What does it mean to be a moral person: arguments for an essay, essay. Morality and ethics: comparison

Ideas about morality in different countries

Morality is an unspoken code that guides the life of society. In different countries, the concepts of “good”, “evil”, “bad”, “shameful”, “good”, “right”, etc. are interpreted differently.

What does it mean to be a moral person, for example, in Thailand? It is enough not to discuss out loud the life of the royal family, especially the actions of the king. In Russia, anyone can express their opinion about the personality and life of the president. From the point of view of Islam, a person who clearly follows the rules of Sharia is considered moral. The measure of morality is the motivation of his actions: sincere, selfish or hypocritical. Since ancient times, Jews and Christians believed that morality was sent by God and is a set of rules (10 commandments). It is quite natural that to the question of what it means to be moral, representatives of these societies will give different answers, corresponding to a specific culture and morality. But they will also have something in common: all cultures recognize that a moral person follows the laws and guidelines of the ethics that are accepted in a certain society, and never violates the laws (legal and moral) accepted in his environment. This is a correct but narrow understanding of morality. But there are also universal human values ​​in the world that do not depend on the characteristics of a particular culture. And from this point of view, the answer to the question of what it means to be a moral person will sound completely different.

Historical excursion

To understand what morality or moral standards are, we need a short historical excursion. The concept of morality as such was proposed by the ancient Roman politician and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43). The term comes from the Latin moralitas, which translates as “morality”. By the way, this word is to some extent consonant with the Latin mores, which means “behavior.” Thus, already in the terminology itself there is a relationship between human behavior and morality.

Of course, this does not mean that before Cicero no one asked questions of morality, did not try to understand what it is and whether there are any rules of morality that are common to all people. In this regard, the observations of the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho (360-275) are very interesting. Let us immediately make a reservation that Pyrrho personally did not write philosophical treatises and did not record his observations in any way. Therefore, we can judge his views only from the notes of his contemporaries and the works of later authors who became interested in his legacy.

It is believed that it was Pyrrho who came up with the idea that there is no reason to consider some norms of behavior more correct for everyone, and some less correct. What is considered immoral here and now may be the norm for another time and society with other traditions and ways of life. This idea is referred to by the author of the scientific work What did Pyrrho Think about the Nature of the Divine and the Good? (“What did Pyrrho think about the nature of the Divine and the Good?”) [R. Bett, 1994].

In principle, this is so, and if modern animal defenders could see the ancient hunt for mammoths alive, they would certainly brand such an activity with shame, leaving our distant ancestors with only the tops and roots of various plants for food.

These views, which question the very existence of reasons to consider something right or wrong, eventually became the basis of the principle of moral relativism, which proclaims that absolute good and evil do not exist, just as there is no single objective criterion of morality. The concept of “moral relativism” has roots in Latin and comes from the Latin relativus, which translates as “relative.” You can read more about the principle of moral relativism in the article “Moral relativism” [A. Kruglov, 2011].

Moral nihilism is ideologically close to moral relativism. The only difference is the greater radicalism of the postulates. Thus, moral nihilism does not recognize not only the absolute interpretation of good or evil, but even the possibility of subjective assessment of something as bad or good. From the point of view of moral nihilism, morality is only a set of conditional rules, following which you can adapt to society, achieve some success and get some material benefits. In principle, we cannot talk about any logical justification for the principles of morality.

There is, of course, some truth in this, but everything is good in moderation. Moral relativism and moral nihilism in extreme forms lead to a philosophy of permissiveness, devalue morality as such and can lead to legal problems. This topic is touched upon in the work La bureaucratie rationelle et la crise de la culture (“Rational bureaucracy and the cultural crisis”) [V. Porus, 2013].

In turn, moral relativism is opposed by moral absolutism, according to which certain absolute moral norms exist; all that remains is to find them and strictly follow them. This is not always possible, as is clearly shown in the article Moral Absolutism and the Problem of Hard Cases [T. McConnell, 1981]. In addition, you can read about the vicissitudes of the scientific search for a solution to the problem in the work “Moral absolutism: general characteristics and modern approaches” [G. Mehed, 2015].

