Introduction
Morality as a term was introduced by Cicero, but as a subject of study it began to appear much earlier, in the works of ancient Greek philosophers since the time of Socrates. Morality as a phenomenon appeared simultaneously with the emergence of society, and since there is and cannot be an exact date of the emergence of society, there is no exact date of the emergence of morality as a phenomenon. "Ethics is not created through theoretical interest in a particular area of reality, like most sciences - it is conditioned by the very fact of social life." The discipline studying morality and ethics is called ethics, moral behavior can be called ethical practically without changing the semantic load.
Ethics is the science that studies the rules by which a society lives and by which members of a society coexist with each other. "The original meaning of the word 'ethos' was a shared dwelling and rules generated by a shared community, norms that unite society." Any rules imply that acting in accordance with them is normal and good, and acting against them is abnormal and bad. Community rules are much older than the concepts of "morality", "morality" and even "good and evil", since these rules in one form or another existed throughout the existence of society. Any society, any community has rules for the behavior of the individuals that make up it. There is and cannot be a community that does not have any limiting and guiding rules for cohabitation. Thus, ethics in its first meaning, the meaning of "ethos",is inextricably linked with society and is a necessary component of any society. Savage tribes, which could seem completely immoral to a European, in fact had their own ethics and rules, which were simply very different from the rules of the European society and therefore not understandable for him. In this regard, one cannot but recall how shocked the Spaniards were when, having arrived in South America, they became acquainted with the Aztec customs of ritually eating individual organs of people. This gave them a reason to accuse the Aztecs of devil worship and not consider them people at all, while in fact the Aztec civilization was quite developed and had many achievements that were ahead of the European at that time. Perhaps the Aztecs of that time would have been shocked no less than the Spaniards if they could familiarize themselves with the unsanitary conditions of European cities and the Spanish Inquisition.
The first conscious understanding of the rules of ethics, an attempt to comprehend morality, the concepts of justice, goodness and other fundamental ethical concepts occurred in Ancient Greece, and how many millennia of the previous history of the Stone and Bronze Ages were there before this “Greek miracle”? All this time, the rules of society in humans were not much superior in their awareness to the instinctively conditioned rules of social behavior in animals. It was only with the development of the economy and culture that a person received the necessary conditions for the formation of sufficient consciousness and self-awareness in order to start thinking in such abstract categories. And in the present tense people for the most part regulate their social behavior automatically, without thinking, as they do not think about which leg to raise when walking. The concepts of good and evil come to us first of all from society,in which we live.
The study of morality is primarily the study of man and human society. A person cannot be perceived separately from society and culture, because, in the words of Aristotle, "a person outside of society, or a beast, or God."
Chapter 1: the history of the study of morality from antiquity to modern times
Antiquity
Promotional video:
For the first time in history, morality as a phenomenon was subjected to critical analysis and comprehension in Ancient Greece. The final philosophical understanding of morality as a phenomenon, i.e. the emergence of ethics as a science occurred after Socrates, but in the pre-Socratic era of ancient thought, the foundation was laid for this breakthrough to occur. For the Pythagoreans, the concept of morality was inextricably linked with the beauty of symmetry.
There should be measure and harmony in everything, including in the human soul, in human character and actions. Virtue consists in following the principle of balance and harmony; excess is the root of vice. Democritus also had similar thoughts, who considered eutumia to be the ideal ethical state of mind - a serene, blissful state in which there are no passions and extremes. Wisdom and knowledge Democritus optimistically considered ignorance to be the source of good and the root of evil in man. Heraclitus, who is often opposed to Democritus, considered it moral to be involved in the Universal Law, and considered everything divorced from it to be doomed to destruction. Later, among the sophists, good and evil, morality and immorality acquired a certain relativity. They considered good and evil as subjective values and the reason for this wasthat the sophists defended the right of the individual to look at the world and people through the prism of their own interests and goals, and what is good for one, turns out to be evil for another. “The Sophists put forward and substantiated the idea of a fundamental difference between the institutions of culture (and above all morals, customs) from the laws of nature. The laws of nature, they said, are the same everywhere, act inevitably, with the inevitability of fate, and the laws and customs of people differ greatly from people to people and are conditional, represent a kind of agreement. " In many respects, the "slippery" philosophy of the sophists was such that the sophists themselves were paid teachers of eloquence and pursued not so much the search for truth as victory over an opponent in a dispute and recognition of the public.it turns out to be evil for another. “The Sophists put forward and substantiated the idea of a fundamental difference between the institutions of culture (and above all morals, customs) from the laws of nature. The laws of nature, they said, are the same everywhere, act inevitably, with the inevitability of fate, and the laws and customs of people differ greatly from people to people and are conditional, represent a kind of agreement. " In many respects, the "slippery" philosophy of the sophists was such that the sophists themselves were paid teachers of eloquence and pursued not so much the search for truth as victory over an opponent in a dispute and recognition of the public.it turns out to be evil for another. “The Sophists put forward and substantiated the idea of a fundamental difference between the institutions of culture (and above all morals, customs) from the laws of nature. The laws of nature, they said, are the same everywhere, act inevitably, with the inevitability of fate, and the laws and customs of people differ greatly from people to people and are conditional, represent a kind of agreement. " In many respects, the "slippery" philosophy of the sophists was such that the sophists themselves were paid teachers of eloquence and pursued not so much the search for truth as victory over an opponent in a dispute and recognition of the public.with the inevitability of fate, and the laws and customs of people vary greatly from people to people and are conditional, represent a kind of agreement. " In many respects, the "slippery" philosophy of the sophists was such that the sophists themselves were paid teachers of eloquence and pursued not so much the search for truth as victory over an opponent in a dispute and recognition of the public.with the inevitability of fate, and the laws and customs of people differ greatly from people to people and are conditional, represent a kind of agreement. " In many respects, the "slippery" philosophy of the sophists was such that the sophists themselves were paid teachers of eloquence and pursued not so much the search for truth as victory over an opponent in a dispute and recognition of the public.
