Ethics of modern society. Moral progress: illusion or reality?

Table of contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3
1. Ethics. Definition…………………………………………………………………… …………………4
2. History of ethics. Current state of ethics……………………………………...4
2. 1. Ethical problems of our time…………………………………………… ...5
2. 2. The place of morality in the modern world………………………………………………………........... 11

3. Moral progress: illusion or reality…………………………………...15

3. 1. Supporters of the existence of moral progress…………………………15
3. 2. Opponents of the existence of moral progress…………………………19
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..21
References……………………………………………………………………23

2. 2. The place of morality in the modern world

The transition from the primary apology of morality to its primary criticism was due not simply to the progress of ethics, but at the same time it was associated with a change in the place and role of morality in society, during which its ambiguity was revealed. We are talking about a fundamental historical shift that led to what can be called the new European civilization with its unprecedented scientific, technological, industrial and economic progress. This shift, which radically changed the entire picture of historical life, not only marked a new place for morality in society, but was itself largely the result of moral changes. 10

Morality has traditionally acted and been understood as a set of virtues that are summarized in the image of a perfect person, or as a set of norms of behavior that define the perfect organization of social life. These were two interconnected aspects of morality, transforming into each other - subjective, personal and objectified, objectively developed. It was believed that the good for an individual and the good for the state (society) are one and the same. In both cases, morality was understood as the specificity of individually responsible behavior, the path to happiness. This, in fact, constitutes the specific subject matter of European ethics. If we can single out the main theoretical question, which at the same time constituted the main pathos of ethics, then it is as follows: what is the free, individually responsible activity of a person, which he can give a perfect virtuous form, direct to achieve his own good, what are its boundaries and content. It was precisely this kind of activity in which a person, remaining the sovereign master, combined perfection with happiness, and was called morality. She was considered the most worthy, considered as the focus of all other human efforts. This is true to such an extent that philosophers from the very beginning, much before that, as Moore methodically developed this issue, already, at least from Aristotle, they came to the idea that goodness cannot be defined except through identity with oneself. The arena of morality (and this is essential!) was considered to be society and social (cultural) life in all the richness of its manifestations; it was assumed that, in contrast to nature and in contrast to it, the entire area of ​​​​common life mediated by consciousness (knowledge, reason), including politics, economics, decisively depends on the decision, choice of people, the measure of their virtue. Therefore, it is not surprising that ethics was understood broadly and included everything that related to the second nature, self-created by man, and social philosophy was called moral philosophy; according to tradition, it sometimes still retains this name to this day. The sophists' distinction between nature and culture was fundamental to the formation and development of ethics. Culture was distinguished according to the ethical (moral) criterion (culture, according to the sophists, is the sphere of the arbitrary, it includes those laws and customs that people at their own discretion guide in their relationships, and what they do with things for their own benefit, but does not follow from the physical nature of these things). In this sense, culture was initially, by definition, included in the subject of ethics (it was precisely this understanding of ethics that was embodied in the well-known tripartite division of philosophy, formed in Plato’s Academy, into logic, physics and ethics, according to which everything that was not related to nature was included in ethics) . 11
Such a broad understanding of the subject of ethics was a fairly adequate understanding of the historical experience of the era when social relations took the form of personal connections and dependencies, when, therefore, the personal qualities of individuals, the measure of their morality and virtue were the main supporting structure that supported the entire edifice of civilization. In this regard, we can point to two well-known and documented points: a) outstanding events, the state of affairs basically had a pronounced personal character (for example, the fate of the war depended decisively on the courage of soldiers and commanders, a comfortable peaceful life in the state - on the good ruler, etc.); b) people’s behavior (including in the business sphere) was entangled in morally sanctioned norms and conventions (typical examples of this kind are medieval guilds or codes of knightly combats). Marx has a wonderful saying that a windmill produces a society led by an overlord, and a steam mill produces a society led by an industrial capitalist. By using this image to indicate the uniqueness of the historical era that interests us, I do not just want to say that a miller at a windmill is a completely different human type than a miller at a steam mill. This is quite obvious and trivial. My idea is different - the work of the miller specifically as a miller at a windmill depended much more on the moral qualities of the miller’s personality than the work of the miller as a miller at a steam mill. In the first case, the moral qualities of the miller (well, for example, such a fact as whether he was a good Christian) were no less important than his professional skills, while in the second case they are of secondary importance or may not be taken into account at all. 12
The situation changed radically when the development of society took on the character of a natural-historical process and the sciences of society began to acquire the status of private (non-philosophical) sciences, in which the axiological component is insignificant and even in this insignificance turns out to be undesirable, when it turned out that the life of society is regulated by laws so as necessary and inevitable as the course of natural processes. Just as physics, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences were gradually isolated from the bosom of natural philosophy, so jurisprudence, political economy, social psychology and other social sciences began to be isolated from the bosom of moral philosophy. Behind this was the transition of society from local, traditionally organized forms of life to large and complex systems (in industry - from a workshop organization to factory production, in politics - from feudal principalities to nation states, in economics - from subsistence farming to market relations, in transport - from draft power to mechanical means of transportation, in public communication - from salon conversations to means mass media, etc.). 13
The fundamental change was as follows. Various spheres of society began to be structured according to the laws of effective functioning, in accordance with their objective parameters, taking into account large masses of people, but (precisely because these are large masses) regardless of their will. Public relations inevitably began to acquire a material character - regulated not according to the logic of personal relationships and traditions, but according to the logic of the subject environment, the effective functioning of the corresponding area of ​​​​joint activity. The behavior of people as workers was no longer set taking into account the totality of mental qualities and through a complex network of morally sanctioned norms, but was dictated by functional expediency, and it turned out to be the more effective the closer it came to automated, emancipated from individual motives, the accompanying psychological layers, the more more people became workers. Moreover, human activity as a subjective element of a social system (worker, functionary, activist) not only bracketed moral differences in the traditional sense, but often required the ability to act immorally. Machiavelli was the first to explore and theoretically sanction this shocking aspect in relation to state activity, showing that one cannot be a good ruler without at the same time being a moral criminal. A. Smith made a similar discovery in economics. He established that the market leads to the wealth of nations, but not through the altruism of economic entities, but, on the contrary, through their selfish desire for their own benefit (the same idea, expressed in the form of a communist sentence, is contained in the famous words of K. Marx and F. Engels that the bourgeoisie in ice water selfish calculation drowned the sacred thrill of religious ecstasy, knightly enthusiasm, bourgeois sentimentality). And finally, sociology, which has proven that free, morally motivated actions of individuals (suicide, theft, etc.), considered according to the laws of large numbers as moments of society as a whole, line up in regular series, which turn out to be more strict and stable than, for example, seasonal climate change (how can one not recall Spinoza, who said that if a stone thrown by us had consciousness, it would think that it was flying freely). 14
In a word, modern complexly organized, depersonalized society is characterized by the fact that the totality of professional and business qualities of individuals that determine their behavior as social units depends little on their personal moral virtues. In his social behavior, a person acts as a bearer of functions and roles that are assigned to him from the outside, by the very logic of the systems in which he is included. Zones of personal presence, where what can be called moral education and determination are decisive, become less and less important. Social mores depend not so much on the ethos of individuals, but on the systemic (scientific, rationally ordered) organization of society in certain aspects of its functioning. The social price of a person is determined not only and not so much by his personal moral qualities, but by the moral significance of the overall great business in which he participates. Morality becomes primarily institutional and is transformed into applied spheres, where ethical competence, if we can talk about ethics here at all, is determined to a decisive extent by professional competence in special fields of activity (business, medicine, etc.). The ethical philosopher in the classical sense becomes redundant. 15