In a sense, the principle of moral universalism or moral objectivism echoes moral absolutism. The key idea is that the creation of a system of moral values ​​that is universal and independent of country, nation, religion, gender, race is not only possible, but also necessary. In a sense, the principle of moral universalism is embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 [UN, 1948]. At a minimum, this document takes into account the basic principles of the rights and freedoms of citizens.

So, we have understood in the most general form the basic approaches to the issue of morality and found out that morality and human behavior are closely interrelated. We are now ready to try to obtain a general understanding of morality.

Assessing Moral Attitudes

Although moral attitudes are an integral part of the thought process, you must have a good understanding of your own attitudes in order to communicate effectively with other people. Here are some tips for adjusting your settings.

– Remember that every person is unique. The behavior of one person cannot be judged by the behavior of millions. Remember that every employee you work with and every client you serve is different. The better you understand other people, the more effectively you can communicate with them.

Universal morality and ethics

Moral and moral values ​​are inherent not only in a particular society, but also in a particular person. They can change over time: a person and society develop, traditions and foundations change, new relationships arise. However, all peoples, regardless of the time of their residence on Earth, culture, religion and government, have absolute moral truths. Prohibitions against murder and theft are just two examples of universal human values.

They are necessary for the prosperity of every society and for the peaceful coexistence of peoples with different religions and cultures. From this point of view, the answer to the question of what it means to be a moral person will sound somewhat different. Suppose someone follows the laws (written and unwritten), does not swear on the streets, does not kill animals and people, does not disturb public order because it is prohibited or not accepted. Naturally, this person can be called moral. But if someone does the same out of his own convictions, then he is considered deeply moral. What does it mean to be a moral person? Follow the prescribed principles and rules to avoid condemnation or punishment. What does it mean to be a moral person? Understand the meaning of values ​​that are close to all people, follow morality not out of fear, but out of conviction.

What is morality?

Morality is a set of socially accepted ideas about good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral. In accordance with these ideas, moral norms presuppose a certain set of rules of behavior in society. This interpretation and definition is precisely the source of disagreement and controversy regarding what morality should be in society and what rules can be considered correct.

Firstly, any society is heterogeneous, at least in terms of its age and social composition. What may be acceptable among people with little education and hard physical labor is unacceptable among the elite. What is the norm among teenagers will be perceived with misunderstanding among adults. Moreover, typical correspondences and connections, formed due to cultural patterns in the mass consciousness, often make it possible to identify a particular situation.

An example is a curious case at the Lincolnshire Zoo (UK), where five parrots during quarantine not only mastered the profanity used by the staff, but also learned to imitate the human laughter that they heard after every obscene word. In this case, it is not the situation itself that is of interest, but the comment of the zoo director, who compared what is happening to “a club for older workers, where everyone laughs and swears” [MK.ru, 2020]. As we understand, if he had called it all a club of young scientists, no one would have understood him.

Secondly, some kind of universal social morality for all times is impossible due to the fact that society is constantly developing and changing, and the moral norms accepted in society are also changing. What was unacceptable in the 19th century does not raise questions in the 21st century, and in a variety of areas. And we’re not even talking about the fact that in the 19th century a girl from a noble family could not “go out” without a corset, but in the 21st century you can easily wear miniskirts, including to school and to work. In the 19th century, the very fact of girls attending a higher educational institution raised many questions.

Let us give as an example the biography of the famous Italian doctor, teacher and psychologist Maria Montessori (1870-1952). She was denied admission to a technical school because only young men could study there, and they did not immediately agree to admit her to the medical faculty, because in Italy in the 19th century the profession of a doctor was purely male [ANO “Montessori System”, 2020]. Today this seems wild, because now among doctors there have long been more women than men, and among engineers of various specializations there are also quite a lot of women.

And finally, for different types of society, moral standards differ markedly depending on traditions and the dominant religion. It seems that there is no need to explain for a long time here and now how the traditional clothing of an Eastern woman differs from the everyday style of a European one, how much easier access to education is in developed countries than in the countries of the “third world”, and what are the boundaries of what is permitted “with us” and “with them” " Moreover, the question may arise of violating not only moral norms, but also legal norms, because law and morality “among them” are connected in the most direct way.