Socrates, whose name is associated with a turn in philosophical thought, criticized the sophists precisely because they did not seek the truth and did not have clearly expressed moral views. There are two points of view about Socrates' views on morality because two of his students - Plato and Xenophon - left different opinions about him in their writings. So, according to Plato, Socrates adhered to the position of non-resistance to evil by violence, i.e. one cannot pay with evil for anything, while Xenophon allows harm to enemies even to a greater extent than they could cause themselves. But it is unequivocal that Socrates in his philosophy adhered to the method of ascent from the particular to the general. This search for general provisions (including general provisions of morality) allows us to consider Socrates a milestone in the history of philosophy and ethics. Recognizing the existence of the unconditional,objective moral good (as opposed to the sophists, who considered morality as subjectivity), Socrates considered moral only that behavior that occurs as a result of a predetermined moral goal. A moral person must be aware of unconditional moral goods in order to act in accordance with them. “Socrates developed the principles of rationalism, arguing that virtue flows from knowledge, and a person who knows what good is, will not act badly. After all, good is also knowledge, so the culture of intelligence can make people good. A huge contribution of Socrates to ethics is the fact that he divided laws into written and unwritten. The written laws - the laws of human society - are secondary to the laws of the unwritten or divine, because it was in them that Socrates saw general,fundamental moral foundations. The life and death of Socrates was a confirmation of the sincerity and depth of his convictions.
The disciple of Socrates Plato fully accepted the basic thesis of the identity of knowledge and virtue. He created a complete idealistic ethics with clear moral values. This ethics consists of Plato's idea of the earthly world, which is a pale reflection of the world of ideas. In the earthly world, the achievement of the highest moral good is impossible, truth and virtue can be subjected to humiliation and desecration (the execution of Socrates was for Plato a confirmation of this position), the highest good is possible only in the world of ideas, a world in which all the prototypes of all things, their true, ideal essence. The highest, intelligent part of the human soul is oriented towards this ideal world. The lower part, sensually lustful, is oriented towards the world of things. There is also a transitional state of the soul from a lower to a higher part. Each of them has its own virtue:wisdom, courage and self-control. The harmonious and all-round development of all three moral values gives a person the opportunity to come most closely to the world of ideas, to the highest bliss and happiness. In his philosophical work, Plato went from naive eudemonism to the idea of an ascetic purification of the soul for the highest good. Both in aesthetic and political studies he relied on his concept of welfare and morality. It can be argued with confidence that Plato's ethics had a decisive influence on the entire subsequent science of morality and ethics. Both in aesthetic and political studies he relied on his concept of welfare and morality. It can be argued with confidence that Plato's ethics had a decisive influence on the entire subsequent science of morality and ethics. Both in aesthetic and political studies he relied on his concept of goodness and morality. It is safe to say that Plato's ethics had a decisive influence on the entire further science of morality and ethics.
Aristippus, the founder of the Kyrenian school, was also a student of Socrates. He saw the good in pleasure, regardless of its origin and quality. The most intense, and therefore the best pleasures, according to the Cyrenics, are the pleasures of the body. Aristippus was resourceful and skillfully adapted to the requirements of the times and the whims of the rulers, which enabled him to live comfortably and successfully at the court of the tyrant Dionysius. Aristippus did not work out abstract moral concepts and did not look for recipes for the good for everyone. He taught to pursue personal good and value above all the possibilities of the present, not being tormented by the future, foreseeing the installation of the capitalist consumer society. Cyrenics saw in pleasures the meaning of life and the most direct path to happiness, this attitude was called hedonism. One of the Cyrenics, Gegesius, came to the conclusion,that pleasures are impermanent and difficult to access, that in life there is always more suffering than pleasures, and therefore happiness is unattainable in principle. Based on these conclusions, Hegesius considers the position of indifference to evil to be the most moral, and if indifferent apathy is unattainable, it is worth stopping suffering through suicide. On the example of Hegesius, nicknamed "the instigator to death", we can make a general conclusion that the position of hedonism to some extent devalues life.nicknamed "the instigator to death", it can be concluded that the position of hedonism to some extent devalues life.nicknamed "the instigator to death", it can be concluded that the position of hedonism to some extent devalues life.
The Epicureans had principles similar to the Cyrenics, but the latter more carefully and carefully worked out the concept of pleasure. They took into account the origin and nature of pleasure, preferring spiritual over bodily. The epicureans considered the highest state of mind ataraxia - blissful equanimity, joyful peace.
The Epicureans and Cyrenics were representatives of positive eudemonism, i.e. they saw the goal of human life in the active search for happiness through receiving pleasure and associated their moral ideals with this. Negative eudemonism proclaimed happiness as the absence of suffering. It included the Cynics and Stoics.
The Cynic school was founded by Socrates' student Antisthenes. The cynics sought happiness in freedom from all the conventions of public morality, which they considered evil. Personal, individual freedom was valued as the highest state of mind, and in order to achieve it, a contemptuous disregard for all human needs, except for the most natural and necessary ones, was practiced. The most famous representative of this philosophical school - Diogenes of Sinop - once saw a boy drinking water from a handful, and in frustration threw his cup out of his bag, saying: "The boy has surpassed me in the simplicity of life." Asceticism and rejection of the blessings of life was considered by the Cynics as the surest path to independence of the spirit and therefore it was the most moral choice for the sage. Shocking and contempt for the norms of public morality were not a manifestation of immorality,but aggressive defense of their own moral ideals. To some extent, the cynics despised not only society, but also human nature itself. In a demonstrative contempt for the flesh, they sought independence and self-sufficiency, in which they sought the divine principle.
