What is folk morality. Morality

The structure and functions of morality. 2.3. Morality and law.

The concept of morality.

TOPIC 2. CONCEPT AND ESSENCE OF MORALITY

Morality (from the Latin "moralis" - moral; "mores" - morals) is one of the ways of normative regulation of human behavior, a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations. There are a number of definitions of morality, in which one or another of its essential properties is highlighted.

Morality is one of the ways to regulate the behavior of people in society. It is a system of principles and norms that determine the nature of relations between people in accordance with the concepts of good and evil accepted in a given society, fair and unfair, worthy and unworthy. Compliance with

morality is provided by the power of spiritual influence, public opinion, inner conviction, human conscience.

A feature of morality is that it regulates the behavior and consciousness of people in all spheres of life (production activities, everyday life, family, interpersonal and other relationships). The moral also extends to intergroup and interstate relations. .

Moral principles are of universal importance, they cover all people, they fix the foundations of the culture of their relationships, created in the long process of the historical development of society.

Any act, human behavior can have a variety of meanings (legal, political, aesthetic, etc.), but its moral side, moral content is evaluated on a single scale. Moral norms are daily reproduced in society by the force of tradition, by the power of a universally recognized and supported by all discipline, by public opinion. Their implementation is controlled by all.

Responsibility in morality has a spiritual, ideal character (condemnation or approval of actions), acts in the form of moral assessments that a person must realize, internally accept and, accordingly, direct and correct his actions and behavior. Such an assessment must comply with the general principles and norms accepted by all concepts of what is proper and improper, worthy and unworthy, etc.

Morality depends on the conditions of human existence, the essential needs of a person, but is determined by the level of social and individual consciousness. Along with other forms of regulation of people's behavior in society, morality serves to harmonize the activities of many individuals, turning it into an aggregate mass activity subject to certain social laws.

2.2. The structure and functions of morality. Exploring the question of the functions of morality, they distinguish

− regulatory,

− educational, − cognitive,

- evaluative-imperative, - orienting,

− motivational,

− communicative, − prognostic

and some of its other functions4.

4Arkhangelsky L. M. A course of lectures on Marxist-Leninist ethics. M., 1974. pp.37-46.

Of primary interest to lawyers are such functions of morality as regulatory and educational. Regulatory function is considered the leading function of morality. Morality directs and corrects the practical activity of a person in terms of taking into account the interests of other people, society. At the same time, the active influence of morality on social relations is carried out through individual behavior.

The educational function of morality is that it participates in the formation of the human personality, its self-consciousness. Morality contributes to the formation of views on the purpose and meaning of life, a person's awareness of his dignity, duty to other people and society, the need to respect the rights, personality, dignity of others. This function is usually characterized as humanistic. It influences the regulatory and other functions of morality.

As mentioned above, morality acts as a regulator of social relations, the subjects of which are both individual individuals and society as a whole. In the process of these social relations, the self-regulation of the moral behavior of the individual and the moral self-regulation of the social environment as a whole take place. Morality regulates almost all spheres of human life. By regulating human behavior, morality makes maximum demands on him. In addition, the regulatory function of morality is carried out based on the authority of public opinion and on the moral convictions of a person (although both society and the individual may be wrong).

Morality is considered both as a special form of social consciousness, and as a type of social relations, and as norms of behavior operating in society that regulate human activity - moral activity.

Moral consciousness is one of the elements of morality, representing its ideal, subjective side. Moral consciousness prescribes certain behavior and actions to people as their duty. Moral consciousness evaluates various phenomena of social reality (an act, its motives, behavior, lifestyle, etc.) from the point of view of compliance with moral requirements. This assessment is expressed in approval or condemnation, praise or blame, sympathy and hostility, love and dislike. Moral consciousness is a form of social consciousness and at the same time the area of ​​individual consciousness of a person. In the latter, an important place is occupied by a person's self-esteem, associated with moral feelings (conscience, pride, shame, repentance, etc.).

Morality cannot be reduced to consciousness alone.

