This section briefly formulates the moral rules of modern man - rules that are already followed by millions of people around the world.

Basic principles

The morality of Modern society is based on simple principles:

1) Everything is permitted that does not directly violate the rights of other people.

2) The rights of all people are equal.

These principles stem from those trends described in the section "Progress of Morals". Since the main slogan of Modern society is “maximum happiness for the maximum number of people,” moral standards should not be an obstacle to the realization of the desires of a particular person - even if someone does not like these desires. But only as long as they do not harm other people.

It should be noted that from these two principles comes the third: “Be energetic, achieve success on your own.” After all, every person strives for personal success, and the greatest freedom provides the maximum opportunity for this (see the subsection “Commandments of Modern Society”).

Obviously, the need for decency follows from these principles. For example, deceiving another person is, as a rule, causing him harm, and therefore is condemned by Modern morality.

The morality of Modern society was described in a light and cheerful tone by Alexander Nikonov in the corresponding chapter of the book “Monkey Upgrade”:

From all today's morality, tomorrow there will be only one rule left: you can do whatever you want without directly infringing on the interests of others. The key word here is “directly”.

If a person walks naked on the street or has sex in a public place, then, from the point of view of modernity, he is immoral. And from the point of view tomorrow, the one who pesters him with the demand to “behave decently” is immoral. A naked man does not directly encroach on anyone’s interests, he simply goes about his business, that is, he is in his own right. Now, if he forcibly undressed others, he would be directly encroaching on their interests. And the fact that it is unpleasant for you to see a naked person on the street is the problem of your complexes, fight them. He doesn’t order you to undress, so why are you pestering him to get dressed?

You cannot directly encroach on the lives of others: life, health, property, freedom - these are the minimum requirements.

Live as you know, and don’t meddle in someone else’s life if they don’t ask - this is the main rule of morality for tomorrow. It can also be formulated as follows: “You cannot decide for others. Decide for yourself." This largely works in the most progressive countries now. Somewhere this rule of extreme individualism works more (Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden), somewhere less. In advanced countries, “immoral” marriages between homosexuals are allowed, prostitution, smoking marijuana, etc. are legalized. There, a person has the right to dispose own life, as he pleases. Jurisprudence is also developing in the same direction. Laws are drifting in the direction indicated by the thesis “no victims - no crime.”

...You know, I’m not a fool at all, I understand perfectly well that by applying cunning theoretical reasoning and bringing this already implemented principle of relationships between adults to the point of absurdity, it is probably possible to find a number of controversial borderline situations. (“And when they blow smoke in your face, is it a direct or indirect effect?”)

I admit that some issues may arise in the state-citizen relationship. (“And if I exceeded the speed limit and didn’t run over anyone, there were no injuries, that means there was no crime?”)

But the principles I declare are not the final goal, but a trend, the direction of movement of social morality and legal practice.

Lawyers reading this book will probably be drawn to the keyword “directly.” Lawyers generally like to cling to words, forgetting about Gödel’s theorem, according to which all words cannot be defined anyway. And, therefore, there will always remain legal uncertainty, immanently inherent in the language system.

“And if a person walks naked down the street, violating public morals, he directly affects my eyes, and I don’t like it!”

Nikolai Kozlov, the author of numerous books on practical psychology. Kozlov is considered by current first-year psychology students to be the third greatest psychologist in the world after Freud and Jung. And for good reason. Nikolai Kozlov created a new movement of practical psychology and a whole network of psychological clubs throughout the country. These clubs are good and correct, which can be judged if only because the Russian Orthodox Church is actively fighting against them... So, when Kozlov is asked at workshops how direct impact differs from indirect impact, he answers with a nursery rhyme:
"The cat is crying in the corridor,
She has great grief
Evil people poor pussy
They don’t let you steal sausages.”

People influence poor pussy? Undoubtedly! Pussy can even assume that they influence directly. But in fact, people just have their sausages. Just having sausages isn’t an invasion of someone else’s privacy, is it? As well as…

• just have property (or not);
• just live (or not live);
• just walk the streets (naked or clothed).

Don't pry into someone else's personal life, gentlemen, even if you actively don't like it. And don’t do to others what you don’t want for yourself. And if you suddenly want to do something that, in your opinion, will improve a person’s life, first find out from him whether your opinions about life and its improvements coincide. And never appeal to morality in your reasoning: everyone has their own ideas about morality.

If we open the “Big Encyclopedic Dictionary” and look at the article “Morality,” we will see the following description: “Morality - see morality.” The time has come to separate these concepts. Separate the wheat from the chaff.

Morality is the sum of unwritten standards of behavior established in society, a collection of social prejudices. Morality is closer to the word "decency". Morality is more difficult to define. It is closer to the biological concept of empathy; to such a concept of religion as forgiveness; to such a concept of social life as conformism; to such a concept of psychology as non-conflict. Simply put, if a person internally sympathizes, empathizes with another person and, in connection with this, tries not to do to another what he would not like for himself, if a person is internally non-aggressive, wise and therefore understanding - we can say that he is a moral person.

The main difference between morality and ethics is that morality always presupposes an external evaluative object: social morality - society, the crowd, neighbors; religious morality - God. And morality is internal self-control. Moral man deeper and more complex than moral. Just like an automatically operating unit is more complex than a manual machine, which is driven by someone else’s will.

Walking naked on the streets is immoral. Splashing with saliva, yelling at a naked person that he is a scoundrel is immoral. Feel the difference.

The world is moving towards immorality, it is true. But he goes towards morality.

Morality is a subtle, situational thing. Morality is more formal. It can be reduced to certain rules and prohibitions.

About negative consequences

All of the above reasoning is actually aimed at expanding the individual choice of people, but does not take into account the possible negative social consequences of such a choice.

For example, if society recognizes a homosexual family as normal, then some people who currently hide their sexual orientation and have heterosexual families will stop doing so, which may negatively affect the birth rate. If we stop condemning drug use, the number of drug addicts may increase at the expense of those who currently avoid drugs for fear of punishment. Etc. This site is just about how to ensure maximum freedom and at the same time minimize the negative consequences of a possible wrong choice.

