Lecture
Religion has always had a great influence on the behavior, morals, etiquette of people. Virtually any religious doctrine not only deals with the creation of the world, the meaning of human existence, the relationship between God and man. She also proposes her ethical concept, develops rules for the behavior of people in the environment of their own kind. Correct behavior is always a prerequisite for the salvation of the human soul, an opportunity for a person to earn a better share in “another life”
Religion is a phenomenon that appeared a long time ago. There were times in history when she played the most important, main role in the life of society. There were moments when religion was tried in every way to destroy, to limit its distribution, to expose it. But despite all the attempts and predictions that in the near future there will be no religion as such, it still exists and does not live in misery. At all times, people had to believe in something, and when they were disappointed in their surroundings, they turned to religion. She gave salvation, faith and hope. Maybe this is the secret of its “longevity”. Besides the fact that religion gives hope, it also contains moral guidelines. Any religion necessarily offers its own set of the highest moral values of man. But they differ in different religions only in their wording. Any religion in one degree or another regulates the behavior of people, their relationship to each other, that is, each religion contains etiquette norms.
The main feature of religious doctrines is their complex structure.
First, they contain very ancient moral standards, spontaneously formed among the peoples of the primitive communal formation. Such an ancient layer of popular moral standards, perceived by religion, gives it the features of democracy. This contributed to strengthening the reputation of religion as a stronghold of human values.
Secondly, the first standards established in antiquity were enshrined in religion: slave owners and slaves, clergy and parishioners, military commanders and soldiers. For example, “The head is the servant of God, to you for good ... And, therefore, one must obey not only out of fear of punishment, but also according to conscience. For this you pay the tribute ... ”
Thirdly, religious precepts contain many prescriptions of a domestic character: about nutrition, family life, work, about rest, etc. Therefore, religion has become part of the popular life.
Fourthly, in religion some cult precepts and tabulations are fixed, designed to strengthen the autonomy of the clergy. For example, monasticism, a special church court, etc.
In different eras, religion had a different impact on etiquette. The “golden age” of religion, and, consequently, the greatest influence it had in the Middle Ages. In general, the influence of religion depends on the social system and on the religion itself. Eastern religions influence etiquette more than Western ones.
There are six types of attitude to religion. The first three types are religious. The first type is deeply religious, that is, those who consciously share the religious worldview, their faith in God is strong, distinct, stable and conscious. The second type is traditionally (habitually) a believer. He does not experience experiences in relation to religion, but his faith is based on habit and tradition, and he shows a commitment to the ritual side of religion. The third type is hesitant. This is the gap between the believer and the unbeliever type. The following three types are non-religious. First, it is an atheist, consciously defending the position of materialism. This is very similar to religious fanaticism, only with the opposite sign. Such an attitude towards religion is due to negative emotions and bias. Secondly, it is unbeliever. He consciously does not accept for himself faith in God, canons, dogmas and religious cult, but, unlike an atheist, he does not ring about it in the whole wide world. Thirdly, it is indifferent, also intermediate between religious and non-religious. In contrast to the hesitant, not indifferent to religion, indifferent, it simply does not interest. He is often superstitious, but the “attacks” of religiosity “wake up” in him in stress and extreme situations.
The most important idea of world religions - the equality of all believers before God, regardless of their social status, color and nationality - made it relatively easy for them to take the place of the many-sided deities and completely replace them. All world religions promise believers a fair attitude towards them, but only in the other world and depending on piety in this. The world religions include Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. All religions are conventionally divided into “Western” and “Eastern”. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are classified as “Western”; to “Eastern” - Hinduism, Buddhism and Chinese universalism in the form of Confucianism and Taoism. “Western” and “Eastern” religions differ in their interpretation of the world. If the religions of the West view the world as a “one-line”, purposeful process: the creation of the world, its salvation and end, then the idea of the world development as a cycle, cyclic, circular movement with endless repetitions is typical for the East. These religions differ in the interpretation of God. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is the absolute creator of the world and the savior of mankind. The religion of the East is dominated by absolute world law, order: the law of drachma.
