The world of culture is traditions and rituals, these are norms and values, these are creations and things - all that can be called the being of culture. Personality as a creator and bearer of culture is exceptionally multifaceted. It can be characterized from the point of view of its moral culture and aesthetic, the measure of its psychological maturity and intellectual development, from the side of its ideological positions. But in all the richness of the culture of the individual, one can single out its system-forming axis, which is the moral structure of the individual. Morality is the core of spiritual culture. The structure of the moral culture of the individual includes the culture of human consciousness and the culture of everyday behavior. The culture of moral consciousness and behavior should be considered as complete system elements, expressing the objective social need for the consistent formation of such a culture of moral consciousness, which would be adequately embodied in behavior. In turn, the culture of moral behavior is a form of the objectified culture of moral consciousness. This feature of moral culture is explained by its single "goal", "mission", which consists in the formation of "moral reliability" of the individual. The unity of the culture of moral consciousness and behavior ensures that the individual masters the moral culture of society and the practical implementation of this culture.

Process moral formation personality includes such elements of purposeful influence on it as ethical education - the formation of knowledge of the individual in the field of moral activity; ethical training - the formation of skills in the field of moral activity; moral education and self-education - formation moral attitudes, value orientations of the individual, etc.

It is on the basis of the unity of these factors that the formation of the moral culture of the individual develops its moral wisdom as the unity and harmony of knowledge of moral requirements - and their embodiment in actions, the ability to find the optimal noble solution, and a penetrating moral feeling, unique personal experience life, and the main wealth of the moral culture of society.

In the culture of human consciousness, one can single out such elements as the culture of ethical thinking and the culture of moral feelings. The starting point in ethical thinking is knowledge about simple rules morality, norms and principles of morality, ideal. Indeed, in any case, before accepting the requirements of a given system of morality or culture as a whole, one must know them. Moral knowledge expands the scope of moral choice and makes the choice itself more justified. On the basis of a person's moral knowledge and their comparison with reality, he develops certain moral orientations, which are a person's "own" characterization of good and evil, justice, the meaning of life, happiness, moral ideal, his "personal" assessment of facts, relationships, people, themselves from the point of view moral values. The role and importance of values ​​in life and society cannot be overestimated. In this regard, we can agree with the well-known Russian scientist P. Sorokin, who rightly noted that without human assessments, "devoid of their significant aspects, all phenomena of human interaction become simply biophysical phenomena" and it is value that serves as the foundation of any culture. The criteria for ethical thinking of a person are, first of all, the optimal resolution of moral conflicts and the ability to choose means to achieve a certain moral goal.

Let us turn to the second component of the moral culture of the individual - the culture of her moral feelings, the emotional side of individual morality. The range of these feelings can be very wide: from a situational reaction to a personal insult to high civic sorrows and joys. They can be directed inward (feelings of shame, remorse, remorse, etc.) and outward (feelings of compassion, hatred, indifference, etc.).

Moral emotions and feelings play a special role in human communication. Here they are the highest value and goal. Communication devoid of emotional warmth cannot satisfy one of the highest, humanistic in its basis, human needs for "luxury human communication"(Exupery). However, the role of moral feelings in the structure of personality should not be absolutized, because they are not a panacea for all moral errors and immorality.

Beliefs are the dialectical unity, the fusion of rational and rational levels in the moral structure of the personality. A guarantee of the moral reliability of a person is the confidence that a person, under any difficult or unfavorable circumstances, will not give up his principles. The content of moral beliefs depends on what ideas, knowledge and views are perceived by the individual.

The culture of everyday behavior of a person is made up of a culture of deed and etiquette. Etiquette is a ritualized form of human relationships in a particular environment, which has a class, national and historical coloring. Despite all the variety of etiquette forms, one can find in them something stable, representing enduring universal significance, namely: politeness, tact, modesty, accuracy, simplicity.

The culture of a person's act has a much more complex characteristic. All the diversity of human activity can serve as a way of manifesting a certain moral position of a person: facial expressions, gestures, speech, silence, clothing, etc. an act in the moral sphere is not identical physical action: an act can be a verbal action or simply an evasion of an action. There is always a motive in an action. Every action is mediated moral attitude person to another person.

Moral culture personality is a trait moral development personality, which reflects the degree of mastering the moral experience of society, the ability to consistently implement values, norms and principles in behavior and relationships with other people, readiness for constant self-improvement. His morality is determined by the way he thinks. A person accumulates in his mind and behavior the achievements of the moral culture of society. The task of forming the moral culture of the individual is to achieve the optimal combination of traditions and innovations, to combine the specific experience of the individual and the entire wealth of public morality.

The elements of the moral culture of the individual are the culture of ethical thinking, the culture of feelings, the culture of behavior and etiquette.