As an example, let us cite the sensational news from the United Arab Emirates in April 2022, where 12 girls were arrested for taking photographs without clothes from the back [BBC, 2021]. Even in a country quite open to European tourists like the UAE, this is sufficient grounds for criminal prosecution, despite the fact that the photography took place without witnesses. In any other European state, this would only outrage pensioners and religiously minded citizens. For the rest, it is entirely enough that such photo sessions do not take place on a public beach and in the presence of minors.

We see that morality can be represented as a set of ideas accepted in society about good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral. However, these ideas and the rules of behavior that follow from them cannot be established once and for all, because society and the people living in it change over time.

Moreover, these rules cannot be the same for everyone, even within the confines of today and the current moment, because different traditions and ideas about moral standards have developed in different states. And even within the same country, in different social strata, ideas about the boundaries of what is acceptable may vary. Let us repeat once again the main reasons why uniform moral standards for everyone and forever are impossible:

• Differences in traditions for different peoples and states.
• Heterogeneity of society within one country and nation.
• Dynamic development of society in time and historical perspective.

We have already mentioned above that in the 19th century a girl from a noble family could not “go out into society” without a corset, but this rule did not apply to girls from ordinary families engaged in manual labor, because the corset hindered movement and interfered with work.

One can also recall the phrases that have become stable, such as “bourgeois morality”, “Christian morality”. Intuitively, we all understand that the behavioral attitudes of a businessman differ from what is considered correct by a grandmother who attends church every Sunday, celebrates all church holidays and fasts, sometimes for the completely banal reason of lack of money for food. Actually, society does not hide this - that for some there are “10 commandments”, while for others the main thing is profit and, at best, elements of social responsibility of business.

Nevertheless, despite all the differences in times, peoples, religions and traditions, attempts to formulate a set of universal moral principles have been made constantly throughout history, including in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 [UN, 1948 ]. For what? And is this really necessary? To answer this question, we need to understand why we need morality in principle.

The structure of morality

The highest value is a person’s life, his attitude towards his neighbors and the world as a whole. value series is built in relation to this guideline : love, peaceful coexistence, altruism, honesty, responsibility, courage, desire for self-improvement, hard work, etc.

It should be noted that this hierarchy can change in the process of personality development - for example, teenagers who do not fully understand the significance of their actions may commit a crime and harm the lives of other people just for the sake of the approval of their peers. Or, for example, a sense of responsibility - it also manifests itself with varying strength, depending on age, marital status and place in society.

This is interesting: the meaning of the term immoral, who is an immoral person?

It is important to form the correct value system in childhood, convincing with words and personal example.

Society promotes an idealized value system, that is, one in which, if followed, a person will make as few mistakes as possible in relationships with others. However, everyone has the right to choose - to follow this system or to be an adherent of another, if, of course, it does not cross the boundaries of legal norms. This decision is called a moral choice.

What is morality?

The modern concept of “morality” appears to each person differently, but carries the same meaning. The formation of internal ideas and decisions in the subconscious originates from it, and social position is built on it. The society in which we live is accustomed to dictating its own rules, but this does not mean that everyone is obliged to follow them, because everyone has the right to be an individual.

Often people choose a partial deviation from their moral values ​​in favor of a template and live their lives according to someone else's example. This leads to some disappointments, because you can lose the best years in finding yourself. Proper upbringing from a very young age makes a big impact on a person’s future fate. Considering what morality is, we can highlight some qualities inherent in it:

• kindness;
• compassion;
• honesty;
• sincerity;
• reliability;
• hard work;
• peacefulness.

Morality and moral values

Our society has increasingly come to believe that moral values ​​are a relic of the past. To achieve their goals, many go over their heads and such actions are completely contrary to the old days. Such a society cannot be called healthy and perhaps it is doomed to a meaningless existence. Fortunately, not everyone falls into the social funnel and the majority still remain honest and decent.

