Morality in modern society. Moral dilemma

Subject, objectives, structure of business ethics

The science of ethics has a number of sections. For example, distinguish between general (or universal) and professional (or special) ethics. The first two lectures of our course were devoted to the provisions of universal ethics, and now we turn to special ethics.

Finding out the origin of professional ethics is to trace the relationship of moral requirements with the division of social labor and the emergence of a profession. Aristotle, then O. Comte, E. Durkheim paid attention to these questions many years ago. They talked about the relationship between the division of social labor and the moral principles of society. For the first time, materialistic substantiation of these problems was given by K. Marx and F. Engels.

The emergence of the first professional and ethical codes refers to the period of the artisan division of labor in the conditions of the formation of medieval workshops in the 11th-12th centuries. It was then that for the first time the existence of a number of moral requirements in the shop manuals in relation to the profession, the nature of labor, and accomplices in labor was stated.

However, a number of professions that are vital for all members of society originated in ancient times, and therefore, such professional and ethical codes as the "Hippocratic Oath", the moral principles of the priests who performed judicial functions, are known much earlier.

The emergence of professional ethics in time preceded the creation of scientific ethical teachings, theories about her. Everyday experience, the need to regulate the relationship of people of a particular profession led to the realization and formulation of certain requirements of professional ethics.

Professional ethics, having arisen as a manifestation of everyday moral consciousness, then developed on the basis of the generalized practice of behavior of representatives of each professional group... These generalizations were contained in both written and unwritten codes of conduct, and in the form of theoretical conclusions.

Thus, this testifies to the transition from everyday consciousness to theoretical consciousness in the field of professional morality. Public opinion plays an important role in the formation and assimilation of the norms of professional ethics. The norms of professional morality do not immediately become generally recognized; this is sometimes associated with a struggle of opinions.

Above, we indicated that human activity is very diverse, and universal moral norms are often insufficient to regulate human behavior in specific, specific areas of activity. There is, for example, the universal ethical commandment "Thou shalt not kill." But in this case, are not service in the army, defense of the Fatherland with arms immoral? Of course not.

At the same time, this does not mean that any actions committed in the war cannot be condemned. How should an officer and a soldier behave so that their actions can be recognized as correct from an ethical point of view? For a reasoned answer to such questions, there is the concept of "military ethics", in which universal ethical standards are consistent with the specifics of this type of activity, some additional moral requirements characteristic of such an activity are taken into account.

Professional(functionally differentiated, role-playing, special) ethics is an implied or specifically defined set of norms or codes of conduct that guide decision-makers in various professional roles.

Role ethics helps to resolve ethically controversial issues arising in the course of professional activity (for example, should a doctor tell a patient that he is hopelessly ill?). Most ethical dilemmas associated with different kinds professional ethics ( medical ethics, journalistic ethics, business ethics, etc.) include a kind of contradiction between functionally differentiated and universal ethics.

Universal ethics refers to norms of behavior that are binding on all people, regardless of their professional background or social function. There is no inevitable conflict between role ethics and universal ethics. However, when such a conflict occurs, it creates a serious ethical problem for the decision maker.

For example, journalists are required to show details of what happened as objectively as possible. However, there are situations when the very presence of journalists influences the nature of events. For example, some photojournalists have noticed that lower-level military personnel in oppressive developing countries often increase the intensity of interrogation of prisoners when the camera is pointed at them, because the investigator has spectators and this makes him feel like a strong man. How should a photojournalist respond to situations like this? On the one hand, as a journalist, he has a professional duty to perceive the story as it is. On the other hand, a photojournalist cannot ignore the universal duty to protect human life.

What obligations - functionally differentiated or universal - should the ethical decision maker follow? It is significant that some photojournalists reacted to this kind of situation by covering their cameras and leaving the place of interrogation.

