Social science report on the topic “Morality and morality in modern society”

February 22, 2022 It would seem that the word morality is well-known, but not everyone can immediately answer: what is it? Nevertheless, every educated person understands and can argue that the presence of such a component of human relations as morality is the key to the prosperity of society. Let's try to formulate this concept, and also figure out why morality is needed.

Society has formed certain rules of behavior, an understanding of the boundaries of good and evil. Compliance with these rules is not mandatory for members of society, however, in order for an individual to successfully integrate into this society, these rules will have to be observed. The morality of a European will most likely run counter to the morality of a representative of, for example, Muslim states.

What is morality?

Morality is a set of ideas about good and evil, as well as rules of behavior that are generally followed in a certain society based on these ideas. While compliance is encouraged, it is not strictly required.

Moral rules are formed under the influence of generally accepted ideas about what is “good” and what is “bad”, and therefore depend on society, government, the dominant religion and other social factors.

Moral standards have the following features:

• they are universal for everyone;
• do not need legislative support (since they are considered obvious to any reasonable person);
• justified by the prevailing ideas in society about justice, good and evil;
• play the role of a behavioral guide for people;
• non-compliance with moral standards is condemned in society.

The moral component of most actions can depend on the circumstances. So cooking is a neutral activity, but if a person prepares food for the homeless, it is a highly moral act. Laughter is normal, but if someone laughs at someone else's failure, it is immoral.

You cannot harm another person. But if you do it in defense of your family, even this act can be justified.

Moral norms were formed long before legal norms. It was with their appearance that primitive societies began to emerge. Morality protected them from self-destruction, allowed them to organize, accumulate knowledge and build civilization.

On the basis of established moral norms, the first laws were formulated - clearer, unambiguous and logically justified rules of behavior.

The meaning of morality

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of morality, since it is a fundamental personality trait, which is the foundation for the formation of a strong and strong character. Its presence is a sign of a person with a healthy psyche and a high level of cognitive abilities, who is able to take a worthy place in society and live in harmony with others. A moral person, as a rule, is happier in his personal life and makes those close to him happy.

Morality helps a person find a reasonable balance between sacrifice and selfishness. Moral-oriented individuals, in contrast to ego-oriented ones, have a higher level of civic consciousness. This guarantees them the opportunity to take a worthy place in society, since it ensures comfortable coexistence with other people.

How is morality formed?

A person's morality largely depends on himself. Only the individual himself is responsible for what happens to him. Whether a person will be successful or not is accepted by others depends on how willing she is to follow the orders established in society.

The development of morality and moral concepts occurs in the parental family.

It is those first people with whom a child begins to interact in the early stages of his life who leave a serious imprint on his future fate. So, the formation of morality is significantly influenced by the immediate environment in which a person grows.

If a child grows up in a dysfunctional family, then from an early age he develops a misconception about how the world works and develops a distorted perception of himself in society.

As an adult, such a person will begin to experience enormous difficulties in communicating with other people and will feel dissatisfaction on their part. If a child is raised in a prosperous average family, he begins to absorb the values ​​of his immediate environment, and this process occurs naturally.

Awareness of the need to follow social instructions occurs due to the presence in a person of such a concept as conscience. Conscience is formed from early childhood under the influence of society, as well as individual inner feelings.

Historical change in moral concepts

As cultures and societies develop, people's ideas about good and evil change, but the nature of this transformation remains a matter of speculation.

Thus, some believe that our recent history is a history of demoralization. From this perspective, societies become increasingly less prim and judgmental. We have become more accepting of other people, rational, non-religious and trying to scientifically justify how we approach questions of right and wrong.

The opposite view involves a re-moralization that our culture is becoming more and more critical. We are offended and outraged by more and more things, and the growing polarization of opinions reveals the extremes of righteousness.

The authors of the study mentioned above decided to explore which of these views best reflects the change in morality over time, using a new field of research - culturomics. Culturomics uses very large text databases to track changes in cultural beliefs and values, since changing patterns of language use over time can reveal changes in how people understand their world and themselves. The study used data from Google Books, which contains more than 500 billion words from 5 million scanned and digitized books.

Each of the five types of morality was represented by large, well-founded sets of words reflecting virtues and vices. The results of the analysis showed that the main moral terms ( "conscience"

,
“honesty”
,
“kindness”
and others) as we moved deeper into the 20th century, they began to be used in books much less frequently, which corresponds to the narrative of demoralization. But, interestingly, around 1980, an active rise back began, which may mean an astonishing remoralization of society. On the other hand, the five types of morality individually show radically different trajectories:

• Purity morality shows the same decline and rise as the basic terms. Ideas of holiness, piety and purity, as well as sin, pollution and obscenity, fell until about 1980 and then rose.
• The egalitarian morality of justice has shown neither consistent growth nor decline.
• The morality of power, based on hierarchy, gradually declined during the first half of the century and then rose sharply when a looming power crisis rocked the Western world in the late 1960s. However, it retreated again just as sharply during the 1970s.
• Group morality, reflected in the general rhetoric of loyalty and unity, shows the most obvious upward trend in the 20th century. The marked increase in the periods around the two world wars indicates a transient rise in "us and them" morality in threatened communities.
• Finally, harm-based morality represents a complex but intriguing trend. Its prominence declines from 1900 to the 1970s, interrupted by small increases during wartime when themes of suffering and destruction became understandably pressing. At the same time, a sharp increase has been occurring since about 1980, and against the backdrop of the absence of a single dominant global conflict.

Arguably, the decades since 1980 can be seen as a period of renewed moral concern, and the research that has been conducted points to some important cultural transformations.

The way we tend to think about good and evil today is different from how we once thought and, if trends are to be believed, from how we will think in the future

However, what exactly leads to these transformations is a question open to debate and speculation. Perhaps one of the main engines of moral change is human contact. When we interact with other people and share common goals, we show affection towards them. Today we communicate with many more people than our grandparents and even our parents. As our social circle expands, so does our “moral circle.” However, such a “contact hypothesis” is limited and does not take into account, for example, how our moral attitudes may change towards those with whom we never communicate directly: some donate money and even blood to people with whom they have no contact and little in common.

On the other hand, perhaps it is all about the stories that circulate in societies and arise because people come to certain views and seek to pass them on to others. Although few of us write novels or make films, people are natural storytellers and use storytelling to influence others, especially their own children.

Functions of morality

Few people actually question why morality is needed? This concept consists of many important components and protects a person’s conscience from unwanted actions. The individual is responsible for the consequences of his moral choice not only to society, but also to himself.

There are functions of morality that help it fulfill its purpose.

The evaluative function is related to how other people or the person himself determines the actions he has committed.

In the case when self-assessment occurs, the person is usually inclined to justify his own actions by some circumstances. It is much more difficult to bring actions to public court, because society is sometimes unforgiving when assessing others.

The regulatory function helps to establish norms in society that will become laws intended to be followed by all. The rules of behavior in society are acquired by the individual at a subconscious level. That is why, when we find ourselves in a place where there are a large number of people, most of us, after some time, begin to unerringly follow the unspoken laws adopted specifically in this particular society.

The controlling function is directly related to checking how much an individual is able to follow the rules established in society.

Such control helps to achieve a state of “clear conscience” and social approval. If an individual does not behave appropriately, then he will certainly receive condemnation from other people as a backlash.

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.

Moral standards

They are consistent with Christian ideas about good and evil and what a real person should be.

Prudence is an essential component of any strong person. It presupposes that an individual has the ability to adequately perceive the surrounding reality, build harmonious connections and relationships, make reasonable decisions, and act constructively in difficult situations.

Abstinence involves a ban on looking at married people of the opposite sex. The ability to cope with one’s desires and impulses is approved by society, while reluctance to follow spiritual canons is condemned.

Justice always implies that for all deeds committed on this earth, sooner or later retribution or some kind of response will come. Treating other people fairly means, first of all, recognizing their value as significant units of human society.

Respect and attention to their needs also relate to this point.

Resilience is formed through the ability to endure the blows of fate, endure the necessary experience and constructively emerge from a crisis state. Resilience as a moral standard implies the desire to fulfill one's purpose and move forward despite difficulties.

By overcoming obstacles, a person becomes stronger and can later help other people go through their individual trials.

Hard work is valued in any society. This concept means a person’s passion for something, the realization of his talent or abilities for the benefit of other people. If a person is not ready to share the results of his work, then he cannot be called hardworking.

That is, the need for activity should not be related to personal enrichment, but to serve the consequences of one’s work to as many people as possible.

Humility is achieved through prolonged suffering and repentance. The ability to stop in time and not resort to revenge in a situation where you have seriously offended is akin to real art. But a truly strong person has enormous freedom of choice: he is able to overcome destructive feelings.

Politeness is essential when people interact with each other. Thanks to it, it becomes possible to conclude deals and agreements that are beneficial for both parties. Politeness characterizes a person from the best side and helps him move constructively towards a given goal.