Opposing identification

moral (moral)

morality and moral

consciousness, M. S. Strogovich wrote: “Moral consciousness is

views, beliefs, ideas about good and evil, about worthy and unworthy behavior, and morality is the social

nal norms governing the actions, behavior of people, their relationship "5

Moral relations arise between people in the course of their activity, which has a moral character. They differ in content, form, method of social connection between subjects. Their content is determined by in relation to whom and what moral duties a person bears (to society as a whole; to people united by one profession; to a team; to family members, etc.), but in all cases a person ultimately account turns out to be in the system of moral relations both to society as a whole and to oneself as its member. In moral relations, a person acts both as a subject and as an object of moral activity. So, since he has obligations to other people, he himself is a subject in relation to society, a social group, etc., but at the same time he is an object of moral obligations for others, since they must protect his interests, take care of him, etc.

Moral activity is the objective side of morality. We can talk about moral activity when an act, behavior, their motives can be assessed from the standpoint of distinguishing between good and evil, worthy and unworthy, etc. The primary element of moral activity is an act (or misconduct), since it embodies moral goals, motives or orientation. An act includes: motive, intention, purpose, act, consequences of an act. The moral consequences of an act are its self-assessment by a person and assessment by others.

The totality of a person's actions that have moral significance, performed by him in a relatively long period in constant or changing conditions, is commonly called behavior. Human behavior is the only objective indicator of his moral qualities, moral character.

Moral activity characterizes only actions that are morally motivated and purposeful. Decisive here are the motives that guide a person, their specific moral motives: the desire to do good, to realize a sense of duty, to achieve a certain ideal, etc.

In the structure of morality, it is customary to distinguish between the elements that form it. Morality includes moral norms, moral principles, moral ideals, moral criteria, etc.

Moral norms are social norms that regulate a person's behavior in society, his attitude towards other people, towards society and towards himself. Their implementation is ensured by the power of public

5 Problems of Judicial Ethics / Ed. M.S. Strogovich. M., 1974. S. 7.

opinions, inner convictions based on the ideas of good and evil, justice and injustice, virtue and vice, proper and condemned in a given society.

Moral norms determine the content of behavior, how it is customary to act in a certain situation, that is, the morals inherent in a given society, social group. They differ from other norms that operate in society and perform regulatory functions (economic, political, legal, aesthetic) in the way they regulate people's actions. Morals are daily reproduced in the life of society by the force of tradition, the authority and power of a generally recognized and supported by all discipline, public opinion, the conviction of members of society about proper behavior under certain conditions.

Unlike simple customs and habits, when people act in the same way in similar situations (birthday celebrations, weddings, seeing off to the army, various rituals, the habit of certain labor actions, etc.), moral norms are not just fulfilled due to the established generally accepted order, but they find an ideological justification in a person’s ideas about proper or improper behavior, both in general and in a specific life situation.

The basis for the formulation of moral norms as reasonable, expedient and approved rules of behavior are based on real principles, ideals, concepts of good and evil, etc., operating in society.

The fulfillment of moral norms is ensured by the authority and strength of public opinion, the consciousness of the subject about worthy or unworthy, moral or immoral, which also determines the nature of moral sanctions.

The moral norm, in principle, is designed for voluntary execution. But its violation entails moral sanctions, consisting in a negative assessment and condemnation of human behavior, in a directed spiritual influence. They mean a moral prohibition to commit such acts in the future, addressed both to a specific person and to everyone around. The moral sanction reinforces the moral requirements contained in moral norms and principles.

Violation of moral standards may entail, in addition to moral sanctions, sanctions of a different kind (disciplinary or provided for by the norms of public organizations). For example, if a soldier lied to his commander, then this dishonorable act, in accordance with its severity, on the basis of military regulations, will be followed by an appropriate reaction.

Moral norms can be expressed both in a negative, prohibitive form (for example, the Laws of Moses - the Ten Commandments,

formulated in the Bible), and in a positive way (be honest, help your neighbor, respect your elders, take care of honor from a young age, etc.).