The moral of modern society

If you open the "Big Encyclopedic Dictionary" and look at the article "Morality", we will see following description: "Morality - see morality." It's time to separate these concepts. Morality is the sum of unwritten norms of behavior established in society, a collection of social prejudices. Morality is closer to the word "decency". Morality is more difficult to define. It is closer to such a biological concept as empathy; to such a concept of religion as forgiveness; to such a concept of social life as conformism; to such a concept of psychology as non-conflict. Simply put, if a person internally sympathizes, empathizes with another person and, in this regard, tries not to do to another what he would not want for himself, if a person is internally non-aggressive, wise - we can say that this is a moral person.

The main difference between morality and morality is that morality always presupposes an external evaluating object: social morality - society, crowd, neighbors; religious morality - God. And morality is internal self-control. A moral person is deeper and more complex than a moral person. Just as an automatically operating unit is more complicated than a manual machine, which is set in motion by someone else's will.

Walking naked on the streets is immoral. Splashing saliva, yelling to the naked that he is a scoundrel is immoral. Feel the difference.

The world is moving towards immoralism, it is true. But he goes in the direction of morality.

Morality is a delicate, situational thing. The moral is more formal. It can be reduced to certain rules and prohibitions.

All of the above reasoning is actually aimed at expanding the individual choice of people, but does not take into account the possible negative social consequences of such a choice.

For example, if society recognizes a homosexual family as normal, then some of the people who now hide their sexual orientation and have heterosexual families will stop doing this, which can negatively affect the birth rate. If we stop condemning drug use, then the number of addicts may increase at the expense of those who now avoid drugs for fear of punishment. Etc. This site is just about how to ensure maximum freedom and at the same time minimize the negative consequences of a possible wrong choice.

The freedom of people to choose their own sexual partners, to create and dissolve marriages can also lead to negative consequences, for example, the growth of a woman's independence negatively affects the birth rate.

The concept of Modern society proceeds from the fact that in such matters it is necessary to avoid injustice and discrimination. For example, if we want to fight low fertility, then all childless people should be censured and punished, not just homosexuals.

Freedom of speech leads to the publication of pornography and violent scenes. Many people believe that this, in turn, negatively affects family values \u200b\u200band encourages violence. In 1969, Denmark lifted all restrictions on pornography, and the number of sex crimes immediately went down. So, from 1965 to 1982, the number of such crimes against children decreased from 30 per 100 thousand inhabitants to 5 per 100 thousand. The situation is similar with regard to rape.

There is reason to believe that hazing in the army fosters a habit of violence to a much greater extent than the bloodiest action films.

Changes in moral standards are interpreted by some people as "decay" and "decay" that will lead to the "collapse of our civilization." Historical experience shows that the collapse awaits just those who are frozen in place and do not change.

Should negative phenomena be dealt with by introducing bans and using violence if they are violated? As historical experience shows, it is senseless to struggle with the objective laws of the development of society. As a rule, negative and positive developmental results are interconnected and it is impossible to deal with the negative without destroying the positive. Therefore, in those cases when such a struggle turns out to be successful, society pays for it with a lag in development - and negative trends are simply carried over to the future.

Another approach seems to be more constructive. It is necessary to study the patterns of social change without emotion and understand to what positive and negative consequences they lead. After that, the society must take actions aimed at strengthening the positive aspects of the existing trends and weakening the negative ones. Actually, this site is dedicated to this.

An increase in freedom always leads to the fact that some people use it to their detriment. For example, the ability to buy vodka leads to the emergence of alcoholics, the freedom to choose a lifestyle leads to the appearance of homeless people, sexual freedom increases the number of people with sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, freer societies are always accused of "decay", "moral decay" and the like. However, most people are quite rational and use freedom for their own good. As a result, society becomes more efficient and develops faster.