The peculiarity of the path of each state education and each religion is determined by the specific features of their mutual relations. If we take the historical aspect, three important milestones can be traced:
1. Naive, spontaneous tolerance.
2. Religious monopolization of state and public life.
3. Religion is a private matter. Emancipation of state and public life from religious monopolization.
Initially, in the period of the formation of the ancient states in relation to other (alien) Gods and cults, there was a certain toleration. The fact is that no one doubted the existence of both aliens and their Gods. Although in ancient Greece it was considered a crime to evade participation in a nationwide cult, nevertheless, the attitude towards other religions was tolerant. In Jerusalem, under King Solomon, temples were built for “alien gods”. Restricted, but tolerated a different faith in the Hellenistic states and in the Roman Empire. The situation has changed with the advent of a new type of religion, which we usually call the world religions. These religions became the basis of state and public life. In the classic version, we see this phenomenon in the East. In China, Confucianism turned public and state duties into a religious cult. Sharia, a set of laws developed on the basis of the Koran and Sunna, regulated the activities and behavior of people in the Muslim world. If we talk about the relationship of the state, then there were certain nuances. Theocracy, in which state and spiritual authority was identified, was the exception rather than the rule for Christian states. The struggle for the predominance of secular power over spiritual (uzarepapizm) or, conversely, spiritual over secular (papouzarizm) became the content of their relationship in Western and Eastern Europe. But there were periods of agreement between the two authorities. In Western Europe, this was achieved with the help of a concordat - an agreement concluded between the Catholic Church and various states, and in Russia such an agreement was called a symphony.
Beginning with the Renaissance, the formation of civil society and its emancipation from religion takes place. This process is painful and difficult, and even now it cannot be considered finally completed. From the end of the 18th century and up to our times, new relations between the church and the state are taking shape.
There are three stages of such relationships:
1. Tolerance - the privileged position of one of the religions in the recognition of the right to profess others.
2. Freedom of religion - is the freedom to choose religions and the administration of religious cultures.
3. Freedom of conscience, which can be briefly described as freedom of faith and unbelief.
Religion and morality are interrelated spheres of culture. This closeness is very noticeable on the part of their spiritual manifestation, but on the practical side this connection is more one-sided: the church has incomparably more strongly influenced the morality of society than the moral on religious cult and internal church policy.
In every religion, in every religion, to a greater or lesser extent, there are moral and spiritual principles. After all, religion determines not only the relationship of man with God and the church, but to some extent regulates the relations of people among themselves both in the bosom of the church and beyond its fence. The moral moment is already present in the very idea of God, because this moment is inseparable from the very "minimum" of religion. In polytheistic beliefs, one of the Deities is the embodiment of kindness, and someone else is the embodiment of malice. In monotheistic religions, God is necessarily endowed with personal moral qualities.
The moral principle is especially pronounced in world religions. In Buddhism, to the extent that some religious scholars call it not a religion, but a moral system. Religious constructions of Buddhism proceed from the moral idea that all being, every life in all its manifestations and forms is evil, carrying suffering to all that exists. And the Buddhist “way of salvation” for the adherent of this religion consists not so much in motives and rituals, as in moral activity — patient enduring suffering, abandoning desires and feelings. The moral principle in Islam permeates the idea of the one God-Allah as the embodiment of good. Trusting in the mercy and mercy of God lies at the heart of Islamic dogma. This principle permeates the Shari'ah - a set of Muslim religious, legal and moral institutions. But it is in Christianity that the idea of God is most morally saturated. Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, God is also all-good, all-merciful. The laconic formula “God is love” especially expressively conveys the moral essence of this world religion.
If religion necessarily includes a moral principle, then in morality we cannot eliminate a religious-like moment. Many of the shrines of morality are universal, supranational, supraclass: maternal love, marital fidelity, hard work, hospitality, respect for the elderly, etc. as in religion, these shrines are often not derived from dry mind, measurement and calculation. Love, for example, requires unreasonable self-denial. Such is the friendship. But conscience is often opposed to calculation and mysteriously judges us from within.