The freedom of people to choose their own sexual partners, to create and dissolve marriages can also lead to negative consequences, for example, the growth of a woman’s independence has a negative impact on the birth rate. These trends are analyzed in the Family and Demographics sections.

The concept of Modern Society is based on the fact that in such matters it is necessary to prevent injustice and discrimination. For example, if we want to fight low birth rates, then all childless people should be blamed and punished, not just homosexuals. (Fertility issues are discussed in the Demographics section).

Freedom of speech leads to the publication of pornography and scenes of cruelty. Many people believe that this, in turn, negatively affects family values ​​and encourages violence. On the other hand, according to Internet Freedom founder Chris Evans, “60 years of research into the impact of media on society has found no link between violent images and violent actions.” In 1969, Denmark lifted all restrictions on pornography, and the number of sex crimes immediately went down. Thus, from 1965 to 1982, the number of such crimes against children decreased from 30 per 100 thousand inhabitants to 5 per 100 thousand. A similar situation is observed with regard to rape.

There is reason to believe that hazing in the army instills in a person a habit of violence to a much greater extent than the bloodiest action movies.

(If you feel the strength to write sections for this site about freedom of speech and the problem of crime, write to me at [email protected] and grateful humanity will not forget you. :)

Balance of positive and negative

Should negative phenomena be combated by introducing prohibitions and using violence if they are violated? As shown historical experience, it is pointless to fight the objective laws of social development. As a rule, negative and positive development results are interconnected and it is impossible to fight the negative without destroying the positive. Therefore, in cases where such a struggle is successful, society pays for it with a lag in development - and negative trends are simply transferred to the future.

A different approach seems more constructive. It is necessary to study the patterns of social changes without emotion and understand what positive and negative consequences they lead to. After which society must take actions aimed at strengthening positive aspects existing trends and weakening of negative ones. Actually, this is what this site is dedicated to.

An increase in freedom always leads to some people using it to their detriment. For example, the ability to purchase vodka leads to the emergence of alcoholics, the freedom to choose a lifestyle leads to the emergence of homeless people, sexual freedom increases the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, freer societies are always accused of “decay,” “moral decay,” etc. However, most people are quite rational and use freedom to their advantage. As a result, society becomes more efficient and develops faster.

When they talk about “health” and “unhealthy” society, they forget that the state of society cannot be described in terms of healthy/unhealthy/no third choice. Unfree societies are much more “healthy” in the sense of the absence of marginalized people (for example, in Nazi Germany even the mentally ill were destroyed). But they are much less healthy in the sense of the lack of people focused on development. Therefore, unfree, overly regulated societies (including those regulated by too strict moral standards) inevitably lose. And prohibitions, as a rule, are not very effective - prohibition, for example, does not so much fight alcoholism as it creates a mafia. Best choice- maximum freedom with strict suppression of aggressive marginalized people (including the destruction of criminals).

Modern morality is making its way into Russia. The new generation is much more individualistic and freer. I've heard from entrepreneurs I know that hiring young people is profitable - young people are more honest, more energetic and steal less often. At the same time, during the transition period there are crisis phenomena, incl. and in the field of morality. This was the case, for example, during the transition from an agricultural to an industrial society; in particular, England in the early to mid-19th century experienced a serious crisis, accompanied by an increase in alcoholism, family breakdown, homelessness, etc. (just remember Dickens; you can read more about this in F. Fukuyama’s book “The Great Divide”).

Here, by the way, one common myth should be mentioned. Ancient Rome collapsed not as a result of “moral decay”, but because it stopped developing. Rome's main advantage was the presence of a rule of law and an effective civil society. With the transition from republic to imperial dictatorship, these social institutions were gradually undermined, development ceased, and as a result, Rome became a typical unstable empire, lacking fundamental social advantages compared to its barbarian surroundings. From that moment on, his death was only a matter of time.

But society also faces destruction if freedom exceeds certain limits and some people have the unpunished freedom to cause harm to others. In fact, this means that the freedom of some is curtailed by increasing the rights of others, i.e. freedom is destroyed. That is why the morality of Modern society is complete freedom, with the exception of the right to cause direct harm to another person. Moreover, Modern society should be intolerant of any attempts to cause such damage, i.e. restrict someone's freedom. In this, Modern society must be uncompromising and even cruel: as experience shows, the main problems of the most Modern countries lie precisely in excessive humanism in relation to intolerant and aggressive people.

Issues of how modern society limits intolerance are discussed in the section "Intolerance of Intolerance".

The arguments presented here are often objected to by saying that “permissiveness cannot be allowed!” And this thesis is absolutely true. Permissiveness is the permission for one person to harm another. For example, safe premarital sex is not permissive, because... Each of the participants does not see any damage to themselves in this. But the “highly moral” Iran is a permissive state: the criminal code of this country, based on Sharia norms, provides for the execution of women by stoning for some “sexual crimes”. Moreover, it is specially stipulated that the stones should not be too large so that the victim does not die immediately. Such sadistic murder is undoubtedly permissive.

The morality of Modern society (as opposed to religious morality) is a morality based on reason. Such morality is more effective than morality based on emotions: emotions work automatically, while reason allows you to act more subtly depending on the situation (provided, of course, that reason is present). Just like human behavior based on emotional morality is more effective than animal behavior based on innate instincts.

About “moral decay”

A person in transition (transition from industrial society- to post-industrial, Modern) unconsciously experiences a feeling of guilt due to the continued effect of traditional moral attitudes. Religious figures still have high moral authority and they condemn Modern society (for example, the new Pope Benedict XVI stated that “modern emerging culture is opposed not only to Christianity, but to faith in God in general, to all traditional religions”; similar statements are made by Orthodox hierarchs and Islamic authorities).

Religious figures, condemning the morality of Modern society, usually reason like this: a departure from religious morality leads to the abolition of moral principles in general, as a result of which people will begin to steal, kill, etc. They do not want to notice that the morality of Modern people is moving in the exact opposite direction: towards condemning violence and aggression in any form (and, for example, towards condemning theft, because Modern people are, as a rule, a wealthy middle class).