The Stoics in their ethical concepts of morality were close to the Cynics, but they completely lacked rebellion against the norms of public morality. Stoicism in its morality was close to the Christian attitude "if they hit you on the left cheek, substitute the right one," that's why the phrase "stoically endure hardships" entered into everyday speech. Like the cynics, the Stoics valued the freedom of the spirit from external manifestations, from luxury and comfort. Throughout the entire history of Stoicism, Socrates was the main authority of the Stoics; his behavior during his trial, his refusal to flee, his calmness in the face of death, his assertion that injustice does more harm to the perpetrator than to the victim - all this fully corresponded to the teachings of the Stoics. The Stoics considered apathy to be the highest state of mind - in its original meaning, this term meant dispassion,freedom from pleasure, disgust, lust and fear. The Stoics did not consider suicide as an immoral act and found it appropriate if there were grounds for it. The founder of Stoicism Zeno believed that “evil cannot be glorious, death is glorious, which means that death is not evil” and, according to legend, at an advanced age, he killed himself by holding his breath.
Aristotle is another milestone in the history of ancient thought in particular and in philosophy in general, since he was the first thinker whose philosophical picture covered all spheres of human development. He was a great systematizer of knowledge, the founder of formal logic and the creator of the conceptual apparatus that mankind uses to this day. The ethical theory of Aristotle is revealed in his works "Nicomachean Ethics" and "Eudemian Ethics".
Aristotle was a student of Plato and shared the ideas of his teacher about the threefold nature of the soul, which consists of a rational, passionate and willing beginnings. Aristotle, following Plato, attributed his virtue to each of these principles. At the same time, Aristotle was much more practical and less idealistic about the soul than his teacher. The soul for Aristotle is, first of all, the properties of the human psyche, its capabilities and features. Aristotle introduced the concept of an internal conflict that occurs in a person at the moment of choice, when there is a clash of multidirectional motives; divided a person into biological and social principles, which also does not contradict modern scientific concepts. Aristotle introduced the term "ethics" and, starting from the word "ethos" (ancient Greek ethos), Aristotle formed the adjective "ethical" in order toto designate a special class of human qualities, which he called ethical virtues. Aristotle divides virtues into moral (ethical) and mental (reasonable). The former represent the middle between the extremes - excess and lack - and include: meekness, courage, moderation, generosity, majesty, generosity, ambition, equality, truthfulness, courtesy, friendliness, justice, practical wisdom, just indignation. These virtues are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on the submission by a person of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason.named by him ethical virtues. Aristotle divides virtues into moral (ethical) and mental (reasonable). The former represent the middle between the extremes - excess and lack - and include: meekness, courage, moderation, generosity, majesty, generosity, ambition, equality, truthfulness, courtesy, friendliness, justice, practical wisdom, just indignation. These virtues are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on the submission by a person of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason.named by him ethical virtues. Aristotle divides virtues into moral (ethical) and mental (reasonable). The former represent the middle between the extremes - excess and lack - and include: meekness, courage, moderation, generosity, majesty, generosity, ambition, equality, truthfulness, courtesy, friendliness, justice, practical wisdom, just indignation. These virtues are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on man's submission of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason. Aristotle divides virtues into moral (ethical) and mental (reasonable). The former represent the middle between the extremes - excess and lack - and include: meekness, courage, moderation, generosity, majesty, generosity, ambition, evenness, truthfulness, courtesy, friendliness, fairness, practical wisdom, just indignation. These virtues are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on the submission by a person of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason. Aristotle divides virtues into moral (ethical) and mental (reasonable). The former represent the middle between the extremes - excess and lack - and include: meekness, courage, moderation, generosity, majesty, generosity, ambition, equality, truthfulness, courtesy, friendliness, justice, practical wisdom, just indignation. These virtues are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on man's submission of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason.moderation, generosity, dignity, generosity, ambition, evenness, truthfulness, courtesy, friendliness, justice, practical wisdom, just indignation. These virtues are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on man's submission of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason.moderation, generosity, majesty, magnanimity, ambition, evenness, truthfulness, courtesy, friendliness, justice, practical wisdom, just indignation. These virtues are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and on the basis of this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on man's submission of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on man's submission of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason. Reasonable virtues develop in a person through training, i.e. they anticipate moral virtues. Ethical virtue is based on man's submission of all his aspirations to the dictates of reason.
The highest state of mind in Aristotle does not consist in some kind of static state, as in his predecessors, but consists in the activity of will and reason, constant movement towards the golden mean. This volitional activity of the mind and feelings, the disciplining requirement for activity is one of the significant features of Aristotle's ethics.