Moral principles - one of the forms of expression of moral requirements, in the most general form, revealing the content of morality that exists in a particular society. They express the fundamental requirements regarding the moral essence of a person, the nature of relationships between people, determine the general direction of human activity and underlie private, specific norms of behavior. In this regard, they serve as criteria of morality.

If the moral norm prescribes what specific actions a person should perform, how to behave in typical situations, then the moral principle gives a person a general direction of activity.

Moral principles include such general principles of morality as

− humanism - recognition of a person as the highest value; − altruism - disinterested service to one's neighbor;

- mercy - compassionate and active love, expressed in readiness to help everyone in need of something;

- collectivism - a conscious desire to promote the common good;

- rejection of individualism - the opposition of the individual to society, any sociality, and egoism - preferences for one's own

ny interests to the interests of all others.

In addition to the principles that characterize the essence of that morality, there are so-called formal

or other principles

related already to the ways of fulfilling moral requirements. Such, for example, are consciousness and its opposite formalism, fetishism, fatalism, fanaticism, dogmatism. Principles of this kind do not determine the content of specific norms of behavior, but also characterize a certain morality, showing how consciously moral requirements are met.

Moral ideals are the concepts of moral consciousness, in which the moral requirements imposed on people are expressed in the form of an image of a morally perfect personality, an idea of ​​a person who embodies the highest moral qualities.

The moral ideal was understood differently at different times, in different societies and teachings. If Aristotle saw a moral ideal in a person who considers the highest virtue to be self-sufficient, detached from the worries and anxieties of practical activity, the contemplation of truth, then Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) characterized the moral ideal as a guide for our actions, " divine man within us" with whom we compare ourselves and

we improve, never, however, being able to become on the same level with him. The moral ideal is defined in its own way by various religious teachings, political currents, and philosophers.

The moral ideal accepted by a person indicates the ultimate goal of self-education. The moral ideal accepted by the public moral consciousness determines the purpose of education, affects the content of moral principles and norms.

One can also talk about the public moral ideal as an image of a perfect society built on the requirements of the highest justice, humanism.

The social system of the 21st century presupposes the existence of a set of certain legal and moral laws that create an indestructible hierarchical system of moral and state standards. Caring parents from childhood explain to their child the difference between good and bad deeds, laying in the offspring the concepts of “Good” and “Evil”. It is not surprising that in the life of every person murder or gluttony is associated with negative phenomena, and nobility and mercy are classified as positive personal qualities. Some moral principles are already present at the subconscious level, other postulates are acquired over time, forming the image of the individual. However, few people think about the importance of cultivating such values ​​in themselves, neglecting their significance. It is impossible to coexist harmoniously with the surrounding world, guided solely by biological instincts - this is a “dangerous” path, which invariably leads to the destruction of the personal image.

Maximum happiness.

This facet of human morality was considered and proved by the utilitarians John Stuart Mill and Jeremiah Bentham, who are engaged in ethics at the US State Institute. This statement is based on the following formulation - the behavior of the individual should lead to an improvement in the lives of those around him. In other words, if you adhere to social standards, then a favorable environment is created in society for the coexistence of each individual.

Justice.

A similar principle was proposed by the American scientist John Rawls, who argued for the need to equalize social laws with internal moral factors. A person occupying the lower step in the hierarchical structure should have equal spiritual rights with a person at the top of the ladder - this is the fundamental aspect of the assertion of a philosopher from the USA.

It is important to think about your own personal qualities in order to engage in self-improvement in advance. If we neglect such a phenomenon, then over time it will develop into betrayal. The variety of changes that cannot be avoided will form an immoral image that is rejected by others. The main thing is to responsibly approach the identification of life principles and the definition of the worldview vector, objectively evaluating your behavioral signs.

Commandments of the Old Testament and modern society

“Dealing with” the question of the meaning of moral principles and morality in human life, in the process of research, you will definitely turn to the Bible to get acquainted with the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament. The cultivation of morality in oneself invariably echoes the statements from the church book:

the events taking place are marked by fate, suggesting the development of moral and moral principles in a person (for all the will of God);
do not elevate the people around you by idealizing idols;
do not mention the name of the Lord in everyday situations, complaining about an unfavorable set of circumstances;
respect the relatives who gave you life;
devote six days to labor activity, and the seventh day to spiritual rest;
do not kill living organisms;
do not commit adultery by cheating on your spouse;
do not take other people's things, becoming a thief;
avoid lying in order to be honest with yourself and those around you;
do not envy strangers about whom you know only public facts.