Evolution modern man continues at the present time, since the socio-biological environment as an agent of selection is constantly changing. The main forms of selection operate in society: stabilizing, destructive, balanced and guiding. The transformation in the course of human evolution of biological prerequisites into dependent social process form does not eliminate the natural foundations of man.

The formation of the future personality begins with early childhood and is determined by the most complex and interactions of circumstances that can not only contribute to its development, but also actively impede the natural and organic formation, predetermining the tragedy of a person's being.

Games that parents impose on children are considered a means for their social development, actualize the problem - "the games that the child chooses, and the games that the child chooses."

The activity of the creator of culture - an artist, writer, musician, etc. - is directed not at the material, but at reality, the reality of life, at some event. Their works are created so that a person, through their work, can understand the harsh reality or the beautiful unreality of our life, enrich his inner world and thereby become more cultured.

In my opinion, the main component of moral culture is cultural thinking, let's talk about this in more detail.

The culture of thinking as a certain level of a person's mental abilities largely depends on how much a person's mental activity corresponds to the laws and requirements of logic. It should be emphasized that mastering the laws and requirements of logic to perfection is something without which a culture of thinking is generally impossible.

The culture of thinking is the highest level and quality of human thinking, determined by the conscious development by the individual of his ways of thinking that meet the requirements of human culture. K. m. involves its organization, optimization and improvement. It represents the ability to optimally use intellectual knowledge, the scientific achievements of mankind, the logical sequence of thinking, its focus on solving problems. actual problems and tasks. K. m. presupposes the connection by the subject of the abilities of understanding, interpretation, explanation, proof (argument), reflection and dialogue. To develop a culture of thinking, a person needs constant intellectual work, activities to overcome the spontaneous, situational, stereotypical way of thinking.

A special way to implement the thought process as a cultural one is reflection, which combines organization, criticism and consistent construction of the content of mental activity.

The question arises: is it necessary to know a special theory in order to think correctly? After all, one can reason logically without knowing any theory, like little children who speak a language without knowing its grammar.

(The great German idealist philosopher Hegel remarked ironically that it is possible to digest food without knowing physiology.)

Indeed, many people follow logical laws involuntarily, instinctively, without even thinking, without even knowing about these laws. At the same time, they follow natural logic, for example, to eat and breathe, which gives them the illusion that thinking also does not need analysis and control. But if the task of a physiologist is to “teach a person how to eat, breathe, how to work and rest correctly in order to live longer”, then the task of logic is to teach a person to think correctly logically, not to make their own logical errors and find them in the reasoning of others.

From these judgments, we found out that logic is, for the most part, a culture of thinking. From this it follows that the culture of thinking, in turn, teaches a person moral culture.

Personality culture can also be characterized in terms of aesthetic culture. This can be considered on the example of the central link in the aesthetic consciousness of a person - aesthetic taste. Taste is usually understood as the ability of a person to intuitively comprehend and emotionally evaluate aesthetic and artistic values. There are two prerequisites for the formation of aesthetic taste: psychological and sociocultural. The first includes the developed basic mental abilities of a person: emotionality, intelligence, imagination, fantasy, intuition. The underdevelopment of any of these prerequisites causes a distortion of taste. Aesthetic taste arises when a person is included in the context of human culture, aesthetic relations.

Therefore, a very important content side of taste is the standards assimilated by the individual, the cultural experience of society. The values ​​assimilated by people turn for each person into original prototypes and criteria of perception, which are called aesthetic standards. The objective criterion of taste is the ratio of personal aesthetic experience to the experience of society: the more fully an individual has mastered the experience of society, the more developed. In aesthetic experience, society has both classics, tradition, and actual experience with its innovation, therefore, a developed aesthetic taste is characterized by the development of both. Undeveloped taste is when a person absolutizes certain aesthetic or artistic values, their level, form and content, thereby impoverishing, excluding spiritual richness and diversity of aesthetic values.

The functional side of the state of taste is aesthetic needs.

There are three levels of development of aesthetic needs:

• 1. Initial - "sleeping taste", that is, the aesthetic need is in its infancy, so often a push is needed to develop needs;
• 2. Average, "normal", that is, a person's steady desire to perceive and experience the aesthetic or artistic values ​​\u200b\u200bknown to him;
• 3. Creative - the need to create something new aesthetic world. Creative taste is the highest level of development of aesthetic taste, the ability to see through the various forms of the world a new, previously unknown meaning.

Another relatively independent part that characterizes the cultural appearance of a person is the degree of development of her intellect. The intellect of each person is a rather complex formation. It is necessary to distinguish in it reason and reason. F. Engels noted that the mind operates according to a strictly defined scheme, algorithm, without awareness of the method itself, its boundaries and possibilities, while the mind seeks to go beyond the existing system, to push its boundaries.