While searching for the meaning of life, a person develops his character and also develops high morality. Everything that parents have raised in a person can disappear over time or change in any direction. The world around us adjusts past values, perceptions and, in general, attitudes towards oneself and people, to create a comfortable existence. Now spiritual changes occur with the desire to earn more money and become financially independent.

Morality in psychology

Both ordinary people and psychologists have their own concepts of morality, from their own point of view, which can be completely different and never overlap, even if they are very similar. Each of the subspecies originates in the inner world of a person, his upbringing and values. The human psyche is divided by experts into two societies, each of which pursues its own goal:

1. Collective values ​​are herd instincts that, with their own world, can unite against the rest.
2. Compassionate values ​​are based on caring for one's neighbor for the benefit of any society.

Any objective morality is aimed at finding oneself as a socially secure, mature person. Psychologists believe that from birth a person is assigned to the first or second subgroup, and this is controlled by the individuals living with him and raising him. In the process of growing up and independently perceiving the world, re-education rarely occurs. If this does happen, then people who have changed themselves have very high fortitude and can go through any difficulties without changing themselves.

Moral education

A person is born into society, therefore, from childhood he absorbs its morals. Unfortunately, it often happens that local ethics begin to prevail over universal human values.

And then Muslims oppose Christians, the crusaders try to instill their beliefs with the help of the sword, some countries bring their own “democracy” to their neighbors, without being interested in their beliefs. In today's turbulent world, it is especially important to instill moral and ethical foundations in a child from childhood.

Functions of morality

The main functions of morality include:

• Educational - forms the right outlook on life, is able to influence a person, regardless of his age. The educational function is one of the main ones in the process of personality development.
• Regulatory - dictates the basic norms of behavior in society.
• Evaluative - gives an understanding of everything that happens from the position of division into good and evil. Answers the questions: What should and should not be done? What should you do in different situations? Which actions are praised and which are condemned?
• Controlling - allows you to draw a conclusion about the morality of actions and control them on the part of conscience and society.
• Integrating - unites everyone with common moral principles, its task is to preserve unity and peace in society, as well as the spirituality of everyone.

Rules of morality

There are many rules that characterize morality, and we follow them almost without noticing it. Acting at the subconscious level, a person brings his mood, achievements, victories and much more into the world. Such formulations very closely embody what morality means in all its incarnations. Relationships in the world should be based on reciprocity for a comfortable existence.

By accepting these conditions, a person can learn to be kinder, more sociable and responsive, and a society consisting of such people will be similar to the ideal. Some countries are achieving this situation, and their number of crimes is significantly reduced, orphanages are closed as unnecessary, and so on. In addition to the golden rule, you can consider others, such as:

• sincere conversations;
• calling by name;
• respect;
• attention;
• smile;
• good nature.

What does the “golden” rule of morality sound like?

The basis of peace and culture is the golden rule of morality, which sounds like this: treat people as you would like them to treat you, or do not do to others what you do not want to receive for yourself. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to follow this, and this leads to an increase in the number of crimes and aggression in society. The rule tells people how to behave in any situation; you just have to ask yourself the question, how would you like it? The most important thing is that the solution to the problem is not dictated by society, but by the person himself.

Special item

To this end, in 19 regions of the Russian Federation, a new subject “Fundamentals of Religious Cultures and Secular Ethics” (FRCSE) has been introduced into the school curriculum. What does it mean to be moral? What values ​​are close to people around the world? What moral values ​​underlie different religions? Why should people adhere to universal human values? Teachers teaching a new subject try to answer these and other questions. It is designed to develop motivation for conscious moral behavior, which is based on the ability to make the right and free moral choice.

Why are values ​​needed?

The direction of moral values ​​is determined by a person’s upbringing from an early age. Values ​​can be negative and positive.

Each nation has developed standard moral foundations that form a civilized society: in it, private benefits obtained at the expense of other people are lower in importance than the well-being of the entire society.

Through moral principles, statements and actions are regulated before they are spoken/committed. These principles recommend taking into account the rights and interests of other members of society.

Note! If the discrepancy in the spiritual values ​​of two people is too significant, then their interaction with each other can develop into a serious conflict.

