Реферат: The concept of morality
PLAN
1. The concept of morality, its constituents
2. Primitive forms of morality
3. Morality and tradition
Conclusion
1. The notionof morality, its constituents
Etymologicallythe term «morality» comes to the Latin word «mos» (set «mores»),which indicates the «character». Another meaning of the word — thelaw, rule, order. In contemporary philosophicalliterature on moral ethics course, a special form of social consciousness and akind of public relations, one of the main ways to regulate human actions insociety by means of rules.
Moralityarises and evolves based on the needs of society to regulate the behavior ofpeople in different areas of their lives. Morality is one of the methodsavailable to people understanding the complex processes of social life. A rootof the problem is to regulate relations between morality and interests ofindividual and society.
Moral ideals,principles and rules of any representations from people about justice,humanity, good, public goods, etc. The behavior of people who meet theserepresentations appear moral, opposite — immoral. In other words, the moralthat, in the opinion of people in the interests of society and individuals.That brings the greatest benefits. Naturally, these presentation varied fromcentury to century, and besides, they were different in various layers andgroups. Hence there is morality in the specificity of different professions.All of the grounds to say that morality has historic, social class andprofessional nature.
Broad field ofmorality, but nevertheless richness of human relations can be reduced torelations:
• individualand society;
• individualand collective;
• the staffand the community;
• staff andstaff;
• man and man;
• Rights toherself.
Thus, thedecision of questions of morality entitled not only collective but alsoindividual consciousness: moral authority of someone depends on how correctlyhe understands the general moral principles and ideals of society and reflectedin their historical necessity. Objectivity andexactly grounds allow self-identity, as his own consciousness, to accept andimplement technical requirements, make decisions, develop rules of life forthemselves and evaluate what happens. Here, mouth problem ratio will andnecessity. The correct determination of the general grounds of morality doesnot mean an unequivocal withdrawal of his specific moral norms or principles,and direct passage of the individual «historical trend». moralactivity includes not only performance, but creativity and new norms andprinciples, being more all meets modern ideals and ways of theirimplementation.
Aimless searchfor the exact determination of the essence of morality, it tried unsuccessfullyto do even in antiquity. You can only mark a basic framework of concepts that«make» this science:
• moralactivity — an essential component of morality, which manifests itself in deeds.Act, or set of behaviors characterizingindividual behavior gives an idea of its true morality. Therefore, onlyactivities and realization of moral principles and rules allow individual rightto recognition in her true moral culture. Deed in turn contains threecomponents:
1. Motive — morally conscious motivation to do or act the same motivation — a set ofmotives, which means the advantage of certain moral values in the choice of theindividual committing an act. For example… Two friends, employees oxygenplant, sat in the evaporator. Standing hot summer. One said: «Good toostudytysya out!». Another quickly turned the shutter, resulting in whathe said was frozen alive that broke pairs of oxygen ...
It would seemthat in this case no direct intentions to commit an offense and the criminalresult here does not match the motives and goals of action. Here the motivationis seemingly made by inadequate actions. It acts rather be called bezmotyvnymbut «zhornutist reasons», his situational conditionality does notmean his absence. This impulsive action was not criminal purpose and propermotive, but this worked stereotypical willingness to act carelessly,thoughtlessly, under the influence of some isolated representations ...
2. The result- material or spiritual implications of actions that have specified values.
3. Rating surrounding, both the act and its outcome andmotive. Rating deeds produced in correlation with its social significance: itsvalue for a particular person, persons, group, society, etc.
So, not everyact this action, but action is motivated by subjective, that is for someone soaudacious and value to a specified ratio (estimate). Act can be moral, immoralor pozamoralnym, but, nevertheless, that irreparable. For example,… raisethe unit to attack morally, but if the attack will lead to irrational andsenseless death, that this should not only immoral but criminal.
• Moral(moral) relationships — relationships in starostas come people doing things. Moral relations are subjective dialectics (motivation,interests, desires) and objective (norms, ideals, good luck) with whichaccounted considered, and for individuals who have an imperative character. Enteringthe moral relationship, people impose on themselves defined moral obligationsand at the same time impose a moral law.