Isolation of the rational and rational side allows you to better understand character traits rational sphere of human consciousness. "Duet" of the voices of reason and reason - very important quality thinking of a person, the level of his intellectual culture largely depends on their interrelations. Thus, the main components of a person’s culture are: moral and aesthetic culture, and intellectual development personality. All of them are interconnected and directly affect the development of the individual.

culture personality taste

Understanding the connection between morality and culture, or, more precisely, understanding the place and role of morality in culture, the meaning of what is called moral culture, depends not only on one or another interpretation of culture, but also on our ideas about what morality is. The latter is important, if only because in the Russian language and in domestic ethics two concepts are habitually used: “morality” and “morality”. And about the relationship between these two concepts of ethics, they are far from being expressed ambiguously.

Therefore, one has to choose one of the possible understandings. But not just “some”, but one that will better clarify the features of moral culture.

The meaning of both is generally the same, but the use of each of these terms shows some shades of meaning. The concept of “morality” emphasizes the normativity of morality, its social existence, moments of duty to a greater extent.

When using the concept of "morality", the individualization of morality, its individual existence, the realizability of norms, ideals, due in people's lives, in their actions, their consciousness and self-consciousness are more often emphasized.

In both cases we are talking about the relationship of people to each other. And not about any interhuman relations, but about those in which “good” and “evil” are revealed: “... morality in general is value orientation behavior, carried out through the dichotomy (separation in two) of good and evil. Whatever concepts, relationships, actions in the sphere of morality, morality we take, - all of them, one way or another, are based on the ability of a person to distinguish between good and evil. Most relations in the sphere of morality are concrete modifications of the manifestations of good and evil in different sides life. Honesty is clearly good, and dishonesty is evil. The same with justice and injustice, decency and dishonesty, mercy and cruelty, etc. Shame, conscience express that a person has felt (realized) the significance of his deviation from the line of good. Evil is not a value, but good is often, and apparently correctly, considered a key moral value. Good is not an abstraction, but as an attitude realized in the thoughts, feelings, intentions and actions of people.

Speaking of moral culture, then it is natural to assume that the ennoblement, spiritualization of life is manifested through the realization of goodness in it in its various modifications. No matter how differently morality and, in particular, goodness are manifested and understood in general in specific cultures, ethnic groups, social strata, the absence of moral culture is still precisely the inability of a person to distinguish between good and evil, the inability, and unwillingness to do good. . This is a state in which the good still or no longer acts as a vital value for a person, as an effective value. In civilized societies, such a subhuman or monstrous state is practically impossible for anyone. individual person, nor for social groups. Another thing is what is considered good and what is evil in each particular case? A civilized society requires at least a minimum of morality. Therefore, the question of the essence of moral culture is a question of its nature and degree, that is, its level. And the level of culture, including moral, is determined by what basic needs dominate life this person, this group of people.

The lowest level of culture (below which, I repeat, a developed society does not allow either an individual or a group to fall) is determined by the fact that the main things in life are the needs (and values) of one’s own, so to speak, material-thing, existence and comfort. A person of this level knows that good is significant. In any case, good in relation to himself. That is, he knows the difference between good and evil. Moreover, he can behave accordingly, making a choice in life situations in favor of good. But not because doing good is his duty. And not because he is kind and wants to do good. And only because such is the external norm of behavior in relation to him, which operates in a given society, but is to some extent familiar to him. And most importantly, because it will be better for him from a good deed, because it will be “counted”, either on earth, or at least in its post-earth existence.

The society in which such a person lives, by the existing norms of morality, rules of conduct, customs, always encourages good and tries to block manifestations of evil. Immorality (however understood) is condemned. And if a person is condemned where he lives and acts, then his life is more difficult. And for him, the conditions of his material and material security, the normality of relations, his peace of mind are very important. His own, but concerning the people who are directly connected with him: his parents, his wife, his children, his friends. Good and in relation to them is realized mainly in the sphere of material relations. To do good means to provide, clothe, shoe, feed, support financially. Of course, society requires from any person to some extent both honesty and justice.

A person of the lowest level of culture will be limitedly honest, decent, fair, but only insofar as it is useful for him. After all, if he is caught, let's say, in deceit, then they will be treated badly, and then his material and spiritual comfort will be in jeopardy.

A person of this level is not a monster, not a villain. Feelings of pity and impulses of mercy may also be characteristic of him. In the novel by M.

Bulgakov's “Master and Margarita”, Woland, characterizing the ordinary Moscow population, part of which gathered for a performance in a variety show, says about them: “Well, ... people are like people. They love money, well .... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts ... ordinary people...”. But pity and mercy and other moral movements of the souls of these people are unstable and often manifest themselves in a rude form, sometimes even insulting.