Generalized ideas of morality are expressed in the concepts of evil and good, distinguishing between morality and its absence. Traditionally, good means benefit to society, but this concept is relative - in certain eras the meaning attached to it has changed.

Compliance with the canons and traditions accepted in society, personal internal priorities allows a person to live harmoniously and balanced in society. If he adheres to values ​​and rules that run counter to the standard ones in a given society, then his life becomes isolated and isolated. When a person commits humiliating, evil acts, society expresses its disapproval and reproaches him.

By observing moral principles, a person leads a comfortable life in society, carries out noble and useful actions, his conscience is not burdened with anything.

This is interesting! How the natural and social essence manifests itself in a person

Let's sum it up

So what does it mean to be a moral person? This means:

• Adhere to the morals accepted in a particular society.
• Be prepared to make the right and informed moral choice.
• Consciously adhere to universal human values.
• Be guided in your behavior by these values.
• Be able to answer for immoral or immoral actions.
• Understand that only adherence to moral principles helps to live spiritually in society, avoid wars, and develop.

Tyrants, dictators, despots, some modern politicians strive to dominate and achieve their own goals, ignoring moral principles and moral laws. Societies headed by such rulers are degrading. Tyrants, having reached the top, remain there alone.

What does it mean to truly be moral?

But this was morality in the narrow sense. If we talk about universal human values, the situation here will be somewhat different, because a moral person is far from being moral. Many people consider the words “morality” and “morality” to be synonymous, but there is one significant difference between them. A moral person simply formally follows the norms that are accepted in a particular society. A moral person not only follows the rules, but agrees with them internally. He will not kill a dog or cat, not because it is prohibited by law, but because he understands that he has no right to take the life of another creature. He will not steal not because he is afraid that he will be caught and punished, but because he understands that, perhaps, the stolen thing may be very necessary for the one from whom he steals it, etc. Thus, there is a whole abyss between a moral and moral person, since the first formally follows the rules, and the second understands their meaning and, being above specific moral standards, lives according to universal, and not local, principles. By the way, I suggest you look at moral issues from such an interesting point of view.

Sources used:

• https://studref.com/484169/filosofiya/moralnyy
• https://tandem-psy.ru/pro-lichnost/moralnyj-princip-eto.html

Why should I be moral?

We still have an important problem to solve regarding relationships at the small group level, and so I would like to return to the foundations of the most important responsibilities of the individual and ask the question: “Why should I be moral?” What is the basis of my duties and duty to my neighbors? This question is often posed to humanists, on the one hand, believers, and on the other, skeptics. Theists claim to have solved the problem of duty; we must obey moral rules because God has ordained so. This is considered to be the justification of moral duty, providing its normative force. Without it, they insist, we are deprived of any basis for moral behavior. Naturalists and humanists, at first glance, find themselves in a difficult position here. However, we have already considered the incorrectness caused by this thesis. It is associated with insufficient evidence of the existence of God. Ultimately, religious beliefs have to be based on faith. The idea of ​​God as the basis of ethics forces skepticism to take a step back and refuse to make any argument for or against human morality. However, many people who profess to believe in God neglect moral responsibilities and actually violate moral principles. The moral potential of faith in God has not stood the test of time, has largely exhausted itself, and does not represent a sufficiently obvious basis for moral behavior at the present stage of world civilization.

In addition, fear of punishment or hope of retribution can hardly be recognized as an ethical basis for following divine commandments. In fact, in some sense the theistic argument is immoral, since it goes beyond consciousness and points to an authoritarian, non-moral basis for the ethical. Thus, theism steps aside from the content and essence of the moral imperative. Theistic morality is inadequate because moral duty is important in itself and for itself. It does not require any a priori premises. To attempt to buttress moral obligation by reference to a more fundamental and non-moral basis is to deceive our deepest moral intuitions.

The problem we face here is this: can we justify responsibility within its own boundaries, on purely ethical grounds, without appeal to something independent or a priori? The ethical skeptic denies this possibility. He is looking for the “ultimate” basis for moral behavior and cannot find anything. But he also criticizes the theistic explanation of the phenomenon of moral obligation, since he believes that there is no necessary deductive connection between God and our moral obligations. The theist, in his opinion, leaves the binding nature of the obligation unproven. The skeptic is unconvinced by the theist's arguments and refuses to accept the claim that divine commandments are morally binding.

