Etymology and genesis of the terms “ethics”, “morality”, “morality”

In the dictionary D.N. Ushakova

MORAL, morality, plural. no, female (from Latin moralis - moral). 1. Moral teaching, a set of rules of morality and ethics (book). “It is necessary that the whole task of upbringing, educating and teaching modern youth should be the inculcation in them of communist morality.” Lenin. Bourgeois morality. Principles of morality. | Morality, behavior from the point of view of moral rules. A person of low morals. 2. A moral conclusion from something, a moral lesson. “The moral of the story is this.” Krylov. Hence the moral: no mercy to the enemy! Capital morality (see capital).

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.

In the Encyclopedia Dictionary

(from Latin moralis - moral), 1) morality, a special form of social consciousness and type of social relations (moral relations); one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society through norms. Unlike simple custom or tradition, moral norms receive ideological justification in the form of the ideals of good and evil, due, justice, etc. Unlike law, the fulfillment of moral requirements is sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public assessment, approval or condemnation). Along with universal human elements, morality includes historically transitory norms, principles, and ideals. Morality is studied by a special philosophical discipline - ethics. 2) Separate practical moral instruction, moral teaching (moral of a fable, etc.).

The meaning of the word morality

Morality

♦Moral

Let's imagine that they announced to us: tomorrow the end of the world is coming. The information is accurate and beyond doubt. With this news, politics will die on the spot - it cannot exist without a future. But morality? Morality in its main features will remain unchanged. No end of the world, even one on the threshold, gives us the right to mock the crippled, slander, rape, torture, kill, in a word, give free rein to our selfishness and anger. Morality does not need the future. The present is enough for her. She does not need hope, content with will. “An act out of a sense of duty has its moral value not in the goal that can be achieved through it,” Kant emphasizes, “but in the maxim according to which it was decided to do it.” Its value does not depend on the expected consequences, but solely on the rule in accordance with which it is performed. He is free from all inclinations and egoistic calculations, does not take into account any of the objects of the “faculty of desire” and abstracts from the final goals “which can be achieved through such an act” (“Fundamentals of the Metaphysics of Morals”, section I). If you act to achieve fame, happiness, your salvation and at the same time do not violate any moral norms, it still cannot be said about you that your actions are moral. This or that act has genuine moral value, Kant explains, only insofar as it is completely disinterested. This means that it must be carried out not simply in accordance with duty (it can be driven by self-interest; for example, a merchant conducts business honestly so as not to lose customers), but precisely guided by duty, in other words, respect for the moral law or, what is the same , the law of humanity. The approaching end of the world does not change anything - until the very end, we will all be guided by what has universal value in our eyes and is obligatory for everyone, that is (which again is the same thing) we will respect humanity in ourselves and in others. This is why morality knows no hope, and sometimes simply leads to despair. “Morality does not need any religion,” Kant insists, just as it does not need any goals: “morality is self-sufficient” (“Religion within the Limits of Reason Only,” Preface). Hence the secular nature of morality, even in relation to believers; hence the absolute nature of her dictate; in any case, we perceive it precisely as an absolute. Whether there is a God or not, it does not change anything about the need to protect the weak. Therefore, we do not need to understand what our existence is like in order to act humanly.

Now let us imagine (Kant offers this example) that God exists and is known to every living person. What will happen in this case? “God and eternity would constantly stand before our eyes in all their dangerous grandeur.” No one will dare disobey God anymore. The horror of hell and the hope of heaven will give unprecedented power to the divine commandments. And fearful, selfish obedience will reign in the world in the image of an absolute moral order: “There would, of course, be no violations of the law, and what the commandment requires would be fulfilled.” But morality will disappear. “Most lawful actions would be done out of fear, only a few in hope, and none out of a sense of duty, and the moral value of actions, to which alone the entire value of the individual and even the value of the world in the eyes of the highest wisdom can be reduced, would cease to exist altogether” ( "Critique of Practical Reason", Part I, Book 2, Chapters 2, 9). Thus, not only do we not need hope to fulfill our duty, we are able to act in obedience to duty only if we do not hope for anything.