3. Moral progress: illusion or reality

3. 1. Proponents of the existence of moral progress

To understand the essence of a person’s moral life, it is important to know whether morality changes during historical development society or remains virtually unchanged. Already in ancient world ideas about the development of morality arose. In Protagoras, Democritus, Plato, and Lucretius Cara, there are thoughts that humanity came to its contemporary state from savagery. Plato, in his essay The State, wrote that people initially lived in enmity with each other (even the gods were at enmity with each other!), They committed injustice, but, having tasted all this in abundance, they found it expedient to come to an agreement with each other so as not to commit injustice, and not suffer from it. This is where legislation and mutual agreement originated. In other words, with the formation of the state, a certain order was established, hostility and riots decreased. 16

This was also expressed in religious ideas: Plato was no longer pleased with Homer and Hesiod because they so easily portrayed gods who supposedly did not only good, but also evil. 17

According to Plato, the destiny of the gods is only good deeds. In a word, moral consciousness has already become a tangible factor in social life and culture.

Similar thoughts are also expressed by Lucretius Karozh in his poem On the Nature of Things. He noted that initially people not only could not use fire, but they did not care for the common good. The ideas of social and moral progress received their greatest development and recognition during the Enlightenment. The famous economist A. Turgot, in his famous speech “Consistent successes of the human mind,” argued that in society there is a continuity of development of the human mind, morals are softening. Another enlightener, Condorcet (1743-1894), proclaimed that the human mind has the capacity for endless improvement, and called for building a society in which truth, happiness and virtue would be linked by a single chain. He heartily proclaimed: Development will never go backwards! An optimistic view of the spiritual and moral development of society was also shared by many representatives of utopian socialism (Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, etc.), revolutionary democrats, and Marxists. Since the end of the twentieth century, the idea of ​​progress began to lose its influence in a certain part of society (the works of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spengler, etc. played a role here), nevertheless, it is still recognized, perhaps more cautiously and cautiously a significant part of the population. 18

Belief in progress is still common to many people.

What arguments are usually given in favor of this view of the history of morals? First of all, the evidence of progress in science, technology, technology and a number of other types of human activity is noted.