Christian morality of the middle ages
Christian morality stems from the basic tenets of the Christian teaching about God who descended from heaven, was crucified, suffered for people and then rose again. The red line in the Christian religion and in Christian ethics is the idea of salvation. The salvation of the soul through following the commandments implies not just a certain view of the concepts of good and evil, moral and immoral, beautiful and ugly. This is primarily the way of life that befits an honest Christian. During the period of early Christianity, the most ethical was the maximum distance from state, political affairs and from personal needs. The alienation from the state can be explained by the oppressed position of the first Christians, this alienation is manifested with particular force in Tertullian's protest against the rapprochement of church and state,who recognized the state as a devilish creation. Aurelius Augustine (aka Augustine the Blessed, 354-430) had a tremendous influence on the development of early Christian and Christian ethics in general. Having developed the idea of original sin, Augustine considered the very nature of man to be not prone to virtue. The salvation of the soul and the manifestation of true morality is available only to a Christian in the bosom of the Christian church, although membership in the church does not yet guarantee God's grace. Augustine viewed both human life and the history of mankind as a struggle between two hostile kingdoms: heavenly and earthly. The power of God on earth represents the church, which is opposed by everything worldly and secular. Morality here is manifested in devotion to the church, devotion to the kingdom of God. The actions of God on man, due to the depravity and perversion of the latter,must inevitably be violent. That God uses coercion is evident, according to Augustine, from the example of the Apostle Paul, who "was compelled to know and possess the truth by the great violence of Christ." From the fact that God frightens and punishes, it follows that both the state and the church should punish and forcibly convert heretics. It is possible that this postulate gave in the future a moral right to exist and act for such ecclesiastical organizations as the Holy Inquisition.that this postulate gave in the future the moral right to exist and act for such ecclesiastical organizations as the Holy Inquisition.that this postulate gave in the future a moral right to exist and act for such ecclesiastical organizations as the Holy Inquisition.
Some difficulty in interpreting Augustine's views is presented by his postulate of predestination, which later, many centuries later, was picked up and developed by Calvin. Augustine is revered by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church and his views were defining in Christian ethics until Thomas Aquinas, although later Augustinianism remained the dominant philosophy of the Augustinian order, among whom was Martin Luther.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) linked the Christian doctrine with the philosophy of Aristotle, founded Thomism, which represented "the leading direction in Catholic thought." In his ethical views on morality and ethics, Thomas Aquinas adopted the ethical teaching of Aristotle about the search for a golden mean and added a Christian element to it. Thus, in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas there are two types of virtues: the virtues of "natural law", which were available to pagans, and the virtues of "divine law", which are available only to believing Christians. The virtues of the "natural law" or moral virtues are formed by doing good, moral deeds, while the virtues of the "divine law" or theological virtues are acquired not through deeds, but through faith and Christian love.
If we talk about the ethics of the Middle Ages, we can note in the Middle Ages a decline in philosophical thought in general. Morality was not studied as an independent phenomenon, it was viewed only as a religious virtue of humility, acceptance and obedience. Science almost stopped in its development, constrained by the rigid framework of dogmas and church rules. The dogmatism of medieval religious rules began to weaken only during the Renaissance.
Renaissance
During the Renaissance, which began in Italy at the beginning of the XIV and then lasted until the last quarter of the XVI centuries, there was a shift in all spheres of human life. In Italy, new economic and cultural development took place more intensively than in Central and Western Europe, and had a more noticeable impact on philosophy, art, and the whole way of life. “It was in Italy that man first escaped from feudal society and broke those bonds that both gave him a sense of confidence and limited him. Italy, according to Burckhardt, belongs to "the birthright in relation to the development of personality in the European family", and the Italian is the first individual."
The world seemed to have pushed its boundaries both geographically (at this time great geographical discoveries were taking place) and in informational (opening of book printing) meanings. The dogmatism of the Middle Ages began to recede, and a new ethics appeared not on the basis of ossified dogmas, but on the basis of natural reason, which became independent of the requirements of religiosity. The founder of this new ethics should be recognized the French theologian Pierre Charron, who, in his De la sagesse, published in 1610, states: “Morality is the first, religion is the second, for religion is something learned by heart, coming to us from outside, learned from teachings and revelations and is unable, therefore, to create morality. It is rather a product of this latter, for morality is primary, therefore, it is older and more natural,and to put it after religion is to pervert every order. Putting morality above and older than religion was a breakthrough for that era. For the first time since antiquity, thought gained freedom and broke out of the framework of religious idealism. It remained and exists to this day, but since then it has not been the dominant (in fact, the only) direction of ethical thought.
The English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) described the very principles of scientific knowledge of the world, introducing the concept of experiment as a way to test a hypothesis. There were many attacks on science at that time. “After analyzing them, Bacon came to the conclusion that God did not forbid the knowledge of nature. On the contrary, he gave man a mind that longs for knowledge of the universe. People only need to understand that there are two kinds of cognition: 1) cognition of good and evil, 2) cognition of things created by God. Thus, Francis Bacon makes a moral justification for a person's knowledge of the world around him. He ethically rehabilitates science and thus makes it possible in principle. After Bacon, philosophers were able to comprehend man and his morality not according to the principles of religion (more precisely, not only), but also according to the principles of science.
The transition from the Renaissance to the New Time has no clear boundaries; historians have proposed many dates that symbolically delineate the eras. In the history of the study of morality, this date can be considered the publication in 1651 of Hobbes's book "Leviathan, or Matter, the Form and Power of the Church and Civil State."