THE ROLE OF MORALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD

We all know examples when philosophers of previous centuries contributed to the strengthening of the moral foundations of mankind with the height and reasonableness of their thoughts, thereby leaving a bright mark on history. Such associates of moral improvement undoubtedly include Confucius, Socrates, Pythagoras and a number of other outstanding philosophers, whose educational teachings were based on the immutable laws of nature and contributed to the improvement of man.

For many centuries, humanity has enjoyed the fruits of the enlightenment of these thinkers of the past, recognizing their undoubted significance. But the realities of the modern world lead us to the conclusion that in our time humanity has lost its way from the path of morality and virtue. Therefore, today there is such a great public need for philosophers and sages who radiate well-founded confidence in the reliability of their chosen path and have the opportunity to help people in their search for truth.

There is no doubt that philosophers of such magnitude do not appear often in the history of mankind. In addition, from the point of view of the scientific community, in the realities of the modern world of this level, thinkers must be ready to substantiate their conclusions, including from a scientific point of view, going beyond the framework of generally accepted metaphysics.

Nevertheless, in our time, fortunately, there are philosophers who have a conscious understanding of what future society should go to and what ideals it should rely on. Such outstanding thinkers who have the determination to talk about what is right in relation to a person include Dario Salas Sommer, a famous Chilean philosopher, scientist and moralist, whose significant works aimed at the moral improvement of humanity have received wide recognition. Thus, one of his books “Morality of the 21st Century “Many readers of our country already know.

In this book, Salas Sommer formulates the universal cosmic law of equivalent retribution for human actions and thoughts, which, being a law of nature, is also the basis of moral obligation.

When talking about morality, we are accustomed to the fact that something that corresponds to the standards and foundations accepted in a certain society is usually considered moral, however, true morality, according to Sommer, consists in observing universal cosmic laws that go beyond the framework of human history. “I am sure that if everyone knew how much can be gained by acting justly and perfectly, there would be very few immoral people left,” says Dario Salas Sommer.

And as a helping hand, he offers humanity science, which substantiates the unity of natural expediency with man’s spiritual efforts to observe morality, which is the code of laws of Nature.

Methodologically, relying on the laws of Nature as the basis of true moral principles, Dario Salas Sommer is guided by objective and scientific principles and criticizes the subjectivist arbitrariness in the understanding of morality, acting as a thinker of the classical type. Thus, he considers Bertrand Russell’s statement about the absolute impossibility of proving the truth of one or another point of view in the sphere of values ​​to be a harmful concept for morality, because with such a way of thinking the concept of sin disappears. “The absence of higher values ​​is a cancer on the body of morality.”

In the spirit of the well-founded statements of classical reason, Sommer declares that the time of high ethics will come only when everyone voluntarily decides to achieve truly conscious behavior and points out the objective difficulties of perceiving this idea in society.

Describing the current state of society, he states that people, unfortunately, have little interest in ethical ideas, and, as a rule, they are content with what their everyday experience, which is dominated by the general state of morality, suggests.

And we really see that large-scale moral ideas are difficult to accept by the masses. Analyzing the historical experience of mankind, we see how, over the centuries, the intellect of people has been pierced by fragments of deformed ideologies, which they adapt to their average worldview, for example, to the universal agreement that a person should be financially secure and socially protected. For the most part, people want to live richly, to receive by chance a lot of money and various material benefits, believing that they deserve it, without the need to make efforts for this, which should be rewarded with such security.

Dario Salas Sommer exposes the weaknesses and shortcomings of people due to their low evolutionary level with great insight and, one might say, panoramicly. And through this it becomes obvious that in comparison with past centuries, nothing has changed in the morality of society; on the contrary, moral foundations have been shaken even more. People of our day, unfortunately, lack a strong character, they are self-indulgent, they have an obsessive desire for pleasure, they are idle and pampered, modern generations are far from the moral virtues of their ancestors.

In the spirit of the views of José Ortega y Gasset, Dario Salas argues that we live in an “era of crowds” and a total decline in morality. Questioning the regulated highly moral state of society on self-organizing grounds, he draws attention to the fact that in modern society people do not have strong ethical foundations, their activities are subordinated to selfish interests, and neither religion nor moral exhortations are capable of eradicating their inherent bad inclinations.

Dario Salas Sommer sees the moral problem of humanity in the lack of desire for spirituality and in the inability of people to find the practical benefits of acquiring higher consciousness. And, hoping to change this state of affairs, Dario Salas, like Socrates, hopes that knowledge of the true good will eliminate actions against virtue.

For people seeking self-realization and with an active moral self-awareness, he proposes, as a tool for internal development, to use the scientific idea of ​​the physical foundations of morality (“ Physics of Morals”

"). In this idea, people will find many confirmations of their intuitions regarding what is morally good and perhaps overcome their hesitations in view of the confusion and deformation of concepts that are common in modern morality.

In the creation and application of scientifically based moral postulates, Sommer sees the source of the fact that a person will become honest and live in harmony with nature, thereby achieving an internal moral ecology. Moreover, the main condition is the acceptance of these postulates freely and according to internal choice.

Dario Salas Sommer explains in detail what it means to comply with the basic principles of morality, focusing, among other things, on the obstacles that prevent a person from following these laws. First of all, this is a misunderstanding of the essence of true morality and human happiness. Happiness can certainly be found by doing true good, but the danger is that many confuse it with what appears to be good. People often equate good with pleasure and pain with evil and allow themselves to be deceived by what brings pleasure, as a result of which they remain in darkness instead of appreciating the light.

Wanting to improve the situation, Dario Salas hopes that “if we explain what an ideal person should be, it can open the eyes of those who mistakenly consider the existing norms to be better.” It is in this sense that he finds it justified to talk about achieving the level of superman in man. The situation, Sommer believes, could change if it were possible to create a device for measuring the level of human consciousness, probably based on the principle of measuring the frequency and intensity of the energy of the human body.

Guided by true values, Dario Salas calls for abandoning ethical relativism and the common practice of adapting morality “to suit ourselves” and invites us to return to the traditional values ​​of humanity, such as hard work, perseverance, honesty, virtue, readiness for self-sacrifice, family cohesion, tolerance, kindness, love , justice, friendship and altruism.
Tags: The role of morality in the modern world Article Philosophy

Principles of morality

These principles exist, making significant additions to generally accepted social norms. Their significance and necessity lies in contributing to the formation of general formulas and patterns accepted in a given society.

The principle of talion clearly demonstrates the concept of uncivilized countries - “an eye for an eye.”

That is, if someone suffered any loss due to the fault of another person, this other person is obliged to compensate the first through his own loss. Modern psychological science says that it is necessary to be able to forgive, reorient oneself to the positive, and look for constructive methods to get out of a conflict situation.

The principle of morality involves following Christian commandments and observing divine law. An individual does not have the right to harm his neighbor, or to deliberately try to cause him any harm based on deception or theft. The principle of morality most powerfully appeals to a person’s conscience, forcing him to remember his spiritual component.

The phrase “Treat your neighbor the way you want him to treat you” is the most striking manifestation of this principle.

The principle of the “golden mean” is expressed in the ability to see moderation in all matters. This term was first introduced by Aristotle. The desire to avoid extremes and move systematically towards a given goal will certainly lead to success.

You cannot use another person as a way to solve your individual problems. You need to feel moderation in everything, be able to compromise in time.

The principle of well-being and happiness is presented in the form of the following postulate: “Act towards your neighbor in such a way as to bring him the greatest benefit.” It doesn’t matter what action is performed, the main thing is that it can benefit as many people as possible.

This principle of morality presupposes the ability to predict the situation several steps ahead, to foresee the possible consequences of one’s actions.

The principle of justice is based on equal treatment between all citizens. It states that each of us must observe the unspoken rules of treating other people and remember that the neighbor living in the same house with us has the same rights and freedoms as us.

The principle of justice implies punishment in case of illegal actions.

The principle of humanism is the leading one among all those mentioned above. It assumes that every person has the idea of ​​a condescending attitude towards other people. Humanity is expressed in compassion, in the ability to understand one’s neighbor and to be as useful to him as possible.

The moral state of modern Russian society

Annotation. Based on the findings of philosophers, economists, psychologists, lawyers, sociologists, etc., the moral level of Russian society at the beginning of the 21st century was determined. — “moral degradation”; developed quantitative indicators are used - the index of the moral state of society (INSO), on the basis of which the dynamics of the evolution of Russian society during the years of reforms is traced; the causes and consequences of the decline of morals are noted; paths of spiritual revival are outlined as a key factor and prerequisites for the improvement of the economy and, in general, the spiritual revival of the nation.

Film "Repentance"

What is this road for if it does not lead to the temple?

The film “A.S. Konchalovsky"

Be terrified of yourself

Keywords:

moral state index (INSO) * morality * law * moral degradation * suicide * drug addiction * alcoholism * corruption * violence * crime * anomie * liberalism, pseudo-liberalism * freedom * control - social, moral * moral regulators * social interactions.

