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 a value orientation of behavior, carried out through a 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 culture, is determined by what basic needs dominate in the life of a given person, a given 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 a truly moral way of life.

Such a person actually strives first of all to do and in every possible way to affirm goodness, 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 norms 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, the ideal of 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 the unconditional and highest value for a person 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 significant 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.”

A person of a higher level of culture has less 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 one - human humanity. And it must be defended.

Moral culture

Introduction

culture

2. Morality

3. Moral culture

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Every person almost daily directly or indirectly encounters the concept of culture. Wherever we are, we see or hear all sorts of phrases and statements directly or indirectly related to this concept. For example, often at the sight of a large and noisy company of young people expressing obscenely and boorishly, an old woman passing by quite boldly tells them: “What kind of uncivilized you guys are,” or “Young people have gone - immoral.”

Whether we like it or not, everything that surrounds us and everything with which we are essentially connected is culture. This concept has firmly entered our life and under no circumstances will we put it aside in a distant dark corner.

Along with the fact that we have heard the word culture so often, few of us can boast that he was interested in or even deeply studied this concept. Most often, we limit ourselves to just comprehending our understanding of a concept and do not strive for more. And in my opinion this is not entirely correct. That is why I would like to study deeper and reveal some concepts for myself.

Based on the topic I have chosen, it follows that at the beginning of my work I set myself the following specific tasks: to give a clear and, in my opinion, correct concept of culture, morality, and most importantly, as a consequence (in my opinion) of the above, the concept of moral culture.

It seems to me that the topic I have chosen is quite relevant and interesting. Long before my appearance and for many years after me, "moral culture" lived and will live, it will help people learn and become personalities, it will guide them to take the right step, from its point of view, and if a person can understand its urges and appreciate it contribution to everyday life not only of a single individual, but of the entire human race as a whole, then I believe that humanity will have hope for a bright and holy future, because, in my opinion, it is in moral culture that the guarantee of peace and human well-being.

1. Culture

Culture is one of the most important areas public life. In the concept of "culture", a person and his activity act as a synthesizing basis, since culture itself is a creation of a person, the result of his creative efforts. But in human culture, not only an acting, but also a changing being itself.

The beginnings of culture are found at the very early stages the historical existence of people, the first ideas about it become possible at a fairly high level of social and spiritual development. People have always lived in culture, although they did not immediately become aware of it. As long as a person in his life depended on purely natural circumstances not yet transformed by labor, he ascribed a decisive role in his life not to himself, but to these circumstances, which he turned into an object of religious reverence, or cult. mythological and religious cultures antiquity, deifying natural forces and elements, endowed nature with purely human properties - consciousness, will, the ability to predetermine the course of events. Only with their further development did people begin to realize that much in their lives depends on themselves, on how they think and act. The first, at first indefinite and vague, ideas about culture are connected with this. It was enough, for example, to see the reason for a good harvest not in the grace of the gods, but in the quality of soil cultivation, in order to distinguish between cult as the deification of nature and culture as its cultivation and improvement. The very presence of "culture" in the language testifies to a person's understanding of his special and independent role in the world, his only characteristic activity, which cannot be reduced to the action of both natural and divine forces. Appearance given word meant the birth of the "cult" of the man himself, who replaced all other cults of antiquity.

The subject of the history of culture has its own content and specificity in the series historical disciplines. The history of culture presupposes, first of all, a comprehensive study of its various areas - the history of science and technology, education and social thought, folklore and literary criticism, the history of art, etc. in relation to them, the history of culture acts as a generalizing discipline, considering culture as an integral system in the unity and interaction of all its areas.

Culture literally translates as cultivation, processing, care, improvement. In the most ancient Latin texts, the use of this word is associated with agriculture. Cicero used the term culture to characterize the human spirit. His saying “philosophy is the culture of the soul” is widely known; subsequently, the use of the word “culture” in the meaning of upbringing, education, enlightenment becomes traditional.

The desire to use the word "culture" not to refer to individual directions, methods and results of human transformative activity, but to everything that was created by him, was outlined in the 17th century, in line with the development of German educational thought. The first author to use the term "culture" in this new, broad sense, was Samuel Puffendorf (1632-1694).

"... The upbringing of the human race is a process both genetic and organic - thanks to the assimilation and application of the transmitted. We can call this human genesis in the second sense, we can call it culture, that is, the cultivation of the soil, or we can remember the image of light and call enlightenment…"

So, by culture, we mean the totality of all material values, all knowledge and experiences, all practical experience aimed at solving the triune task - reproduction, preservation and improvement. human life. No sphere of life - be it economics or politics, family or education, art or morality - is impossible outside of culture.

2. Morality

Before talking about moral culture, let's consider such concepts as ethics, morality, morality.

Currently they are all household level used as identical. However, with scientific point of view, ethics is called science, where the concepts of good and evil are system-forming. Morality should be understood as a set of norms and rules of decent behavior. Morality is the practice of such behavior. Thus, a three-stage structure is built up: ethics as a science, morality as a set of prescriptions for doing good, morality as a practice of good behavior.

All these concepts together constitute the essence of moral culture. Culture, in its modern sense, is the process of creating, storing, distributing and mastering material, spiritual and socio-political values. In personal terms, culture is the level, degree, value of mastering the values ​​of three orders (material, spiritual, socio-political).

Moral culture is a powerful factor in the formation of a person's personality, transforming and enriching his needs, inner world for the better.

I cannot but agree with the thought of the famous philosopher Karl Popper:

"Man has created many worlds - the worlds of language, poetry, science. But perhaps the most important of them is the world of morality, the world of moral values ​​and prescriptions, the world of moral requirements - freedom, equality, mercy."