• moralconsciousness — involves cognition, knowledge, motivation and volitionaldecisive influence on moral and ethical activity relationships. It alsoincludes: moral identity, moral self-image. Moral consciousness alwaysaxiological, because each of its element, it concludes with the assessmentposition produced by the system of values and based on a certain set of moralnorms, patterns, principles, traditions and ideals. Moral consciousness as a system of assessments with signs or plus orminus, reflecting the reality in the light of approval and condemnation, bycontrast good and evil, and related activities, intent — these categories inquestions of ethics are paramount. Aristotle, for the first time inEuropean ethics fully considered the concept of «intention» isunderstood as the reason for his virtue and consciously opposed, distinguishedfrom the will and representation («Nykomahova Ethics, Book III, r.4, 5, 6,7). The intention is not right that cannot be done, and directed that the manin power, it concerns a means to achieve the goal (you cannot say: I'm going tobe blessed) as opposed to the will of all that can deal with the impossible ( desire immortality, for example) and send that out ofour power (desire wins a particular competitor in the race), the purposes ofman. Kernel ideas of Aristotle, according to which the concerns of intentionand the will — the objectives of human activities, is that content going to be,as a rule, the implementation of goals, real, taken in unity with the means toachieve them. The intention is also not present. The first is alwayspractically oriented, yields in the world just what people in power, the secondextends to all: the everlasting, and the impossible and the first differencesbetween good and evil, second — validity and falsity and the first indicationis to act, says what to pursue and what toavoid, what to do with the subject, the second examines what the subject itselfand how it is useful and the first praise when it agrees with debt, second — when it is truly; first concerns what is known, the second that we donot know. In addition, completing his comparative description of Aristotle, thebest intentions and the best representation not found in the same people. Own asignificant sign of intent Aristotle sees is that it is preceded bypre-selection, weighing motives under which he first understands the differentrole of reason, that motivates and pleasures: „It is something that iselected to other mostly.
2. Primitiveforms of morality
moralitysociety
The mainsocial function of morality, which determines the specificity of social being — a feature of the regulation of human behavior and interpersonal relationships.
No society could be a motivated and be a chaotic clash of selfishinterests blind sat, no normalized and not regulated. This hypothetical situation of zero ordering society-tion of lifeBritish philosopher T. Hobbes (1588-1679), described as «bellum omnium contraomnes» («the war of all against all“ — Lat.). Intolerance of such a stateof society makes people, according to Hobbes, UC fins between a kind ofagreement, the social contract that, on the basis of reciprocity, limiting theright of every individual, thus must ensure implementation of these bases amongthem, especially the right to life and its protection (which implies theemergence of state and law).
However, before the idea of Hobbes social contract thinkers put forwardlate antiquity, in the XVI century. we find it inthe Netherlands sociologist and lawyer G. Greece (1583-1645), later itdeveloped such prominent thinkers as J. Locke, Spinoza, Kant, J.J. Rus co. Thisidea reflected the belief in the immanence (internal prytamannosti) social lifeof people of certain forms of its legal regulation.
In fact, wesee that in the initial team of human mu as it zoomed past the generalbiological determinants of behavior — instinct stud ity for speciesconservation, maternal instinct — begins to branch out and approved by a properregulatory system of regulation of life is such that one way or another appealto the human awareness bridge. Buying sometimes in their specificmanifestations already quite sensible nature,these initial behavioral norms are however examples of zhorstokosti suchintegrity and comprehensiveness of pressure on the individual who spoke in ahuman like we hardly find in all the subsequent history of mankind. Innot making these rules syncretic (nerozchlenovano to future separation)combined influence of magic, custom, myth, and that in later times was calledthe morality — not in vain in the literature sometimes refers to»mononormy" initial zhyttyeustroyu.