Because delicacy, tact are too subtle matters for them. A person is sure that if he took pity, showed mercy (in whatever form it may be expressed), the one who was pitied should be grateful. In general, the sense of duty of others towards oneself is developed at this level. But the sense of duty is limited. Firstly, in relation to whom, to what exactly a person has a debt. Usually we are talking about loved ones: father's duty, maternal duty, filial, daughter. Secondly, one's duty is limited by the line beyond which it begins to contradict the benefit, benefit, and self-interest. When a person of the lowest level of culture has a conflict between his duty and his benefit, the duty cannot stand.

Shame, conscience, as internal regulators of relationships and behavior, can manifest itself at this level of culture, but in a weakened form, and are relatively easy to overcome: "shame is not smoke, it does not eat eyes." They try to get rid of the torment of conscience one way or another. Or justifying themselves, looking for others to blame. Or even questioning the value of conscience itself. One of the heroes of

Wilde said that conscience and cowardice are one and the same, conscience is only a sign of a company.

Nevertheless, there is certainly some kind of moral formalization of relations, actions in a person of a lower level of culture. After all, he learned something from the achievements of civilization, somehow mastered the elementary manifestations of the culture of the society in which he lives. But talking about moral culture, in relation to this level, is problematic, because a person is, as it were, on the verge of culture and lack of culture. On this edge, moral hypocrisy is possible: in the form of excessive concern for the morality of other people and emphasized observance by the person himself of all the rules of decency, the simplest moral norms. And really only a minimum of morality is alive in this person.

Well, he observes the rules of decency, good manners. Well, he is not excessively cruel, or, if cruel, then allegedly fair and justified. He even happens to be kind in moderation. And if he violates some norms of morality, then it is not destructive for his society.

And of course there are violations. Behavior that is assessed as immoral, immoral, is characteristic of people of the lowest level of culture. This may not manifest itself in general, but in certain areas and moments of human relationships. For example, in sexual relations. Violations usually try to hide, hide.

If we are not talking about the townsfolk, but about the underworld, then it has its own ideas about good and evil, honor, decency, its own rules of moral behavior. Criminals, their groups and layers, in a peculiar way, but also realize a minimum of morality in relationships, being on lowest level culture, bordering on its complete absence. And the dominant of their vital needs is also their practical interest, their own benefit (with the exception of pathological cases).

On the whole, at the lowest level of culture, the moral culture of life appears as a kind of “formality”, “processing”, normalization of relations between people in terms of morality. This formalization is not quite stable, mainly external, always with a minimum of really moral content.

On a higher next level, it is moral values ​​that can act as the highest values ​​of life and culture.

A person of this level is characterized by a developed moral consciousness. Both one's own behavior and the behavior of other people are morally evaluated. And most often these assessments are concentrated in one form or another of preaching the truth. moral image life.

Such a person actually strives first of all to do and affirm good in every possible way, even through self-sacrifice.

The existing norms of morality are not external to him. If he accepts them, then with all his heart. But more important than the norm is a sense of duty in relation not only to relatives, relatives, but to all people. A person tries to be extremely honest with himself and with others, uncompromisingly fair. His mercy often takes on a wide scale, and it is sometimes so active that the one in respect of whom the act of mercy is performed becomes sick.

A person of this level of moral culture really sympathizes and tries to help others, but his care is sometimes too intrusive. With his own violations of morality (after all, he is also not an angel), his torments of conscience are extremely bright and strong. And he himself believes and it seems to others that for him the highest value is another person. But it is not so.

Because for him morality, ideal moral life, moral duty is above all specific person. Hence, the position of non-resistance to evil by violence is also possible, in which it is important not to deviate from the ideals of good, even if evil wins and other people (in a life situation) are defenseless before it. In this case, at this level of culture, the absolutization of morality in general and concrete morality in particular is possible, and does take place. Norms, commandments, requirements, principles of morality are being absolutized. And there is an irresistible temptation to impose on other people a certain type of morality, which is considered universal, but in fact is characteristic only of a generation, a layer, a group. In general, the described level of moral culture is characterized by a bias towards the obligatory good. Civilization, refinement of intentions and actions of a person, their moral formalization - here it seems to be completely obvious. But it is also obvious that concentrating in the ideals of goodness (for granted!), the self-worth of a person turns out to be narrowed. Absolutized goodness, paradoxical as it may seem, can turn into evil from time to time: spiritual violence, self-violence, insensitivity, internal brokenness.

Only a full-fledged culture is characterized by the fact that unconditional and highest value for a person there is another person, and not truth, goodness, beauty. And this is not altruism.