Morality is a set of unwritten rules that determine the good behavior of a person. It is based on mores, that is, a voluntary agreement of people who are trying to correlate their feelings, aspirations and actions with the life attitudes of other people, with the interests and dignity of the whole society.

*Value is a vital and practical setting of an individual's behavior, expressing what is significant for him. One person puts honor above life, another yearns for freedom, a third insists on the invincibility of goodness, a fourth praises the all-conquering feeling - love.

For many centuries philosophers, religious thinkers, teachers of life have shown interest in moral and ethical problems. The moral feeling inherent only in man made it possible to realize his difference from animals. Moral feeling largely determined human actions. Consistent with it, people built their relationship with nature, with other people, with society as a whole. Finally, moral standards helped to choose a decent way of life. Many thinkers in morality saw the way to God.

Morality (from Latin moralis - "moral") - area moral values which is recognized by people, the moral life of the people. The content of this sphere, its specifics change over time and are different for different peoples. In the morality of all peoples and at all times one can find universal human values, moral principles and prescriptions.

Morality (from Latin moralis - "moral") morality, a system of norms and value ideas that determine and regulate human behavior. Unlike a simple custom or tradition, moral norms are justified in the form of ideals of good and evil, due, justice, etc.

Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) believed that morality is an innate human property that distinguishes it from animals. "The basic feelings of shame, pity and reverence are experienced by the area of ​​possible moral relations of a person to what is below him, what is equal to him and what is above him," he wrote in his book Justification of the Good. The Russian thinker compared moral philosophy to a guide that depicts places worth visiting, but at the same time does not tell a person where to go. People make their own decisions about where to put their feet. Therefore, according to Solovyov, "no exposition of moral norms, i.e., the conditions for achieving a true life goal, can make sense for a person who has consciously set himself not this, but a completely different goal" ...

"Golden Rule of Morality": "Do to others the way you would like others to do to you."

Moral culture

I believe, I am sure that many also believe that the culture of the individual is entirely based on his moral culture in the broadest sense. Moral culture implies both respect for tradition, generally accepted patterns of behavior, and the ability to find one's own, creative solution. In those cases when we are faced with "eternal" problems, universal situations, such as birth and death, illness and health, youth and old age, love and marriage, it is very important to listen to tradition, to act in accordance with etiquette. This is how life is built. And on how high the level of culture of society, its development and progress largely depend.

Moral culture is represented by the subjects of society and their relationships. It includes: a) signs and elements of the culture of moral consciousness of the subjects of society; b) culture of behavior and communication; c) culture moral deeds and activities. Moral culture correlates with other types of culture of the material and spiritual life of society, but above all it is opposed to the antipodes of morality: evil, inequality, injustice, dishonor, lack of dignity and conscience, and other antimoral phenomena.

In terms of content, moral culture is the development of moral consciousness and worldview of the subjects of society; the unity of the morally proper and the morally existing; manifestation in the system of behavior, communication and activity of the norms of goodness, honor, conscience, duty, dignity, love, interaction, etc.; implementation of life on the principles of humanism, democracy, hard work, social equality, a combination of reasonable egoism (dignity) and altruism, peacefulness.

Moral culture is also the effectiveness of the moral regulation of people's lives, the complementarity of moral and legal regulation, adherence to the "golden rule of morality", the rules of etiquette.

Everywhere there are talks and many are even convinced that public and personal morality is currently experiencing a severe crisis. There are many things to worry about. And the rise in crime and social injustice, and the collapse of the ideals that served as the official pillar of morality. It is quite obvious that moral culture cannot be any high if social system inefficient, ignoring the requirements of justice and common sense.

There is a need to make adjustments to the relationship between people through moral culture, which is a factor in the development of a reasonable society, becoming more and more obvious every day.

Our consciousness has a way of directly influencing material world. This, as they sometimes say, is a manifestation of the triumph of thought over matter. The great Russian physiologist I.P. Pavlov said: "Man is the only system that is able to regulate itself within wide limits, that is, to improve itself." It is important to note here that much depends on us.

If we want our civilization to survive, it is necessary to prevent such incidents as soon as possible. That is why our duty, our sacred duty is to create a new idea of ​​ourselves and consciousness through moral culture, so that, guided by this new model in practice, humanity could not only survive, but find itself on a more perfect level of being.

Of course, the cracks in the moral culture of society are obvious, so, in my opinion, the moral culture of communication can serve as an example, faced with various misunderstandings between people when communicating almost every day.

The moral culture of communication implies the presence of moral convictions, knowledge of moral norms, readiness for moral activity, common sense especially in conflict situations.

Moral communication is an expression of the content and level of the spiritual image of a person.

The moral culture of communication is a unity of moral consciousness and behavior. This often requires selflessness and self-control from a person. And when it comes to the Motherland, patriotism, a sense of duty, then the ability of self-sacrifice.

The moral culture of communication is divided into: 1) internal and 2) external.

Internal culture is moral ideals and attitudes, norms and principles of behavior, which are the foundation of the spiritual image of the individual. These are the spiritual foundations on which a person builds his relationships with other people in all spheres of social life. The internal culture of the individual plays a leading, determining role in the formation of the external culture of communication, in which it finds its manifestation. The ways of such manifestation can be diverse - exchanging greetings with other people, important information, establishing various forms of cooperation, friendship, love, etc. Internal culture is manifested in manners, ways of addressing a partner, in the ability to dress without causing complaints from others .