A strikingexample of such «mononorm is in produc society on the family system ofprohibition — taboo or tabuatsiya (with Polynesian). The fact that modern researchers know about the phenomenon of taboo thatgives reason to see it complicated, but the entire complex representations,based on — a categorical prohibition of certain actions and intentions aimed atthe „inviolable“ objects that excite the sense of mortal terrorthreat — and yet reverence, charm, if not zvablyvost.
As far as wecan judge, taboos were associated primarily with the prohibition of incest — sexual relations between relatives, and the cult of totem — the sacred animal,whose name is now called himself a family. With the development of primitivemankind appear more and new kinds of taboos, if only to bring them into thelist, he would have consisted of one thousand prohibitions. Among the most important groups of taboo can cite thefollowing: fire protection and housing, protection of labor operations,protection of implements and weapons, protection of important people — leaders,priests, protection of weaker members of the tribe — women, children, theelderly, protection from hazards associated with touching the corpse,restrictions on consumption of certain foods; ban tion and limitations relatedto certain important documents and personal life phases (initiation, sexualintercourse, childbirth, marriage, monthly, etc..) protection of property andso on.
We can assumethat the entire set of similar taboos in general satisfy the need to protectimportant elements of life activity of the descent group. While explaining tionorigin of particular forms tabuatsiyi sometimes extremely difficult. Thus, a critical issue in the history of the originalremains the problem of morality tabuyuvannya incest. Stimulating tionvalues of the categorical prohibition is no doubt — thanks to advances in understandingher relatives all system links achievements ing greater harmony and cooperationwithin the tribal community, finally, overall growth is against this backdropof human consciousness speak for themselves. But why was the ban introducedherself? Hypotheses of this there are many, but doubtless among them yet. If,say, out of ideas about the dangers of blood mixing for generations, how couldit know about the original people for whom a mystery link between intercourseand childbirth? Currently there are psychoanalytic, semiotic, economic ticeconomic (as a woman fighting for labor), and other explanation for this trulya turning point in the history of human morality. Perhaps, however, that herewe are faced with the limit at which the social and cultural history of moralsinterfere with the more general anthropological and existential factors.
In any case inthe making of specific forms of moral regulation appears very importantmechanism of action tabuatsiynoyi ban. On the one hand, the ban has on humanscomprehensive and inevitable way. Z. Freud in his book „Totem andTaboo“ describes the case when lighter maoriyskoho leader once led to thedeaths of several people from his tribe. Governor lost his lighter, and the menfound her and began to use it. When they foundout who it is lighter (and all things taboo leader), he died of horror. Thereare many similar examples. Yes, a healthy person could die suddenly died, helearned that the leader had breakfast food, etc..
On the otherhand, it is essential immanent nature of punishment for violationstabuatsiynoyi ban. A person can not punish anyone, without any outsideinterference, even when there are no witnesses of its „horrible“ act,she, so to speak, an open yetsya for punishment: depressed, seriously ill,sometimes, as we see, and dies. In this peculiar attribute of the mechanism ofthe ban, taboo easily recognize a prototype for future autonomous morality.
Of course, pure morality in early societies did not exist, as there wasno pure art, pure philosophy or even religion pure, pure spirituality ingeneral — ruled magical syncretism. Yet ing all ofhuman history was the original post accumulation behavior of elements andattributes which subsequently formed dug qualitatively specific phenomenon of morality:care for the elderly, children and women, a kind of discipline of labor andcooperation, a culture of human relations, the established system education,including moral. Paleolinhvistyka shows that in the ancient stone mu age(Palaeolithic) people have an idea of the good, duty, conscience, and someother basic mo by spectral category. Thus, inthe language tasmaniytsiv — people who lived under the Paleolithic in theprevious century, until he was cut off colonizers — even though that languagehad only a few words already present terms „good“,»bearcat", «shame» and others.
Significant«peredmoralni» moments (or, more precisely, those that include somemoral content, which gradually vyokremlyuyetsya) peculiar, as we have seen, andthe development of primitive forms of behavior regulation human rights.