However, the skeptic also turns his skepticism against ethical naturalism and humanism, since he does not see the possibility of deducing the “ought” from the “is” without a leap in argumentation. The skeptic longs to obtain the first premise and a clear justification for the “should.” Demanding what cannot be found, he throws up his hands in a fit of subjectivist despair. He asks the question "why?" ad infinitum* and therefore cannot find evidence, remaining dissatisfied with any answer provided to him. “Why is this good?” “Why is this necessary?” - he asks endlessly.

Let's look at this problem with a question: what does this question mean? I confess that in the traditional formulation of the question: “Why should I be moral?” I do not find much meaning. If the question here is about the universal meaning of what should be, then it cannot be answered. As a question of a general nature, an abstract question, it seems to me little intelligible. Moreover, it hides the underlying “quest for certainty,” as John Dewey called the case when what is being asked cannot, in principle, be found, since every answer is always followed by the question: why?

I dare say that this question should be formulated more specifically: “Why should I perform this duty or this duty?” At least for a question formulated in this way there is a specific referent, and therefore an adequate (identifiable) answer can be found here. “Why should I pay back the money I borrowed from my friend?”, “Why should I be truthful with my clients?”, “Why shouldn’t I rob the old lady in the back alley?” Each of these questions is contextual. However, each of them is considered and discussed in specific empirical terms.

Let's look at the first question. Let's say your friend lent you money when you asked her for it, and now she demands it back because she herself is in need. This requirement is made in the context of a specific situation and you are accordingly obligated to satisfy it. In many cases, the relevant contextual reasons are sufficient and no reasonable person would challenge them. Of course, one can ask: “Why should people pay back their debts?” If someone asks this philosophical question, we may smile or be amazed, and assume that it is a hoax, or that the person has no sense of morality, or, finally, that he is weak-minded. Such an individual may stop at the infantile level of moral development and truly lack the intelligence to understand the elementary acts of moral behavior. But more seriously, he may lack genuine empathy for the interests or needs of others. In this case, he turns out to be morally ignorant. However, we can try to show him his error. Where should we start? What is called into question here is the prima facie applicability of the universal rules and moral qualities that we derive from experience. The “Keep your promises” rule is reinforced by another rule - “Pay your debts.” Both of them are relevant to the above situation. Of course we can prove the merits of these general principles. If they are constantly violated, then no one will want to lend anything to another. All lending will stop, trust between people will disappear. The consequences of this should be a general crisis of trust and the collapse of human relationships.

In an argument with a moral skeptic who asks whether he is obligated to repay his girlfriend, we must first ask whether he borrowed the money. If he says yes, we must then ask him if he agreed to return them. If he answers yes again, we should say, “That is sufficient reason for you to return the money.” In this situation, his duty is strengthened by the fact that an additional obligation was imposed on him as a friend. Of course, in this situation circumstances may arise that excuse him, and he can point to them. He may not have any money, or he may be in a terrible situation and hopes that his girlfriend will understand this and forgive him the debt. If she is his friend, then most likely she will easily meet him halfway. She may have borrowed money from him in the past and couldn't pay it back. It is clear that the argumentation at this level is sufficient and obvious. There is no need to appeal to God or metaphysics to resolve this moral dilemma. To strengthen the argumentation system that arises here, we can turn to statements of the following order and formulate an ethical principle: “People should pay back their debts.” But, as we have seen, this principle is not absolute, but is only a conditional general obligation. A promise to keep your word or return money can be taken back if other principles conflict with it. For example, perhaps I cannot pay back a debt because I gave money to another person close to me who is seriously ill and in great need. A debt must be repaid if this does not conflict with the fulfillment of a higher duty or good. All this is at least provable.