Internal and external culture moral communication are always interconnected, complement each other and exist in unity. However, this relationship is not always obvious. There are many people who, behind seeming unsociableness, some secrecy, reveal a spiritually rich personality, ready to respond to your request, provide assistance, if necessary, etc. At the same time, there are such individuals who, behind an external gloss, hide their miserable and disordered essence.

There are many examples in life when for some people outer side communication becomes an end in itself and is actually a cover for achieving selfish and selfish goals. A variety of such behavior are hypocrisy, hypocrisy, conscious deceit.

Recognition of the value of a person is closely related to the specific assessments of people entering into communication. Many of the difficulties that arise in the process of communication are generated by the discrepancy between the self-esteem of the individual and its assessment by others. As a rule, self-esteem is always higher than the assessment of others (although it can be underestimated).

The holy fathers said: a person is formed from childhood, even from the womb, and not when he finishes school. And now special attention should be paid to education in our school, it is the main institution that educates the younger generation. Alas, the school has now lost its educational moment, it gives only the sum of knowledge, but we must remember that at the school bench it is decided not only whether a young person will learn to count and write, but also how he will grow up. How he perceives the world, how he treats his neighbor, how he evaluates all actions.

Therefore, since school bench You need to have moral conversations with your children. Starting from the age of two, the child enters the scope of moral norms. Knows what is good and what is bad. First, adults, and then peers, begin to make sure that he observes certain forms of behavior. If you inspire a child that it is necessary to take care of those who need it, to help a person who is in pain or grief, we can safely say that the child will grow up caring, understanding the pain and grief of others. This does not require any special tricks and methods, you just need to demonstrate positive examples more often. Moral Conversations learn to see the advantages and disadvantages of their own behavior and the behavior of others in everyday life and in in public places(on the street, in transport, in the store); learn the concepts of "fair - unfair", "fair - unfair", "right - wrong"; form a "code of honor", the ability to act fairly, to subordinate their desires to common interests.

A fairy tale is the first work of art that allows a child to experience a sense of belonging to the grief and joy of heroes, to hate greed and treachery, to passionately wish for the victory of good. The fairy tale expands the moral experience of the child.

There are not enough good, moral topics on television and a lot of things that destroy the soul, bring some kind of confusion, temptation. Television should have a creative force, help build our state, and build it strong. And a strong state cannot be without morality, without faith, without love for the Fatherland and neighbor.

Religion and morality are closely linked. Religion is impossible without morality, and morality is impossible without religion. Faith without works is dead. Only demons believe with such faith (they believe and tremble). True faith (living, not dead) cannot exist without good deeds. Just as a naturally fragrant flower cannot but be fragrant, so true faith cannot but bear witness to good morality. In turn, morality without a religious foundation and without religious light cannot exist and will certainly wither, like a plant deprived of roots, moisture and sun. Religion without morality is like a barren fig tree; morality without religion is like a cut down fig tree.

culture moral life society

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to summarize all of the above. After studying the literature, she answered the questions posed. She defined for herself a clear concept of moral culture, its role in public life and significance for a person.

Identified "vices" of the moral culture of modernity

"Save your soul, start with yourself, and thousands of people around you will change." In fact, you must first get rid of the problem in yourself.

The value and significance of moral culture, as well as morality, is found in the behavior, communication and activities of people, in public opinion, personal example.

Thus, moral culture is the most important element of their culture traditional for a person and society.

The world community is paying more and more attention to the state of culture. It is understood primarily as the content and process of people's life, the result of their active and purposeful, although not always expedient and successful, productive social activity. Culture is one of the leading signs of a planetary civilization, it distinguishes the life of people from the life of other living beings on earth and possible extraterrestrial civilizations.

Culture is a fundamental, historically long-acting indicator of people's creativity, correlating the levels and quality of development of communities and individual peoples, a criterion for assessing the historical path and prospects of large social actors, each individual. Culture is "second nature".

It was created by people, points to fundamentally different laws and factors of the functioning of society (both planetary and specific peoples, states), in contrast to natural (first) nature. It is important to emphasize that the second nature as culture includes not only material and physical, but also spiritual (ideal) elements. This provision also distinguishes culture from nature. Spiritual-subjective abilities and properties of people are manifested in culture.

Prospects for the development of world society in the XX-XXI centuries are increasingly determined by crisis phenomena that arise in the bosom of culture as its antipodes and indicators of human cultural imperfection. One of these complex problems is the increase in the aggressiveness of a person, the increase in destructiveness, the anti-cultural nature of his behavior and activities, not only in relation to the natural, but also to the artificial, created by the same person, the social environment and the people themselves. The modern type of personality is acquiring more and more menacing and dangerous inconsistency and duality. This position does not characterize all of humanity, but the trend is quite clear and stable.

The moral culture of the individual is a characteristic 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. 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. After all, 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 social consciousness and a type of 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 most 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. On the one hand, the instruments of public opinion are honor, good name, public recognition, which are the result of a conscientious fulfillment by a person of his duties, his steady 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.

Moral culture is one of the main foundations of the spiritual life of society. Along with law, the sphere of morality acts as the main mechanism for regulating human behavior, creating samples of “unwritten”, spontaneously formed (unlike law) norms and ideals of behavior. The principles of morality are in the nature of an obligation and are presented as a universal requirement, even if in reality they are inherent only in a certain social group.

Morality as a form of regulation of behavior is a constitutive element of human culture. At the time of its appearance, it was closely associated with religious beliefs. The first prohibitions and norms of communication with ancestors and fellow tribesmen made it possible for society to exist as a system of precisely culturally defined relationships. In other words, morality creates a spiritual space within which human being unfolds just like a human.