Research shows that the lowest degree of both religiosity and crime is observed among highly educated people. Those. a departure from traditional morality does not at all lead to a decline in morality in general. But for a traditional, poorly educated person, the reasoning of religious leaders is completely justified. These people need a “punishing baton” in the form of hell; however, they easily resort to violence “in the name of God.”

The prevailing morality in a transitional society is uncomfortable for a person, because it is contradictory, and therefore does not give him strength. She is trying to combine the incompatible: the liberal human right to choose and the traditional roots that denied such a right. Solving this contradiction, some go into fundamentalism, others rush into an egoistic “life for entertainment.” Both do not contribute to development and, therefore, have no prospects.

Therefore, we need a consistent morality, the adherence to which ensures success for both the individual and the entire society.

"Commandments" of Modern Society

The moral values ​​of modern society differ markedly from traditional ones. For example, out of the 10 biblical commandments, five do not work: three dedicated to God (because they conflict with freedom of conscience), about the Sabbath (a contradiction with freedom to manage one’s time), and “thou shalt not commit adultery” (a contradiction with freedom of personal life) . Conversely, some necessary commandments are missing in religion. The picture is similar not only with the Bible, but also with the attitudes of other religions.

Modern society has its own most important values, which in traditional societies were far from in first place (and were even considered negative):

- “don’t be lazy, be energetic, always strive for more”;

- “develop yourself, learn, become smarter - thereby you contribute to the progress of humanity”;

- “achieve personal success, achieve wealth, live in abundance - thereby you contribute to the prosperity and development of society”;

- “don’t cause inconvenience to others, don’t interfere in other people’s lives, respect the personality of others and private property.”

The main emphasis is on self-development, which leads, on the one hand, to the achievement of personal goals (for example, career growth), and on the other hand, to a “non-consumer” attitude towards other people (since the main resource - one’s abilities - cannot be increased at the expense of others).

Of course, all the classic moral imperatives are preserved (or rather, strengthened): “don’t kill,” “don’t steal,” “don’t lie,” “sympathize and help other people.” And these basic guidelines will no longer be violated in the name of God, which is the sin of most religions (especially in relation to “non-believers”).

Moreover, the most problematic commandment - “don’t lie” - will be strengthened to the greatest extent, which will radically increase the level of trust in society, and therefore the effectiveness of social mechanisms, including the elimination of corruption (on the role of trust, see F. Fukuyama’s book “Trust”). After all, a person who constantly develops himself is always confident in his own abilities and has no need to lie. Lying is not beneficial to him - it can undermine his reputation as a professional. Moreover, lying is not necessary, because many things cease to be “shameful” and do not need to be hidden. In addition, a focus on self-development means that a person sees his main resource within himself and there is no need to exploit others.

If we talk about the priority of values, then the main thing for Modern society is human freedom and condemnation of violence and intolerance. Unlike religion, where it is possible to justify violence in the name of God, modern morality rejects any violence and intolerance (although it can use state violence in response to violence, see the section “Intolerance for Intolerance”). From the point of view of Modern morality, traditional society is simply filled with immorality and lack of spirituality, including severe violence towards women and children (when they refuse to obey), towards all dissidents and “violators of traditions” (often ridiculous), a high degree of intolerance towards people of other faiths and so on.

An important moral imperative of Modern society is respect for law and justice, because only the law can protect human freedom, ensure equality and security of people. And, on the contrary, the desire to subjugate another, to humiliate someone’s dignity are the most shameful things.

A society where all these values ​​were fully operational would perhaps be the most efficient, complex, fast-growing and richest in history. It would also be the happiest, because... would provide a person with maximum opportunities for self-realization.

It should be noted that all of the above is not an invented, artificial construction. This is just a description of what millions of people are already following - Modern people, of whom there are more and more. This is the morality of a person who has studied hard, who has become a professional through his own efforts, who values ​​his freedom and is tolerant of other people. We are the majority in developed countries, soon we will be the majority in Russia.

Modern morality is not about indulging selfishness and “base instincts.”

Modern morality makes more demands on people than ever before in human history. Traditional morality gave a person clear rules of life, but did not require anything more from him. A person’s life in a traditional society was regulated; it was enough to simply live according to the order established for centuries. It did not require any mental effort, it was simple and primitive.

Modern morality requires a person to develop and achieve success through his own efforts. But she does not say how to do this, only stimulating a person to constantly search, overcome himself and strain his strength. In return, modern morality gives a person the feeling that he is not a cog in a meaningless machine invented for some unknown reason, but the creator of the future and one of the builders of himself and this entire world (see section “The Meaning of Life”). In addition, self-development and increased professionalism also lead to the acquisition of material wealth, providing wealth and prosperity “in this life.”

Without a doubt, modern morality eliminates many meaningless rules and prohibitions (for example, in the field of sex) and in this sense makes life easier and more enjoyable. But at the same time, modern morality strictly demands that a person be a human being, and not follow his own animal instincts or herd feelings. This morality requires manifestations of reason, and not primitive emotions such as aggression, revenge, the desire to subjugate other people or submit to authority, which “will arrange and decide everything for us.” And it is far from easy to become tolerant, to overcome personal and social complexes.

But the main thing is that Modern morality places the emphasis not on “pleasing oneself beloved” and not on the selfless (or rather self-deprecating) achievement of “great goals”, but on self-improvement and the improvement of everything that surrounds Modern man.

As a result, people have nothing to share - no one needs to take anything away from others in order to concentrate more resources on themselves (it doesn’t matter - for the sake of “great goals” or their own whims, which are often the same thing in reality). After all, it is impossible to develop yourself at the expense of others - this can only be done as a result of your own efforts. Therefore, there is no need to cause harm to others in any form, in particular, to lie, etc.

Question 2. Functions of morality. Dilemmas of moral behavior. Concept of moral value

The functions of morality are usually understood as those basic roles that it performs in the life of society, ensuring its integrity, its existence and development.