Not only theologians, but also many ethical researchers believe that morality and morality are generated by religion and are inseparable from it. At the same time, quite often the statements of the great thinker I. Kant about the divine nature of the “categorical imperative” inherent in man - the powerful internal command to follow moral requirements. More often refer to the ancient texts of the "holy books", saturated with moral teachings. They also refer to the fact that the very idea of God and the afterlife retribution has the strongest effect on the moral behavior of an individual. Finally, they point to the special role of the church, which has assumed the function of a moral institution.
Morality does not have its own special institutions that specifically provide in the life of society, organize control over the implementation of its rules and regulations. It is the church (and in the pre-class society, the priesthood) that assumes the role of such an institution. And because of this, it influences the fate of morality and the state of morals.
The history of all civilized countries convinces of this. The clergymen protected the moral institutions established in the practical life of society, promoted them. Even today, moral preaching is perceived by believers not just as a reminder of morality on the part of a respected person, but also as a command in the name of God, which gives moral standards a special authority. Moral for the believer merges with religion. But at the same time all the materialists still will not deduce morality from religion. The origins of morality in earthly relations, in the real production and family and domestic practice of man.
The measure of the influence of religion on morality is so great that one can speak of the existence of religious morality as a system of rules and norms, especially those highlighted by the church and especially those controlled by it. Religious morality has as its core the doctrine of sinfulness. This morality is not limited to the commandments of Moses (meaning Christianity), but does not include all moral values. Even Hegel in the “Philosophy of Religion” noted that outside the values of Christianity is friendship, as well as the love of a man for a woman. Friendship The New Testament mentions only once, and not in a universal, earthly sense (“You do not know that friendship with the world is enmity against God”). As for sexual attraction, in Christianity it is condemned as something base: “It’s good for a man not to touch a woman.” Love for a woman is contrasted with love for God. This was especially evident in the Middle Ages.
The essential features of the etiquette of that period were associated with religious morality. The legislator of morality was the church, which sanctioned, sanctified, consolidated the privileges of the ruling class, including through the rules of etiquette.
The church considered the gravest sins of man to be pride and the arrogance that it engendered, the desire to parade themselves, their skills, knowledge and power. Therefore, the etiquette norms of courtesy, demanding concessions from a noble person in relation to other noble ones, was a peculiar form of rejecting pride. Under the influence of religious morality, norms of courtesy and politeness were cultivated, suggesting, to a certain extent, humility and self-destruction, however, only in relation to their peers. In addition, the sin of man was considered the great sin of man.
In religious morality, the idea of the superiority of an unlikely afterlife in relation to the real and only earthly life, the superiority of uncertain heavenly blessings in relation to the benefits and values of earthly existence, is unacceptable to an unbeliever. The inhumane idea of revenge with endless and terrible torments for the rejection of religious faith, for disobedience of the church, for heresy is presented. In one way or another, religious morality contains condemnation and alienation of the non-believer and non-believer, which tones the manifestation of nationalism and hostility, hostility towards unbelievers. In Islam, this negative trend leads to the aggressive idea of “jihid” - a holy war against the “infidels”.
In fairness, it must be said that atheistic bias does not take into account or ignore the fact that the spread of world religions helped overcome many cruel pagan customs and led to a general softening of manners. Many ideas, altruistic in nature, universal in their moral nature have been worn out in the bosom of religious teachings. Is it not a common human message of Mohammed: “Only then do some act if you do not feel remorse”. Or another saying: “Conscience is part of faith.” The man is secular, and he will support the idea of a Muslim institution about the obligation of a wealthy person to help the poor. The moral and preventive meaning of the ban on wine is also evident in Islam. The same prohibition is present in the famous Buddhist ethical principles, along with the rules from committing evil, from lies, theft, sensual excesses. The Buddhist principle is not harming anything alive - the pre-impact of the emerging code of environmental morality of mankind today. In the bosom of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and other religions, superclass ideas of morality of non-violence that are so topical for the political life of modern society have been worn out. The ideas of non-violence in Hinduism follow from the principle of tolerance to other beliefs and other views proclaimed here. In Buddhism, these ideas are based on the principle of universal benevolence. The Sermon on the Mount Christ proclaims these ideas as an absolute norm: evil doesn’t overcome by force, meekness (“Malice does not destroy evilness”). Religious morality encourages charity and good deeds as a natural, conscientious and selfless aspiration of the soul.