The regulatory function of morality is embodied in the creation of a whole system of norms, principles, ideals and values.

moral standards- proper behavior, the violation of which, in the opinion of the group, brings harm to it. They are formulated as specific rules of action: give way to elders, say hello when you meet, do not offend the younger ones, do not be late, do not use obscene expressions, wear a veil, do not kill, do not steal.

Moral principles(egoism, altruism, humanism, collectivism, individualism, asceticism, selflessness, exactingness) set the direction of moral activity.

Moral ideals create an image of a morally perfect person and express the ultimate goal of actions. Yes, Christian moral ideal embodied in the image of Christ - the teacher of justice and the great martyr. This ideal is associated with self-restraint, humility, patience, compassion and love for one's neighbor. It must be borne in mind that the moral ideal is only an infinitely receding horizon, a line of conduct, a process of achievement, and therefore it cannot be embodied in reality.

Highest moral values act as personal guidelines for life, the ultimate common goals of the moral activity of each person. We are talking about such values ​​as happiness, the meaning of life, freedom. It is the highest moral values ​​that are the supreme regulator of moral behavior, feelings and thoughts.

Moral culture realizes itself in the sphere of consciousness, feelings and actions. Moral consciousness functions at the level of theoretical substantiation of moral norms, values, ideals, as well as in the form of a person's subjective understanding of moral values, assessments, and behavioral motives. Morality also implies the presence of moral feelings (shame, guilt, conscience). Moral practice acts as a sphere of moral relations that are realized in actions. A person who does not act practically cannot be considered moral.

Moral culture is a historical phenomenon. Each era and each people create their own ideas about good and evil and their own mechanisms for the functioning of morality. Yes, in traditional societies moral norms and values ​​are regarded as immutable, and their acceptance takes place virtually without personal choice (there is no alternative). Individual actions are rigidly subordinated to more essential supra-individual processes. Here is the center of human being, the criteria of his will and judgments, highest values are outside the person - in a certain Whole,

to which he belongs along with others. In the new European culture, human behavior rests on the consciousness of the power contained in it, generated by its will, constant reflection and self-reflection. Therefore, moral values ​​look in his eyes as created by himself without the involvement of others in this, i.e. are of an individual choice.

Nevertheless, we have the right to speak about the existence of universal human moral norms and values.

Moral culture functions at the level of society as a whole, various subcultural formations, and an individual. Let's take a closer look at the latter. The moral culture of the individual reflects the degree to which a person masters the moral experience of society, the ability to consistently implement moral values ​​and principles in actions, and readiness for self-improvement. Here an important role is played by the synthesis of the norms of society and personal moral experience. Outwardly, the culture of moral behavior is manifested in the correspondence of actions and words to the norms that society has developed. But they will be actually moral only if they are made on the basis of moral motivation and in accordance with moral principles, i.e. when ethical knowledge coincides with moral motives and actions. It is possible to say that moral culture has become an internal component of the personality only when the moral norms and values ​​of society turn into convictions. The moral culture of a person implies the ability of a person to understand the feelings and motives of his actions, the ability to correlate them with the interests of other people.

Formation of moral culture society includes the fixation of spontaneously formed norms of behavior and ideals, which takes the form of myths, religious precepts, and at a later stage acts as a theoretical justification for moral ideals that correspond to the spirit of the times. A necessary component of the process of forming a moral culture is the dissemination and implementation of the existing moral knowledge and requirements in the minds of people through training, education, traditions, customs, the organization of mass forms of communication, etc. In the process of forming a moral culture, each society creates certain mechanisms for the reproduction of moral values ​​through public opinion, various forms of control, example, etc.

The regulation and management of moral processes in society is carried out through the system moral education , which today is not uniform in content, because in a socially differentiated society, on the basis of generally accepted morality, there are different types of morality: secular, religious, philistine, professional. Therefore, in modern culture there can be no universal program and methods of education. These are just general guidelines.

Moral education is the process of transforming moral knowledge into internal attitudes, habits, and beliefs. In modern culture, education is seen as managing the process of personality development (rather than managing a personality). Therefore, it is carried out through dialogical communication, a joint search for truth, the creation of educational situations, and creative activity.

Moral education involves several directions:

Forming a connection with society, harmonizing personal behavior with its norms.

Acquaintance with the moral ideals and norms of society.

Assimilation of external culture of behavior.

Formation of moral habits necessary for society.

Formation of stable moral feelings (conscience, duty, dignity, shame) and qualities (honesty, adherence to principles).

Turning knowledge into beliefs.

To implement these tasks, various forms and methods are used. The most important forms of moral education tasks and assignments, individual conversations, work with an asset, information-mass and organizational arrangements(meetings, reports, lectures, conferences, theme evenings), effective and practical forms (propaganda teams, counselors, help groups, etc.). Main methods of moral education: persuasion, exercise, positive example, approval (from gesture and tone to declared gratitude), condemnation, organization of morally positive activity, self-education. Already in adolescence, the development of moral habits should be carried out in conditions of pronounced independent activity, in a situation of high responsibility for oneself.

Formation of moral culture in modern Belarusian society associated with a number of problems. Criticism of the Soviet system led to the destruction of the old spiritual foundations, moral norms and principles. While rightly reproaching socialist morality for its abstractness and double standard, in the process of criticism, many universal human values ​​have actually been discredited. New ideals for a long time were absent. This situation gave rise to an extremely moral nihilism, an open disregard for the norms of morality, a turn towards egoism and individualism. Society faced the task of forming a new type of morality, the main guidelines of which were universal values, humanism, Christian morality. There is also a tendency to build a system of moral education based on the ideology of the middle class, when professionalism and related skills are at the forefront. moral qualities- decency, reliability, duty, honesty, exactingness to oneself and others, responsibility, discipline, etc.