The altruistic position rather corresponds to the already considered second level of culture. At the highest level, the affirmation of the other as the dominant value does not come at the cost of sacrificial self-giving. It's just natural. What is important here is not the conviction that it is necessary to do good, but the desire to do it and the ability to do it not in general, but in relation to a specific other person. In relation to morality, it seems to be about the same thing that is on the second level, about the dominant good in life. But at the third level, rigorism and preaching are completely absent. The attitude to the current normative morality allows for the possibility of its change. Attitude to violations of norms, rules. moral principles - cautious and selective, taking into account the originality of real situations. And the same goes for debt. Especially when it comes to assessing the actions of other people, communicating with them about their morality or immorality. A truly cultured person always remembers his moral imperfection, that the right to judge in the sphere of morality is doubtful. That in this area, more than in any other, is truly biblical: “And that you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but you don’t feel the beam in your eye” (Bible. New Testament Book. From Matthew. Ch.7.3) . The main ones are delicacy, tact, which do not allow to offend another in vain with their supposedly moral superiority.

The mercy of such a person, his concern for others - is not burdensome, not offensive, most often simply invisible. At the same time, a person is more sensitive to his weaknesses, his violations of morality, than to when others do it.

To a considerable extent, he is tolerant of human weaknesses and knows how to forgive, because he does not consider himself and his morality perfect. A. Schweitzer wrote: “I must forgive everything infinitely, because if I don’t do this, I will be untrue towards myself and will act as if I am not as guilty as the other towards me.” And further: “I must forgive quietly and imperceptibly. I don’t forgive at all, I don’t bring it to this at all.”

In man top level less culture internal conflicts in terms of suppressing one's desires, inclinations, since he is moral at will. He does not oppose moral values ​​(as allegedly higher) to other equally high values.

Such a person is not just moral, he is fully cultured.

Staying ordinary a normal person(not a saint), he does not avoid sin, immorality. After all: "A clear conscience is an invention of the devil." And he suffers, if he sins, strongly and for a long time. In general, he is often ashamed of himself and of others.

But his torment is internal, it is his torment, and they should not cause pain, or even inconvenience, to other people. He doesn't show them off.

Of course, delicacy and tact do not presuppose moral amorphism and inactivity. But the type of moral activity in the case under consideration is completely different from that on the second level.

It is for the highest level of culture that it is common to fight evil with the help of judgment not on others, but on oneself. And this is primarily to influence others. Of course, at this level there is also an active opposition to evil with manifestations of strength, courage, and fortitude. It is also possible that evil is condemned when it is resisted, when a person finds himself in moral opposition to the obvious anti-humanity of the intentions and actions of other people (fascism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc.). That is, this level is not characterized by the position of non-resistance to evil by violence.

The moral culture of the highest standard is not isolated from other spheres of culture. This culture is full-fledged precisely because truth, goodness, beauty are all in this case only different expressions of one thing - human humanity. And it must be defended.

2) the structure of moral culture.

The term "moral culture" was formed on the basis of two concepts "morality" and "culture". Morality, as you know, is a practical embodiment moral ideals, goals and attitudes in various forms social life, in the culture of people's behavior and relations between them. The very word "culture", as you know, comes from the Latin "cultura", which in translation into Russian means cultivation, processing, improvement, education, upbringing. The subject of culture, its bearer are both society as a whole and its structural formations: nations, classes, social strata, professional communities and each person individually. And in all these cases, culture acts as a qualitative characteristic of the degree of perfection of any sphere of human life and of the person himself. Man is the subject and object of culture. The specificity of culture lies in the fact that it reveals the qualitative side of human activity, showing how the latter acts as the realization of the creative potential of a person, how much this activity meets certain requirements and norms.

The level of moral development of society and the individual can be different: high or low, since the degree of assimilation of moral values ​​developed by society, and in particular their implementation in practice in different time, different. When this degree, this level is high, we are talking about a high moral culture of society and vice versa.

In the moral consciousness of the individual, two levels can be distinguished: theoretical (rational) and psychological (sensual). Both of them are closely related to each other, influence each other and allow the most complete and deep, mind and heart to evaluate social phenomena from the position of good and evil and influence the actions and deeds of a person from the same positions. However, it would be a mistake not to notice the differences between them. The content of the theoretical, or rational, level of moral consciousness is ethical knowledge, views and ideals, principles and norms, moral needs. The content of this level of moral consciousness is formed purposefully as appropriate social government institutions(kindergarten, school, university, service team), and by the efforts of the individual himself. Elements of this level are more stable, they are more closely connected with political and legal consciousness. They are deeper and more fundamental, because they reflect the most significant connections, patterns, trends in the moral life of society. It is precisely because of this that they can control and orient, restrain the moral feelings and emotions of the individual. Moral needs, being, like beliefs, the result of the activity of the mind and heart, become an important goal of the transmission mechanism from moral consciousness to moral behavior.

The culture of moral needs is such a level of their development that expresses the constant desire of an employee of the State Fire Service to consciously and disinterestedly fulfill his civic and official duty, to comply with the requirements of public morality and fire ethics in everyday work and off-duty activities. The more sublime the moral needs are, the higher the level of moral qualities.