Morality, as a regulatory factor, cannot stand aside; it must also be improved and enriched. Another thing is that moral progress has its own specifics. This specificity is expressed, first of all, in the fact that moral progress does not proceed synchronously with the progress of science and technology. The invention of a steam locomotive or a computer does not mean a revolution in morals or in the manifestation of virtue. Moral progress itself is not a linear ascent, but is a rather complex, contradictory movement with backward retreats, going to the side, etc. Finally, it should be noted that the different levels and components of morality do not progress equally. In morality there is a fairly stable, albeit thin, layer of eternal postulates and axioms that change to an insignificant extent.

It is mainly the scope of their application that is changing. As we have already noted, the norm do not kill initially applied only to members of the clan, but now it has acquired a universal, universal character. The forms of their implementation are changing. Fundamentally new postulates appear extremely rarely. Another thing is morals. In this layer of moral life progress is more obvious. As many authors have already noted (starting with V. Solovyov, if we take Russian thought), from century to century there is humanization, an ennoblement of morals, direct relations between people, and moral culture is enriched. As noted by Vl. Soloviev, “with the advent of the state, with the development of spiritual culture, communication between people becomes different. I can have angry feelings towards someone. But I don’t rush at him, as was the case in the early stages of human history, with fists, I don’t gnaw at him with my teeth, but on the contrary, I treat him, perhaps with emphatic courtesy. “In the same way,” the Russian philosopher continued, “in relations between peoples, mutual hostility and mistrust do not always lead to war.” The wars themselves, wrote Vl. Soloviev, “in the twentieth century they are more like a formally determined duel of two decent people than a fight between two drunken artisans. And the war itself, especially after the bloody events of the 20th century, is considered fundamentally unacceptable and immoral.”

Although it should be recognized that wars, mainly local ones, have not yet disappeared from the face of the earth. This only means that people are not always guided by moral principles in their actions. 19

The improvement of morals has many other manifestations. For example, back in the 15th century, mentally ill people were kept in unbearably difficult conditions, beaten, put on chains, and shown naked to respectable ordinary people for a fee. Only at the very end of the 15th century were madmen elevated to the rank of patients, and their chains were removed. The forms of punishment for various crimes were gradually softened. As we have already noted, in the ancient world the punishment of death was quite common. Moreover, the death penalty took the most inhumane, painful forms.

“If a person plans injustice, for example, to become a tyrant, and he is grabbed and, having been grabbed, stretched on the rack, castrated, his eyes burned out, tormented with all kinds of, the most varied and most painful tortures, and even forced to watch how his children and wife are tortured, and in the end ultimately crucified or burned over a slow fire,” we read in Plato’s work Gorgias (473 pp.). Similar tortures were practiced in the Middle Ages. In Russia, until the abolition of serfdom in 1861, people of ignoble origin were subjected to public punishment. Even women. One involuntarily recalls the following lines from a poem by N. A. Nekrasov:

Yesterday, at about six o'clock, I went up to Sennaya;

There they beat a woman with a whip, a young peasant woman...

However, the legal consciousness of the broad masses was not distinguished by delicacy. Until the end of the twentieth century, there were cases of lynching, reprisals by crowds against a suspect. So, in the 70s of the last century, Russian newspapers wrote that a crowd of people almost beat to death a woman suspected of inducing an illness on a boy with the help of an enchanted apple.

At the end of the twentieth century, punishments became softer, more humane, and it began to be taken into account that the criminal is a person and has the right to have his dignity respected. The death penalty has been abolished in many countries. The living conditions of prisoners have improved significantly. Unfortunately, the latter applies mainly to industrialized countries, and not to Russia. 20

Modern ethics is faced with a rather difficult situation in which many traditional moral values ​​have been revised. Traditions, which previously were largely seen as the basis of the original moral principles, often turned out to be destroyed. They have lost their importance due to global processes developing in society and the rapid pace of change in production, its reorientation towards mass consumption. As a result, a situation arose in which opposing moral principles appeared as equally valid, in to the same degree derived from the mind. This, according to A. MacIntyre, led to the fact that rational arguments in morality mainly began to be used to prove theses that those who presented these arguments already had in advance.

This, on the one hand, led to an anti-normative turn in ethics, expressed in the desire to proclaim an individual person as a full-fledged and self-sufficient subject of moral requirements, to place on him the full burden of responsibility for independently made decisions. The anti-normative tendency is represented in the ideas of F. Nietzsche, in existentialism, in postmodern philosophy. On the other hand, there was a desire to limit the area of ​​ethics to a fairly narrow range of issues related to the formulation of such rules of behavior that can be accepted by people with different life orientations, with different understandings of the goals of human existence, and the ideals of self-improvement. As a result, the category of good, traditional for ethics, seemed to be taken beyond the boundaries of morality, and the latter began to develop mainly as an ethics of rules. In line with this trend, the topic of human rights is further developed, and new attempts are made to build ethics as a theory of justice. One such attempt is presented in J. Rawls’s book “A Theory of Justice.”