It must be said that the weakening of the mechanisms of moral regulation is also due to the peculiarities of modern culture. The cult of technology in the 20th century led to the ever-increasing development of technocratic thinking, for which moral orientations, especially towards extremely generalized moral principles are of secondary importance. The processes of urbanization have led to an increase in the anonymity of life. In a big city, the mechanisms for controlling moral behavior (condemnation, boycott, public opinion) are increasingly weakening, and the legal regulation of relations between people comes to the fore. Therefore, even in a prosperous Western society, the problems of moral culture are very acute today.

Finally, an important problem is the insufficient development of detailed methods for educating various moral habits, feelings, and norms of behavior. There are more and more such studies today. Moreover, they can be effective only if they combine knowledge in the field of ethics, psychology and pedagogy.

1.1 Moral culture as a philosophical and pedagogical problem

Modern science covers the most diverse areas of human life and activity, penetrates the secrets of the laws of nature and society. But one of the most attractive, important and complex objects of knowledge is culture and its bearer and creator - man. Culture has many sources: and everything that happens in the world, in society, in politics, and everything that happens in a social group, in a family, and all personal experience, and everything that the people teach, and literature, and art. Only drawing from universal, cultural property you can become a person high culture.

The economic and socio-cultural situation in the Republic of Belarus at the stage of transition to a socially oriented economy, civil society and the rule of law complicated the process of educating the younger generations. Among them, social anxiety, uncertainty, aggressiveness and cruelty began to manifest themselves more and more; the number of students with deviant behavior has increased. In many respects, this became possible due to a decrease in the educational potential of educational institutions since the early 90s: formalism has not yet been eliminated in educational work, which consists in the mechanical assimilation and use of certain provisions, norms and rules of behavior without their conscious assimilation, the ability to independently apply them in life. Formalism is also manifested in the template planning of educational work and sports and recreational activities, the lack of analysis carried out with students.

In this regard, the task of determining new theoretical, methodological and practical approaches to modern education, which are reflected in the "Concept of educating children and students in the Republic of Belarus", has become acute. The purpose of education is also indicated - the formation of a social, spiritual and morally mature creative personality - with high level a culture that has creativity capable of self-development and self-regulation, with the inherent qualities of a citizen, patriot, worker and family man. Awareness of the inherent value of human life, orientation towards the revival of spiritual and moral values ​​determines the strategy of education, in the implementation of which leading role culture plays. It is the culturological approach that makes it possible to make culture a content, and education a process of cultural creation. Since moral and ethical culture is a basic component of the culture of the individual, the most important task of education is the moral development of the individual, which involves students' awareness of the fact of interaction in the world of many cultures with their ideals, spiritual and moral values; mastering the concepts of culture, morality, spirituality; education of moral qualities and experience of moral behavior.

"The 21st century will be the century humanitarian culture if it exists at all." These words belong to the famous French philosopher K. Levi-Strauss, and their meaning is that humanity may not have a future if it does not turn its interest to the humanitarian development of the individual, the moral aspects of her life.

The problem of moral culture is on the border of ethics and theory of culture. Currently, there are two approaches to revealing the essence of the concept of "moral culture". The first one begins with the disclosure of the essence of the generic concept - "culture", and the second approach - the specific one - "morality".

To get an idea of ​​what moral culture is, first of all, you need to turn to the etymology of the word "culture".

In the ancient world, the Latin word "cultura" originally meant "cultivation of the earth", its "cultivation", i.e. changes in nature under the influence of man, his activities. In the future, “culture” began to mean everything created by man.

Outstanding thinkers of the past paid much attention to the problem of culture. In the works of Cicero (106-43 BC) there is the concept of "cultura animi", which can be translated as "processing, improvement of the soul." He wrote: “Just as a fertile field without cultivation does not yield a harvest, so does the soul. The cultivation of the soul is philosophy: it weeds out vices in the soul, prepares the soul for the acceptance of sowing and entrusts, so to speak, only those seeds that, when ripe, bring a bountiful harvest.

In antiquity, the understanding of culture was reduced to the recognition in its composition of the inseparable unity of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. This eternal triad gave birth afterwards modern science, morality and the richest art. At the same time, the cult of reason, a noticeable emphasis on science in the concept of culture can be traced to late XVIII century.

The great German philosopher I. Kant (1724-1804), although he recognized the triad of ideas as the basis of the universe - Truth, Goodness and Beauty - came, however, mainly to the moral awareness of the concept of "culture". His statement is widely known: “Two things always fill the soul with new and stronger surprise and reverence, the more often and longer we think about them - this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me.”

Another prominent German scientist G. Hegel (1770-1831) assessed culture as a natural development, a gradual revelation of the creative power of the “world mind” existing outside of man, identified with God.

The great thinker N.K. Roerich interpreted the word "culture" as a fusion of two foundations: cult - veneration and ur - light. He believed that "only the bringing in of Light destroys the darkness." This is precisely the main aspect of culture, i.e. the introduction of Light into all spheres of human life and activity, including the educational one. N.K. Roerich stated: “There is no place for frivolity in culture. It is culture - conscious cognition, spiritual refinement and persuasiveness.

In modern domestic and foreign literature, the term "culture" is used as a process of humanization, cultivation of the natural world and man himself; the result of the process of cultivation; means of cultivation.

Thus, it can be argued that culture is the process and result of education and upbringing, since it implies the improvement, ennoblement of the physical, and, mainly, spiritual forces of a person and society, i.e. cultivation of the spirit.