As noted above, the second level of moral consciousness is psychological or sensory level. Sometimes it is called the level of ordinary moral consciousness. It includes a rich range of moral feelings, emotions, likes and dislikes, ideas about moral and immoral, moral rules, mores, customs, etc., developed and fixed by a person in the process of life experience. kind of primary elements of moral consciousness. In feelings, emotions, likes and dislikes, the formation of the moral position of the individual takes place emotionally and directly. Sometimes this manifests itself very impulsively: a person rejoices or gets angry, cries or laughs, falls into prostration, closes, and sometimes, as they say, gives free rein to his hands. Moral feelings are very numerous, and are classified according to the most different grounds. Some divide them according to the vital sphere of manifestation: moral-political, moral-labor, moral-combat, actually moral. The other three groups are situational, intimate, and feelings of social experience. Still others classify based on the depth of experiences.

For example, intimate feelings are feelings of love, friendship, fidelity, hatred or devotion, etc. They arise in relations with other people, they express sympathy and antipathy, likes and dislikes.

Feelings of social experience have a completely different character. They, in fact, are moral and political feelings, because they reflect attitudes not so much to other people, but to phenomena of great civic sound: this is a feeling of patriotism and internationalism, collectivism and solidarity national pride etc. They are complex in their content, diverse in their manifestation, and rather represent a fusion of the personal and the public. It should also be emphasized that, unlike, for example, intimate feelings, which are mobile and dynamic, moral and political feelings are more stable and stabilized.

SPIRITUAL AND MORAL CULTURE.

There is a lot of talk about culture these days. But few people think about what this word means. This word originally meant "cultivation of the earth." And since ancient times, having received his land as a gift from God, a person had to cultivate it, reaping the fruits needed to sustain life.
Culture is multifaceted. You can talk about the culture of work, the culture of interpersonal relations, national and linguistic culture, or, for example, the culture of football.
There are many different cultures, but the basis is always the cultivation of meaning, the work of ordering chaos. And in this aspect, "cult" and "culture" are not only words with the same root.
Spirituality is at the heart of any culture, and we must remember that spiritual chaos is much worse than material chaos. Any material chaos can be overcome.
The terrible wars of the twentieth century are behind us. We live, it would seem, in a peaceful and prosperous time. But spiritual problems remain, even increased. The consumer spirit dominates in society, the predominance of the economy over morality, an overabundance of information put pressure on the psyche and soul of a person. Strong family ties, mass culture dominates, with its pathos of pleasure, show business and a beautiful "game of life". But behind the mask of this imaginary luxury lies emptiness and destructive lack of spirituality. And if earlier illnesses of the body, bodily illnesses prevailed, today mental illnesses prevail, many people suffer from despondency, sadness, rush about and find no place for themselves. Desolation reigns in their hearts.
Many of these issues are relevant. I am not a supporter of apocalyptic sentiments and I believe that it is unacceptable to fall into panic and extremes, but to fight evil, to cultivate good qualities souls.
It is vitally important for us now to make as much effort as possible in order to be able to preserve and pass on to the descendants the language, culture and traditions of our people. Upbringing, education is not only the formation of the mind, but also the heart.
The spiritual formation of society is a laborious and long-term process.
The successful solution of this problem lies on the path of spiritual rebirth of each individual person. Introducing people, especially the younger generation, to the centuries-old traditional culture, values, moral experience of the people - the way to solve this vital task.
Russian culture is historically inextricably linked with Orthodoxy. Holy Rus' was formed thanks to the Byzantine Orthodox faith received by the saint Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir in the X century.
The sphere of goodness, as academician Dmitry Likhachev emphasizes, is tightly connected with the traditions of the native culture, with the past and the future. Each of us is required to pay attention to history - our own and the world, to cultural property accumulated by all mankind.
But, before talking about world culture, the younger generation needs to know their Russian culture. It is culture that is called upon to help a person in determining his worldview, his being.
Orthodoxy spiritually transformed the peoples of Russia, shaped the remarkable features of the Russian character - mercy, sacrifice, fidelity, masculinity, generosity.
For a thousand years, it has nurtured the unbending sovereign spirit of Russian patriotism.
School, family, church and state for many centuries in unity complemented each other in the preparation of a pious and educated Christian, a respectable family man, a hardworking and patriotic citizen.