New scientific discoveries and new technologies have given a powerful boost to the development of applied ethics. In the 20th century Many new professional codes of morality were developed, business ethics, bioethics, legal ethics, media workers, etc. were developed. Scientists, doctors, and philosophers began to discuss problems such as organ transplants, euthanasia, the creation of transgenic animals, and human cloning. Man, to a much greater extent than before, felt his responsibility for the development of all life on Earth and began to discuss these problems not only from the point of view of his own interests of survival, but also from the point of view of recognizing the intrinsic value of the fact of life, the fact of existence as such (Schweitzer, moral realism).

Professional ethics acts as an ethics of rules and works at the level of creating deontological principles of behavior for those who belong to a given profession. It constitutes a significant area of ​​applied ethics. But there are other areas as well. This is a corporate ethics in which codes and organizations that enforce them are created for the members of certain corporations. The field of applied ethics also includes what is associated with social threats of a global nature. To prevent these threats, humanitarian examinations are being carried out, and mechanisms for democratic procedures for making important public decisions are being worked out.

An important step, representing a reaction to the current situation in the development of society, was an attempt to understand morality as an endless discourse - a conversation of humanity aimed at developing solutions acceptable to all its participants. This is developed in the works of K.O. Apel, J. Habermas, R. Alexi and others. The ethics of discourse is directed against anti-normativism; it tries to develop common guidelines that can unite people in the fight against the global threats facing humanity. Discursive ethics assumes that all decisions in the future of the development of society should become communicative. These are decisions that people agree to voluntarily make because they are convinced of their appropriateness, and not because they are promised something or are intimidated with something (strategic decisions). Communicative solutions mean that people's interests are not suppressed or eliminated in the name of other interests, and those who become the object of planned management agree to the manipulations made with their interests.

One more characteristic feature modern morality is an incredible expansion of the public sphere, i.e. spheres where the interests of large groups of people are represented, where actions are assessed from the point of view of the perfection of performing certain social functions. In this area we are faced with the activities of politicians, leaders political parties, business managers, with a mechanism for making global decisions. It turned out that traditional ethics is largely not applicable to this area, because it is clear that, say, a lawyer cannot treat a prosecutor as himself. During the trial, they act as opponents.

Therefore, theorists raise the question of developing a new ethics related to the adoption of fair rules of a certain game, a new understanding of justice, including the inclusion in this concept of issues of international justice, attitude towards future generations, attitude towards animals, attitude towards people with disabilities from birth, etc. .

Questions:

1. What is the origin of the term ethics?

2. What is motivation?

3. How does the “golden rule” differ from the “talion”?

4. What is moral justification?

5. What was specific to ancient ethics?

6. What are the specifics of the ethics of the New Time

7. What are good and evil? Can these categories be opposed in an absolute sense?

8. How can morality be defined?

9. How does morality differ from other means of social regulation?

10. What is the situation in modern ethics?

11. What is discourse ethics?

Abstract topics:

1. The emergence of morality

2. Golden rule morality

3. Aristotle's ethics

5. Justification of morality: possibilities and limits

7. Love as a principle of moral relationships

8. Ethics of Discourse

Literature:

1. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics //Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T.4. M.: Myso 1984.

2. I. Kant Fundamentals of the metaphysics of morals // Kant I. Sobr. Op. in 8 vols. T. 4. M.: CHORO, 1994.

3. Apel K.-O. Transformation of philosophy. M.: Logos, 2001.

4. Guseinov A.A. Great prophets and thinkers. Moral teachings from Moses to the present day. M.: Veche, 2009.

5. Guseinov A.A. Apresyan R.G. Ethics. M.: Gardariki, 2000.

6. MacIntyre A. After virtue. M.: Academic project; Ekaterinburg: Business book, 2000.

7. Razin A.V. Ethics. M.: INFRA-M, 2012.

8. Habermas Yu. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Per with him. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2000.

Ancient philosophers studied the behavior of people and their relationships with each other. Even then, such a concept as ethos ("ethos" in ancient Greek) appeared, meaning cohabitation in the house. Later they began to designate a stable phenomenon or sign, for example, character, custom.

The subject of ethics as a philosophical category was first used by Aristotle, giving it the meaning of human virtues.

History of ethics

Already 2500 years ago, great philosophers identified the main character traits of a person, his temperament and spiritual qualities, which they called ethical virtues. Cicero, having become acquainted with the works of Aristotle, introduced a new term “morality”, to which he attached the same meaning.

The subsequent development of philosophy led to the emergence of a separate discipline - ethics. The subject (definition) studied by this science is morality and ethics. Enough for a long time these categories were given the same meanings, but some philosophers distinguished them. For example, Hegel believed that morality is subjective perception actions, and morality is the actions themselves and their objective nature.

Depending on historical processes happenings in the world and changes in social development society, the subject of ethics constantly changed its meaning and content. What was inherent primitive people, became unusual for residents ancient period, and their ethical standards were criticized by medieval philosophers.