This approach can also be traced in the definition of culture by V.I. Dahlem: "Culture - processing and care, cultivation, education, mental and moral".

This position is also confirmed by the German philosopher L. Feuerbach (1804-1872). He said that "it is not the flesh, but the spirit that makes a man a man."

Thus, it should be noted that the Latin term "culture" in relation to a person is also cultivation, improvement and formation.

Currently, there are several hundred definitions of culture. Culture is a historically defined level of development of society, the creative forces and abilities of a person, expressed in the types and forms of organization of life and activities of people, in their relationships, as well as in the material and spiritual values ​​\u200b\u200bcreated by them /

Culture is a specific way of organizing and developing human activity, represented in the products of material and spiritual labor, in spiritual values, in the totality of people's relations to nature and among themselves to themselves.

Culture in education is a content component, a source of knowledge about nature, society, methods of activity, a person’s emotional-volitional and value attitude towards people around him, work, communication, etc. .

Taking into account these definitions, we will understand by culture the process, means and result of education and upbringing.

The concept of moral culture is also closely related to the terms "morality" and "morality", which are essentially synonymous.

The etymological meaning of the concept of "morality" is associated with an explanation Latin word"moralis", which means "moral" as a system of principles and norms of behavior that determine the relationship of people to each other, to society and individual classes, and as the rules of moral behavior /

However, the apparent discrepancy between the normative-value, ideal side of morality and real moral relations gave grounds to some researchers (A.A. Huseynov, A.K. Zveinieks, etc.) to fill these concepts with different semantic content. As a rule, attempts to distinguish between the concept of "morality" and "morality" come down to the relationship between what is and what should be, where the sphere of morality appears as a set of norms, principles and values, and morality, in turn, is characterized as a relatively embodiment of moral consciousness in real relationships and activities.

For the first time, the theoretical justification for the separation of the concepts of morality and morality was proposed by Hegel, who believed that they should describe various phenomena of spiritual life. By morality, he understood the subjective significance of human behavior, and morality is a practical relationship that is embodied in the historical experience of the family, civil society and the state.

According to A.A. Huseynov, the following reasoning can be considered in favor of the separation of these terms. First, the individual is included in moral definition directly, morality is sanctified by tradition, morality as an expression of inner conviction is the evidence of the spirit. Secondly, morality coincides with actually practiced forms of behavior, morality is a subjective obligation. Thirdly, morality expresses the point of view of the community (family, state, society), and morality is an expression of individual will.

Teachers I.F. Kharlamov, B.T. Likhachev, V.A. Slastenin believe that such a division, despite some artificiality, has its own logic. However, in this paper we will consider the concepts of morality and ethics as synonyms. The synonymy of "morality" and "morality" has deeper roots, and linguistic practice testifies to their equivalence.

Interest in the personality, in the problem of its formation in the history of human thought, has always been great and has become even more intensified in turning points development of society, when there was a need to find ways out of the crisis.

Although the concept of moral culture appeared in the middle of the 20th century, the roots of this concept go back to ancient times. Already in antiquity, questions of morality, moral behavior, moral ideal, moral person arose.

So Socrates (469-399 BC) absolutizes morality, considers it the foundation of a decent life, the basis of culture. For him the best way self-realization of the individual - its moral activity. Emphasizing the importance of the moral self-improvement of the individual, Socrates argued that only a moral person can be happy.

The ethical concept of Plato (427-347 BC) contains the doctrine of the intellectual and moral improvement of man. The philosopher does not imagine the morality of the individual outside of his connection with society, i.e. the content of individual existence must be socially significant.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) first spoke about a special practical science of morality, the purpose of which is to teach a person how to become virtuous (happy). Unlike Plato, Aristotle denies the innate nature of the virtues, which gives him the opportunity to talk about the problem of moral education. For him moral person- one who is guided by reason, coupled with virtues. He argued the following: "If we are moving forward in the field of knowledge, and not morality, then we are not moving forward, but backward." Aristotle's thought is still relevant today, when our society is concerned about the moral character of the younger generation.

The era of the Middle Ages is characterized by the fact that the basis of the interpretation of morality is not reason, but religious faith. Against the background of the idea of ​​love, the “golden rule of morality” gets its expression: “And so in everything, as you want people to do to you, so do you to them ...”.

In the Renaissance, the human personality acquires great value. The Renaissance Man is a bright personality who acts as the creator of his life and destiny. The Renaissance is also distinguished by its appeal to social, civic topics, the role of which in the moral culture of society during the Middle Ages was small.

So N. Machiavelli (1469-1527) denies the leading role of religion in the formation of a morally perfect personality, arguing that this is the prerogative of a strong centralized state.

Thomas More (1478-1533) believed that the priority social task is the education of morality, i.e. education of feelings of justice, selflessness, humanity and honesty. Thus, a person should be educated in the spirit of morality, which is in the interests of society.

The subject of study in the era of the New Time is the surrounding nature, hence the reduction of morality from heaven to earth, thinkers are faced with the questions of substantiating the moral full value of the individual.

Already Spinoza (1635-1677) speaks of the great significance of knowledge in the moral perfection of the individual.

French Enlighteners consider moral norms in direct proportion to civil rights and duties of individuals, i.e. everything is highly socialized. So for John Locke (1632-1704) a moral person is a citizen, a gentleman who “who should be useful to his country.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), considering man to be weak in his rational knowledge, exalted him in moral dignity. I saw the goal of education in the formation of not an official, not a soldier, but a person. He believed that: “in the sphere of moral ideas, one must move as slowly as possible, the lessons of morality should be in actions, not in speeches. According to Zh.Zh. Rousseau, only in the period from 15 years to adulthood (25 years) is the formation of moral character young man. During these years, he gets acquainted with the mores of societies.