It is known that morality not only acts as a regulator of relations between people, evaluates their behavior and actions, but also forms norms of behavior. It is the most important means of moral formation and personal development; it allows a person to navigate in a value-oriented world, where good and evil are distinguished both in the actions of people themselves and in the situations that arise as a result of these actions.

In this regard, scientists identify a number of functions of morality that characterize it as a relatively independent area of ​​human culture. The main functions of morality usually include the following.

1. Estimated. Its peculiarity is that, firstly, unlike the norms of law and political assessments, moral assessments are universal in nature and apply to almost all human actions and actions. Secondly, these assessments are carried out through a comparison of what should be and what is, correlating existing behavior with value and ideal and come both from outside public opinion and from within the most morally developed personality, from the moral convictions of the individual.

2. Cognitive, allowing a person, through the assessment of his own and others’ actions, to behave like a moral being, to acquire moral knowledge about what should be done, about what can be done and what cannot be done under any circumstances.

3. Communicative. Its significance is determined by the enormous role played by communication as the most important civilizational need. modern world, implying the process of humanization of human communication, leading to mutual understanding. It doesn't just come down to etiquette. More important in human communication is the recognition of each person’s personality, respect for the one with whom you communicate.

4. Educational. This is one of the most important functions of morality, characteristic of all societies. The peculiarity of the educational function of morality is that moral education continues throughout a person’s life and contributes to the formation of personality. In the center moral education lies personal example, an internal desire for moral impeccability. This function is characterized by non-violent influence, because moral norms are only effective when they are experienced by a person.

5 . Regulatory. The essence and features of this function of morality were revealed in the previous paragraph. Let us only note that morality is not a recipe for moral illnesses and vices; it is not omnipotent. She teaches, but only to those who want to learn. However, everyone has to make one decision or another at some point. And in this sense, basic moral orientations inevitably manifest themselves in practical behavior.

Noting the importance of these functions of morality, which allow us to better understand the essence of moral regulation, it is necessary at the same time to recognize that the problem of the influence of morality on a person is complex and ambiguous. In solving it, we inevitably face the question of what and who determines the morality of our actions, i.e. with the situation that in ethical science is called the paradox of moral assessment (“don’t judge others”). But it's not only that. The question of the essence of moral regulation cannot be understood without taking into account the most important problem of ethics - the problem of the relationship between being and morality, ethical knowledge and behavior.

Since antiquity, philosophers and scientists have tried to find answers to the questions: What is the morality of human actions based on and what is the source of morality? What can force a living, earthly person, with his inherent weaknesses and contradictions, to rise above his own earthly passions and act morally, contrary to his natural nature? Is our knowledge about the external world the source that determines the morality of our actions? Is there a danger here of contrasting ethics with reality due to the relativity and often subjective nature of this knowledge? How, finally, can we connect the absolute nature of moral assessments with cultural diversity and the pluralistic nature of modern society?

Various schools of ethics have answered these and other questions that have become classic ethical questions in different ways. Representatives of the empirical school believed that morality is derived from human experience and the need to find common agreement and that the assessment of moral behavior cannot exist outside of facts and real actions. Proponents of a rational basis for ethics (Aristotle, Spinoza) argued that ethical actions are determined not so much by experience as by the rational logic of a person, his ability as a thinking being in each specific case to determine for himself what is good and what is bad. According to defenders of the natural (intuitive) theory in ethics, morality, due to the limitations of human knowledge, is not derived from values ​​and facts; human essence leads to an understanding of what is bad and what is good.

In the history of ethical thought, the dispute between Aristotle and Socrates about the nature of moral behavior is famous. According to Socrates , whose name is usually associated with one of the historically first concepts of morality, based on epistemology, the morality of an action is determined by our knowledge of what is good and what is evil. We commit evil out of ignorance. No one does evil of his own free will.

This approach raises two objections.

Firstly, he ignores real opportunity inconsistencies between moral consciousness and moral behavior: very often people, understanding what good is, nevertheless do evil.

Secondly, Socrates' thesis, as Aristotle rightly noted, relieves a person of responsibility for his actions: people will always plead ignorance to justify their unseemly behavior.

From Aristotle's point of view, The basis of morality is the ethical independence of the individual, which comes from the free will inherent in man. A person is free to choose good and evil, virtue and vice, and therefore must be responsible for what he does (a drunk person is doubly guilty, because it was in his power not to get drunk).

In the spirit of Aristotle and at the same time in his own way, he solved the problem of the relationship between ethical knowledge and behavior A. Schweitzer. Philosopher was convinced that morality cannot be deduced from epistemology, just as the meaning of life cannot be deduced from the meaning of existence. Morality is possible not as knowledge, but as action, individual choice, behavior. This is not a sphere of knowledge, but the most worthy form of human existence. Good is not derived from existence. To know and to be are one and the same. Good either exists or it doesn’t. The ideal of any cultured person is nothing more than the ideal of a person who, in any conditions, retains true humanity. Morality represents that humanity without which human relationships would never acquire a human character.

The same variety of approaches is characteristic when considering other, no less complex issues of moral theory and, in particular, the issue related to the difference between personal morality and social morality. A number of thinkers ( Spinoza, partly Aristotle ) They considered morality mainly from the point of view of personal self-improvement, reducing it to individual ethics, the ethics of virtues. Other philosophers (such as T. Hobbes ) saw in morality primarily a way of regulating the relations of people in society . At the same time, synthetic ethical theories that sought to connect individual morality with social morality were widespread and developed in the modern postmodern era. In contrast to this Marxist theory insisted that only the transformation of society and social relations can become the basis for the moral elevation of the individual .

Without going into an analysis of each of these points of view, we agree with those modern scientists , which, in our opinion, is fair believe that there is no acute contradiction between the regulation of social life and individual behavior (just as there is no inevitable conflict between professional morality and universal moral standards).

Firstly, because they are based on universal human values ​​and norms of behavior developed over centuries of practice.

Secondly, individual choice and moral activity cannot fall out of the environment in which the person lives, i.e. from the public environment, cannot but correlate with the norms of public morality.