For the sake of the future of Russia, it is necessary to raise children on the basis of an original Russian culture, which originates in national consciousness Russian people who received Holy Baptism.
Culture is an environment that connects people's worldview with their way of life. It is the bearer of mentality and at the same time has a formative effect on the way of life.
The present time is unpredictable, complex, fateful. It is important and necessary to comprehend the role that spirituality has played and is playing in the culture of our Fatherland, to better understand the path that our pious ancestors followed. After all, on their own
Material, economic, political, cultural and other achievements were only means and instruments for serving society.
New state holidays provide ample opportunities for introducing young people to Orthodox culture. We know that public holidays became a few days of Christmas time, which became part of New Year holidays, And autumn holiday in honor of the Kazan Icon Mother of God, which is declared the Day of National Unity.
In order for these holidays to enter people's lives, it is necessary to introduce their mentality and life younger generation then in a few years they will become traditional for our people.
It is necessary these days to attract young people to the organization holiday events, revealing the Christian meaning of the holiday and its historical and civil significance.
And here is the task modern culture is to make these days of new holidays uniting our people, opening their hearts to doing good and attracting them to the Orthodox norms of life. Only Orthodoxy has the necessary spiritual potential, centuries-old positive experience in the field spiritual and moral enlightenment.
It is necessary to strive for the set goals:

1. In the matter of educating young people in the spirit of Orthodox culture, it is necessary to strive to involve the state, its legislation and executive bodies, state institutions.
2.Only collaboration with government bodies can give this activity a systematic and mass character.
3. In the education of youth on Orthodox traditions it is necessary to use all possible means of education (literature, art, television, cinema, print, etc.)
4. It's time to move from criticism and defense to practical, albeit small, but deeds.
Let each of the teachers who want to see young people healthy not only
physically, but also morally, will take a concrete step towards returning to his native
land of Orthodoxy.
Today, everyone who works with children and youth, including employees of the education system and out-of-school education, youth organizations and funds mass media, organizers of youth leisure, filmmakers, book publishers and web designers, should bring to the younger generation the worldview and moral principles of the traditional Russian culture based on Orthodoxy. It is necessary that the younger generation not only know about their native culture, but also
brought up in her. Children should not only have respect for it, but also be its bearers.
At this time, we especially realized the role of education in the spiritual and moral revival
countries as a unique area of ​​social life, where the spiritual and the material are combined; the past and future of our country, where the appearance of modern man is born and formed. It is here, in my opinion, that it is possible to unite the efforts of the state, church and society around the central theme: the formation of the future Russia.

On the topic: methodological developments, presentations and notes

“The use of ICT in the lessons “Fundamentals of the spiritual and moral culture of the peoples of Russia. Fundamentals of Religious Culture and Secular Ethics in Primary School»

An article on the use of ICT in the process of teaching elementary school children...

"The relevance of the formation in children of a spiritual and moral attitude to the world around them by introducing them to the origins of folk culture, spiritual traditions and learning the craft through acquaintance and holding Orthodox holidays"

Reasoned discussion on the designated topic ....

Thematic planning of the course “Fundamentals of Spiritual and Moral Culture of the Peoples of Russia. Fundamentals of Religious Cultures of the Peoples of Russia"

Thematic planning of the course “Fundamentals of Spiritual and Moral Culture of the Peoples of Russia. Basics religious cultures peoples of Russia"...

The moral culture of a person is a characteristic of the moral development of a person, which reflects the degree of mastering the moral experience of society, the ability to consistently implement values, norms and principles in behavior and relationships with other people, readiness for constant self-improvement. Moral culture acts as a complex program that includes the mastered experience of mankind, which helps to act morally in traditional situations, as well as creative elements of consciousness, such as moral reason, intuition, which contribute to making moral decisions in problem situations.

A person accumulates in his mind and behavior the achievements of the moral culture of society. Hence, the moral culture of a person is the degree to which an individual perceives the moral consciousness and culture of society, an indicator of how deeply and organically the requirements of morality are embodied in a person’s actions due to the formative influence of society on him.

The task of forming the moral culture of the individual is to achieve the optimal combination of traditions and innovations, to combine the specific experience of the individual and the entire wealth of public morality.

Moral culture of the individual. Theory.

The moral culture of society is concretized and personalized primarily in the moral culture of the individual. It is a combination and measure of the development of moral consciousness and worldview, moral qualities, the completeness and consistency of their manifestation in self-regulation, in behavior, communication and activity of the individual.

The structure of the moral culture of the individual is:

a) the development of moral consciousness (moral knowledge about goodness, honor, etc.; moral feelings and emotions, moral will, moral values);

b) the development of the moral worldview (moral ideals, norms and principles, moral orientations and interests, convictions and beliefs);

c) perfection of moral qualities (philanthropy, respect for people, compassion, sympathy, justice, conscientiousness, kindness, honesty, dignity, sense and understanding of duty, responsibility, etc.);

d) consistent manifestation of moral qualities, observance of the norms and principles of morality.

In terms of content, the moral culture of an individual largely coincides with the moral culture of a society or group. But it can differ significantly from them in the subjectivity of comprehension and expression, the dominance of certain moral values, and orientation. So, the "golden rule" of morality commands and recommends: "treat other people the way you would like to be treated." It can be expressed in other terms as well. But each person understands this imperative in his own way.

One transforms it only to family relations, the other - to informal interpersonal relations, the third - to professional-service ones. There may be many such options. Nevertheless, the value and meaning of this rule-norm remain, remain understandable and in demand.