Symptoms of moral degradation

Despite economic successes (pre-crisis), internal political stabilization and other positive trends, the general state of modern Russian society in recent years looks very alarming. Thus, the number of murders per 100 thousand inhabitants in our country is almost 4 times higher than in the USA (where the situation in this regard is also very unfavorable) and approximately 10 times higher than their prevalence in most European countries (Lysova A.V., Shchitov N. G. Systems of response to domestic violence // Sociological Journal, 2003, N 3, pp. 99-115). In terms of the number of suicides, Russia is 3 times ahead of the United States, ranking 2nd in Europe and the CIS not only among the general population, but also among young people under the age of 17 (in this case, after Kazakhstan).

At the same time, for a number of reasons (for example, such as the desire of relatives to present suicide as an accident), the undercount of suicides in Russian regions is about 13%; There are also such alarming trends as a decrease in the average age of those who commit suicide, committing them in increasingly cruel ways, etc.

According to the corruption index for 6 years (2002-2008), Russia moved from 71st to 147th place in the world, and the total volume of corruption in the Russian Federation is estimated by experts at 250 - 300 billion dollars per year. The number of victims of accidents, such as accidental alcohol poisoning and road accidents, indicates, if not a massive “unwillingness to live” (the psychoanalytic interpretation of such situations), then at least the indifferent attitude of many of our fellow citizens towards their own and others’ lives.

The annual number of traffic accident victims in modern Russia exceeds our country’s losses during all the years of the Afghan war, and the situation on our roads is called “road war”, “civil war”, etc.

Taken together, the data presented form a holistic picture (Table 1), indicating the painful state of society, but it is surprising that in the public consciousness they are perceived with less acuteness than, say, the number of medals won at the Olympics (which in itself is an indicator state of society, as well as gifting expensive cars to already wealthy winning athletes).

Table 1. Indicators of the state of modern Russian society (2006)

Sources: Human Development Report 2007/2008. Published for the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) / Trans. from English M.: The whole world, 2007; Russian statistical yearbook 2007. M.: Rosstat, 2007; Transparency International.https://www.transparency.org/

The indicators given in Table 1 are supplemented by other data demonstrating what kind of society we have built under the beautiful slogans of freedom and democracy:

• Every year, 2 thousand children become victims of murder and suffer serious bodily harm;
• every year 2 million children suffer from parental cruelty, and 50 thousand run away from home;
• Every year 5 thousand women die from beatings inflicted by their husbands;
• violence against wives, elderly parents and children is recorded in every fourth family;
• 12% of teenagers use drugs;
• more than 20% of child pornography distributed around the world is filmed in Russia;
• about 1.5 million Russian school-age children do not attend school at all;
• the children's and adolescent "social bottom" covers at least 4 million people;
• the growth rate of child crime is 15 times faster than the growth rate of general crime;
• in modern Russia there are about 40 thousand juvenile prisoners, which is about 3 times more than there were in the USSR in the early 1930s. (Analysis of the situation of children in the Russian Federation. M.: UNICEF, 2007; State report “On the situation of children in the Russian Federation”, M.: Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Russian Federation, 2006)
  Quantitative data can be supplemented with everyday illustrations from life society: the practice of criminal “roofs”, raiding, “black real estate”, financial “pyramids”, various types of fraud, etc. is still widespread. Organized crime has actually been legalized, and the so-called “authoritative businessmen”—essentially legalized thieves—arrange public presentations of their “literary” works, in which hired writers colorfully depict their criminal adventures (according to a survey by the Public Chamber, more than half of our fellow citizens do not feel themselves in any way protected from crime), corruption is truly total, and both officials themselves at all levels of government and administrative positions are sold; You can buy drugs in schools; public speech, including on television and radio, is replete with profanity and criminal jargon; homeless people are an indispensable attribute of stations, trains, subways, etc.

The Internet is full of films that show in detail how students beat their teachers, how elderly people are killed in order to take over their apartments; drunken mothers throw their babies out of windows; there is a slave trade (in the 21st century!), and in the literal, and not at all in the metaphorical, sense of the word; cheeky-aggressive youths defiantly do not give up their seats on transport to older people, and sometimes are capable of killing for a remark made to them (in the city of Kolchugino, a company of scum, drinking vodka at the memorial to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, killed and burned on the “Eternal Flame” a man who tried to reassure them); There are widespread sects that practice, among other things, human sacrifice, and the typical reaction of a significant part of our youth to a person dying nearby has become... laughter. All this is not scenes from “horror films”, but our life. What is striking is not only such phenomena themselves, but also the tolerance towards them, the perception of them as familiar, and not as out of the ordinary, as the norm of our life. “Every day, faced with blatant facts of lawlessness and arbitrariness, people lose the severity of their reaction to them and gradually become indifferent to what is happening,” writes O. T. Bogomolov [4, p. 19]. And K.N. Brutents [5, p. 396 - 397], this is how tolerance to evil

and humility before it, contributing to its assertion in increasingly cruel forms.

With all the diversity of the described phenomena, as well as the processes characterized by the above statistical data, they can be brought under a common denominator, which is called “ moral degradation”

"of modern Russian society or, using the famous expression of E. Giddens, "
evaporation of morality
."
O [4, p. 19]. And it is natural that, according to the results of sociological surveys, the decline of morals is perceived by our fellow citizens as one of the main problems of modern Russia; they regard the “ deterioration of morals”
as one of the worst results of our reforms [6].

The moral degradation of modern Russian society is stated by representatives of a variety of sciences, and it can be considered a truly “interdisciplinary” fact. Psychologists demonstrate that “Russia for many years turned out to be a “natural laboratory” where the morality and legal consciousness of citizens underwent severe tests” [7, p. 17]; sociologists show that “at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, Russian society, plunged by the state first into “perestroika” and then into “radical reforms,” constantly experienced moral deviations and a deficiency not so much of social, economic and political, but of moral guidelines and values and patterns of behavior; emphasize the “moral aberration” of the thinking of our politicians - its distancing from moral values ​​and guidelines, which are replaced by categories of an economic nature, such as economic growth, GDP, inflation rates, etc. [6, p. 225]; economists, emphasizing the “intensive eradication of the moral and ethical component of their social existence” [8, p. 588]; art critics state that “we have formed a totally immoral system” [9, p. 73]; philosophers connect what is happening in modern Russia with the obvious fact that freedom leads to the release of not only the best, but also the worst in a person, and, accordingly, must imply restrictions on the release of the worst. “What will a person make of political freedom who is not ripe for it and experiences it as unbridledness? — I. A. Ilyin asked the question and answered, “he himself becomes the most dangerous enemy of someone else’s and common freedom” [10, p. 146]. This is what happened in our country in the early 1990s.

Rice. Dynamics of the moral state of modern Russian society

The Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in line with the quantitative macropsychology developed there [See: 14, etc.], has developed an index of the moral state of society (INSO), based on the integration of such indicators as the number (per 100 thousand inhabitants): 1) murders and 2) street children, 3) corruption index, 4) Gini index, expressing the uneven distribution of income (see Appendix). The dynamics of the moral state of Russian society quantified in this way during the years of reforms is shown in the figure.

As you can see, the moral state of our society (1991-1994) deteriorated every year, then improved until the “default” year of 1998, after which it deteriorated again (until 2002), and then again showed a tendency to improve annually (for 2007 - 2008 index has not been calculated due to the fact that the corresponding statistical data are not yet available - Without interpreting the identified dynamics, we note that it almost completely corresponds to the dynamics of the macropsychological state of modern Russian society, assessed on the basis of other indicators [See: 11], and also temporal development of its characteristics calculated by sociologists (social sentiments, social optimism, etc.), which indicates the synchronous manifestation of such dynamics in a variety of areas)).

Attention is also drawn to the fact that the quantitatively assessed moral state of our society in the first years of reforms deteriorated at a high rate, which indicates the connection of its deterioration precisely with the reforms and with the events accompanying them, and over the subsequent years, although it revealed a non-linear, “ wave-like dynamics, was almost 2 times lower than the 1990 level.

Causes and consequences of the decline of morals

Among the main reasons for the decline of morals in post-reform Russia, the following are usually noted. A general weakening of control over the behavior of citizens, the transformation of which, as history and the experience of other countries show, is characteristic of “turbulent”, changing societies, and inevitably accompanies radical reforms. The moral qualities of the reformers, many of whom were recruited into the “democrats” from party and Komsomol workers, turned the resource of administrative power into access to property and generalized their personal immorality into the convenient ideologeme of “the uselessness of morality” for a market economy.

Naturally, not everyone. It is customary to distinguish, for example, between “romantic democrats”, who sincerely defended democratic values, and the “pragmatist democrats” who replaced them, who used democratic slogans in their personal interests, for example, to justify privatization that was beneficial to them [12].

