply a comparison of their achievements with the achievements of other people, but a comparison of themselves with the ideal idea of a moral person. If public actions of others can dishonor a person, then dignity can be lost only as a result of their own low, unseemly actions.
In traditional morality, the relationship between the phenomena of honor and dignity is different: the honor of a person is not the result of his individual merits, but the result of belonging to a privileged social group. Honor does not have to be acquired, it can only be “lost” if the reference group condemns the individual. Dignity in this system of morality is the status within the privileged group, which must be acquired and protected personally.
The structure of moral consciousness also includes moral feelings (love, compassion, shame, etc.). They differ from uncontrollable reactions of the psyche in that they are charged to us, act as a sensual form of moral concepts (sense of duty, sense of responsibility, self-esteem, etc.). When performing moral actions, the mind controls the lower feelings (affects, passions), but listens to the higher feelings (conscience).
В структуре морального сознания можно выделить уровни, отличающиеся по степени сложности регулятивного воздействия на поведение.
Норма (не убивай, не кради…) — элементарная форма нравственного требования , прямое указание по поводу поведения.
Нравственное качество, или добродетель (мужество, милосердие…) — требование к душевному складу личности , а не только к поведению. Выработанное моральное качество предполагает выполнение многих норм и умение подобрать нормы для конкретной ситуации.
Нравственный принцип (коллективизм, патриотизм, альтруизм…) — требование, сформулированное в понятийной форме . Нравственные принципы имеют рациональное, а иногда и теоретическое обоснование. Принцип — идея, цементирующая нормы и качества в специфическую целостность. Сама принципиальность считается положительным моральным качеством, однако, содержание принципа должно получать санкцию более высокого уровня морального сознания — идеала.
Нравственный идеал — стратегическая цель нравственного развития , выступающая как требование. Идеал имеет духовный характер, это представление об идеальном должном положении вещей, которое не дается извне, а порождается из духовной структуры личности. В течение жизни человека его идеал развивается по содержанию и развивает того, кто к нему стремится.
Высшие моральные ценности (добро, свобода, смысл жизни, счастье) — понятия, организующие моральную жизнь в целом ; обобщенные мировоззренческие идеи, делающие моральное поведение возможным.
В этой системе верхние уровни морального сознания (ценности, идеалы) определяют содержание и смысл простых форм нравственного требования.
Роли морали в жизни общества и отдельной личности многочисленны. Трудно объяснить, почему существует нравственность, зато можно определить, для чего она существует, какие выполняет функции.
Гуманизирующая функция. Мораль «приподымает» нас над собственной сегодняшней ограниченностью, создает ориентир человечности. Существование морали свидетельствует, что каждый из нас достоин лучшей жизни. В моральном поведении мы можем преодолеть свою несовершенную человеческую природу: добрым может быть и калека. Любую «природу» мораль очеловечивает. Если мир, космос сами по себе ни добры, ни злы, то мораль и на них стремится распространить понятие добра, сделать мир добрым для человека, соразмерным человеку, уютным для осмысленного проживания.
Итак, гуманистическая задача морали — сделать мир подобающим человеку и человека — достойным своего имени . В процессе жизни мы постоянно играем социальные роли, в каждой ситуации мы проявляем лишь часть своего «я», выполняя соответствующие функции. В морали же мы предстаем вне частностей — как «люди вообще». Мораль возвращает человеку его целостность, полнокровность существования, в этом ее благородная гуманистическая роль.
Регулятивная функция. Мораль регулирует поведение, как отдельного лица, так и общества (особенности этой регуляции описаны в первом и втором вопросе этой лекции). Суть ее — в саморегуляции личности и саморегуляции социальной среды в целом .
Ценностно-ориентирующая функция. Моральная регуляция состоит в том, что личность самостоятельно ориентируется в жизни по нравственным ценностям. Мораль содержит такие важные для человека ориентиры, как представления о смысле жизни, о предназначении человека, о ценности всего человеческого, гуманного. И хотя они не имеют непосредственного практического значения, они необходимы для того, чтобы придавать повседневности нашего бытия высший смысл, задавать его идеальную перспективу .
Cognitive function. Moral consciousness reflects the world in terms of good and evil, thereby evaluating what is happening . This is not an objective-scientific study of the world, as it is, it is the comprehension of the human meaning of phenomena. A moral view of the world and people makes it possible to evaluate their perspectives, to get a holistic view of their meaning and their lives.
Воспитательная функция. Нравственное воспитание всегда считалось основой всякого другого. Нравственность не столько приучает к соблюдению свода правил, сколько воспитывает саму способность руководствоваться идеальными нормами и «высшими» соображениями . При наличии такой способности к самоопределению человек может не только выбирать соответствующую линию поведения, но и постоянно развивать ее, т.е. самосовершенствоваться. Все конкретные достоинства, которые мы находим у нравственно воспитанной личности, проистекают из фундаментальной ее способности поступать как должно, исходить из ценностных представлений, сохраняя при этом свою автономию.
Следует отметить, что выделение определенных функций морали (как и отдельный анализ каждой из них) является достаточно условным, поскольку в реальности они всегда тесно слиты друг с другом. Мораль одновременно регулирует, воспитывает, ориентирует и т.д. Именно в целостности функционирования проявляется своеобразие ее воздействия на бытие человека.
Структурно-функциональный анализ морали способствует пониманию всей сложности ее устройства, которое не позволяет трактовать нравственную жизнь как простую самоочевидность.
1. Что такое императив?
2. Требования морали формулируются как всеобщие. Что это означает?
3. Моральная регуляция имеет всепроницающий характер. Что это означает?
4. Моральная регуляция имеет неинституциональный характер. Что это означает?
5. Moral requirements are personal. What does this mean?
6. What is the simplest form of moral demand?
7. What category denotes moral merit and personal status?
8. What is the moral role model?
9. In which element of moral consciousness is the rational component necessarily present?
10. What is the name of the logical form that contradictions in morals take?
Comments
To leave a comment
Ethics
Terms: Ethics