However, the theist and skeptic can join forces and pedantically ask: “On what basis do we submit to any ethical principle at all? Why don't we reject them all? On what basis should we believe in morality? Prove to me that one should behave morally.” These questions are as old as philosophy. In Plato's Republic, Glaucon and Adeimantus ask Socrates the same question: can you prove that justice, morality or virtue are truly good, not for those instrumental or utilitarian reasons that they lead to a decent life and are therefore suitable, but in themselves and by yourself? What is my answer to this question? Again, this question does not arise in everyday life, since responsibilities are concrete and grow out of our social roles, the claims and demands placed on us, our past obligations and our future expectations. And yet, the one who asks such a question looks to the root of moral life. Such questions may arise from desperate people who find themselves in opposition to established standards of life and are ready to trample all generally accepted rules and decency. Or they can be asked by a student of philosophy seeking an epistemological (gnoseological) guarantee of the whole variety of rights, duties and obligations.

A distinction must be made between cause and motive. Arguments can be found to justify morality, but they will not necessarily be psychologically convincing to the individual, who may still ask, “Why be moral?” My answer is that the question is meaningless unless it references a specific requirement. Moral rules, benefits, rights, duties, responsibilities and duties are based on a person's previous obligations and attachments and his place in the system of social roles and relationships. As a prima facie matter, general principles and general moral rules exist and operate within these spheres of human activity. At the same time, they arise in our consciousness as imperatives: be truthful, do not steal or cause suffering to others, be kind and helpful to others. Why? Because as we live together, we learn that there must be rules governing our expectations and responsibilities. Basic moral rules are the lubricant that makes harmonious social interactions possible. Each of these rules is tested by its consequences in our action. Their denial leads to chaos and disorder.

In response to this, the question may be asked: “Why should I worry about harmonious social interactions?” The answer is twofold. First, because it is in each person's own interest, since virtually everything a person wants and needs affects other people. Therefore, there must be a harmonious and friendly relationship between people. There are instrumental and pragmatic considerations that a prudent person will accept on purely rational grounds. Such a person takes on the role of an impartial observer and recognizes the commonality of moral deliberation, at least on prima facie grounds. A general principle is not a real duty, for what we ought to do depends on a balanced consideration of all the factors in a particular practical situation.

Secondly, ethics cannot be based solely on selfish considerations. If this were so, it might lead us to Machiavellianism, which cleverly uses morality for its own selfish interests and rejects it when conditions allow it. There is a deeper aspect to ethical life: moral consciousness is rooted in our nature as human beings. The individual’s attitude towards himself and others, built into social life, is determined by his socio-biological roots and the entire cultural context. This is reflected in our emotions. We are actually or potentially empathetic towards others. This means that social, and not just self-interest, motivates our behavior. Lovers involuntarily experience an empathic attitude towards each other. Two friends realize their altruistic feelings through companionship and common interests. A mother feels a deep sense of love for her child. Usually we tend to respect the work of a butcher, a baker or a maker of candlesticks.

If a person does not feel his duties and responsibilities, he thereby demonstrates moral blindness and the general underdevelopment of his cognitive abilities. Some people have absolutely no aptitude for mathematics. They have difficulty understanding geometric proofs. We can first ask them to construct a syllogism, and if they cannot understand what a syllogism is, then I dare to think that we have no choice but to complete it ourselves. The syllogism: “if a = b and b=c, then a=c” is quite simple, and we assume that almost any student will understand it, although more complex mathematical reasoning is not accessible to everyone.

The same is true of empirical questions by which we try to evaluate the evidence of a factual statement. In relation to elementary descriptive sentences there must be an agreement such as, say, that if “it is raining outside,” this can be verified by simple observation. More complex empirical hypotheses or theories are open to debate as to whether they are sufficiently obvious, but this hardly applies to empirical sense data. Similar reasoning applies to demonstrating the reality of elementary moral duties. If a child or adult does not understand that they should not lie and cause senseless suffering to another person, then they are either morally underdeveloped (usually due to psychological or physiological defects) or lack the basic ability to understand morality, which is so necessary for social compatibility. We can reach a dead end when dealing with a person who for some reason has a low MQ (moral quotient).

This problem may seem confusing due to the fact that people's moral abilities are not the same. For some people, they may be minor and appear only in relation to loved ones. In addition, within the individual, ethical motives collide with other impulses and temptations and are, as it were, extinguished by them.