Pre-antique ethics

Long before the subject of ethics as a science was formed, there was long period, which is usually called “pre-ethics”.

One of the most prominent representatives of that time we can call Homer, whose heroes had a set of positive and negative qualities. But he has not yet formed a general concept of which actions are considered virtue and which are not. Neither the Odyssey nor the Iliad are instructive in nature, but are simply a narrative about events, people, heroes and gods who lived at that time.

For the first time, basic human values ​​as a measure of ethical virtue were voiced in the works of Hesiod, who lived at the beginning of the class division of society. He considered the main qualities of a person to be honest work, justice and legality of actions as the basis of what leads to the preservation and increase of property.

The first postulates of morality and morality were the statements of the five sages of antiquity:

1. respect your elders (Chilo);
2. avoid falsehood (Cleobulus);
3. Glory to the gods, and honor to parents (Solon);
4. observe moderation (Thales);
5. pacify anger (Chilo);
6. promiscuity is a flaw (Thales).

These criteria required certain behavior from people, and therefore became the first for people of that time. Ethics, as well as the task of which is the study of man and his qualities, was just emerging during this period.

Sophists and ancient sages

Since the 5th century BC, the rapid development of sciences, arts and architecture began in many countries. Never before has anything like this been born. large quantity philosophers, various schools and movements were formed that paid great attention to the problems of man, his spiritual and moral qualities.

The most important philosophy at that time was Ancient Greece, represented in two directions:

1. Amoralists and sophists who denied the creation of moral requirements obligatory for all. For example, the sophist Protagoras believed that the subject and object of ethics is morality, a fickle category that changes under the influence of time. It belongs to the category of relative, since each nation at a certain period of time has its own moral principles.
2. They were opposed by such great minds as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, who created the subject of ethics as a moral science, and Epicurus. They believed that the basis of virtue was harmony between reason and emotions. In their opinion, it was not given by the gods, which means it is a tool that allows one to separate good deeds from the evil ones.

It was Aristotle, in his work “Ethics”, who divided the moral qualities of a person into 2 types:

• ethical, that is, associated with character and temperament;
• dianoetic - relating to mental development man and the ability to influence passions with the help of reason.

According to Aristotle, the subject of ethics is 3 doctrines - about the highest good, about virtues in general and in particular, and the object of study is man. It was he who introduced the idea that morality (ethics) are acquired properties of the soul. He developed the concept of a virtuous person.

Epicurus and the Stoics

In contrast to Aristotle, Epicurus put forward his hypothesis of morality, according to which only the life that leads to the satisfaction of basic needs and desires is happy and virtuous, because they are easily achieved, which means they make a person serene and satisfied with everything.

The Stoics left the deepest mark on the development of ethics after Aristotle. They believed that all virtues (good and evil) are inherent in a person just as in the world around them. The goal of people is to develop in themselves qualities that correlate with goodness and eliminate the evil inclination. The most prominent representatives of the Stoics were Zeno in Greece, Seneca and Rome.

Medieval ethics

During this period, the subject of ethics is the promotion of Christian dogmas, since religious morality began to rule the world. The highest goal of man in the medieval era was service to God, which was interpreted through Christ’s teaching about love for him.

If ancient philosophers believed that virtues are a property of any person and his task is to increase them on the side of good in order to be in harmony with himself and the world, then with the development of Christianity they became a divine grace, which the Creator endows people with or not.

The most famous philosophers of that time are Augustine the Blessed and Thomas Aquinas. According to the first, the commandments were originally perfect, since they came from God. The one who lives according to them and glorifies the Creator will go to heaven with him, and the rest are destined for hell. Also, St. Augustine argued that such a category as evil does not exist in nature. It is committed by people and angels who have turned away from the Creator for the sake of their own existence.

Thomas Aquinas went even further, declaring that bliss during life is impossible - it is the basis the afterlife. Thus, the subject of ethics in the Middle Ages lost contact with man and his qualities, giving way to church ideas about the world and the place of people in it.

New ethics

A new round of development of philosophy and ethics begins with the denial of morality as the divine will given to man in the Ten Commandments. For example, Spinoza argued that the Creator is nature, the cause of all things, acting according to its own laws. He believed that in the world around us there is no absolute good and evil, there are only situations in which a person acts in one way or another. It is the understanding of what is useful and what is harmful for the preservation of life that determines the nature of people and their moral qualities.

According to Spinoza, the subject and tasks of ethics are the study of human shortcomings and virtues in the process of seeking happiness, and they are based on the desire for self-preservation.

On the contrary, he believed that the core of everything is free will, which is part of moral duty. His first law of morality says: “Act in such a way as to always recognize in yourself and others the rational will not as a means to an achievement, but as an end.”

The evil (selfishness) initially inherent in a person is the center of all actions and goals. To rise above it, people must show full respect for both their own and others' personality. It was Kant who revealed the subject of ethics briefly and clearly as philosophical science, standing apart from its other types, creating formulas for ethical views on the world, state and politics.