Chapter 2: the history of the study of morality in modern times
The philosophy and ethics of the New Time is armed with a powerful scientific analytical and methodological apparatus, which allowed it to comprehend the phenomenon of human morality from a scientific point of view. A striking example of such scientific understanding is the concept of the social contract by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). He wrote about the "natural state" of man as a kind of hypothetical state of a human being, not bound by any restrictions and rules of morality, ethics and social laws. According to Hobbes, the lives of people in the "natural state" were "lonely, poor, unpleasant, cruel and short." “It was a state where personal interest, lack of rights and agreements hampered the development of society. Life was "anarchic" - without governance and sovereignty. People in the "natural state" were apolitical and asocial. This natural state results in the emergence of a social contract. " Proceeding from the fact that the rules of social behavior are inseparable from society itself, and a person as a rational being cannot form outside of society, there can be no "natural state" in practice, just as there can be no society without the rules of coexistence in it. In human nature (biological nature, in modern scientific language), Hobbes saw an exclusively destructive, evil inclination, which must be limited by a social contract, the fear of punishment for non-fulfillment of it. People entered into a social contract and thus deliberately limited their nature in exchange for security - according to Hobbes, it was for her sake that the social contract was concluded. Hobbes's thought was unusually bold for its time and it was, apparently,the first non-religious concept of human morality since ancient times. Hobbes indirectly stimulated religious thought, as the concepts of the English moralists Ralph Kedworth, Henry More, and Richard Camerland grew up controversial with the concept of Hobbes.
The social contract theory proposed by Hobbes was continued and developed by John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).
Locke developed the idea of the natural rights and freedoms of people that everyone has. The social contract was not made for security, as in Hobbes's, but to protect these natural rights, which include freedom and private property. In contrast to Hobbes, who defended almost absolute power, Locke was much more liberal in his views. His views greatly influenced Adam Smith and his concept of the market economy.
Rousseau did not see society as a collection of individuals, as Locke did, but as a single organism that functions well only when individuals make efforts for the public good. In the "state of nature" everyone will defend only their own personal interests, the social contract was concluded for the common good, for the public good. Based on the concept of Rousseau, society should be democratically governed by the people themselves and contribute to the development of "natural" man, educate people in such a way that the conflict between natural and cultural principles was reduced to naught, and Rousseau himself was clearly on the side of the natural, natural principle. “The basis of morality is in the original aspirations of a person, not spoiled by culture. The same voluntarism permeates his theory of social structure,the basis of which is the free will of all who make up the public organization. " Obviously, the philosopher's views were influenced by the fact that he was, among other things, also a botanist, and reflections on the development of a plant from a seed, on the disclosure of the already laid natural potential, pushed him to the appropriate conclusions about human nature.
Rousseau, like a number of other thinkers (F. Hutcheson, D. Hume, A. Smith, D. Diderot) was influenced by the ethics of Shaftesbury (1671-1712), which can be called pantheistic eudemonism. In it, he seeks to reconcile egoism and altruism, noting that the former leads to personal good, and the latter to the common. Shaftesbury criticized Hobbes's concept of man as a creature clearly inclined to evil and therefore in need of limitation, seeing in human nature mainly the bright side. A person commits evil, immoral acts not because of evil qualities, but as a result of the underdevelopment of good qualities, because of the disharmony of his mental development. Harmony, "unity with the Whole", was at the center of Shaftesbury's ethical and aesthetic picture of the world. He introduced the concept of moral feeling,by which he understood the innate ability of a person to sympathize with good and feel aversion to evil. This is possible because good and evil in Shaftesbury are objective values, good for one is always good for another, because good is harmony. The harmony of the soul leads to happiness. "Thus," Shaftesbury concludes his study of virtue, "for everyone, virtue is good, and vice is evil."
The ethics of Kant (1724-1804) became a new word in the interpretation of morality. In his understanding of morality, he was guided not by human experience, not by the moral norms of various societies, but by “norms arising from a“pure”moral will. In the a priorism of duty, Kant seeks the source of the universality of moral norms."
According to Kant, moral behavior is following the moral law, unconditionally serving it. The moral law is a thing in itself completely independent of any external forces, which exists in a person a priori (i.e., a person has knowledge of this law from the beginning). The moral value is both the moral law itself and the person - the bearer of the moral law. Moral values cannot be a means, but they are always a goal and cannot be assessed from any other standpoint, except from their own moral values.
Kant deduces the concept of the moral law not from empirical observations, but proceeding from his own abstract logical reasoning. The philosophy of subjective idealism of Kant, although it requires a fair amount of mental effort for its understanding, increased the range of opinions about morality, setting as the goal of a person not happiness (eudemonism) and not practical value (utilitarianism), but duty.
Utilitarianism as a direction in ethics comes from eudemonism. The latter evaluates an act as moral if it leads to the happiness of a person, while the former determines the morality of an act by its usefulness. Utilitarianism cannot be called contrary to eudemonism, because utilitarianism is not against happiness. But he has a clear definition of happiness, believing that happiness is in many ways analogous to utility. “The preconditions for the emergence of utilitarianism appear in the works of the English moralists of the 16th-17th centuries. The theory received its first systematic presentation in the writings of Jeremiah Bentham. According to the classical formulation of Bentham, it is moral that "brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people." Thus, Bentham approached the concept of morality from a practical perspective.
Utilitarianism adherents include many representatives of evolutionism and Marxism.