Norms and standards of morality may, of course, differ in different situations, in different cultural environments. What was natural for the Middle Ages is today already perceived as atavism. What is considered normal for a person of Western culture is not considered moral for many Eastern countries. In this regard, many authors express the opinion that moral ideas are always situational and changeable (relative). Nevertheless, no one will deny the existence of higher moral values ​​(such as duties to parents, children and descendants, honor, duty, justice), which are common to all times and peoples. Just because the paths to truth can be different, it does not follow that truth itself is not truth. If I don't pay taxes, it doesn't mean that taxes are a harmful invention of humanity. Likewise, morality cannot be a matter of taste. You cannot say: I lie because I like it. People can lie to each other, but this does not mean that they recognize the lie as correct.

At the same time, to understand the essence of morality, it is of great importance to identify methods of moral regulation, which together constitute moral regulation system, which usually includes such components as moral standards, moral principles, moral values ​​and ideals.

Scientists have yet to more accurately determine the content and relationship of these concepts, which are very often identified in the scientific literature without sufficient reason.

The simplest of these concepts are norms or requirements (as a private moral command about proper behavior). In turn, they are justified as reasonable and appropriate with the help of more complex forms of moral consciousness - moral principles and ideals (as a reflection of the highest values ​​in the individual). Arranging the noted concepts in a logical sequence, we can say that moral principles are derived from values, and norms, in turn, are based on principles and values.

TO core values civil service, which determine its specificity and its main purpose, should include: legality, impartiality, impartiality, justice, integrity.

From these values ​​follows The main principle in the activities of civil servants is the inadmissibility of using official position in personal purposes, which is implemented through a number of moral norms, such as the prohibition of receiving gifts for services related to the performance of official duties; the inadmissibility of discrimination against some people by providing benefits to others, etc.

In this regard, the point of view of B. Sutor (author of the well-known work “Political Ethics” in the West), expressed by him on this issue in relation to social ethics, seems very interesting. Norms as specific instructions (both legal and moral), according to the scientist, are rationally derived from goals and values. The goals and values ​​themselves are not derived from anywhere, but characterize the political culture and consciousness of a nation. They and the difference, for example, from interest, cannot be fully achievable and even precisely defined in their content, but it is they who set the orientation for political action and structure political life. The main political goals of B. Sutor include peace, freedom and justice, which at the same time constitute the basic political values ​​of modern democracy, considered in the context of human rights.

The most complex of all components of moral regulation is the concept of moral value, since if we consider it only from the position of the presence in an object of signs and properties that express its significance for the subject, then there is always a danger of identifying value with the object itself.

Moral values ​​are the highest transpersonal value systems that act simultaneously as an assessment criterion, as a moral norm (requirement), and as a principle of behavior.

At the same time, the significance of an object, as is known, does not necessarily automatically mean its value. No matter how strange it may seem to someone, scientists find the answer to these questions in K. Marx, in his classic analysis of the properties of a product. A thing, according to Marx, can have a use value (air, wild forest, etc.) and at the same time not be a value if its utility is not mediated by labor. When a need is satisfied automatically, value relations do not arise. In other words, the usefulness, the significance of a thing for a subject, in itself does not yet form value relations, and the thing itself does not become a value. And on the contrary, the more problematic the possibility of satisfying a need and the more urgent the need, the higher the value of the item.

It is known, for example, that a necessary condition The normal process of life is the reliability of information, the correspondence of words and deeds . But since this need is not automatically satisfied (the word may contain deception), a moral value arises, which includes a number of concepts such as “honesty”, “fidelity to the word”, etc. Others can be cited examples. Beauty is a value because there is a lot of ugliness in the world. A moral act, adherence to duty, is always an affirmation of a certain moral value, since opposite actions are possible.

Just like other values, moral values ​​arise to satisfy needs that form the basis for motivating behavior and actions.

In the same time The peculiarity of moral needs is that they are determined by a person’s internal, not determined by considerations of personal gain, desire for goodness, justice, honesty, and the well-being of society as a whole.. These value concepts, as a rule, are multifunctional and are used simultaneously as a designation of human quality, and as an assessment criterion, and as a moral norm (requirement), and as a principle of behavior.

Values, in contrast to specifically established requirements and norms of behavior, are always absolute, transpersonal and objective, they exist before and apart from our consciousness, they are the highest guideline and the content that is affirmed in any norm without exception, and without which norms are empty and lifeless.

In addition to the usual values ​​(hard work, diligence, responsibility, etc.), there are values higher order that cannot be sacrificed (such as goodness, love, justice). In personified form, descending from the heights of the highest abstractions to the ground, the highest values ​​appear in the form of ideals.

Values ​​should be distinguished from assessments, which, as a rule, are subjective.. Thus, from the position of one person, one or another action can be assessed highly, and from the position of another, on the contrary, low. In contrast to assessments, values, as already mentioned, are objective in nature and do not depend on the subjective assessment of individuals.

The concept of “moral values” is closely related to the benefits of life, which people always strive for in everyday life.

Life benefits are the conditional and unconditional needs of a person necessary to maintain his life.

They are also an objective value for a person. In the same time Unlike higher values, all life benefits, both conditional and unconditional (such as, for example, human health), are always relative, since they allow the possibility of sacrificing them for the sake of something higher.

The danger of their absolutization is due to the fact that there will always be a justification for using any (including bad) means to achieve a specific good (pleasure as an end in itself leads to excess and licentiousness).

In ethical theory, the question of what is the highest good for a person is the main and universal criterion for determining moral positions and ethical concepts (depending on its solution, types of ethical concepts such as hedonism, eudaimonism, utilitarianism, rigorism, etc.) .

A number of categories of ethics expressing moral values ​​(good, good and evil, duty, responsibility, conscience, honor, dignity) have important for the field of public administration. The issue of moral aspects requires special consideration constitutional values, which should first of all include: freedom, justice, equality, rights of citizens.

An important component of the system of moral regulation are moral principles.

Moral principles are moral guidelines that in general form express the requirements developed in the moral consciousness of society concerning the moral essence of a person, his purpose, the meaning of his life and the nature of relationships between people.