To begin with, we will consider the following theoretical provisions sufficient:

1. Moral behavior constitutes only one dimension of our nature as social animals. 1. Ontogenetically, moral motivation is largely potential and develops only under optimal conditions. There are stages of moral growth. 3. The moral development of an individual can be disrupted, restrained or suppressed by various influences and causes. 4. Various deviations from the norms of moral empathy may arise for subtle biological, psychological or social reasons. 5. The development of moral sense and social interest depends on the growth of cognitive abilities and a sense of compassion.

Lorenz Kohlberg, Jean Piaget, Abraham Maslow and other psychologists argued that there are stages of moral development, however, it is controversial whether the actually existing stages of this development correspond to the classifications they propose. I want to present my analysis of the phases of growth and development, although the order of development may vary from person to person. (A more complete discussion of this problem is presented in Chapter Seven.) However, the most significant question here is about the reasons for the absence of the later (last or highest) phases of moral development in some people.

Infantile amorality. People endowed with it lack a sense of the rightness and wrongness of moral judgment or behavior. They live within the narrow confines of their own pleasure - almost like children, unable or unwilling to adapt to others. There is no moral awareness. This stage is characteristic only of psychotics or people suffering from severe mental disabilities. Such individuals cannot be fully socialized.

Obedience to rules. Here, moral behavior is based primarily on obedience to rules and customs imposed and reinforced by social demands.

Any deviation from the law is severely punished. The moral code is conventional, and a person learns to obey it in the same way as he obeys the law. He is rewarded for fulfilling his duties and punished for deviating from them. The relationship between student and teacher is of the nature of passive submission to authority. Many religious moral teachings do not go beyond this authoritarian stage. Everyone must go through this phase of learning, especially when it comes to learning basic moral rules.

Moral feelings for others. At this stage, a normal person develops a concern for the needs of others, a respect for moral rules and a desire to fulfill them. Such a person is effective on an interpersonal level, she is able to love and have friends. But moral development can stop at this level, especially if a person’s psychophysiological development is inhibited and his basic needs are deformed. Moral attitude towards others is a normative expression of the social nature of people. It may be reduced or absent in people with various disabilities. In such cases, the motivation for ethical behavior is very difficult to stimulate. The development of empathy at an early age is probably the best stimulus for the growth of genuine moral sympathy.

The ethics of self-interest. The decision to act can be made solely on the basis of considerations of one’s own benefit. The ethical subject rationally calculates future behavior, sometimes neglecting general ethical principles, especially if he believes that he can avoid censure. Very few are free from such temptation. Those who are exposed to it to a significant degree achieve special ingenuity in obtaining their own benefit. However, the decision to restrain selfish motives and abide by some kind of cooperative agreement may be made out of consideration for one's own long-term well-being. In such a case, the egoistic person adheres firmly to ethical rules only because his main goal is to achieve his own long-term happiness. Moral excellence is often seen as a way of maximizing one's personal goods. Such people may lack any moral attitude towards others; they are predominantly self-centered. However, selfishness does not necessarily imply a lack of moral concern for others.

Union of moral feeling and rational self-interest. At this level, there is a genuine sense of empathy and loving concern for others. Love for one's family, sports team, clan or nation, all of this can constitute self-interest. They want their social group to prosper even when this can be achieved at the expense of other social groups. Here altruism finds fertile ground in personal and social attachments and connections.

Humanistic ethics. A fully developed range of moral principles and attitudes includes concern for the broader community of people on a more universal moral basis. It is able to overcome the level of relationships of a small group and includes the following components:

– adherence to general ethical principles and refusal to violate them without good reason; – an internal feeling of moral sympathy and beneficence, reluctance to cause morally unjustified harm to other people; – reason is used as a regulator of a person’s moral behavior in accordance with the ideal of perfection. It may involve self-interested considerations, but it also involves looking out for the interests of one's group; – awareness of the need to extend moral attitudes beyond relatively limited social spheres to a wider community of people. Such aspiration is an expression of ethical concern for the preservation and well-being of the global community and humanity as a whole.