Some of the above commandments do not meet the social standards of the 21st century, but most of the statements have remained relevant for many centuries. To date, it is advisable to add the following statements to such axioms, reflecting the features of living in developed megacities:

do not be lazy and be energetic to match the fast-paced industrial centers;
achieve personal success and self-improvement without stopping at the achieved goals;
when creating a family, think in advance about the expediency of the union in order to avoid divorce;
limit yourself in sexual intercourse, not forgetting to protect yourself - eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancy, which results in an abortion.
do not neglect the interests of strangers, walking "over their heads" for personal gain.

a set of norms and values, the violation of which outrages the public, as it concerns the basic and universal problems that have developed in relations between people

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

MORALITY

from lat. moralis - moral) - morality, a form of normative-evaluative orientation in behavior and spiritual life, mutual perception and self-perception of people. Belonging simultaneously to individuals (personalities) and societies (communities, social groups) as active subjects, consisting in their relative opposition to each other in essential unity, interdependence and interaction, M. acts as one of the established societies. practice of ways and means of connecting the freedom of the individual with societies. necessity, adapting the inclusion of individuals in societies. life and resolution of contradictions between them. In a number of other forms close to it, the inclusion of individuals in societies. life (law, politics, etc.) of M. is historically original. It enters deeply into the inner world of a person and has a wider, universal application. Its key difference is the action without using the direct power of some people over others, independence from outside decisions and decrees. Man's own power over himself, the strength of his personal consciousness and the support of societies are sufficient for the functioning of the M.. opinions. The specificity and essence of M., therefore, lies in the fact that it is, first of all and mainly, people's awareness of a socially necessary type of behavior and its implementation in free actions based on personal beliefs and societies. opinion. M. is a phenomenon of natural history, superstructural, developing due to the fact that society generates both certain general functions, without which it cannot do without, and a number of specific ones. "Bodies" (phenomena) to perform these functions, one of which is M. Together with all societies. as a superstructure, it has a general functional purpose - to promote the reproduction and change of societies. life through the formation and use of the subjective qualities of people: their consciousness, feelings, will, behavior. It performs this general function specifically. means and in specific forms. Together with other superstructural phenomena, in its real content it depends on the basis on which it is formed, and therefore concretely and historically appears in the form of various. developing and replacing one another moral systems, each of which represents the interests of the social base for it. community. The structure is different. moral systems repeat all their main components, the relative importance and specific characteristics of which, however, change from system to system. It is primarily moral consciousness. Society in it. necessity finds expression in a mental form, but not as known in its essence, but in a special refraction and often without direct understanding - in indirect ideas about morality; in the normative-evaluative recognition of some manifestations of people's activity as correct, proper, i.e. e. as moral norms, and others as their violations. To convey such ideas, the concepts of good and evil, duty, conscience, honor, dignity, etc. are formed in the moral consciousness, helping to make judgments about all the specific actions of people - moral assessments. These norms and assessments are different in each system: they sanction a special type of people's behavior, a special choice. Another component of M. is actions and the behavior of people that develops from them. These are actions taken in relation to moral norms, the situational embodiment of M. in the external activity of people. A special component of M. is the moral qualities of the individual. Acting as an intrapersonal effect (the result of an action), M. forms the moral warehouse of the individual. Their place in the structure of M. is also occupied by the moral positions of the individual, interpersonal and other moral relations. The first ones, being formed on the basis of the moral qualities of people, mean one or another stable attitude to possible options for behavior in certain situations (participation, non-intervention, etc.), the second ones mean the connection between moral subjects (personalities, classes, groups, collectives, etc.). arising on the basis of their mutual assessment of the moral qualities and positions of each other, their past or expected behavior. Finally, moral feelings, emotions, and experiences of people, that is, the perception of the moral side of life in addition to a rational response to it, can be considered an independent component of M.. As in structure, in the functions of the difference of systems M., great repetition and generality are found. Any moral system is complex functional, and is characterized by both integral unity of action and great differentiation of functions. The generally accepted model of M.'s functions has not yet been developed, and is different. The authors name different their sets. As particular manifestations of the integral function of M., relating to different levels and spheres of its activity, that is, its more or less isolated special functions, can be indicated: the normatization of people's behavior as the approval of a certain specific type, norms, and topics the most realization of the interests of a certain social. community; the application of norms and assessments of a given system of mathematics to specific situations and acts of human behavior; vozdeistv on the personality warehouse, helping people acquire confidence in the correctness of their behavior; influence on all behavioral activity of people. It is the functions of M. that give value to all its manifestations. In the considered general aspects, all moral systems are identical and act as a single phenomenon of M. In this they reveal the side of the universal in them. However, in another respect, each moral system stands apart from the others, opposing them with greater or lesser force, up to direct hostility and mutual struggle. Accordingly, in each individual moral system, all evaluation norms and other manifestations are filled with specific content, expressing its focus on supporting the interests of this particular community. However, often in a moral system its leading norm is not brought to the level of its direct awareness, but exists and functions latently. In creating their moral systems, ascending classes (communities) usually begin with a decisive rejection of previous moral systems. But in fact, the new is born here only on the basis of the historically preceding, old, which serves as a starting point, although in many respects a negative model of development, which is subjected to criticism. revision with the transformation of its content, accompanied, however, by a significant use of already existing moral forms. Lit. see Art. Moral. R.V. Petropavlovsk