The concept that there is no morality without God is very popular in the world. An unbeliever cannot be moral. And, therefore, only a belief in religion can be a guarantee of freedom of conscience. This understanding leads to the restriction of non-religious activities. We should not oppose the morality of believers and non-believers. Research by psychologists, sociologists, ethics and forensic scientists suggests that there is no strict relationship between a person’s attitude to religion and his behavior in society. The everyday experience of Russian reality shows that non-believers live no less a rich, full-fledged moral life than their religious fellow citizens. Religion serves as an additional moral support for many, many, but by itself, formal religiosity does not keep an unstable person from immoral acts.
The millennial impact of religion and the church on the spiritual world and manners did not eliminate the vices, crimes, wars from the life of civilized nations. Religion has kept and preserves the universal values of morality and edifies them, actively contributing to the softening of morals. But faith and the church themselves are not able to resist temptations, transgressions, sinful promptings, injustice, anger and aggression, fueled by the real contradictions of the economic and political life of society.
It must be remembered that differences in attitudes towards religion should not engender alienation, unfriendliness, and even hatred. Mutual understanding between believers and non-believers is an indispensable condition for social harmony and the moral health of society.
The world's largest religions proclaim the equality of people on Earth, and the canons of behavior for all mortals are therefore one. In the Christian doctrine, all people are “equal in sin,” in Buddhism, “equal in suffering,” according to Islam, people are equal before God in obedience and obedience.
В основе христианской морали лежат, в первую очередь, так называемые “Моисеевы заповеди” ( их 10). Они говорят о необходимости почитать Бога, запрещают сотворять кумира и служить ему, запрещают работать по воскресеньям. Заповеди велят почитать своих родителей, не убивать, не прелюбодействовать, не красть, не наговаривать на ближнего своего, не желать всего того, что есть у другого. Христианство, в отличие от других религий, не регламентирует жестко поведение человека в повседневной жизни. От верующего требуется совершение 7 таинств:
Otherwise, a person should act in accordance with his conscience, holding in his heart, as a role model, the acts and behavior of the Son of God. Different areas of Christianity (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, Lutheranism, etc.) have their own characteristics, including ethical doctrine.
The Catholic Church developed the doctrine of the “Seven Deadly Sins” as the most serious examples of deviant behavior. Since the time of Pope Gregory I the Great (590 - 604), this concept has become the property of the entire Catholic world. The sequence (and severity) of sins is as follows: 1 Pride; 2 Greed; 3 Lust; 4 Envy; 5 gluttony; 6 Anger; 7 Laziness. The protestant ethic is reduced mainly to the ethics of responsibility. Responsibility is not associated with the commission or imperfection of acts that are previously identified as good or bad. This is a kind of search for how a person can become better and accomplish what God expects from him. Correct behavior is not a servile execution of instructions from above, but a patient search for truth. Every person is a carrier of inalienable dignity, for he is created, in the image and likeness of God.
Мораль мусульманства основывается на шариате – своде канонических законов ислама, охватывающих все стороны творения (“шариат” – надлежащий путь).основными обязанностями мусульманина, согласно шариату, являются данные Богом так называемые “пять столпов ислама”:
В исламе есть предписания и такого рода, как пищевые запреты, похороны по мусульманскому обряду, чтение Корана, много внимания уделяется и семейно-брачным отношениям (например, мужчина может иметь до четырех жен, в том числе и несовершеннолетних, развестись с любой из них без объяснения причин и т.д.). Покорность в исламе носит всеобъемлющий характер: человек должен покоряться Богу, правителям, установившемуся порядку вещей, женщины, кроме всего прочего должны покоряться мужчинам. Но вместе с тем в исламе есть два правила: “рай” – собственное мнение и “иджитихард” – способность и право интерпретации. Два эти правила позволяют избегать застывшего, неизменного подхода, разрешают верующему мусульманину осмысливать проблему и менять свое поведение.