However, with its own morals as a special social phenomenon and itsinherent forms of normative regulation, we begin to deal with later, when de kladayetsyaoriginal syncretism of human existence and, in particular, the ancient«mononorma» gives way to diferentsiyovanym arranging and regulatoryinfluences of civilization is born.It is com development of economy and trade, consolidation of new social andeconomic principles that blew shut ing traditional rodopleminnyh groups form ownsocial status and class, the emergence state owes, strengthening and catalysingthese processes — you need in the formation of qualitatively different ways toregulate human life, not only related to tribal or tribal center.
When such aneed arises (for southern Europe it is mainly the late Neolithic and Bronze Age- the end of III — Beginning and millennium BCE.) — In the life of humansociety significant changes occur. Theconcentration of religious and magical functions of certain items of socialtime and space liberates space for the deployment of rational-secular operationus-tion of human behavior. In this last area there and confirms the right, iethe system of social norms and relations, the observance of which is providedby the power and authority of the state. As we know from history, thefirst systems of law we formed usually by the selection and approval of thetraditional, spontaneously formed customs (customary law), mandatory religionand hiynyhtions. Subsequently, however, in the process of law are increasinglybeginning to manifest its own specific quality, custom system signs. Along withthe law stands, acquires specific features and moral.
As is typical just for moral as tion of specific forms of regulation ofhuman behavior?
In search of answers to this question our attention primarily on theexistence in a civilized society of two fundamentally different forms ofnormative regulation, which complement each other — regulation andinstitutional pozainstytutsiynoyi.
3. Morality and tradition
Recall that morality and law is represented, from spectively,pozainstytutsiynu and institutional forms of pul regulation of human behavior,in this way they are here and discussed. However, asinstitutional regulation is not only legal — in fact, its at typical examplecan be any valid authority in society tion, that somehow the rights andobligations of its members — and morality are not the only pozainstytutsiynoyiregulation mechanism. Essential to clarify the specifics of morality as asocial phenomenon arises in this regard compared to the samepozainstytutsiynoyi this form of regulation of human behavior, as custom.
Like morality,customs also made spontaneous in the life of concrete human communities. Com butwith the right morals and traditions most deeply rooted in the originalsyncretism in ancient history. (We cannot say the original law, but theprimitive customs — entirely.) This custom, although it is not always realized,is the most profound and mass-ing form of regulation and our present life — inmost cases, speaking with people, selling their goals, etc., we act, but notspecial pondering over this, just as it zave proved, as usual for us and thosearound us. This applies to both daily and holidays, celebrations and more. Onlyfaced with extraordinary situations and problems, all sorts of surprises, wehave mo retreat from the ordinary — customary — and look for nontrivial gaugeroutes, including in the field of mo rally.
Given this,vporyadkovuyuche custom value in public life really difficult to overestimate — as well as the importance of traditions, habits established spoke in a humanspeech and thought someone, uniting our Seg tion with the historical experienceof mankind. Destruction Us customs supposed to be able, as the rich social andcultural history of disasters tour of the XX century.,-A painful process thatleads to primitivization and expansion of relationships, generating chaos andconfusion. No wonder today so acute the revival of customary structures ofhuman existence — is, so to speak, the bread of morality, without which it is — even to the highest operational its manifestations — can not exist.
However,paying tribute to the customs, we will weigh all the same and the fundamentaldifference of morality. If the attempt to formulate happen most common customof the principle itself, he, as outlined in the literature, would require: doso, as do all! Following custom, and I act as diady similar circumstances mygrand-grandfathers, as are my neighbors and friends. You pravdannyam orjustification of any act there is a certain precedent and formed hisexpectations: what should be entirely due to the fact that was and is that theusual, routine.