In the shortest form they can be defined as the most General requirements, with the help of which relationships between people are regulated. In this meaning, principles act as a kind of spiritual guide for a person in his practical actions. At the same time, they represent the most general justification of existing norms and serve as a criterion for choosing rules of behavior. As the modern researcher of ethical problems E.V. Zolotukhina-Abolina rightly notes, in contrast to moral values ​​and ideals experienced by a person emotionally, as well as norms that most often operate at the level of moral habits and unconscious attitudes, moral principles are a phenomenon of exclusively rational consciousness.

This, firstly, makes them more rigidly formalized compared to values, which often leads to ethical rigorism;

secondly, it determines their changing nature in different eras and in different situations, their close connection with one or another ideology.

Thus, if the era of the emergence of bourgeois relations was characterized by the utilitarian principle of benefit, then in the era of the Bolshevik dictatorship the principle of serving the cause of the revolution became decisive, which determined the dominance of class interest over law.

Let us briefly dwell on the characteristics of moral norms, the peculiarity of which, as already noted, is the rigidly defined boundaries of behavior and the requirement that they be compulsory.

Moral norms (from the Latin norma - rule, sample) are the simplest, having the nature of mandatory instructions, moral requirements for the actions and behavior of people.

They do not tolerate uncertainty and require a person to act this way and not otherwise, to follow generally accepted standards of behavior. They are based on the recognition of the imperfection of human morals and the associated need for a moral prohibition: do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not commit adultery, do not covet the good of others and other prohibitions known from the 10 Old Testament commandments. This is the meaning of a moral prohibition, without which, as already mentioned, morality turns into the realm of only “good intentions.”

It would be naive, however, to believe that human behavior can be built on prohibitions alone. The real morals of people are often very far from the concept of “moral”. That is why morality does not form direct commands, but appears in the form of what should be. Focusing on the rational principle in a person, she seeks to limit his inherent aggressive and selfish aspirations. Its main means are the means of spiritual influence, exercising control over the fulfillment of moral requirements through a sense of duty, which each person is aware of and makes the motive of his behavior, as well as through assessment and self-assessment of his actions. Based on the moral ideas and values ​​developed by previous generations of people, a person is able to independently regulate his behavior, weigh options, and judge their compliance with the concept of “moral.”

Important role the so-called ethical intuitions, inherent in man by his nature. There are two such fundamental intuitions in moral theory.

1. Everything truly good and kind is useful, which means that only good and kind things are truly useful.

2. What is good for me is good for others and therefore what is bad for me should not be done to others.

Essentially, this means that justice is the same for everyone: do not do yourself what you do not approve of in others. The peculiarity of this rule, known in ethical science as golden rule of morality, is that it is built on the principle of reciprocity and is known to everyone on an intuitive level. J. Locke called it the basis of all virtue. According to T. Hobbes, this rule has two important advantages. Firstly, it successfully combines egoism and equality, since it ensures equal infringement of egoistic claims and thereby creates the basis for social unity. Secondly, it is accessible to everyone (even a poorly educated person), since it does not contain any wisdom, except that in each specific situation it is enough for a person to imagine himself in the place of another, in relation to whom he intends to perform an action.

Moral dilemma

Hypothetical conflict situation, when a participant in an experiment, representing himself as the main character, must choose one of the possible options for action. Resolving such a dilemma involves difficult moral choices, such as “break the law and save the person’s life” or “follow the law and let the person die.” Solving moral dilemmas gives important information about the way people think when faced with moral problems in real life.

Typical moral dilemma

Moral anxiety

Freudian idea that people experience anxiety before possible punishment for indulging the impulses of the Id (see Freud) instead of following the sublime ideas of the Superego. As a result, many id impulses (including sexual desire) become associated with anxiety and are seen as morally unacceptable.

Psychology. AND I. Dictionary reference / Transl. from English K. S. Tkachenko. - M.: FAIR PRESS. Mike Cordwell. 2000.

See what “Moral dilemma” is in other dictionaries:

MORAL DILEMMA- See dilemma, moral...

DILEMMA, MORAL- A situation in which someone is faced with two options, in which choosing one violates one set of moral precepts, and choosing the other violates another set. A classic case is the dilemma faced by a doctor when... Explanatory dictionary of psychology

Moral dilemma- (Greek dilemma) a situation of moral choice. For example, from a doctor regarding euthanasia. A doctor’s duty orders him to do everything possible to save the patient’s life; the law, for its part, if it exists, forces him to accept... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

PRAGMATISM- (from Greek pragma deed, action) current of Amer. thought, in which the factor of practice is used as a methodological principle of philosophy. It arose in the 1870s and took shape in the lane. floor. 20th century and how the trend has continued to this day. S P... Philosophical Encyclopedia

LIBERALISM- (lat. liberalis free) socio-political doctrine and social movement, the main idea of ​​which is the self-sufficient value of individual freedom in the economic, political and other spheres of society. For the first time they were called liberals... ... The latest philosophical dictionary

Escorts (film)- Escorts Chasers Genre Comedy Director Dennis Hopper Starring Tom Berenger William McNamara ... Wikipedia

Miracle with roses- “The Miracle of the Roses of St. Elizabeth of Hungary.” Painting by an unknown German master, 1st half. XVI century Miracle with roses (German: Rosenwunder, Spanish: Milagro de l ... Wikipedia

Black Squad- The Black Company

Escorts- Chasers ... Wikipedia

Entrepreneurial ethics is part of economic ethics and should be considered taking into account its premises and foundations. Because the

modern economic ethics realizes itself as an ethics of a framework order, then business ethics is based on a framework order. But here it is necessary to take into account one fundamental circumstance. In practice, the framework order cannot be specified in an ideal form. It has its drawbacks, which primarily affect business ethics. As already noted, the difference between economic and business ethics is that the subject of moral requirements in economic ethics is predominantly state institutions, while in business ethics it is individual enterprises. The imperfection of the framework affects primarily economic activity individual enterprises forced to make additional efforts and take on “responsibility, which is normally at the level of order, in order to fill the resulting vacuum of responsibility. The task of business ethics is to identify this need, emanating from the actual economic values, for the moral responsibility of enterprises and to identify the enterprise’s capabilities to comply to such expectations, entrepreneurial ethics thematizes the relationship between morality and profit in the management of enterprises and deals with the question of what moral norms and principles can be implemented by enterprises in a modern economy.