In Buddhism, such behavior of a person acquires particular importance, which allows him to overcome his dissatisfaction and to know happiness, enlightenment and inner freedom. One of the main dogmas of Buddhism is the dogma of suffering. He is worded in the “four great truths”:
1. Life is suffering (birth, sickness, love, death - suffering).
2. The causes of suffering are explained (desire for pleasure, desire for happiness).
3. The path of deliverance from suffering (the suppression of joy, power, love, thirst for life, vanity, pride).
4. The way in which you can get rid of suffering. This path is octal:
В иудаизме правильное поведение предполагает знание вечных истин, подлинным источником которых служит библейское откровение. Согласно иудаизму, душа и тело едины, и к ним в равной степени относятся 10 божественных заповедей. В иврите понятие справедливости и милосердия справлены в одном слове “tsedek”, ибо без справедливости милосердие было бы слепым и слабым, а справедливость без милосердия – слишком жестокой и сухой. Иудаизм рассматривает человека во всей его полноте и цельности, со всеми его желаниями и грезами. В этом единстве – неразрывная связь человека с обществом. Конфликт между ними проходит через всю историю. Нравственные устремления нередко приходят в столкновение с реальностью жизни. Иудаизм стремится к сопряжению идеала с повседневной реальностью. Заповеди Торы не на небе и не за морем, а в устах и в сердце, чтобы исполнять их ежедневно. Тора провозглашает на земле справедливое общество. В повседневной жизни каждый иудей должен помнить 365 запретов и 248 повелений. Талмуда, которые, по сути, регламентируют всю его жизнь: и общение с Богом, и поведение среди людей, и процесс приготовления и принятия пищи (“трефная” и “кашерная” еда), и празднование субботы (“шаббат”).
The Jewish commandment prescribes:
1. Give food and shelter to the needy.
2. Visit the patient.
3. To visit the one who is in mourning.
4. Helping orphan girls and poor brides.
5. Help the lost property and return it.
6. Protect the girl out of this world.
One of the main commandments of the Judaism is the propensity for goodness and good deeds.
Interesting and ethical law of Confucianism. The main rule that you need to follow all your life is the rule “zhen” - “What you don’t want yourself, don’t do to others.” Honoring parents and brotherly love - the basis of "zhen." A noble husband thinks about duty, a small person - about benefits. The main task of man on earth is to take care of people. A noble husband must observe certain standards of behavior: 1. See clearly; 2. Hear clearly; 3. Have a friendly face; 4. To make worthy deeds; 5. Speak correctly; 6. Understand the consequences of anger and, if possible, not be angry, etc. “Noble” does not mean rich or noble. This is a person who has high moral character. Correct behavior is based on the requirement to remember one's place in society and filial piety (relationship between fathers and children, emperor with subjects, local authorities with population) “Noble” husband has three fears: before heavenly destiny, before great people, before the words of a sage. Man is by nature angry, he is born dependent and angry, with an instinctive sense of profit. It is necessary to influence him with the help of education (whether - etiquette), to force him to observe the ritual, to fulfill his duty, and then he will develop virtue and culture. Lee - etiquette (in Chinese) - decency, restraint, culture, etiquette, ritual. The path to perfection, according to Confucius, begins with poetry, determines whether - etiquette and ends - with music. Lee - etiquette - this is also the norm in the family and the state.
Similar ideas are cultivated in the second most important religion of China - Taoism. The central idea of religion is the doctrine of “dao” (path, road). Tao is the invisible, omnipresent, natural law of nature, human society, behavior, thinking. The principle of following dao is such behavior, which, on the one hand, is consistent with human tao, and on the other hand, with tao of the Universe. If this principle is observed, inaction is possible, leading, however, to complete freedom, happiness, success, and prosperity. The universe and man cannot be put in order in any particular, exclusive way. It is necessary only to give freedom to the innate qualities. Taoism teaches that punishment is the flesh of power, ceremonies are its wings, knowledge is its support, virtue is a means to attract people to itself. If we proceed from the customs, then ideas about noble and ignoble deeds are created by others, and does not follow at all from human nature. To prevent a person from happily living. To decorate it with so-called virtue is the crime of the wise.