What am I getting at? To a very simple thing. Contrary to popular belief, morality has nothing to do with religion, much less fear of the gendarme or scandal. And even if historically morality was associated with the Church, the state and public opinion, its true formation - and this is one of the best merits of the Enlightenment - becomes possible only as it is liberated from these institutions. Spinoza, Bayle (***) and Kant speak about the same thing, each in his own way. Personally, I realized this at the age of 15, listening to the songs of Brassens (***). Essentially, morality is something opposite to conformism, fundamentalism and moral order, including such sluggish forms of it, which today are commonly called “political correctness”. Morality is not the law of society, government or God, much less the law of the media or the Church. Morality is a law accepted by the individual for himself personally, which means that the law is free, as Rousseau would say (“obedience to the law prescribed to oneself is freedom”), or autonomous, as Kant would say (the individual obeys only “his own and together with that universal law"). Unlike Kant and Rousseau, I believe that this freedom or autonomy is relative, which does not in the least prevent us from feeling in practice its absoluteness (arising not from knowledge, but from will) and unconditional necessity. I agree that all morality is historical. But the historicity of morality does not at all abolish morality itself, but, on the contrary, makes its existence possible, as well as our subordination to it, because we exist in history and are a product of history. Even if this is relative autonomy, it is worth more than slavish adherence to one’s inclinations and fears. What is morality? This is a set of rules that I determine or must determine for myself, not in the hope of reward and not out of fear of punishment, which would be selfishness, not with an eye on others, which would be hypocrisy, but freely and disinterestedly, for that one reason , that to me these rules seem to be universal (suitable for every rational being), without hoping for anything and fearing nothing. “Loneliness in the universe,” Alain said about this. This is morality.

But is morality really universal? It seems to never be completely universal. Everyone knows that morality varies depending on the era and place. But morality is capable of acquiring a universal character without encountering contradictions along the way, and in fact this is gradually happening. If we leave aside some particularly painful archaisms, more burdened by religious or historical conditions than by actual moral assessments (I am primarily thinking about the sexual issue and the position of women), then we have to admit that the content put into the concept of a “good person” in France , is not very different - and in the future will differ even less - from what this expression is understood in America or India, Norway or South Africa, Japan or the Maghreb countries. This is a person who is more sincere than deceitful, more generous than selfish, more courageous than a coward, more honest than deceitful, more gentle and compassionate than rude and cruel. Of course, these concepts were not formed yesterday. Already Rousseau, rebelling against Montaigne’s relativism, or rather, against his own vision of his relativism, called people to moral convergence that could overcome cultural differences: “Oh Montaigne! You, who boast of sincerity and love of truth, answer me frankly and truthfully, how frank and truthful a philosopher can be, is there a country on earth where it would be considered a crime to remain faithful to what you believe in, to be merciful, benevolent and generous, where is a kind person would be subject to contempt, and treachery would be honored? Montaigne did not find the country, and he did not look for it. It is enough to re-read everything he wrote about the American Indians, whom we treated so monstrously - about their courage and constancy, about their “kindness, love of freedom, honesty and sincerity” (Experiences, book III, chapter 6). Humanity does not belong to anyone in particular, and Montaigne’s relativism is at the same time universalism, in which there is no contradiction (after all, morality applies to all humanity, and “every person has everything that is characteristic of the entire human race,” book III, chapter 2). And the entire history of mankind, no matter what continent it takes place on, speaks of the same thing. Nobody knows exactly when morality arose - in different parts of the planet it happened either two or three thousand years ago, when the main thing was formulated, no matter by whom - Egyptian or Assyrian priests, Jewish prophets, Hindu sages or a whole cluster of great thinkers of the 6th and 5th centuries . BC e.:

Zarathustra (in Iran), Lao Tzu and Confucius (in China), Buddha (in India), the first ancient Greek philosophers, whom we call the Pre-Socratics (in Europe). How can one not notice that, despite numerous philosophical and theological differences, the meaning of their moral covenants converges in their fundamental basis? And how can you not notice that the same thing is happening today? Compare what Abbe Pierre and the Dalai Lama are talking about. These people come from different backgrounds, belong to different cultures and practice different religions. But listen to their speeches for at least a few minutes, and you will be convinced that the vector of their moral teaching is the same. Globalization is not only evil, but it began much earlier than is commonly thought. Today we are reaping the fruits of a slow historical process that has been going on for 25 centuries with ups and downs, and we are both its result and the carrier of its further spread. This process, if we consider it from a moral point of view and abstracting from the cruel forms it often takes, is a process of convergence of the largest civilizations around a certain number of common or similar values ​​- the very values ​​thanks to which we can live together without falling into mutual negation and mutual hatred. Today we call them human rights, but from a moral point of view they are primarily human responsibilities.