Modern ethics

In the 20th century, the subject of ethics as a science is morality based on non-violence and reverence for life. The manifestation of good began to be viewed from the perspective of the non-increase of evil. Leo Tolstoy revealed this side of the ethical perception of the world through the prism of good especially well.

Violence begets violence and increases suffering and pain - this is the main motive of this ethics. It was also adhered to by M. Gandhi, who sought to make India free without the use of violence. In his opinion, love is the most powerful weapon, acting with the same force and precision as the basic laws of nature, such as gravity.

Nowadays, many countries have come to understand that the ethics of nonviolence gives more effective results in resolving conflicts, although it cannot be called passive. It has two forms of protest: non-cooperation and civil disobedience.

Ethical values

One of the foundations of modern moral values ​​is the philosophy of Albert Schweitzer, the founder of the ethics of reverence for life. His concept was respect for all life without dividing it into useful, higher or lower, valuable or worthless.

At the same time, he recognized that, due to circumstances, people can save their own lives by taking someone else’s. His philosophy is based on a person’s conscious choice to protect life, if the situation allows it, and not thoughtlessly taking it away. Schweitzer considered self-denial, forgiveness and service to people to be the main criteria for preventing evil.

In the modern world, ethics as a science does not dictate rules of behavior, but studies and systematizes common ideals and norms, a general understanding of morality and its significance in the life of both an individual and society as a whole.

Morality concept

Morality is a sociocultural phenomenon that forms the fundamental essence of humanity. All human activities are based on ethical standards recognized in the society in which they live.

Knowledge of moral rules and ethical behavior helps individuals adapt among others. Morality is also an indicator of the degree to which a person is responsible for his actions.

Ethical and spiritual qualities are cultivated from childhood. From theory, through right actions towards others, they become a practical and everyday aspect of human existence, and their violation is condemned by the public.

Objectives of ethics

Since ethics studies its place in the life of society, it solves the following problems:

• describes morality from the history of formation in ancient times to the principles and norms characteristic of modern society;
• gives a description of morality from the position of its “ought” and “real” version;
• teaches people basic knowledge about good and evil, helps to improve themselves when choosing their own understanding of the “correct life”.

Thanks to this science, the ethical assessment of people's actions and their relationships is built with a focus on understanding whether good or evil is achieved.

Types of ethics

In modern society, the activities of people in numerous spheres of life are very closely connected, therefore the subject of ethics considers and studies its various types:

• family ethics deals with the relationships between people in marriage;
• business ethics - norms and rules of doing business;
• corporate studies relationships in a team;
• trains and studies the behavior of people in their workplace.

Today, many countries are implementing ethical laws regarding death penalty, euthanasia and organ transplantation. As human society continues to evolve, ethics change along with it.

Modern ethics is a rapidly developing and extremely popular humanities area of ​​knowledge. It can be said without exaggeration that ethical issues and their consequences for social theory became the main intellectual lineage in modern Western philosophy. This situation in the literature is called "Ethical Turn". But, in addition to deep theoretical reflections, modern ethics is distinguished by one significant feature: it has become fundamentally problematic. It revolves around the most difficult, conflict situations our lives, accompanying the daily existence of a person. Based on this, it can be argued that nowadays ethics as knowledge and as a practice that wants to establish the most correct relationships between people operates in three large dimensions: in the conditions of a professional community, in conditions joint activities people various professions and statuses and in the situation of public discussion of the most acute moral dilemmas of social practice, arising as a conflict of the first two ways of existence with the moral dignity of a person. This leads to three large industries modern ethical theory: professional, corporate and applied ethics.

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Features of professional ethics

The name "professional ethics" speaks for itself. In it we're talking about about practices designed to solve moral problems arising in a particular profession. Here we can distinguish three circles of such problems. The first is related to the need to specify universal moral standards in relation to the conditions professional activities. For example, the status of a military man or law enforcement officer implies their right to use violence, which cannot be unlimited. In the same way, a journalist who has access to socially dangerous information has the right to hide or distort it, but to what extent is this right acceptable from the point of view of the public good and how can abuse be avoided? The measure and scope of such deviations from generally accepted ideas about morality is called upon to be developed this type ethics. Secondly, it considers the requirements that exist within the profession and bind their bearers with special, business relationships. Thirdly, she discusses the correspondence between the values ​​of the profession and the interests of society itself and, from this perspective, approaches the problems of correlation social responsibility and professional duty.