Each society, each community group develops its own system of values, and hence its own criteria for “proper” behavior. And in fact, at all times, the person himself chose that “middle ground”, which was determined by the requirements of society and his own criteria of the possible. Etiquette rules - components of a complex system of the moral sphere of human life. The main structural parts of this sphere are: moral relations, moral activity, moral behavior.
At all times, religion, as the concentration of moral norms and values, influenced etiquette. The degree of influence was determined by the fact that religion occupies a place in general in society. If you look at the historical perspective, the “golden age” of religion was in the Middle Ages. It was then that she was everything, she was everywhere and, penetrating into all spheres of society, she set her own rules. It was then that religion was, in essence, what we call etiquette.
Historically, there are 2 forms of etiquette: patriarchal and democratic. In them, religion plays a different role.
Patriarchal etiquette originates in the very depths of centuries, at the beginning of human history. We find its first traces in the prenatal human herd, where ideas about how to behave to an individual in an environment of their own kind begin to form. Gradually, with the accumulation in the human society of various skills and habits for settling in and mastering the environment, the system of transfer of this knowledge is also included in the educational complex. With the formation of the tribal (first maternal) system, norms of behavior and morality penetrate into all areas of human existence. Religion appears in the tribal system. With the help of religious canons, the norms of human behavior are sacralized, they are given an unearthly sound. At the stage of patriarchy, a new morality, a code of conduct and human honor is formed. It consolidates, first of all, the power of the despot father, the full ruler of a large family and the whole family belonging to it. In the future, the patriarchal right extends to other spheres of human existence. Religion establishes paternal power, building on the principle of "fathers and children" scheme of the relationship between man and God. Humanity has evolved and changed, but the patriarchal canons retained their dominant position. In feudal society, for example, moral norms are stated in the same way, according to a familiar pattern: God is the father, and his sinful children; fathers of the church - and the congregation “their sons”; the feudal lord (“father”, native father) - and his family (serfs). Patriarchal holes are fixed in the first, printed manuals on etiquette (in Europe - the treatise of Albert “On the family”, in Russia - the book of Sylvester “Domostroy”). Traces of patriarchal morality are widely practiced to this day.
And not only among other nations and tribes that preserve the most ancient forms of civilization.
Democratic etiquette has an incomparably shorter history. Probably for the first time it can be found in ancient Greece, where relations between free citizens of the polis were of a very relaxed, friendly character. with the fall of antiquity, the free style of communication has long disappeared. Its revival - like Renaissance in general - begins in Europe only with the weakening of the total power of the “patriarchal”, with the removal of the stigma “fathers - children” from all human relationships. This becomes the first stage of democratizing etiquette. Such radical changes concerned, first of all, those in power, nobles, and rich, who began to elaborate magnificent ceremonies with the most complex, strictly described rules of behavior, communication, dressing, and displacement. It was they who invented the lifestyle, which was actually called “etiquette”. Etiquette as a way of existence of the court audience of European monarchs.
It is very important that everything expressed about democratic etiquette is related only to the European, Western civilization. The East has always lived its separate spiritual life. In the field of morality and etiquette, the East relies on:
· The feudal form of patriarchy;
· Various religious systems, which in the East are much broader and deeper penetrating human being than is customary on Earth.
The class character of secular etiquette did not abolish the first signs of its democracy. With the emergence, development and strengthening of the power of the bourgeoisie, etiquette begins to change its face. Etiquette standards apply to recent "people from the people." The second stage of the democratization of etiquette is his release from the “power of the court”; its output to the wider population. But etiquette is still democratic in the upper layers of society. The broad masses continue to live according to the precepts of patriarchy, recreating again and again the moral norms of the clan system. And only in the 20th century, when the notion of the “third estate” is replaced by a phenomenon called the “middle class,” does a genuine, real democratization of etiquette occur. In our time, the third stage of democratization of etiquette was completed - etiquette finally lost its class character, ceased to be etiquette of the rich and noble. Developed a fundamentally new forms of etiquette. However, the moral precepts are still closely related to religion, as historically and psychologically, religion is very closely intertwined with other forms of consciousness. It had a tremendous impact on the whole life of mankind and entered the manners and customs of nations.
Comments
To leave a comment
Etiquette
Terms: Etiquette