The specific nature of the “three sources and three components” of modern Russian business, which were: a) former Soviet “guild workers”, i.e. underground producers of goods and services, b) representatives of the criminal world, who in the Soviet years imposed tribute on the “guild workers” and applied their experience in a market economy, c) party and Komsomol workers, who with amazing ease replaced socialist morality with pseudo-capitalist ones, and, in fact, to criminal. Distribution in the early 1990s. such ideologies as “everything is possible that is not prohibited by law”, “one must live according to the law, not according to conscience”, “the main thing is money, and no matter how it is earned”, etc., essentially denying any morality - the solution the long-standing Russian alternative “by conscience or by law?” in favor of the latter and led to the fact that our society began to live not according to conscience, and not according to the law, but “according to concepts.”

This result turned out to be inevitable: firstly, because “a holy place is never empty,” and the rejection of generally accepted morality in the context of the criminalization of society resulted in its replacement by the morality of the criminal world; secondly, due to the fact that law and morality are two basic, mutually supporting systems for ensuring social order, and the destruction of one of them inevitably leads to the destruction of the other, the law does not act without support from morality, and morality is destroyed without support from the law. In particular, as Metropolitan Kirill noted, “the law has a chance to work only if it corresponds to a moral norm” [13, p. 375].

The pseudo-liberal ("pseudo" - because it is very far from true liberalism, which spread at the beginning of the reforms, represents its highly distorted (in the interests of the most immoral sections of society) version. And the founders of Russian liberalism - B.N. Chicherin, M.M. Speransky, S. Witte, whose followers the authors of the “Russian Liberal Manifesto”, developed by the leaders of the Union of Right Forces, call themselves, would be very surprised by those who are called “liberals” in modern Russia.), based on the “doctrine of vulgar liberalism” [14, p. 417], the understanding of freedom as non-compliance with any rules and prohibitions, as unbridledness and irresponsibility, is readily assimilated by some layers of our society.

Let us note that such an understanding of freedom is not our Russian “invention.” So, for example, freedom, promoted by the French salons of the Enlightenment, “was of a purely negative nature, turned into the freedom to deny all moral principles - faith, authority, traditions, experience, respect for authority, declared prejudices” [15, p. 412].

Criminalization (not only in the generally accepted sense - an increase in crime, etc., but also in the expanded sense of the word - the criminalization of “all public life”), including an abundance of films about “good bandits”, the popularity of criminal vocabulary (“assaults”, “showdowns”, etc. etc.), the tightening, “brutalization” of this life, the widespread use of forceful schemes for resolving controversial situations, the prestige of emphatically aggressive behavior, etc.

Increased aggressiveness as a norm of our life has even affected the Internet, which is natural, since “culture sets the norms of aggression and is the primary source of the formation of delinquent behavior” [16, p. 65].

The attractiveness of negative patterns of behavior perpetuated by the “amnesty of the past”, created by the most successful people of modern Russia, who made their fortunes by violating laws and moral norms (it doesn’t matter that the name is a bandit in the past, now he is a “respectable businessman”, and his past has no values).

Anomie is the destruction of the system of moral norms and their discord with each other, characteristic of all post-socialist societies and which has replaced hypernomy - over-normalization - of socialist regimes.

People started talking about the anomie of entire societies relatively recently. Previously, this concept was applied to individuals and was introduced by E. Durkheim to describe the state experienced by a person before committing suicide [17]. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the thought of O. G. Drobnitsky that “the requirements of morality ... can also be addressed to socio-historical processes and conditions” [18, p. 248].

Abolition of social institutions

moral control, the role of which in Soviet society was played by party and Komsomol organizations, comrades' courts, people's control, etc., which, with all their well-known shortcomings, performed a very important social function - moral control.

The dominance of “economic determinism” in approaches to solving the main problems of our society.

This style of thinking and vision of what is happening in society, when the main thing is economics, and everything else, including morality, is secondary, was subjected to destructive criticism by A. Tocqueville [19], K. Polanyi [20] and many other famous thinkers, and M. Ratz called his “belching of Marxism,” emphasizing the derivative of “stubbornness in the economy” [21] from the Marxist division of society into an economic base and a secondary social superstructure.

The fact is that although the unity of teaching and upbringing was considered one of the cornerstones of the domestic education system, since the beginning of the 1990s. Our state has essentially left the sphere of education.

Without having the opportunity in this context for a detailed presentation and discussion of these reasons, we emphasize that the moral state of society

, which supporters of “economic determinism” tend to ignore, referring, in their clearly derogatory expression, to the “so-called social sphere”, has essentially a multicomponent status in the system of social processes, representing simultaneously three aspects: a) an indicator of the state of society, b ) a consequence of the processes occurring in it, c) the basis of what this society expects in the future. The latter is especially clearly manifested in the low birth rate, which in recent years has been identified, including by government authorities, as one of the key problems of modern Russia.

As studies show, purely economic measures to stimulate the birth rate can increase it by 15-20%, since the main influence on the reluctance to have children is exerted by non-economic factors. Among them, as surveys show, one of the first places is occupied by the reluctance to give birth in such a country

, the moral ill-being of which is emphasized by respondents [22]. A. Yu. Shevyakov provides data that “changes in fertility and mortality trends in Russia are 85-90% due to excessive inequality and high relative poverty of the population,” expressing the moral state of our society, and emphasizes that “the connection between socio-economic factors and demographic indicators are mediated by people’s psychological reactions and behavioral attitudes resulting from these reactions” [23, p. 305]. And V.K. Levashov explains the “catastrophic depopulation” of modern Russia with a “moral gap between society and the state” [6, p. 259] [ibid., p. 426].

According to surveys, the majority of our fellow citizens believe that the modern Russian state expresses mainly the interests of the state bureaucracy and the wealthy, rather than society as a whole [6]. However, even with a more positive idea of ​​our state and attributing pro-social intentions to it, we have to admit that “the state is losing the war against social vices” [ibid., p. 426].

As R. S. Grinberg states, “demographic studies show that more than two-thirds of the causes of depopulation in Russia are associated with such socio-psychological phenomena that arose in the post-Soviet period as social depression, apathy and aggression” [8, p. 588], some of which (for example, mass aggressiveness) are direct manifestations of the destruction of morality, others - apathy, depression, etc. - a mass psychological reaction to its destruction. In particular, a permanent feeling of immorality, hostility and aggressiveness of the environment causes stress, apathy, depression, etc. in a person, which in turn gives rise to mental disorders, diseases of the nervous system, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and other diseases. According to the World Health Organization, from 45% to 70% of all diseases are associated with stress, and psychosomatic diseases such as neuroses, cardiovascular disorders, ulcerative lesions of the gastrointestinal tract, immunodeficiency, endocrinopathies and tumor diseases are directly dependent on it [24].

The decline of morals plays an important role among the motives for suicide, and is also directly related to the depressing statistics of drug addiction, alcoholism, accidents, etc., which are the main manifestations of the physical self-destruction of our society. A. Yu. Myagkov and S.V. Erofeev o [25, p. 54]; state that “the continuing increase in suicides is the price that we are still forced to pay for uncivilized forms of transition to the market” [ibid., p. 50].

Similar patterns can be traced in history, in particular, “history provides many examples, starting with the death of the Roman Empire, when generally economically prosperous states perished as a result of a decline in the moral level of the population” [26, p. 9]. And B. Kuzyk, based on the material of the most important historical cycles of the evolution of the Russian state, shows that each of its political and economic rise and fall was always preceded, respectively, by a rise or decline in spiritual life and morality [27].

Contrary to the thesis proclaimed by domestic reformers about the “uselessness” of morality for a market economy, their close connection is shown in the classical works of M. Weber and his followers. It is also obvious to representatives of modern Russian business. Thus, the president of the group, S. A. Petrov, emphasizes that “moral requirements are not some kind of appendage to business, imposed on it by certain social forces, that is, from the outside, but the key to its successful development” [28, p. 422]. The pattern is that “the higher the level of spiritual and moral development of the bulk of the population, the more successfully the economic and political system of the country develops” [29, p. 367], “the state of the economy directly depends on the spiritual and moral state of the individual” [14, p. 416], receives multiple confirmations. And the data we obtained demonstrate that the moral state of Russian society, quantitatively assessed in the manner described above, reveals high correlations with various indicators of its innovative activity (Table 2).

The level of morality also has a significant impact on socio-political processes. In particular, it is difficult to disagree with the fact that “ethics is the heart of democracy” [30, p. 394], since the latter presupposes trust

citizens to its institutions, which is impossible without subordinating the activities of these institutions to basic ethical principles. According to the former President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev, “without a moral component, any system will be doomed” [31, p. 14]. And Metropolitan Kirill expressed himself even more categorically: “Morality is a condition for the survival of human civilization - no more and no less” [13, p. 372].