In contrast,the morality based on some other principles of man she needs: do so, as mustall do! So, before you do something, I veryfirst ask ourselves not how behaved like to place on my neighbor or mygreat-grandfather, and of things in this situation requires me to my duty. Thus,morality in comparison with custom Tipova introduces the principle differencebetween suschym and proper, between what was and is and what it should be.Precedent for it is no longer the final justification of any act or Held ingfrom it. As noted creator ethics katehorych foot imperative Kant, even if Iknew the history of mankind no one has yet fulfilled its duty properly, itwould not relieve me from the necessity Nosta its own duty — to do, do it hereand now. After all, this moral need not depend live on empirical relations andprecedents that I can see the past but only on the internal requirements of themandatory areas as such.
It follows that the whole sheer, all moral human being can not acceptbecause of the very fact of its availability only in the world. Moral point of view comes from the fact that the very existenceand even repeat something over the centuries is not evidence of that so itshould be, an old injustice, even osvya Chen manner of justice have not yetbecome with the proper moral position be convicted as well as the injusticescommitted yesterday or today. With that said it follows a radical differenceand complementarity of custom and morality in public life. The Power of custom- a powerful foundation that cements, strengthens the existing system of humanexistence and relationships, provides sustainability in its functioning. As for morality, it can strengthen the role of thiscustom, if, based on its own criteria, considers the status quo justified andappropriate. If not — Revolutionizing morality appears as a factor thatopposes the conservative habit and to overcome it.
On whose sideis truth in this ancient custom of dispute and morals?
If notconfined narrowly traditionalist or, conversely, moralistic point of view, andtry to look at wool cause wider — we have to recognize what happens indifferent ways. In many specific cases, right, of course, has morals, and hercondemnation of certain practices should be considered as evidence of theirhistorical conclusion. Thus, in condemning the blood tion of revenge, humansacrifice, slavery mo ral, of course, was right, this confirmed the rightnessof its next human development. And now we oftenprofit from the experiences junction with the moral condemnation of the ancientcustoms and the recent past, the rationale is sad that can be used no.
However, it isobvious that the customs and emerged yut not scratch. No matter how archaic orabsurdnymy they sometimes seem, one should consider that they have accumulatedlife experience and wisdom of many generations — the experience and wisdom thatis not always open briefly, not very insightful look of man, immersed in theirown urgent problems of today .
Therefore, in the moralistic critique of certain customs, which isage-old traditions, we should, in general, be careful not to rush, as they say,together with water and vyhlyupuvaty child. Condemning,say, the customs associated with the affirmation of inequality articles,inhuman humiliation of women, is it worth it, as we often see today, make thiscampaign equalizing up to the absurd limit, which lost itself cultivated forcenturies antropokulturnyy image of femininity — and hence people feel less andless incentives to develop their own men of virtue?
Unlike thefield right here, between tradition and morality, clear, predetermined criteriafor differentiation be, of course, can not — solve all our ability tocomprehend each particular case, our tact and sense of proportion, which is genscrap some of the most important the cultural formalities capable person.
Conclusion
One of theconditions of moral choice is the variability of behavior, ie the presence of arange of objective opportunity to compare and give preference to certainactions, and consciously determine the meaning of his life, that is asubjective ability to choose.
Thus, duringthe detailed consideration of this issue is becoming more difficult, becausenot fully elucidated: What is the opportunity and ability to choose and whichcharacter they are — objective or subjective. Dependingon the answer to this question is determined and the position of thephilosopher, thinker about human nature and its place in the world
In philosophical and ethical works of human nature dealt primarily withthe position of specific properties — mental activity, which was perceived as aprimary characteristic of a certain man, and man — as a winner in hisexpression. Human Morality in thiscase is integrally connected with her mind and is perceived as somethingnatural, and freedom — as the existing property of every human individual.
Individualhuman life bears the imprint of some «zadanosti: certain ethnicenvironment, its customs and traditions of the era in which he lives, culturalvalues, even before any data selection from her childhood.
Thus, in the everyday practice of a person facing a specific, realexisting natural conditions of life, social and economic factors, the existingculture.
These conditions in many respects determine the range of interests,aspirations and needs of people, a number of possibilities to choose the persondirectly and concrete meaning to its activities, the standards and criteria bywhich it assesses their behavior, their life path.