But where does morality come from? From God? This is not excluded. Perhaps it was God, as Rousseau believed, who put in us the “immortal heavenly voice” of conscience, which drowns out (or at least should drown out) all other voices, even those that tell us about salvation or glory. But what if there is no God? Then we have to admit that morality is a purely human phenomenon, that it is a product of history and a set of norms developed, selected and evaluated by humanity over the centuries. Why did we choose these particular standards? Obviously, because they turned out to be favorable to the survival and development of the species (I would call it morality according to Darwin), the interests of society (morality according to Durkheim), the requirements of reason (morality according to Kant), and finally, everything that love dictates to us (morality according to Jesus Christ or Spinoza).

Imagine a society in which lies, selfishness, theft, murder, violence, cruelty, hatred and the like are extolled. Such a society does not have the slightest chance of surviving, much less spreading across the entire planet - its members would do nothing but destroy each other and destroy everything around them. Therefore, it cannot be considered a coincidence that civilizations have spread throughout the world in which completely different things are valued - sincerity, generosity, respect for the property and lives of other people, and finally, gentleness, compassion and mercy. Is another humanity possible? Is another civilization possible? Such a formulation of the question allows us to draw an important conclusion about the essence of morality. Morality is that by which humanity becomes human in the normative sense of the term (in the sense in which humanity is opposed to inhumanity), rejecting the barbarity and spinelessness that still threaten it, still accompany it, and still tempt it. Only people on this earth have responsibilities. And this clearly shows us what we should strive for. Our only duty, as the expression of all our duties, is to act humanly.

It is obvious that morality does not replace happiness, wisdom, or love. This is why we need ethics (Ethics). But only those who have achieved absolute wisdom could do without morality, thereby completely losing humanity.

***

Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) - French publicist and philosopher, early representative of the Enlightenment. From a position of skepticism, he rejected the possibility of rational justification of religious dogmas and asserted the independence of morality from religion.

Georges Brassens (1921–1981) is a French author and performer of songs with lyrical and philosophical content.

In the dictionary Dictionary of foreign words

and, f.

1. pl. No. Rules of morality, as well as morality itself. A man of high morals.||Cf. ETHICS" title='ETHICS, ETHICS is, what is ETHICS, ETHICS interpretation'>ETHICS.

2. A logical, instructive conclusion from something M. fable.||Cf. APOPHEGMA" title='APOPHEGMA, APOPHEGMA is, what is APOPHEGMA, APOPHEGMA interpretation'>APOPHEGMA (APOPHTEGMA" title='APOPHTEGMA, APOPHEGMA is, what is APOPHEGMA, APOPHEGMA interpretation'>APOPHTEGMA).

3. decomposition Moral teaching, instruction. Read m.||Wed. NOTATION, RACE.

Share the meaning of the word:

How was the concept of morality formed?

It is impossible to say for sure when people first thought about what morality was. The most ancient source describing this concept is the parables of Solomon (mid-10th century BC). Confucius (VI-V centuries BC) wrote a lot about issues of morality and ethics, who considered mercy, philanthropy and integrity to be the most important universal values. He claimed that he did not create a new teaching, but collected together the knowledge received from the ancient sages.

The modern word “morality” comes from the Latin word mores (traditions, mores). It was used by ancient Roman authors to show the conformity of a certain act with good morals. Also, ancient Greek authors discussed a lot about the concepts of conscience, honor and virtue, starting from the 8th century BC. It is interesting that the word “morality” came into the Russian language through French (la morale) in the 18th century.

Cicero made a great contribution to the formation of the concept of morality. The thinker talked a lot about how ethics, morality and law relate to each other. He sought to show that it is impossible to separate the concepts of law and morality, since together they make it possible to rid society of chaos and create order. Of course, Cicero, who lived in the 1st century BC, was far from a pioneer on this topic. But it was he who introduced the definition of morality , which we still rely on today.