A prominent representative and founder of evolutionism was the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). His concept of morality stemmed from his concepts of society and man. According to evolutionism, man and society arose as a result of evolutionary processes, and were not previously designed and created. Spencer used the term "evolution" seven years before Darwin published his great book "The Origin of Species" in 1859, although he used this word in a broader sense, implying the gradual development of not only biological objects, but matter in general. Evolutionism is a materialistic philosophy in which the emergence of objects is substantiated without an act of creation, but by a natural way of gradual change from simple to complex. At the same time, evolutionists are adopting all the achievements of science and Spencer himself took the Darwinian concept of "natural selection" to describe the evolution of not only living nature, but also human society. According to Spencer, moral behavior is behavior for the benefit of a kind, for the benefit of the development of society. At the same time, “S. ardently defended the principles of individual freedom of competition. Any interference in the natural course of events, especially socialist planning, according to S., leads to biological degeneration, encouraging the "worst at the expense of the best." S. advocated limiting the role of the state in public life, to the point of denying the poor assistance or care for raising children. " Thus, a moral act from the point of view of humanism (such as helping the sick and the poor) could be considered by some evolutionists as immoral. In this regard, one cannot but recall morality in the Third Reich, where the terms “struggle for existence”, “living space” (area), etc. were taken out of context from biology and squeezed into sociology. At the same time, not all evolutionists extend the evolutionary principles of natural selection in nature to human society. The prominent modern scientist Richard Dawkins, who considered the process of evolution through the prism of genetics, claims that man is the first species on the planet that has the ability to develop not according to the laws of biological, but according to the laws of social evolution, which, firstly, is significantly fleeting biological, and secondly, it can be controlled by the mind. From the point of view of rationalism (of which Dawkins is an adherent), this philosophical movement closest to science,true morality and ethics flow from reason, and therefore a moral society is a reasonable society.
Describing the views on morality in modern times, one cannot ignore the nihilistic views that deny morality as a value. A striking example of this denial was the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814), infamous for his pornographic and shocking books. De Sade concludes that morality and ethics are a means of control and limitation of people who, due to weakness, limited mind or occupying the lower levels in the social hierarchy, cannot impose their will and realize their desires. By itself, morality is conditional and is the product of that part of society that reigns supreme over the majority. This interpretation of morality allowed De Sade to divide all people into slaves and masters, whose freedom is not limited either by morality, or by religion, or by law. De Sade "considered the satisfaction of the aspirations of the individual to be the main value of life." was a supporter of hedonism, not constrained by any framework. The only objective limiting factor for man for De Sade is nature, which in itself is immoral. De Sade proves that immoral behavior, as a rule, is the most practical and honest (honest to oneself), and therefore the most reasonable is to abandon the subjective framework of religion, traditions, morality in order to fully realize their own desires, no matter how perverted they weren't.and therefore the most reasonable is to abandon the subjective framework of religion, traditions, morality in order to fully realize their own desires, no matter how perverted they are.and therefore the most reasonable is to abandon the subjective framework of religion, traditions, morality in order to fully realize their own desires, no matter how perverted they are.
Despite the obvious marginality, primitiveness, epotage and focus on external effect, the philosophy of the Marquis finds a lively response in the second half of the 20th century and today. The ideology of individual success, personal freedom and all that is now commonly called "liberal values" with their priority of the personal over the public, criticism of patriotism, traditional values and religions vividly echoes the preaching of selfishness, absolute freedom and permissiveness of De Sade.
The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) influenced the morals of modern times in the strongest way. “Regardless of the value of his positive ethical views, his moral skepticism cannot but be recognized as a healing moment in the history of ethical teachings. After Nietzsche, it is no longer possible to get rid of psychological theories showing how justice, sympathy, love for one's neighbor, self-sacrifice and other theoretically generally accepted principles arise from egoism or other internal stimuli, but it is necessary to justify them in essence, to give a rational justification of their obligation and advantages over the opposite. them with human aspirations."
Nietzsche was born in the era of romanticism and his path, both as a person and as a philosopher, was the path of a romantic, tragic hero. A romantic hero is someone who lives in struggle and whose fate is tragic. Nietzsche, having entered this image, fought with the established norms and values, subjecting to a radical doubt all ideas about good and bad, which were dominant in European thought. As a singer of life, Nietzsche was an irrationalist, i.e. he did not believe in the power of reason, because the real power of life, according to Nietzsche, is possessed not by reason, but by instinct. The main instinct of all living things is the will to power, which can only be suppressed by reason. Therefore, the body is higher and wiser than the spirit, the latter is only a reflection and symbol of the former. The physical weakness and soreness of Nietzsche himself must have paradoxically contributed to such conclusions,who was forced to fight various ailments from an early age. Feeling inferior from a bodily point of view, but fighting for life, Nietzsche glorified vitality, creating in his philosophy a cult of life in the name of life. His hatred of Christianity can be explained by aversion to the Christian preaching of humility, Christian denial of the bodily in the name of the spiritual. Nietzsche saw the highest spirituality in the struggle for life and in the name of life. His image of the superman as a symbol of this indomitable struggle was in many ways diametrically opposed to the moral ideal of the past. “For the sake of the Superman, Nietzsche condemns all moral foundations, wants to destroy the old morality and create a new one. However, the virtue he praises turns out to be a force in no disguise. This is a wild fervor, bringing destruction and death, the fervor that people living according to Christian moral principles,sought to weaken, change or win forever. " Nietzsche's cult of will and strength was ennobled by his vivid poetic language. To some extent, the accusations of Nietzsche for preparing the ground for the ideology of Nazism with its masculine cult of the superman can be considered justified, because no one more than Friedrich Nietzsche so much extolled the strength and will regarding reason and mercy. His aesthetic rehabilitation of what used to be considered evil was consonant with the era of decadence and directly influenced it. The decadent moods of decadence were set off by the storm and the onslaught of the Nietzschean hero, who tramples on the morality and norms of society, who, in the language of F. M. Dostoevsky, "not a trembling creature, but has the right." At the same time, the beauty and metaphorical nature of the language of Nietzsche (who was a philologist by training) hindered and hinders unambiguous,unambiguous interpretations of his works. Nietzsche can be called a poet as much as a philosopher. And as a poet, he inspired people who worship him, not only for good deeds.