Researchers note that professional ethics is the most ancient of all three areas. It is traditionally believed that the first arch is precisely professional rules compiled by the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates (460-370 BC), with whom the separation of medicine into a separate science is associated. In fairness, it should be noted that he did not formulate the doctor’s oath, but rather summarized the various vows that were given by the Greek priests of the god of healing Asclepius. This oath became the prototype of numerous codes of doctors existing in different countries. Next story professional ethics can be traced as unifying documents, charters and oaths of various corporations. Thus, trade unions were quite strong in Ancient Rome. In the Middle Ages, the charters and codes of craft guilds, monastic communities, and knightly orders attracted attention. The latter are perhaps the most revealing in this regard, since they emphasize the exceptional, divine significance of their ministry. It is no coincidence that the authorship of the charter and oath of the very first knightly order Templars (1118) belongs to the famous medieval philosopher Bernard of Clairvaux(1091-1153). However, the massive dissemination of codes of professional ethics began in the second half of the 20th century, when professionalism began to be considered one of the highest values social practice. Accordingly, theoretical reflection on this phenomenon appeared.

What are the most important features of professional ethics? Firstly, it is expressed in the form of requirements addressed to representatives of the given profession. From here follows its normative image, enshrined in the form of beautifully formulated declaration codes. As a rule, they are small documents containing a call to live up to the high calling of the profession. The appearance of these documents indicates that members of the profession began to perceive themselves as a single community pursuing certain goals and meeting high social standards.

Secondly, documents on professional ethics are filled with the conviction that the values ​​professed by it are completely obvious and follow from a simple analysis of the activities of the most prominent representatives of this kind activities. It cannot be otherwise, for the codes themselves are designed in the style of a message to people who have been given the great honor of engaging in such significant public service. From here we can often read about the principles of responsibility, objectivity, high competence, openness to criticism, goodwill, philanthropy, caring, and the need for constant improvement professional excellence. Nowhere is a decoding of these values ​​given, because it seems that they are intuitively clear to every member of society. In addition to them, you can always find references to what is professional evil, and cannot in any way be tolerable from the point of view of the specified values. For example, refusal to provide assistance, use of official position, failure to maintain professional secrecy, substitution of personal opinion for competence, etc.

Another important feature of the professional understanding of morality is connected with the previous circumstance. This style of ethics gives the highest status to the activities it regulates. The profession whose values ​​it is called upon to protect - doctor, scientist, teacher, lawyer - is recognized as the most exalted of all existing ones, and its representatives themselves are recognized as the elite of society. Thus, in the already mentioned numerous codes of conduct of doctors, the idea was traced that they are called upon not only to fight death, but also know the secrets healthy image life. In some particularly radical cases, a profession is recognized as a standard of morality, because it corresponds to the model of sacrifice, selflessness and contributes to the prosperity of society.

The next feature of professional ethics concerns the problem of the nature of regulation of activities and the authority behind it. Of course, the professional community itself is considered an authority, and the most respected representatives who will be given such high trust can speak on its behalf. From given context it becomes clear that both the investigation and the sanctions are also a matter for the community itself. His trial and sentence are a decision of a panel of professionals against those who misunderstood their high destiny, used their status to harm the community and thereby excluded themselves from it. Based on these attitudes, it is impossible to imagine that ethical control is carried out by outside observers. As you know, the professional environment is extremely sensitive to all forms of external regulation.

The nature of the sanctions provided for by professional ethics also follows from ideas about the special status of this type of activity. If a person occupies such a high position in society, then the requirements for him should be the highest. Almost no code of professional ethics is complete without specifying the sanctions applied to violators. The profession is proud of its social significance, therefore, is ready to exclude apostates from her sphere. As a rule, sanctions are ranged: from issuing a reprimand on behalf of the board of authorized persons to deprivation of professional status. Be sure to mention in the sanctions section other measures of influence, in addition to ethical ones - legislative or administrative. This once again emphasizes the social role of the profession and the interest of society itself in its development. Accordingly, the codes necessarily contain a listing possible violations. And just as in the case of the main value guidelines of professionalism, their meaning should be intuitively clear to a representative of each specific occupation.

Based on all that has been said, the tasks of professional ethics become obvious. For the community behind it, it is important not to lose its status, to prove its social significance, to respond to the challenges of rapidly changing conditions, to strengthen its own cohesion, to develop common standards for joint activities and to protect itself from the claims of other areas of professional competence. In this regard, it is worth noting that nowadays the greatest activity in this area is mainly among young professions, for which it is very important to prove their right to exist.

However, this type of ethical theory and practice has some disadvantages. At first glance, one can note its closed, narrow nature, relying only on its own authority when making moral assessments, which results in unfounded ambitions when resolving acute conflict situations. The professional environment is a fundamentally conservative element; traditions and foundations play a huge role in it. This is good when it comes to continuity and development, e.g. scientific schools, but is it enough in the modern world to build ethical regulation only on traditions and foundations? Besides, moral consciousness cannot agree that main value Any social practice is considered professionalism. If in a specific area of ​​activity there is a need to discuss emerging moral problems, this means that ordinary ideas about professional duty are not enough for its normal functioning. The relationship between professionalism and morality is one of the most popular topics in the philosophy of the 20th century. As a result of reflection, we can recognize the idea that in comparison with eternal moral values, the essence of professionalism cannot be considered obvious and unchangeable.