Due to the established cultural tradition, concepts such as “economic ethics” or “entrepreneurial ethics” rather refer us to the problem of choice - either ethics or economics - rather than designating something that actually exists in reality. It turns out that everyone demands ethics from economy precisely because there is no ethics there.

The doubts we have inherited that morality can be a significant factor in economic decision-making are indeed great. Aristotle advised the “economist” (“the head of the family” - approx. transl.), who did not want to betray his true human nature, to engage in philosophy and politics, but in no case in business. The Bible turns the same advice into an image symbolizing the physical impossibility of combining wealth and righteousness: they say, it is more likely for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. Cicero limits himself to the laconic statement that big profit is done by great deception. It took Thomas Aquinas many pages to explain how trade could be transformed from a vice into a virtue. Martin Luther, who was always quite straightforward, simply identified economic management with greed, coming from the Old Testament Adam. We owe to Karl Marx the apodictic theory, according to which the entrepreneur is only a mask hiding the inherently immoral movement of capital, and therefore is forced to obey the laws of this movement, because otherwise he will simply be ruined. Max Weber, although he held rather bourgeois views, also did not believe that the cruel laws of the market leave the individual the possibility of ethical behavior. And finally, the 1973 Nobel Prize winner, economist Milton Friedman, came up with a lapidary formula: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.

Against this background, it would probably be necessary to admit that the stated intentions business structures(concerns or firms), entrepreneurs themselves and their managers, being guided in economic decisions by moral values ​​looks no more convincing than a vampire’s promises to come to a donor station to donate his own blood.

As a variant of entrepreneurial ethics, related to the direction designated as the ethics of preferences, consider the concept of business ethics. We proceed from the premise that, for all its independence and significance, business ethics remains a unique version of the “individualistic” direction of entrepreneurial ethics, because “in most cases, in the individual ethical perspective, they are focused on the decision-making situation of individual entrepreneurs/managers, without taking into account the structure of the dilemma caused by competition."

Business ethics, as a predominantly American version of entrepreneurial ethics, occupies one of the central places within the concepts of entrepreneurial ethics. Its appearance can be dated back to the 1970s. At this time, between the scientific community and business world There has been some agreement about the need to increase the "ethical consciousness" of business professionals in their business transactions, as well as the responsibility of corporations to society. By the beginning of the 1980s. Business ethics has become a major subject of study for professionals, and most business schools in the United States have included it in their programs. In general, business ethics can be defined as the scientific discipline that studies the application of ethical principles to business situations.

The most pressing questions in business ethics are questions about the relationship between corporate and universal ethics, social responsibility business, the application of general ethical principles to specific decision-making situations, raising the ethical level of the organization, the influence of religious and cultural values ​​on economic behavior. In business ethics, some dilemmas are especially acute, characterizing the value inconsistency of the interaction between traditional morality and modern economics. The most significant ones include the “official information” dilemma, the “beneficial connections” dilemma and the “sexual harassment dilemma”.

· The “official information” dilemma. The criterion for the ethical justification of informing higher authorities about violations in the organization is the motive for committing the act. If the appeal is not used to solve one’s own career problems or revenge on any specific person, but for the sake of the interests of the cause, and if this act does not pursue personal gain, but is dictated by concern for the welfare of other people, then such behavior can be considered justified from an ethical point of view. Before moving on to the analysis of real situations, it is necessary to clarify that some people are psychologically inclined to play the role of “fighters for the truth,” although in reality they pursue completely different goals. Therefore, it is important not to be influenced by the description and interpretation of the situation by those involved and interested parties, but to impartially, based on the facts, analyze what happened and take appropriate measures. What can be said about the specific motives of individuals who submit official information? desire to do business message, rather than anonymous denunciation, is usually based on a strong belief in personal responsibility, supported by a sense of professional honor, religious considerations and loyalty to society.

· The dilemma of "beneficial connections". Solving business and personal problems that go against existing economic, legal and moral norms by taking advantage of the position of individuals who have privileged access to goods or services is a very common phenomenon in the business world. The use of profitable connections can be both personal and corporate in nature. In the event that a person with certain authority (i.e., “using his official position”) intends to provide us with a personal favor, we need to ask ourselves the following questions:

1) does this person have legal rights on the products or services he provides to you, or is he actually stealing them? What allows him to behave this way in this case? Who actually owns these products or services?

2) do other people besides you have a similar opportunity? Is the service or opportunity distributed fairly and does everyone in the organization have equal access to it?

The situation with illegal or immoral obtaining of certain goods or services becomes more complicated if we're talking about not about personal interests, but about the interests of the organization. Is it acceptable to violate the rules in order to make a profitable and useful transaction, for example, register an organization, open a new business, or get what you are entitled to by law? The moral justification in this case is often that behind all this there are the interests of other people: employees of the enterprise, your future clients, consumers of your future product or service, etc. One of the most well-known manifestations of the “ethics of advantageous connections” is a bribe. From a moral point of view, it is especially important to draw a line between hidden form bribes and gifts. Is, for example, a hidden form of bribe an invitation to a banquet, a trip to a sanatorium, payment of joint tourist trip or, finally, a small gift from a company that would like to conclude a lucrative contract with you?

Ethical recommendations on this issue should first of all take into account the moral and cultural traditions of a particular country. There are at least three types of cultural traditions that underlie modern business operations:

1) "vicious circle"(mutual responsibility),

2) a system of mutual services and 3) exchange of gifts.

In countries with underdeveloped economies and low culture business relations Most people believe that belonging to a certain "closed circle" of relatives, friends and close colleagues implies mutual protection and promotion of mutual prosperity. Anyone outside this circle is an “outsider” whose intentions must be questioned. This is why businessmen (and government officials) prefer to deal with people they know and trust.