A distinctive feature of Russian philosophers of the late 19th century is their boundless faith in the spiritual and moral development of man. They considered morality not in the abstract, only from the point of view of the ideal of human spirituality, but invested in this concept the real actions of the individual.

A moral person, according to S.N. Trubetskoy, cannot be cut off from other people and live only by his own interests for himself alone. "A moral principle is alive only when it really inspires a person, is embodied in his actions."

I. Kant proceeded from the fact that morality is possible only if a person fulfills a duty, therefore the culture of morality will consist in its perfect fulfillment. The very same culture of morality largely depends on the internal motivation of human activity. Moral can only be an act that stems from a sense of duty. Motivation of activity essentially determines the culture of morality of the individual.

Franz Baader, german romantic XIX century, believed that the purpose of moral culture - purification, enlightenment, sharpening the inner vision of the individual. It lies in the constant striving for the miracle of spiritual perfection. If it does not manifest itself either in public or in individual life, then this means that "the person and the people are corrupted and alien to the spirit."

Having considered the points of view of the two authors, one can notice that, speaking of the concept of moral culture, they place the main emphasis on the inner, motivational side of the individual's morality. The fundamental characteristic of moral culture is the orientation towards spiritual perfection. The emphasis on this aspect of moral culture is extremely important, but it seems possible to include in the proposed analysis other significant characteristics the spiritual world of the individual, which are described by this concept.

Trends in the development of philosophical thought that have developed in late XIX century, continue to develop in the 20th century. AT Western Europe there are such currents as positivism, pragmatism, existentialism and others.

So an adherent of pragmatism C. Pierce (1839-1914) criticized irrationalism and dogmatism, which absolutize moral values ​​as eternal and unchanging.

J. Dewey (1859-1952) noted that a person gradually solves specific tasks to achieve goals that correspond to his volitional impulses. The role of the mind in this case consists in the choice of adequate means leading to the achievement of the set goals. These means and actions will be moral.

Pragmatism considers morality as a source of internal dissatisfaction, as a means of achieving spiritual comfort and satisfaction with life; it has become more relevant to address the problems of moral existence and the civil status of an individual in society.

The process of moral education of the individual, the formation of moral culture has become the subject of research by many foreign and domestic scientists and teachers.

A huge contribution to the development of the moral education of the younger generation was made by the Soviet teacher V.A. Sukhomlinsky (1918-1970). He presented the algorithm for the formation of moral culture as the ratio of such components: awareness and acceptance of the norms of universal morality; education of feelings; the formation of moral habits; managing your desires the formation of motives (motives) for moral deeds.

Thus, the goal and main result of the organization of the process of moral education, the main indicator of its effectiveness, is the formation of a person's moral culture.

According to V.A. Sukhomlinsky, the moral culture of the individual is a facet, a moment of the social essence of a person, reflecting the moral potential of the individual, which consists in the awareness of a socially significant connection with the world and other people, as well as in specific ways of mastering and reproducing moral relations.

The importance of practical activity is also emphasized by N.I. Boldyrev He believed that the inclusion of personality in different kinds activity creates an opportunity to form moral consciousness, develop moral feelings, develop skills and habits for the manifestation of moral qualities. He also paid special attention to the purposeful mastering by students of knowledge of moral norms and principles.

The famous teacher I.F. Kharlamov focuses on the formation of the moral qualities of the individual. In his opinion, an important role is played by the system of explaining the significance of a particular moral norm for the individual, organizing the relevant activities and exercises to develop the skills, abilities and habits of moral behavior.

Disclosure of the essence and content of the modern concept of "moral culture of the individual" requires an analysis of existing views on the problem.

Some authors (L.M. Arkhangelsky, V. Vichev, V.M. Sokolov, V. Blyumkin and others) consider moral culture as a unity, as a connection and interaction of consciousness and behavior, as a harmony of the culture of moral consciousness and moral aspects of behavior. A.S. The Bison identifies moral culture with the moral maturity of the individual, with the degree of assimilation of moral norms. I.I. Kazimirskaya, N.E. Shchurkov reduce moral culture to "moral activity", including in its content moral relations, moral consciousness and moral conduct.

In other words, in terms of content, there is basically no difference between the above theses about the place of moral consciousness and realized moral behavior as the main content of moral culture. At the same time, some of the authors mentioned above do not include moral skills, traditions, customs, feelings in the moral culture. Thus, the content of the concept is narrowed to a certain extent. And here it is important to emphasize that without advanced culture moral feelings, without formed moral skills, habits, ethical knowledge "does not work". Therefore, finding more exact definition essence of moral culture requires consideration of the individual as a whole.

The views of R. Zhimaitis and L. Grinberg are different in this respect. So R. Zhimaitis emphasizes that at the empirical level, the concept of "moral culture" is an indicator of a kind of area of ​​moral values ​​and, at the same time, a way of realizing these values ​​in people's behavior.

In continuation of these thoughts, L. Grinberg notes that moral culture could be considered as the degree of acquired progressive moral values ​​and mastering the skills of their implementation in spiritual activity and moral practice. Therefore, it necessarily includes a component of self-esteem of the individual and a moral reflex. L.M. Arkhangelsky interprets moral culture as the unity and interaction of consciousness and behavior, as a process of transforming objectively existing cultural values ​​into personal culture.