The ethics of the twentieth century can be called an intellectual reaction to the social catastrophes that occurred in this century. Two world wars and regional conflicts, totalitarian regimes and terrorism prompt us to think about the very possibility of ethics in a world so openly alien to goodness. Of the great variety of ethical teachings created in the twentieth century, we will consider only two. Their representatives not only designed theoretical models morality, but also made practical normative conclusions from them.

Another very significant type of ethical teaching that has had a huge influence on the development of Western culture is ethics of existentialism (philosophy of existence). Representatives of existentialism are French philosophers J.P. Sartre (1905–1980), G. Marseille (1889–1973) A. Camus (1913–1960), German philosophers M. Heidegger (1889–1976) K. Jaspers (1883–1969). Existentialism was formed in Western Europe during the period between the two world wars. Its representatives tried to comprehend the situation of a person in crisis situations and develop certain value systems that would allow him to overcome a crisis situation with dignity.

Starting position existentialism - existence precedes the essence, the reason that determines it. A person first exists, appears, acts, and only then is he defined, i.e. receives characteristics and definitions. Openness to the future, internal emptiness and initial readiness for free self-determination from oneself is true existence, existence.

Existentialist ethics believes freedom to be the basis of human moral behavior. Man is freedom. Freedom is the most fundamental characteristic of man. Freedom in existentialism – this is, first of all, freedom of consciousness, freedom to choose the spiritual and moral position of the individual. All causes and factors affecting a person are necessarily mediated by his free choice. A person must constantly choose one or another line of his behavior, focus on certain values ​​and ideals. By their formulation of the problem of freedom, the existentialists reflected the main basis of morality. Existentialists rightly emphasize that people’s activities are guided mainly not by external circumstances, but by internal motivations, that each person in certain circumstances mentally reacts differently. A lot depends on each person, and in case of negative developments of events one should not refer to “circumstances”. People have considerable freedom in determining the goals of their activities. At each specific historical moment there is not one, but several possibilities. Subject to availability real possibilities As events unfold, it is equally important that people are free to choose the means to achieve their goals. And the goals and means, embodied in actions, already create a certain situation, which itself begins to have an impact.

Human responsibility is closely related to freedom.. Without freedom there is no responsibility. If a person is not free, if he is constantly determined in his actions, determined by some spiritual or material factors, then, from the point of view of existentialists, he is not responsible for his actions, and therefore is not a subject of moral relations. Moreover, an individual who does not exercise free choice, who has renounced freedom, thereby loses the main quality of a person and turns into a simple material object. In other words, such an individual can no longer be considered a person in the true sense of the word, because he has lost the quality of true existence.

At the same time, real life shows that for many people, authentic existence turns out to be an unbearable burden. After all, freedom requires independence and courage from a person, it presupposes responsibility for choices that give one or another meaning to the future, which determines what the distant world will be like. It is these circumstances that cause those unpleasant experiences of metaphysical fear and anxiety, constant anxiety that push a person and the sphere of “inauthentic existence”.

Existentialist ethics calls for opposition to all forms of collectivism. It is necessary to openly realize your loneliness and abandonment, freedom and responsibility, the meaninglessness and tragedy of your own existence, gain strength and courage to live in the most unfavorable situations of futility and hopelessness.

Existentialist ethics develops in line with stoicism: the moral confusion and despair of a person, the loss of his dignity and strength of spirit is not so much the result of the collision of our reason and morality with meaninglessness human life and the inability to achieve prosperity in it, as much as the result of disappointment in these our hopes. As long as a person wishes and hopes for successful outcome in his endeavors, he will fail and fall into despair, for the course of life is not in his control. It does not depend on a person what situations he may find himself in, but it is entirely up to him how he gets out of them.

Among the moral theories of the 20th century. attention should be paid to "ethics of non-violence". All ethics considers non-violence necessary. Since violence begets retaliatory violence, it is a deliberately ineffective method of solving any problems. Nonviolence is not passivity, but special nonviolent actions (sit-ins, marches, hunger strikes, distributing leaflets and speaking in the media to popularize their position - supporters of nonviolence have developed dozens similar methods). Only morally strong and courageous people are capable of carrying out such actions, capable, thanks to faith in their rightness, not to respond blow to blow. The motive of nonviolence is love for enemies and faith in their best moral qualities. Enemies must be convinced of the wrongness, ineffectiveness and immorality of forceful methods and a compromise must be reached with them. The “ethics of nonviolence” considers morality not a weakness, but a human strength, the ability to achieve goals.

In the 20th century developed ethics of reverence for life, the founder of which was the modern humanist A. Schweitzer. It equalizes the moral value of everyone existing forms life. However, it allows for a situation of moral choice. If a person is guided by the ethic of reverence for life, then he harms and destroys life only under the pressure of necessity and never does it thoughtlessly. But where he is free to choose, man seeks a position in which he could help life and avert from it the threat of suffering and destruction. Schweitzer rejects evil.