And which is strictly prohibited. These rules are not necessarily legally binding. Those who violate them are not always punished by the state and its structures, but can become an outcast in society. In these cases, the person is said to have violated the moral principles accepted in his environment. Bright discrepancies between laws and moral principles are duels, with the help of which the nobility resolved many disputes in the past. Such fights were prohibited by law in many countries, but refusing to duel in the eyes of this class was often a misconduct much more serious than breaking the law.

The concept of morality was formed in ancient Greece. Morality Socrates called the science of man, as opposed to physics, which dealt with natural phenomena. This part of philosophy, which tries to answer the question of the true purpose of man. It was still tried. According to the definition of the Epicureans and Hedonists, the true purpose of human existence is happiness. The Stoics developed their concept and defined this goal as virtue. Their position was reflected in the views of philosophers of later eras - for example, Kant. The position of his "philosophy of duty" is based on the fact that a person cannot just be happy, he must deserve this happiness.

There are ideal and real morality, and the second does not always coincide with the first. For example, the Ten Commandments form the basis of Christian morality. Ideally, every Christian should follow them. However, numerous wars, including religious ones, were a clear violation of the prohibition to kill. In each warring country, there are other moral standards that are more in line with the needs of society in a particular. It was they, in combination with the commandments, that constituted the real. Modern philosophers consider morality as a way to preserve a particular society. Its task is to reduce conflict. It is primarily considered as a theory of communication.

The moral principles of each individual person are formed in the process of education. The child learns them first of all from the parents and other people around him. In some cases, the assimilation of moral norms occurs in the process of adapting a person with already established views to another society. This problem is constantly faced, for example, by migrants.

Along with public morality, there is also individual morality. Each person, performing this or that act, finds himself in a situation of choice. It is influenced by a variety of factors. Obedience to moral norms can be purely external, when a person performs some action only because it is accepted in his environment and his behavior will cause sympathy among others. Adam Smith defined such morality as the morality of feeling. But the motivation can also be internal, when a good deed causes the person who has done it to feel in harmony with himself. This is one of the moral principles of inspiration. According to Bergson, the act must be dictated by the person's own nature.

In literary criticism, morality is often understood as the conclusion that follows from the description. For example, morality exists in

MORALITY

MORALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O. G. Drobnitsky.

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

MORALITY

(from lat. moralis - moral)

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

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

MORALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Morozov. Moscow.

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

L. Azarch. Moscow.

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

MORALITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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