Table 2. Relationship between the moral state of Russian society and indicators of innovation activity

Ways to revive morality

Despite the positive changes in recent years, Russian society is still “traumatized by chaos” [32], and one of its main problems is not the lack of freedom, which we are constantly accused of from the West (as always, poorly understanding what is happening in Russia), and the exact opposite is a lack of control, first of all, control

internal - moral.
This key need
of modern Russian society is refracted in the mass consciousness: the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, as polls demonstrate, are in favor of tightening laws,
moral censorship of the media
(which its opponents pass off
as ideological
, deliberately substituting concepts) and other forms of moral control.
Similar intentions are observed in government bodies, as well as in the Public Chamber, whose members declare that “the main problem of modern Russia is the decline of moral culture,” etc. All this suggests that a corresponding need has matured .
Of course, try to give a simple answer to the traditional Russian question “What to do?” in relation to the moral state of our society it would be absurd. It is also obvious that declarative calls for the revival of morality and morality sound like a voice crying in the desert, and given the nihilism of a significant part of our youth, accustomed by pseudo-liberal ideologies to “do everything the opposite” in relation to the calls of the older generation, they can give the exact opposite effect. “For now, the progressive public both here and in the West continues to sound the alarm about a deep moral crisis. But there are no clear ways to overcome it,” states O. T. Bogomolov” [29, p. 368].

However, the key directions for the revival of morality are “effective therapy for the decline of morals” [5, p. 395] - can be outlined.

Firstly

, a revision of the understanding of
freedom
that we inherited from the first years of reforms and which is extremely distorted in modern Russia.
Freedom presupposes its reasonable restrictions, implanted in the mentality of citizens, in terms of psychological science, internalized
by them. A similar understanding of freedom, spelled out in the works of I. Kant, I. A. Ilyin and other outstanding thinkers, should be implanted in the minds of our fellow citizens with the help of the education system, which since the early 1990s. practically abstracted from solving moral and educational problems.

Secondly

, the revival
of institutions of moral control
, which are practically absent in modern Russian society.
One should hardly strive to create institutions reminiscent of Soviet party and Komsomol organizations (in a democratic society this is impossible), however, schools, universities, and public organizations could perform the functions of moral control, for which they need a mandate from society
to fulfill them. (For example, it is reasonable to make admission to and stay in universities dependent on the behavior of students in educational institutions and beyond. And public organizations, including our leading political party, should attach importance to the moral qualities of their members.)

Third

, in the conditions of the deficit of internal
moral regulations
, one should resort to their “externalization” by giving moral norms the status of laws.

A striking example is the law adopted by the State Duma prohibiting the drinking of beer and other low-alcohol drinks in public places. In this very instructive case, the internal - moral - prohibition was translated into external form. And it “worked,” although in accordance with the Russian attitude to laws: our fellow citizens, of course, did not stop drinking beer in public places, but still began to do it much less often than in the absence of a legally formalized ban. The same should be done with regard to swearing in public places, which has already been done to some cities in Russia (under the ridicule of media representatives who poorly understand the destructive impact of “weak” forms of deviant behavior on society), demonstrative insults to elders and other forms of rude moral violations.

As O. T. Bogomolov writes, “until moral norms and principles become part of the general culture, it is necessary to force lawbreakers to obey the law, to comply with the rules of society, using the authority of the authorities, the press, and television” [4, p. 25].

Fourth

, decriminalization of our society and its everyday culture.
It is wrong to think that this problem is relevant only to law enforcement agencies. In particular, the decriminalization of mass consciousness
involves not only the cleansing of our vocabulary from criminal jargon, etc., but also a
radical change in the system of relations between the population and law enforcement agencies
, including the attitude towards informing them about violations of the law, which in our culture, under the obvious influence of the criminal world, are classified as “denunciations”.

In this regard, the example of Finland, recognized as the least corrupt country in the world, is very instructive. One of the cornerstones of the fight against corruption in this country is the simplicity and effectiveness of informing law enforcement agencies about any cases of corruption, i.e., in our terminology, “denunciations” of officials. Any citizen can do this using the Internet without filling out any paperwork or bureaucratic obstacles. “Blacklists” of officials convicted of corruption are also posted there, and being included in them will deprive them of the opportunity to get a good job.

We still have not learned to distinguish between ideological denunciations and reports of violations of the law, which are essentially an expression of civil responsibility, moreover, considering its “minor” violations to be insignificant and not worthy of the attention of law enforcement agencies. It is noted, in particular, that “what some call law-abiding, others call denunciation”, “information is not welcomed here... you can’t knock, because the law is “alien” [33, p. 77]. There is also no such concept as a “professional criminal,” although a significant part of our fellow citizens, being free, are capable of engaging only in criminal activities and do not hide it.

Fifthly

, the widespread
involvement of scientists
- sociologists, psychologists, etc. -
in the development of laws
, which in our country is considered the sphere of competence of only professional lawyers and ubiquitous politicians.

The fact that athletes and showmen are abundantly represented in our legislative bodies, expanding the social base of those who make laws, only worsens the situation.

Laws are not just legal norms, but the most general rules of social interaction

, which must be developed and introduced taking into account its social, psychological, economic and other laws revealed by the relevant sciences.

It is easy to predict what fierce resistance such measures would evoke from our pseudo-liberals, who have extremely distorted the reasonable understanding of freedom, and from those criminalized social strata who benefit from this. However, the risk of new ideological collisions in this case is clearly justified, because “whether we want to admit it or not, morality really underlies everything” [13, p. 375], and, in particular, “it’s time to realize that in Russia moral education and spiritual revival are a matter of national survival and one of the necessary prerequisites for improving the economy” [4, p. 20].

From the editors of Psychologos

We agree with the opinion of one of the readers: from the conversation “who is to blame” it is important to move on to the specifics of “what to do.” Namely, to decide what each of us needs to do personally, at least on an everyday level, in order to begin to correct the situation and make Russia a more worthy country. For example, COMPLETELY give up alcohol, cigarettes and drugs - Do exercises every morning - Smile at people on the street - Give up your seat on the bus to older people, pregnant women, etc.: simple, clear and understandable things. Maybe someone will write such a plan for working on themselves, such a list? We will be ready to publish this on Psychologos so that people can compare their lives with how they should live.

Life is made by people. What will we do?

Morality in modern society

If you want to understand how the morality of modern society works, you will find mainly such values ​​as:

• Respect for others' personal space, beliefs and faith;
• The desire to be successful, strong and energetic;
• Development and self-education for the benefit of all humanity;
• High incomes, wealth and a life of abundance.

But just a few centuries ago, much of this was considered immoral. In those days there were completely different views on what morality was. People were told to be humble and not to strive for great achievements.

Wealth was considered a terrible sin, forever closing the path to Paradise, and the imposition of one’s religion and other views was encouraged in every possible way.

Probably, a representative of the Middle Ages would harshly criticize modern morality, saying that these norms pander to “base instincts.” At the same time, he would not have noticed that the main guideline for modern society is universal prosperity. And the well-being of the entire society depends on the success of an individual.

At the same time, the norms of medieval morality were too primitive and did not imply at all that anyone should be happy.

Modern morality requires us to constantly work on ourselves. We must develop and be successful, and everyone must find their own path to success on their own. In return, we receive an inspiring sense of our own uniqueness - we ourselves find our calling and build our own success with our own hands.

The feeling of self-development and self-realization is inspiring, and moral standards push us towards this.

An important difference between modern morality and medieval morality is the removal of many meaningless prohibitions and restrictions (for example, related to sexual life). Having received greater freedom in the sphere of personal life, we have not lost anything, and life has become much more pleasant and interesting.

At the same time, modern morality requires that a person restrain such primitive instincts as aggression, thirst for revenge, desire for dominance and chauvinism.

Every person should feel as free as possible in terms of self-development and self-realization. At the same time, he must treat others with respect and never allow himself to infringe or humiliate anyone - this is what morality is in the modern world. And the main difference from the Middle Ages is that now no one is forbidden to be happy.

On the contrary, the pursuit of happiness and well-being of one's family should be the goal of every person.

Man and society need morality

How harmoniously a person can exist in a particular society is precisely what determines morality. It is by no means universal, but is formed under the influence of historical facts and traditional values ​​of a particular ethnic group. Over time, the concepts of morality become diametrically opposed. In the Middle Ages, the desire of our contemporaries for wealth would have been condemned. Today it is believed that the more rich people there are in a society, the more prosperous it is. Morality determines the quality of relationships, outlining the boundaries of good and evil, bad and good deeds. By and large, our “ego” consists of principles that determine our entire life, our attitude to what is happening around us and the world towards us.

The morality of modern society requires each of us to constantly develop, improve ourselves, look for ourselves and our place in life. Only we ourselves can walk our own path in such a way as to feel harmony with ourselves and the world, realizing our own uniqueness. And if it’s difficult to understand yourself and understand how to control your emotions and feelings in order to feel more comfortable in society and be a full part of it, you can use developmental simulators and Vikium courses. For example, you can pay attention to the course “Effective Communication”. It will allow you to do deep work on yourself and your emotions, teach you to understand people’s behavior, build communication correctly, establish connections, observing general moral standards and taking into account your own needs.