In a reciprocal quid pro quo system, a gift or favor obliges the recipient to return it sometime in the future, but with "interest." And when the favor is returned, the donor is obliged to repay it with an even greater favor. Thus, the system of mutual obligations and exchange of services provides access to a closed circle proxies, becoming the basis for conducting business transactions. The cultural tradition, closely related to the system of mutual favors, involves primarily the giving of gifts. Giving or receiving a gift in business relationships means more than friendship. This is a sign of corporate identity that makes a businessman “one of our own” and opens up the prospect of profitable deals. By engaging in the traditional exchange of gifts and services and entering a “vicious circle,” a businessman can gain trust, facilitate access to the local market for goods and technologies, and minimize risk in a foreign environment.

The difficulty with participating in traditional gift exchanges is learning to differentiate between gifts and bribes. Having asked you for a loan, is your business partner Is it extortion or is he pushing you to join a mutual favor system? The criteria may be: a) the size of the amount (the smaller the amount, the less it looks like a bribe); b) the purpose of the money (if the money is supposed to be transferred to a third party, especially one with power, then this is most likely a bribe). In such cases, it is usually advised not to give money to private individuals, but to transfer grants for the construction of hospitals and schools, providing technical and expert assistance in organizing public works. The most reliable moral criterion for the acceptability of reciprocal favors is their openness, which best dispels outside suspicions about the motives and actions of companies and individuals and creates trust between business and society.

· The "sexual harassment" dilemma. Women working in business often face the problem of sexual harassment. One reason for this is the particularly intimate and confidential nature of business transactions, as well as the practice of mutual favors, which to some extent extends to sexual relations. At the same time, sexual harassment is often presented as a particularly careful, caring and sophisticated form of attitude towards a woman, as a kind of justified courtship that introduces elements of feminist ethics into traditional relations between the sexes. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sexual harassment is unprovoked sexual advances, solicitation of favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed at an employee that affects his or her performance and career. Research shows that most sexual harassment is directed from a superior to a subordinate.

Culture

You are a very experienced doctor, and you have five dying patients on your hands, each of whom needs different organ transplants in order to survive. Unfortunately, in currently there is not a single organ available for transplantation. It so happens that there is another 6 person who is dying from a fatal disease, and if he is not treated, he will die much earlier than the others. If the sixth patient dies, you can use his organs to save five others. However, you have a medicine at your disposal that can save the life of the sixth patient. You:

Wait until the sixth patient dies and then use his organs for transplantation;

You will save the life of the sixth patient, while others will not receive the organs they need.

If you chose the second option, then, knowing that the medicine would only slightly delay the date of his death, would you still do the same? Why?

8. Robber Robin Hood

You witnessed a man rob a bank, but then he did something unusual and unexpected with the money. He handed them over to Orphanage, who lived very poorly, was dilapidated and was deprived proper nutrition, appropriate care, water and amenities. This money greatly benefited the orphanage, and it went from poor to prosperous. You:

Call the police, although they will probably take the money from the orphanage;

You won't do anything if you leave both the robber and the orphanage alone.

7. Friend's wedding

Your best friend or a friend is getting married. The ceremony will begin in one hour, however, on the eve of coming to the wedding, you found out that your friend’s chosen one (chosen one) had connections on the side. If your friend connects his life with this person, he is unlikely to be faithful, but on the other hand, if you tell him about this, you will upset the wedding. Can you tell your friend what you found out or not?

6. Plagiarism of the report

You are the head of the student council and are faced with making a difficult decision regarding one of the graduates. This girl has always been a worthy student. Throughout all her years of study, she received only high grades, she has many friends, and ideal behavior. However, towards the end of the school year, she fell ill and did not attend school for some time. She missed three weeks of classes, and when she returned, she was informed that in one of the subjects she was not enough to graduate with excellent marks. She was so desperate that, having found a report on the necessary topic on the Internet, she passed it off as her own. Her teacher caught her doing this and sent her to you. If you decide that it is plagiarism, then she will not receive a high grade, and therefore will not be able to qualify for budget education at the university of her dreams. What would you do?

5. Fountain of Youth

Your loved one is immortal because he and his family drank from the fountain of youth, unsuspectingly. You love him very much and know that this is your destiny. However, the only way staying with him is also drinking from the fountain of youth. But if you do this, all your family and friends, as well as all your acquaintances, will grow old and eventually die. On the other hand, if you do not drink from the spring, you will grow old and eventually die, and the person you are with will never see you again and will be condemned to eternal loneliness. Which would you choose?

4. Concentration camp

You are a concentration camp prisoner. The sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and tells you to push the stool out from under him. He tells you that if you don't do this, he will kill your other son, who is another innocent prisoner. You have no doubt that he will do exactly as he says. What will you do?

3. Son and granddaughter

Much to your horror, your son lies tied up on the tracks as the train approaches. It so happens that you have time to use the switch and direct the train in the other direction, thereby saving your son. However, on the other side lies the bound granddaughter, the daughter of this particular son of yours. Your son begs you not to kill his daughter or touch the switch. What will you do?

2. Sacrifice of a son

A very evil, psychologically unstable man tried to kill your son when he was very young, but then, having killed the child's uncle and aunt who were looking after him, he never got to the baby. After the murder, you fled into hiding, but now you have discovered that the prophecy has come true, and that part of the killer's soul has moved into your child. In order to overcome this evil and defeat this man, your son must go to him and allow himself to be killed. Otherwise, after some time, your son, with part of the soul of a villain, may himself become one. The son courageously accepts his fate and decides to go to the villain in order to bring peace. You as a parent:

Hold him because you feel you have to protect him;

Accept his choice.

1. Friendship

Jim works at large company, he is responsible for hiring employees. His friend Paul applied for a job, but there are several people who are more qualified than Paul and have more high level knowledge and skills. Jim wants to give this position to Paul, however, he feels guilty because he should be impartial. He tells himself that this is the essence of morality. However, he soon changed his mind and decided that friendship gave the moral right to be partial in some matters. So he gives the position to Paul. Was he right?