After the Second World War, many attempts were made to explain the disaster that had happened. One of the brilliant explanations of the source of war and violence can be considered the book by Konrad Lorenz “Aggression. The So-called Evil”, for which the author received the Nobel Prize.
Konrad Lorenz (1903 - 1989) became famous primarily as an ethologist (ethology is the science of animal behavior) and had three educations: medical, biological and philosophical. This all-round development allowed him to find general patterns and work at the intersection of sciences. Studying the patterns of behavior within communities of animals of different species, Lorenz could not help drawing parallels with human society. Lorentz can be attributed to philosophers - scientists, in contrast to the above described Nietzsche, who was a philosopher - poet. Lorentz's ethical concept was derived not from his own experiences and subjective reflections, but from observing the world, people and animals, from experiments and rationalistic reasoning according to the laws of logic. For a person with a scientific worldview, Lorentz's research clarifies a lot in the function of morality and practically puts an end to the question of its origin.
The rudiments of ethical behavior are shown to us by highly organized animal communities. One can legitimately talk about this by observing the behavior of birds and mammals living in communities: wolves, penguins, monkeys, dolphins, elephants, lions, jackdaws, geese, etc. The behavior of any social animal when interacting with each other is regulated by strict rules. This is a clear hierarchy in the pack, and specific rules of intragroup dynamics, as well as a pronounced ritualization of aggressive and sexual behavior. Here is how Lorenz describes the instinctive prohibition on the manifestation of aggression in wolves: “In the situation in question, the strongest will never touch a defeated opponent. You may notice that the winner would like to teach the enemy a lesson, but he simply cannot do it! A dog or a wolf, turning his neck out to the enemy,will never be bitten seriously. The one who won the battle growls, grumbles, clicks his jaws in the air, sometimes even makes such a movement as if shaking an invisible victim. But this amazing "prohibition" is valid only as long as the injured animal remains in a position of submission. And since the battle stopped suddenly, at the very moment when the defeated took this pose, the winner often has to freeze in an uncomfortable position. It soon becomes tiresome for him to keep his muzzle close to the enemy's neck. And then the victorious animal steps aside. Taking advantage of this, the loser tries to escape. But he does not always succeed, because as soon as he changes the posture of submission to any other, the enemy immediately pounces on his unfortunate victim, who is again forced to take the original position. It looks like this,as if the winner is just waiting for the moment when the other leaves the position of submission and thereby allows him to fulfill his urgent desire - to bite the enemy. Fortunately for the subordinate, his master by the end of the battle is obsessed with an urgent desire to leave his mark on the battlefield and thereby secure this territory for himself. In other words, he should "raise his leg" near the nearest vertical object. This ceremony of securing title to property usually provides the vanquished with an opportunity to escape.he should "raise his leg" near the nearest vertical object. This ceremony of securing title to property usually provides the vanquished with an opportunity to escape.he should "raise his leg" near the nearest vertical object. This ceremony of securing title to property usually provides the vanquished with an opportunity to escape.
As a result of these simple observations, we come to understand the phenomena that are relevant in our daily life. In a varied external expression, they surround us from all sides, as if waiting for us to realize their inner essence. "Social restraints" of this kind are by no means uncommon, on the contrary, they are so widespread that we are used to looking at them as something taken for granted and, passing by, do not stop our attention on them. The old proverb says that a raven will not peck out a crow's eyes, and this is one of the few fair proverbs. " And in the same place below: “I learned from my acquaintance with the behavior of wolves a new and, obviously, a deeper understanding of one passage from the Gospel, which is often interpreted completely incorrectly and, until recently, caused a sharply negative attitude in me:"If you get hit on one cheek, turn the other." You should not turn the other cheek to the enemy so that he hit you again, but so that he could not do it."
The obedience of animals to the rules of their community is dictated by instinct, i.e. an innate algorithm of behavior, developed over tens and hundreds of generations in an evolutionary way, when under the influence of the two main driving forces of evolution - variability and selection - the most optimal forms of joint behavior for survival were developed. In this case, there is no need to talk about any conscious morality, conscious rules. But nevertheless, these restraining mechanisms can be considered the foundation on which the building of human morality subsequently ascended. Science tells us that something does not arise from nothing. Everything has a reason and a premise. The prerequisite for human morality can be considered those laws of living nature, according to which animals live and prosper, living together.
Lorenz consistently develops the idea that the mechanisms of restraining aggression in animals are directly proportional to the animal's ability to kill. "Armed" animals that have the ability to quickly kill (like the above-described wolves) have rather tough containment mechanisms, while animals traditionally perceived by humans as examples of peacefulness (the same pigeons and sheep) do not have such mechanisms in fights with each other. exhibit genuine ruthlessness. The emergence of restraining mechanisms for these species was irrelevant due to the lack of effective instruments of killing in these animals, therefore, the defeated one, as a rule, has the opportunity to flee. From this point of view, pigeons look much more immoral than wolves. The emergence of morality in man, according to Lorenz, was due to the increased destructive ability of man,which he gained with reason. Conscious morality replaces the prohibitive instinct for man.
“What could have happened when a person first took a stone in his hand? It is likely that something similar to what can be observed in children aged two or three years, and sometimes even older: no instinctive or moral prohibition prevents them from striking each other on the head with all their might with heavy objects that they barely can raise. Probably, the discoverer of the stone hesitated just as little about hitting his comrade, who had just angered him. After all, he could not have known about the terrible effect of his invention; the inherent prohibition of killing, then as now, was attuned to his natural weaponry. Was he embarrassed when his tribal brother fell dead in front of him? We can almost certainly assume this.