Our products: “Editor” simulator The “Editor” simulator trains attention and develops speech skills in a playful way Read more » “Similar pictures” simulator The “Similar pictures” simulator will help develop and improve working memory Read more » Profiling course Learn to “read people” by non-verbal signs, identify the interlocutor’s hidden intentions and predict the opponent’s actions in different situations. 21 20 Read more »

Read more

Psychology and self-analysis Karpman's triangle in psychology 249 Read more » Train your thinking Get off the needle of consumption: how to become a conscious consumer and why is it necessary?
5168 Read more » Psychology and self-analysis How to forgive yourself for past mistakes? 447 Read more » Train your thinking What is habituation, and what is its importance? 3861 Read more » Interesting How are brain signals transmitted through nerves? How is speech synthesized? 4657 Read more » Brain health What does a person think about before going to bed? How do thoughts affect our mood? 8245 Read more » Next Entry

Education of moral qualities

What is good and what is bad begins to tell us from a very early age.

The education of moral qualities (in fact, this is socialization) is carried out not only by parents, but also by other significant adults - grandparents, aunts, uncles, educators, teachers. Also, even friends, classmates and society as a whole participate in this.

How does this happen:

• through personal example (dad led grandmother across the road);
• moral teaching (lectures and instructions);
• literature. Let's take the same fables. Each of them explains how to and how not to behave, and ridicules human vices through allegory (a literary device). An allegory is an allegory.

For example, in the fable about the dragonfly and the ant, the first is the personification (what is this?) of idleness, laziness, irresponsibility, and the second is hard work. Having heard this story, the child understands that being lazy is bad, working is good;

• good films, cartoons, music;
• creating a positive experience for the child (give way to the girl, share).

How to develop morality?

Research shows that morality is formed in childhood. Its foundation is laid by the age of 7, and by 16 it is fully developed. This does not mean that an adult cannot influence his own moral development. He may well improve, instill in himself new principles and strictly adhere to them. However, for him they will be more moral than ethical.

Morality needs to be developed at an early age, so children need to be provided with the appropriate conditions for this. It is obvious that every responsible parent tries to instill in their child certain traits of moral behavior: honesty, responsibility, sincerity, decency and other generally recognized human values.

Despite efforts, not everyone succeeds, since parents themselves often misunderstand what morality is and try to impose their views on their children using incorrect or even unacceptable methods. Let's consider several correct approaches that will help develop morality in a child.

Personal example

In the practice of psychologists, a situation often occurs when a person has some inexplicable habit, about which he cannot say exactly where it came from. This could be an unusual way to prepare a certain dish or a strange sequence of actions in completely familiar activities. Subsequently, it often turns out that this habit was passed on to a person from his parents, but he himself did not even know about it.

Children adopt many aspects of their behavior from adults. And if you want to instill morality in your child, try to always behave appropriately in his presence. This is an effective pedagogical technique that provides a more reliable result than any persuasion or punishment.

Friendly conversation

Children react negatively to any moral teaching. They may agree, but only in order to quickly end the unpleasant conversation, because for a child any moral pressure is unbearable. At the same time, children perceive and remember very well the information they receive during an interesting, friendly conversation. Replace instructions and reproaches with advice, and the child will listen to you much more attentively.

Discussion with a joint search for truth

An excellent way of learning that ensures lasting retention of information is to independently search for the answer or find it in the process of discussion. Therefore, if you want to instill in your child some moral trait, try to make sure that he himself understands its importance. You can give an example from life and whet his interest with leading questions.

Educational games

Children's love of games is a powerful development mechanism provided by nature. So why not use it for its intended purpose? It is through games that children usually learn to interact with other people. And it is in games that it is best to instill in them such important aspects of morality as honesty, responsibility and justice. By looking at the reactions of other players, the child learns to think about those around him, overcoming his innate egocentric perception.

Reading

Not only children's fairy tales, but also quite adult literary works show the bad and good deeds of the characters, inviting the reader to draw the necessary conclusions for himself. Therefore, reading books helps children understand which actions are moral and which are not.

Developing morality in a child is not so difficult; the main thing is to pay attention to the little things that we have considered. It is also important to always let your child speak out, so that he realizes the value of his opinion for others and values ​​it more himself. In the future, he will attach more importance to his own thoughts, which is important for the development of morality.

Morals and ethics

The term ethics is of Greek origin from the word "ethos". The use of this word denoted actions or actions of a person that were powerful to him personally. Aristotle defined the meaning of the word "ethos" as the virtue of a subject's character.

Subsequently, it was customary that the word “ ethicos ” is ethos, meaning something related to the temperament or disposition of the subject.

The emergence of such a definition led to the formation of the science of ethics - the study of the virtues of the character of the subject. In the culture of the ancient Roman Empire there was a word “moralis” - defining a wide range of human phenomena. Later, a derivative of this term “moralitas” appeared - relating to customs or character.

Analyzing the etymological content of these two terms (“ moritas ” and “ ethicos ”), it should be noted that their meanings coincide.

Many people know that such concepts as “morality” and “ethics” are close in meaning, and they are also often considered interchangeable. Many people use these concepts as extensions of each other.

Ethics, first of all, is a philosophical direction that studies moral issues.

Often the expression “ethics” is used to designate specific moral principles, traditions, and customs that exist among subjects of a limited group of society. The Kantian system views the word morality, using it to denote the concept of duty, principles of behavior and obligations.

The word "ethics" uses Aristotle's system of reasoning to denote virtue, the inseparability of moral and practical considerations.

What is the difference between morality and law?

Basic values ​​and moral norms often resonate with laws, but do not always repeat them, and sometimes come into conflict. A person may commit a crime with good intentions, his conscience will be clear, but he will have to answer to the state.

Let us consider in more detail how moral norms and legal norms differ.

• The legislative aspects are dealt with by the authorities, they regulate them and monitor their implementation. Morality is based on the individual’s worldview and the opinions of others; there cannot be clear control.
• Moral norms are encouraged to be followed, but they give a choice. The laws do not provide it.
• If you ignore the laws, you will be punished (fine or prison term). If you fail to follow moral rules, you will earn the censure of others and a bad conscience
• Legal standards are enshrined in writing, but moral ones can be transmitted orally.

Types of moral standards

There are several types of moral standards:

• Related to the safety of life - a ban on killing a person or animal.
• Concepts of honor and dignity.
• Privacy Policy.
• About independence and basic personal freedoms.
• Related to trust.
• Ideas about justice.
• Relating to social conflicts.
• Ethical principles formulated in the form of recommendations.
• There is a separate group that regulates what moral norms there are and the procedure for their application.

Development of moral standards

Researchers claim that the age of the rules governing relationships is approximately equal to the age of humanity. The following forms arose in the clan system.

• Taboo. Places strict restrictions on erotic and aggressive actions towards certain objects. It is reinforced by the fear of punishment from mystical forces.
• Custom. Applies to members of a group that has historically established rules. Gives a person strict instructions, leaving no freedom of action, and is supported by public opinion.
• Tradition. A stable type of custom maintained by many generations of people. Forms of behavior also do not require thinking; they must be strictly followed.

With the decomposition of the tribal system, a moral principle appeared - concentrated and generalized norms regulating a person’s worldview and behavior in different spheres of life. They apply to all people, give a person a guideline and leave him the opportunity for self-determination.

Support comes from the concepts of good and evil and the influence of public opinion.

Digital library

– 4 –

A.A.Guseinov

Ethics and morality in the modern world

The topic of these notes is formulated as if we know what “ethics and morals” are, and we know what the “modern world” is. And the task is only to establish a correlation between them, to determine what changes ethics and morality are undergoing in the modern world and how the modern world itself looks in the light of the requirements of ethics and morality. It's actually not that simple. And not only because of the polysemy of the concepts of ethics and morality - a polysemy that is familiar and even to some extent characterizes the essence of these phenomena themselves, their special role in culture. The concept of the modern world, modernity, has also become uncertain. For example, if earlier (say, 500 or more years ago), changes that turned people’s everyday life upside down occurred in a time frame that far exceeded the lifetime of individual individuals and human generations, and therefore people were not very concerned about the question of what modernity is and where it begins , then today such changes occur in periods that are much shorter than the life spans of individual individuals and generations, and the latter do not have time to keep up with modernity. Having barely gotten used to modernity, they discover that postmodernity has begun, and after it post-postmodernity... The question of modernity has recently become the subject of discussion in the sciences for which this concept is of paramount importance - primarily in history and political science. And within the framework of other sciences, the need to formulate our own understanding of modernity is maturing. I would like to remind you of one place from “Nicomacheva”

– 5 –

ethics”, where Aristotle says that the good, considered from the point of view of timeliness, will be different in different spheres of life and sciences - in military affairs, medicine, gymnastics, etc.