Morality is not just a philosophical concept. It traditionally serves as the basis for many religions. Key principles of morality are found in the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha. Since the level of education in those days was different, many moral norms were incomprehensible and not obvious to ordinary people. But believing that “God wants it this way,” they accepted and observed these norms.

Functions of morality

Man is a creature with freedom of choice and he has every right to choose the path of following moral standards or vice versa. This choice of a person who puts good or evil on the scales is called a moral choice. Having such freedom of choice in real life, the subject is faced with a difficult task: to follow personal needs or blindly follow what should be. Having made a choice for himself, the subject bears certain moral consequences, for which the subject himself is responsible, both to society and to himself.

Analyzing the features of morality, we can extract several of its functions:

– Regulation function. Following moral principles leaves a certain mark on the consciousness of the individual. The formation of certain views of behavior (what is allowed to be done and what is not allowed) occurs from an early age. This kind of action helps the subject to adjust his behavior in line with usefulness not only for himself, but also for society. Moral norms are capable of regulating the individual beliefs of the subject to the same extent as the interaction between groups of people, which favors the preservation of culture and stability.

– Evaluation function. Morality evaluates actions and situations occurring in a social society in terms of good and evil. The actions that have taken place are assessed for their usefulness or negativeness for further development; after this, each action is given an assessment from the moral side. Thanks to this function, the subject forms the concept of belonging to society and develops his own position in it.

– Function of education. Under the influence of this function, a person develops an awareness of the importance of not only his own needs, but also the needs of the people who surround him. A feeling of empathy and respect arises, which contributes to the harmonious development of relationships in society, understanding the moral ideals of another individual, contributes to a better understanding of each other.

– Control function. Determines control over the use of moral norms, as well as condemnation of their consequences at the societal and individual levels.

– Integration function. Following moral standards unites humanity into a single group, which supports the survival of man as a species. It also helps maintain the integrity of the spiritual world of the individual. The key functions of morality are: evaluative, educational and regulatory. They reflect the social significance of morality.

Categories of morality

These are general conceptual elements that describe this subject matter. Moral principles are based on them. Moral categories include:

• good and evil as opposing criteria for evaluating phenomena;
• justice is a measure of the distribution of benefits;
• honor stands guard over compliance with a person’s internal code;
• debt is something for which a person is responsible in life;
• conscience is an indicator of critical assessment of actions;
• happiness as a result of moral behavior.

Rules of morality

Each person has their own. Moral qualities depend on the level of personal development. However, humanity has developed universal rules of morality:

1. Golden rule: don’t do to someone else what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.
2. Be honest with yourself. This means being able to admit your own mistakes.
3. Put yourself in another person's shoes. This will help you feel people better.
4. Control the manifestations of negativity in yourself.
5. The first impression may be false. After all, what is morality if not the search for a deeper meaning.

Principles of morality

They are necessary for the formation of norms and rules that contribute to the correct development of social relationships. Basic principles of morality:

1. Taliona . Characteristic of the early stage of development of society. It says: "an eye for an eye." If any harm has been caused to a person, he must take revenge.
2. "The Golden Mean" . This means observing moderation in everything and not going to extremes. In relation to other people, you need to look for ways to compromise.
3. Morals . The principle involves observing God-given laws. Its main expression is found in the 10 commandments of Moses.
4. Prosperity . A person's actions should benefit as many people as possible.
5. Justice . It is based on the potential equality of all people before God. To each is measured according to his deeds.
6. Humanism . The set of norms of behavior boils down to the need to be tolerant and compassionate towards others. Living in society, it is advisable to strive to bring maximum benefit to it.

The structure of morality

The organization of social foundations has a complex multi-level structure. They can be formed in the following sectors:

1. Moral rules . They directly affect the relationships between people at the “lowest” social level.
2. Moral principles . This higher level is associated with the establishment of certain internal “laws” of the development of society. Their violation causes a negative reaction from the entire society.
3. Moral ideals . What is morality at this level? This is what a role model is and what this conglomerate of people strives for.