The difference between the moral culture of the individual and the culture of society lies in the fact that anti-cultural, immoral positions, behavior and misconduct take place primarily in the individual. Large masses of people turn to immoral acts either succumbing to the influence of negatively directed leaders, or when they are brought to extreme need and lack of rights.

2.1 Morality.

The word "morality" means in modern language about the same thing as morality. Indeed, etymologically, the term "morality" goes back to the Latin word "mos" (plural "moris"), denoting "temper", "moralis" - "moral". Another meaning of this word is law, rule, ordinance. In modern philosophical literature, morality is understood as morality, a special form of public consciousness and view public relations; one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society with the help of norms.

Morality arises and develops on the basis of the need of society to regulate the behavior of people in various fields their lives. Morality is considered one of the most accessible ways for people to comprehend the complex processes of social life. The fundamental problem of morality is the regulation of relationships and interests of the individual and society.

Moral ideals, principles and norms arose from people's ideas about justice, humanity, goodness, public good, etc. The behavior of people that corresponded to these ideas was declared moral, the opposite - immoral. In other words, what is moral is what, in the opinion of people, is in the interests of society and individuals. What brings the greatest benefit. Naturally, these ideas changed from century to century, and, moreover, they were different among representatives of different strata and groups. Hence the specificity of morality among representatives of various professions. All of the above gives reason to say that morality has a historical, social class and professional character.

The concept of "morality" is extremely ambiguous. There are several dozens of specific morality, but most often morality is understood as one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions in society, as well as a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations.

Moral by by and large it is a system of values ​​characteristic of a certain person and society at a certain point in time. Morality, regulating human relations, is based not on the power of state power, but on the power of consciousness, on conviction. The term "Moral" is used as a separate moral practical instruction, moralizing. (The moral of this fable is this...) The words "moral" and "morality" are used rather as a qualitative definition of an act, in the context of whether it is decent and worthy.

We can say that morality rests on three major foundations.

Firstly, these are traditions, customs, mores that have developed in a given society, among a given class, social group. A person learns these mores, traditional norms of behavior, which become a habit, become the property of the spiritual world of the individual. They are realized in his behavior, the motives of which are formulated as follows: “this is how it is accepted” or “this is not accepted”, “everyone does this”, “like people, so do I”, “this is how it was done from time immemorial”, “our fathers and grandfathers did so and we will do the same." The importance of such motives is undeniable. After all, without mastering what is accepted or not accepted in a given society, it is impossible to understand "what is good" and "what is bad."

Secondly, morality is based on the power of public opinion, which, by approving some actions and condemning others, regulates the behavior of the individual, teaches him to observe moral standards. guns public opinion are, on the one hand, honor, good name, public recognition, which are the result of a conscientious fulfillment by a person of his duties, his unswerving observance of the moral norms of a given society; on the other hand, shame, shame of a person who has violated moral norms.

Thirdly, morality is based on the consciousness of each individual, on his understanding of the need to harmonize personal and public interests.

This determines a voluntary choice, voluntariness of behavior, which takes place when conscience becomes a solid basis for the moral behavior of a person. The whole history of morality speaks about the reality of the name of the three substantiations of morality. This is fixed and folk wisdom. After all, it is not for nothing that they say about a very bad, immoral, immoral person: "No shame, no conscience." This means that public opinion does not affect him, and his conscience is undeveloped. You can't get through such a person with morality, you have to use tougher means of influence, designed for a low level of consciousness. ("Whom honor does not take, the stick will get through," says one of the proverbs).

Thus, morality includes a set of norms and rules of behavior and is an important way of revealing the capabilities of a person, the formation and assertion of a human personality.

Difficulties in the study of morality are due to the fact that they are associated with very "subtle" psychological and social mechanisms. Morality arises where psychic relations between people are given. But these relationships are formed at the social level, where mental experiences are associated with ideas about good and evil, justice, honor, duty, conscience, happiness, etc. Naturally, animals do not and cannot have such ideas in a clearly expressed form, because moral relations are mental relations of a higher social level, inherent only to man.

Difficulties also arise when we seek to localize morality, to isolate it from other connections and relationships. It fails to do so. The point is that morality has an all-penetrating ability, and is not localized in any one area: science, politics, production, family, etc. One and the same action can turn out to be moral, immoral, extramoral - it all depends on whether it expresses a person's attitude to the system of values ​​operating in society. In general, it must be said that morality, morality or immorality do not exist on their own, apart from the actions and actions of a person. Any person can verbally endow himself with any qualities. Moreover, he can sincerely believe in what he says. However, only an impartial analysis of the actions, deeds of this person can confirm or refute his statement.

All this must be taken into account, since not only each individual person, but also each class, social stratum and social group of society is always trying to use morality for ideological purposes, to adapt it to their interests, to justify their way of life with its help.