Social higher animals often react to the sudden death of a relative in the most dramatic way. Gray geese stand over a dead friend with a hiss, in the highest readiness for defense. This is described by Heinroth, who once shot a goose in front of his family. I saw the same thing when an Egyptian goose hit a young gray in the head; he, staggering, ran to his parents and immediately died of cerebral hemorrhage. Parents could not see the blow and therefore reacted to the fall and death of their child in the same way. The Munich elephant Wastl, who, without any aggressive intent, while playing, seriously wounded his servant, came into the greatest excitement and stood over the wounded, protecting him, which, unfortunately, prevented him from providing timely assistance. Bernhard Grzimek told me that the male chimpanzee who bit and seriously injured himwas trying to pull the edges of the wound with his fingers when his outburst of rage passed.
It is likely that the first Cain immediately realized the horror of his deed. Soon enough, there should have been talk that killing too many members of his tribe would lead to an unwanted weakening of his combat potential. Whatever the educational punishment that prevented the unimpeded use of new weapons, in any case, some, albeit primitive, form of responsibility arose, which already then protected humanity from self-destruction.
Thus, the first function that responsible morality in human history has performed was to restore the lost balance between weaponry and the inherent prohibition of killing. " The most important discovery of Lorenz was the postulate of the spontaneity of aggression. “After analyzing the behavior of many animal species, Lorenz confirmed Freud's conclusion that aggression is not just a reaction to external stimuli. If you remove these stimuli, then aggressiveness will accumulate, and the threshold value of triggering stimulation can drop down to zero. An example of such a situation in humans is the expeditionary frenzy that occurs in isolated small groups of people in which it comes to killing a best friend for an insignificant reason. At the same time, Lorenz firmly believed in the possibilities of the human mind. One of the most compelling reasonswhy, until now, reason does not fully outweigh his biological aggressive principle in a person, Lorenz sees in human pride and arrogance. Egocentrism is characteristic of man, which he inherits from childhood: it irreversibly arises at a certain stage of the formation of consciousness. Anthropocentrism comes from egocentrism and with its immodest pride - and how many philosophers of different eras were subject to this vice! The geocentric picture of the world before Copernicus, and the ideology of Eurocentrism today, came from egocentrism. A person who recognizes himself as the "crown of creation" and as the navel of the earth is not able to soberly assess himself, take a critical attitude to himself, start working on his shortcomings, learn and improve. In order to become better, you must admit your own imperfection, perhapseven try to look at yourself from the point of view of a purely scientific principle of non-exclusiveness. Acknowledging his own imperfection, a person ceases to search for personified evil (devil, shaitan, communists, Jews, etc.), on which one can blame all the responsibility for troubles and injustice. The person begins to think. A person begins to seek knowledge and build a picture of the world that can be verified by scientific methods.which can be verified by scientific methods.which can be verified by scientific methods.
Lorenz stresses that accepting oneself as a consequence of biological evolution does not diminish human greatness. “I don’t want to discuss here the likelihood - or, better to say, the incontestability - of a doctrine of the origin of species, which is many times greater than the probability of all our historical knowledge. Everything that we know today organically fits into this teaching, nothing contradicts it, and it has all the virtues that a teaching about creation can have: convincing power, poetic beauty and impressive greatness. Whoever has mastered this in its entirety cannot be disgusted either by Darwin's discovery that we have a common origin with animals, or by Freud's conclusions that we are governed by the same instincts that governed our prehuman ancestors. On the contrary, a knowledgeable person will feel only a new reverence for Reason and Responsible Morality,who first came to this world only with the appearance of man - and could well give him the strength to subjugate the animal heritage in himself, if he in his pride did not deny the very existence of such a heritage”.
Only a realistic view of oneself gives a person a real opportunity to improve and live by reason, namely in the mind scientists have seen and see the source of true morality. Lorenz warns about the danger of modern liberal concepts of man, which, in pursuit of their ideal of a free man - a consumer, close their eyes to reality, passing off wishful thinking. “The phenomena of dehumanization, considered in the first seven chapters, are facilitated by the pseudo-democratic doctrine, according to which a person’s social and moral behavior is not at all determined by the structure of his nervous system and sense organs, developed in the course of the evolution of the species, but is formed exclusively as a result of the“conditioning”of a person by one the cultural environment to which he is exposed during his ontogenesis”.
Conclusion
Morality is one of the characteristics by which a person differs from an animal. The function of morality is to set a framework and guidelines for a person that would regulate his behavior. In unreasonable animals, these frames and guidelines are set primarily by instinct, in humans, with the weakening (but not disappearance) of the instinctive sphere, the mind took over the function of the behavior regulator. Morality is a prerequisite for the emergence of reason along with the secondary signaling system and therefore, along with speech, is a distinctive feature of Homo sapiens. Morality is more flexible and more reasonable than instinct, although it is capable of assuming very harsh forms, such as the religious, dogmatic morality of the Middle Ages. Moral behavior is determined by the society in which a person was born and by the depth of his worldview, the maturity and health of his personality. Moral deformity, the inability of a person to constructive community with other people, the inability to benefit and develop personally is the same acute problem as mental deviation, because if morality is one of the foundations of reason, then moral deformity is the deformity of reason.
Art and science work together to educate morally healthy people. This is also one of the most important tasks of society and its educational institutions. Creative intelligentsia, scientists and artists should remember this and be aware of their responsibility to society. The moral ideals beautifully portrayed in Russian classical literature must not be trampled underfoot by the chimera of "freedom" that flourishes in the modern West. For people of science and art, N. A. Nekrasov's covenant about "reasonable, good, eternal" should not be an empty phrase.
Author: Psychologist Boris Medinsky