Ethics and morality have their own chronotope, their own modernity, which does not coincide with what is modern, for example, for art, urban planning, transport, etc. Within ethics, the chronotope also differs depending on whether we are talking about specific social mores or general moral principles. Morals are associated with external forms of life and can change quickly, over decades. Thus, before our eyes, the nature of relationships between generations has changed. Moral principles remain stable for centuries and millennia. For L.N. Tolstoy, for example, ethical-religious modernity covered the entire vast period of time from the moment when humanity, through the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth, proclaimed the truth of non-resistance to evil, to that indefinite future when this truth will become an everyday habit.

By the modern world I will mean that stage (type, formation) of the development of society, which is characterized by the transition from relations of personal dependence to relations of material dependence. This roughly corresponds to what Spengler called civilization (as opposed to culture), Western sociologists (W. Rostow and others) - industrial society (as opposed to traditional), Marxists - capitalism (as opposed to feudalism and other pre-capitalist forms of society) . The question that interests me is the following: do ethics and morality retain their effectiveness at the new stage (in the modern world) in the form in which they were formed in the depths of ancient culture and the Judeo-Christian religion, were theoretically comprehended and sanctioned in the classical philosophy from Aristotle to Kant?

Can ethics be trusted?

Public opinion, both at the level of everyday consciousness and at the level of persons who have explicit or implicit authority to speak on behalf of society, recognizes the high (one might even say paramount) importance of morality. And at the same time, it is indifferent or even ignores ethics as a science. For example, in recent years we have seen many cases where bankers, journalists,

– 6 –

deputies and other professional groups tried to comprehend the moral canons of their business conduct, draw up appropriate ethical codes, and, it seems, every time they did without certified specialists in the field of ethics. It turns out that no one needs ethics, except those who want to study the same ethics. At least this is true in relation to theoretical ethics. Why is this happening? The question is all the more relevant and dramatic because in this formulation it does not arise before representatives of other fields of knowledge studying human behavior (psychologists, political scientists, etc.), who are in demand by society and have practical areas of professional activity.

When thinking about why in our scientifically scientific time real moral life proceeds without the direct participation of the science of ethics, one should keep in mind a number of general considerations related to the special role of philosophy in culture, in particular with the completely unique circumstance that the practicality of philosophy is rooted in its accentuated impracticality, self-sufficiency. This especially applies to moral philosophy, since the highest institution of morality is the individual and therefore ethics directly appeals to her self-awareness and rational will. Morality is an instance of the sovereignty of the individual as a socially active being. Socrates also drew attention to the fact that there are teachers of various sciences and arts, but there are no teachers of virtue. This fact is not accidental, it expresses the essence of the matter. Philosophical ethics has always participated in real moral life, including the educational process, so indirectly that such participation was always assumed, but it was difficult to trace even in hindsight. And yet, subjective trust in her existed. We know from history the story of a young man who went from one wise man to another, wanting to learn the most important truth that could guide his whole life and which would be so brief that it could be learned while standing on one leg, until he heard from Hilela rule, which later received the name golden. We know that Aristophanes ridiculed the ethical lessons of Socrates, and Schiller - Kant, even J. Moore became the hero of satirical plays. All this was an expression of interest and a form of assimilation of what moral philosophers were saying. There is nothing like it today. Why? There are at least two additional circumstances that

– 7 –

explain the distancing from ethics of those who practically reflect on moral issues. These are changes in a) the subject of ethics and b) the real mechanisms of the functioning of morality in society.

Can morality be trusted?

After Kant, the disposition of ethics in relation to morality as its subject changed. From a theory of morality it has become a critique of morality.

Classical ethics accepted the evidence of moral consciousness, as they say, at face value and saw its task as substantiating the morality predetermined to it and finding a more perfect formulation of its requirements. Aristotle's definition of virtue as a mean was the continuation and completion of the requirement of measure rooted in the ancient Greek consciousness. Medieval Christian ethics, both in essence and in subjective attitudes, was a commentary on evangelical morality. The starting point and essential basis of Kant's ethics is the conviction of moral consciousness that its law has absolute necessity. The situation has changed significantly since the middle of the 19th century. Marx and Nietzsche, independently of each other, from different theoretical positions and from different historical perspectives, come to the same conclusion, according to which morality in the form in which it reveals itself is a complete deception, hypocrisy, and Tartuffe. According to Marx, morality is an illusory, transformed form of social consciousness, designed to cover up the immorality of real life and to give a false outlet to the social indignation of the masses. It serves the interests of the ruling exploiting classes. Therefore, working people do not need a moral theory, but to free themselves from its sweet intoxication. And the only position worthy of a theorist in relation to morality is its criticism, its exposure. Just as the task of physicians is to eliminate diseases, so the task of the philosopher is to overcome morality as a kind of social illness. Communists, as Marx and Engels said, do not preach any morality, they reduce it to interests, overcome it, deny it. Nietzsche saw in morality the expression of slave psychology - a way through which the lower classes manage to put a face on a bad game and pass off their defeat as a victory. She

– 8 –

is the embodiment of a weak will, the self-aggrandizement of this weakness, a product of ressentiment, self-poisoning of the soul. Morality degrades man, and the task of the philosopher is to break through to the other side of good and evil, to become in this sense a superman. I do not intend to analyze the ethical views of Marx and Nietzsche, nor to compare them. I want to say only one thing: both of them took the position of radical denial of morality (however, for Marx such denial was only one of the minor fragments of his philosophical theory, and for Nietzsche it was the central point of philosophizing). Although the “Critique of Practical Reason” was written by Kant, the real scientific criticism of practical reason, if we understand by criticism to penetrate beyond the deceptive appearance of consciousness, to reveal its hidden and hidden meaning, was first given by Marx and Nietzsche. Now the theory of morality could not help but at the same time be its critical exposure. This is exactly how ethics began to understand its tasks, although never subsequently their formulation was as sharp and passionate as that of Marx and Nietzsche. Even academically respectable analytical ethics is nothing more than a critique of the language of morality, its unfounded ambitions and pretensions.

Although ethics convincingly showed that morality does not say what it says, that the unconditional categoricalness of its demands cannot be justified in any way, hangs in the air, although it cultivated a suspiciously wary attitude towards moral statements, especially moral self-attestations, no less, morality in all its illusory and unfounded categoricalness has not gone away. Ethical criticism of morality does not abolish morality itself, just as heliocentric astronomy did not abolish the appearance that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Morality continues to function in all its “falsehood,” “alienation,” “hypocrisy,” etc., exactly as it functioned before the ethical revelations. In one interview, a correspondent, embarrassed by B. Russell's ethical skepticism, asks the latter: “Do you even agree that some actions are immoral?” Russell responds, “I wouldn’t like to use that word.” Despite what Lord Russell thinks, people still continue to use the word “immoral” and some other much stronger and more dangerous words. As on desktop calendars, as if to spite Copernicus, every day is indicated

– 9 –

hours of sunrise and sunset, so people in everyday life (especially parents, teachers, rulers and other high-ranking officials), in defiance of Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, continue to preach morality.

Society, if we assume that ethics speaks on its behalf, in its relations with morality finds itself in the position of a husband who is forced to live with his wife, whom he previously convicted of adultery. Both have no choice but to forget or pretend to have forgotten about the previous revelations and betrayals. Thus, to the extent that society appeals to morality, it seems to forget about philosophical ethics, which considers morality unworthy of appealing to it. This way of behavior is quite natural, just as the actions of an ostrich are natural and understandable, which in moments of danger hides its head in the sand, leaving its body on the surface in the hope that it will be mistaken for something else. It can be assumed that the above-mentioned disregard for ethics is an unsuccessful way to get rid of the contradiction between the ethical “head” of morality and its social body.

Where is the place of morality in the modern world?

The transition from the primary apology of morality to its primary criticism was due not just to the progress of ethics, but at the same time it was associated with a change in the place and role of morality in society, during which its ambiguity was revealed. We are talking about a fundamental historical shift that led to what can be called the new European civilization with its unprecedented scientific, technological, industrial and economic progress. This shift, which radically changed the entire picture of historical life, not only marked a new place for morality in society, but was itself largely the result of moral changes.