Other authors (Yu.M. Smolentsev, V.A. Bachinin and others) consider moral culture as an indicator of an individual's morality, reflecting the achieved level of human development. So, according to A.S. Laptenka, the moral culture of the individual is a qualitative characteristic of the moral development of the individual. It reflects the degree to which a person has mastered the moral experience of society, to what extent this experience is embodied in behavior and relationships with other people.

According to the Bulgarian scientist E. Rangelova, the moral culture of a person is a set of acquired knowledge and formed beliefs, norms and principles of life, experienced moral feelings, emotions (positive and negative), acquired moral skills, relationships and relationships with people and society, formed moral qualities and ideals, ability and moral creativity and the fight against immoral, inhumane phenomena.

A.S. The Bison considers the moral culture of the individual as a unity of moral feelings and intellect. The elements of the sensory level of moral consciousness are one of the specific forms moral attitude to the world, people, work. Rational elements act in the form of principles, ideals, categories, norms, ideas about what is due and fair, personal and social, they clearly express the degree of moral culture of the individual.

If we turn to the ethics dictionary, then we will find the following definition of the moral culture of the individual: the moral culture of the individual is the degree to which the individual perceives the moral consciousness and culture of society, an indicator of how deeply and organically the requirements of morality are embodied in human actions due to the formative influence of society and self-education.

Thus, the moral culture of a person is 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 - moral reason, intuition, which contribute to the adoption of a moral decision in problem situations.

When determining the main components and corresponding elements of a single structure of moral culture, some authors (V.M. Sokolov) are guided by the disclosure of the essence cognitive process and features of its implementation in the development of personality. They reveal the structure of moral culture in the following order: ethical knowledge; moral qualities, principles and beliefs; skills and abilities to carry out moral actions; daily active moral manifestations of personality.

Other authors (V.A. Blyumkin, V. Vichev, N.B. Krylova) analyze moral culture as a structure with two main components - moral behavior and consciousness, or with three components (L.M. Arkhangelsky, R. Zhimaitis) - moral consciousness, moral relations, moral activity. There is no significant difference here. Rather, it depends on which component (consciousness or behavior) is given first place in the structure and why.

The third group of authors (I.I. Kazimirskaya, A.S. Laptenok, B.T. Likhachev, E.N. Rangelova) recognizes three main components of moral culture - the culture of moral consciousness, the culture of moral feelings, the culture of behavior. But both in theory and in practical application, it is difficult to separate moral feelings from moral consciousness. In addition to views on moral and immoral behavior, moral consciousness includes moral values, goals, ideals and moral feelings.

An analysis of the above theoretical positions gives reason to conclude that each of the authors mentioned has contributed to explaining the essence of the concept of "moral culture". Common to them is the understanding of the moral culture of the individual as a whole. Its separate components and elements are necessary characteristics and can be revealed only in the integral structure of the phenomenon.

Thus, in our work, under the moral culture of the individual, we will understand the implementation of the culture of moral consciousness and moral feelings in activity, which leads to the formation of a culture of moral behavior (Fig. 1.1)

The problem of moral culture is on the border of ethics and theory of culture. The study of philosophy and pedagogical literature showed that there are two approaches to revealing the essence of the concept of "moral culture". The first one begins with the disclosure of the essence of the generic concept - "culture", and the second approach - the specific one - "morality".

Culture is a specific way of organizing and developing human activity, represented in the products of material and spiritual labor, in spiritual values, in the totality of people's relations to nature and among themselves to themselves.

Morality (morality) is a specific type of regulation of people's relations, it is a set of norms of behavior, communication and relationships accepted in a particular society.

As for the “moral (moral) culture”, it characterizes what has become part of life practice, shows the level of perception in the public mind and the degree of embodiment of values.

Moral culture characterizes morality, which is limited historical conditions its real incarnation, this is, according to N.N. Krutov, "morality in action". It shows the real level of inclusion of moral values ​​in the practice of human relations.

Currently, there is no single point of view on the definition of the concept of "moral culture of the individual". The moral culture of the individual is:

Unity, connection and interaction of consciousness and behavior, harmony of the culture of moral consciousness and moral aspects of behavior (L.M. Arkhangelsky, V. Vichev, and others);

The degree of assimilated moral values ​​and mastering the skills of their implementation in spiritual activity and moral practice (L. Grinberg, R. Zhimaitis);

An indicator of the morality of an individual, reflecting the achieved level of human development (V.A. Bachinin, A.S. Laptenok, etc.).

1. Moral consciousness, moral activity, moral relations (L.M. Arkhangelsky).

2. Moral consciousness and behavior (V.A. Blyumkin).

3. Ethical thinking, moral feelings, moral behavior (A.S. Laptenok).

From the presented positions in considering the structure of moral culture, we can conclude that the moral culture of a person is a single structure and it is impossible to talk about its formation in the absence of at least one of the elements.

Moral culture is a synthesizing characteristic of a person's spiritual qualities. It covers all spheres of a person, both spiritual and volitional, all his behavioral manifestations, being an integral characteristic of the personality; determines the existence and functioning of a person in accordance with the system of moral values, principles, norms, ideals, needs and abilities. Thus, the proposed options for the structure of moral culture can be used in solving problems at the level of the personality of a modern teenager.

qualities of teenagers. Physical self-education contributes to the harmonious development of the personality, serves to solve a variety of educational problems. 5. Formation of the moral culture of high school students, taking into account age features The process of moral development of senior schoolchildren is personally conditioned. It is no coincidence that the leading researchers of the content of school education ...

An increase in the number of generous people by reducing the number of soulless, indifferent, cowardly - these should be the results of this purposeful work. students in 5th grade...