Morality has traditionally acted and been understood as a set of virtues that are summarized in the image of a perfect person, or a set of norms of behavior that define the perfect organization of social life. These were two interconnected aspects of morality passing into each other - subjective, personal and objectified, objectively developed. It was believed that the good for an individual and the good for the state (society) are one and the same. In both

– 10 –

In this case, morality was understood as the specificity of individually responsible behavior, the path to happiness. This, in fact, constitutes the specific subject matter of European ethics. If we can single out the main theoretical question, which at the same time constituted the main pathos of ethics, then it is as follows: what is, what are the boundaries and content of the free, individually responsible activity of a person, which he can give a perfect, virtuous form, direct to achieve own good. It was precisely this kind of activity in which a person, remaining a sovereign master, combined perfection with happiness, and was called morality. She was considered the most worthy, considered as the focus of all other human efforts. This is true to such an extent that philosophers from the very beginning, long before Moore methodically developed this issue, at least since Aristotle, came to the idea that goodness cannot be defined except through identity with oneself. The arena of morality (and this is essential!) was considered to be society and social (cultural) life in all the richness of its manifestations; it was assumed that, in contrast to nature and in contrast to it, the entire area of ​​joint life mediated by consciousness (knowledge, reason), including politics and economics, decisively depends on the decision, choice of people, the measure of their virtue. Therefore, it is not surprising that ethics was understood broadly and included everything that related to the second nature, self-created by man, and social philosophy was called moral philosophy; according to tradition, it sometimes still retains this name to this day. The distinction between nature and culture made by the sophists was of fundamental importance for the formation and development of ethics. Culture was distinguished according to the ethical (moral) criterion (culture, according to the sophists, is the sphere of the arbitrary, it includes those laws and customs that people at their own discretion guide in their relationships, and what they do with things for their own benefit, but does not follow from the physical nature of these things). In this sense, culture was initially, by definition, included in the subject of ethics (it was precisely this understanding of ethics that was embodied in the well-known tripartite division of philosophy formed in Plato’s Academy into logic, physics and ethics, according to which ethics included everything in the objective world that did not belong to nature).

Such a broad understanding of the subject of ethics was a fairly adequate understanding of the historical experience of the era when social relations took the form of personal connections and dependencies,

– 11 –

when, therefore, the personal qualities of individuals, the measure of their morality and virtue, were the main supporting structure that supported the entire edifice of civilization. In this regard, we can point to two well-known and documented points: a) outstanding events, the state of affairs in society had a pronounced personal character (for example, the fate of the war depended decisively on the courage of soldiers and commanders, a comfortable peaceful life in the state - on the good ruler, etc.); b) people’s behavior (including in the business sphere) was entangled in morally sanctioned norms and conventions (typical examples of this kind are medieval guilds or codes of knightly combats). Marx has a wonderful saying that a windmill produces a society led by an overlord, and a steam mill produces a society led by an industrial capitalist. By using this image to indicate the uniqueness of the historical era that interests us, I do not simply want to say that a miller at a windmill is a completely different human type than a miller at a steam mill. This is quite obvious and trivial. My idea is different - the work of the miller specifically as a miller at a windmill depended much more on the moral qualities of the miller’s personality than the work of the miller as a miller at a steam mill. In the first case, the moral qualities of the miller (well, for example, such a fact as whether he was a good Christian) were no less important than his professional skills, while in the second case they are of secondary importance or may not be taken into account at all .

The situation changed radically when the development of society took on the character of a natural historical process and the sciences of society began to acquire the status of private (non-philosophical) sciences, in which the axiological component is insignificant and even in this insignificance turns out to be undesirable, when it turned out that the life of society is regulated by laws that are equally necessary and inevitable, like the course of natural processes. Just as physics, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences were gradually isolated from the bosom of natural philosophy, so jurisprudence, political economy, sociology and other social sciences began to be isolated from the bosom of moral philosophy. Behind this was the transition of society from local, traditionally organized forms of life to large and complex systems (in industry - from the workshop

– 12 –

organizations to factory production, in politics - from feudal principalities to national states, in economics - from subsistence farming to market relations; in transport - from draft power to mechanical means of transportation; in public communication - from salon conversations to the media; etc.).

The fundamental change was as follows. Various spheres of society began to be structured according to the laws of effective functioning, in accordance with their objective parameters, taking into account large masses of people, but (precisely because these are large masses) regardless of their will. Social relations inevitably began to acquire a material character - regulated not according to the logic of personal relationships and traditions, but according to the logic of the subject environment, the effective functioning of the corresponding area of ​​​​joint activity. The behavior of people as workers was now set not taking into account the totality of mental qualities and through a complex network of morally sanctioned norms, but by functional expediency, and it turned out to be the more effective the more it approached automation, it was emancipated from individual motives, the accompanying psychological layers, the more the person became a worker. Moreover, human activity as a subjective element of a social system (worker, functionary, activist) not only bracketed moral differences in the traditional sense, but often required the ability to act immorally. Machiavelli was the first to explore and theoretically sanction this shocking aspect in relation to state activities, showing that one cannot be a good ruler without at the same time being a moral criminal. A. Smith made a similar discovery in economic science. He established that the market leads to the wealth of nations, but not through the altruism of economic entities, but, on the contrary, through their selfish desire for their own benefit (the same idea, expressed in the form of a communist sentence, is contained in the famous words of K. Marx and F. Engels that the bourgeoisie, in the icy waters of selfish calculation, drowned the sacred thrill of religious ecstasy, knightly enthusiasm, and petty-bourgeois sentimentality). And, finally, sociology, which has proven that free, morally motivated actions of individuals (suicide, theft, etc.), considered by

– 13 –

laws of large numbers, as moments of society as a whole, line up in regular series, which turn out to be more strict and stable than, for example, seasonal climate change (how can one not recall Spinoza, who said that if a stone thrown by us had consciousness, then it would I thought I was flying freely).

In a word, modern complexly organized, depersonalized society is characterized by the fact that the totality of professional and business qualities of individuals that determine their behavior as social units depends little on their personal moral virtues. In his social behavior, a person acts as a bearer of functions and roles that are assigned to him from the outside, by the very logic of the systems in which he is included. The zones of personal presence, where what can be called moral education and determination are of decisive importance, are becoming less and less significant. Social mores depend not so much on the ethos of individuals, but on the systemic (scientific, rationally ordered) organization of society in certain aspects of its functioning. The social price of a person is determined not only and not so much by his personal moral qualities, but by the moral significance of the overall great business in which he participates. Morality becomes primarily institutional and is transformed into applied spheres, where ethical competence, if we can talk about ethics here at all, is determined to a decisive extent by professional competence in special fields of activity (business, medicine, etc.). The ethical philosopher in the classical sense becomes redundant.

Has ethics lost its subject?

Ethics, as a traditionally established area of ​​philosophical knowledge, continues to exist in the usual theoretical space, concluded between two opposite poles - absolutism and anti-normativism. Ethical absolutism comes from the idea of ​​morality as an absolute and in its absoluteness incomprehensible precondition of the space of rational life; one of its typical extreme cases is moral religion (L.N. Tolstoy, A. Schweitzer). Ethical anti-normativism sees in morality the expression (as a rule, transformed) of certain interests and relativizes it; its ultimate expression can be considered philosophical and intellectual experiences that have received

– 14 –

the name is postmodern. These extremes, like any extremes in general, feed each other, converge with each other: if morality is absolute, then it inevitably follows that any moral statement, since it has human origin, is filled with specific, definite and limited content in its certainty, will be relative , situational and in this sense false; if, on the other hand, there are no absolute (unconditionally binding and generally valid) definitions of morality, then any moral decision will have an absolute meaning for the one who makes it. Within this framework are modern ethical ideas both in Russia (an alternative to religious-philosophical and socio-historical understandings of morality) and in the West (an alternative to Kantianism and utilitarianism).

Absolutism and anti-normativism in their modern versions, of course, differ from their classical counterparts - primarily in their excessiveness and exaggeration. Modern absolutism (unlike even Stoic or Kantian) has lost touch with social mores and recognizes nothing more than the selfless determination of the moral individual. Only the absoluteness of moral choice and no legality! It is significant in this regard that L.N. Tolstoy and A. Schweitzer contrast morality with civilization and generally deny moral sanction to civilization. Supporters of anti-normativism, genetically related and essentially continuing the eudaimonistic-utilitarian tradition in ethics, were strongly influenced by the great immoralists of the 19th century, but unlike the latter, who denied morality in the context of a supra-moral perspective, they do not set the task of overcoming morality, they simply reject it. They do not have their own “free individuality” like K. Marx or a “superman” like Nietzsche. Not only do they not have their own super-morality, they don’t even have a post-morality. In fact, such philosophical and ethical super-dissidence turns into a complete intellectual capitulation to circumstances, as happened, for example, with R. Rorty, who justified NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 by citing the fact that there were “good guys” fighting “bad guys” . Despite all the features of absolutism and anti-normativism in modern ethics, we are nevertheless talking about traditional thought patterns. They represent a reflection on a certain type of social relations, which is characterized by internal inconsistency (alienation) between the private and the general, the individual and the race, the individual and society.

– 15 –

Whether this contradiction remains fundamental today is a question that we must answer when reflecting on what is happening with ethics and morality in the modern world. Is the social (human) reality preserved today, the understanding of which was the classical image of morality or, to put it differently, is not the classical ethics presented in our works, textbooks, the ethics of yesterday? Where in modern society, which in its direct cultural design has become mass, and in its driving forces is institutionalized and deeply organized, where in this ordered sociological cosmos are niches of individual freedom, zones of morally responsible behavior located? To be more specific and professionally accurate, the question can be reformulated as follows: isn’t it time to take a more critical look at the heritage of classical philosophy and question the definition of morality as selflessness, unconditional obligation, universally valid requirements, etc.? And is it possible to do this without abandoning the idea of ​​morality and replacing the game of life with its beaded imitation?