When they talk about the "health" and "unhealthy" of society, they forget that the state of society cannot be described in terms of healthy / unhealthy / there is no third way. Non-free societies are much healthier in the sense of the absence of outcasts (for example, in Nazi Germany, even the mentally ill were destroyed). But they are much less healthy in the sense that there are no people dedicated to development. Therefore, unfree, overregulated societies (including those overregulated by too strict moral norms) inevitably lose. And bans, as a rule, are not very effective - dry law, for example, does not so much fight alcoholism as it gives rise to the mafia. The best choice is the maximum freedom with the harsh suppression of aggressive marginalized people (including the destruction of criminals).

Modern morality is making its way in Russia as well. The new generation is much more individualistic and freer. I have heard from businessmen I know that it is profitable to hire young people - young people are more honest, more energetic and less likely to steal. At the same time, during the transition period, there are crisis phenomena, incl. and in the field of morality. This was the case, for example, during the transition from an agrarian to an industrial society, in particular, England in the early to mid-19th century experienced a serious crisis, accompanied by an increase in alcoholism, family breakdown, homelessness, etc. (Suffice it to recall Dickens; you can read more about this in the book by F. Fukuyama "The Great Break").

Here, by the way, one common myth should be mentioned. Ancient Rome collapsed not as a result of "moral decay", but because it stopped developing. The main advantage of Rome was the presence rule of law and an effective civil society. With the transition from a republic to an imperial dictatorship, these social institutions were gradually undermined, development ceased, and as a result, Rome turned into a typical unstable empire, lacking fundamental social advantages over the barbarian environment. From that moment on, his death was only a matter of time.

But society is waiting for destruction even if freedom goes beyond certain limits and some people have the freedom to harm others with impunity. In fact, this means that the freedom of some is curtailed by increasing the rights of others, i.e. freedom is destroyed. That is why the moral of Modern society is complete freedom, with the exception of the right to cause direct harm to another person. Moreover, Modern society should be intolerant of any attempts to cause such damage, i.e. restrict someone's freedom. In this, Modern society should be uncompromising and even cruel: as experience shows, the main problems of the most modern countries are precisely in excessive humanism towards intolerant and aggressive people.

The moral of Modern society (as opposed to religious morality) is a morality based on reason. Such morality is more effective than morality based on emotions: emotions work automatically, while the mind allows you to act more subtly depending on the situation (provided, of course, that the mind is present). Just like human behavior based on emotional morality is more effective than animal behavior based on innate instincts.

About "moral decay"

A person in a transitional period (the transition from an industrial society to a postindustrial, modern) unconsciously feels a sense of guilt because of the continuing action of traditional moral attitudes. Religious leaders still have high moral authority and they condemn Modern society (for example, the new Pope Benedict XVI declared that “the modern emerging culture is opposed not only to Christianity, but to faith in God in general, to all traditional religions”; Orthodox hierarchs and Islamic authorities).

Hence all the talk about supposedly existing "rottenness" and "corruption", although in reality immorality has become much less (moreover, people of traditional cultures, especially fundamentalists, are the bearers of the highest form of immorality - violence and aggressiveness). Religious leaders, condemning the morality of Modern society, usually reason like this: a departure from religious morality leads to the abolition of moral attitudes in general, as a result of which people will begin to steal, kill, etc. They don't want to notice that morality Modern people moves in the opposite direction: towards condemnation of violence and aggression in any form (and, for example, towards condemnation of theft, because Modern people are, as a rule, a wealthy middle class).

Studies show that the lowest degree of both religiosity and criminality is observed among highly educated people. Those. a departure from traditional morality does not at all lead to a decline in morality in general. But for a traditional, poorly educated person, the reasoning of religious leaders is fully justified. These people need a "punishing stick" in the form of hell; however, they easily go to violence "in the name of God."

The prevailing morality in a transitional society is uncomfortable for a person, because it is contradictory, and therefore does not give him strength. She tries to combine the incompatible: the liberal human right to choose and traditional roots, which denied such a right. Solving this contradiction, some go into fundamentalism, others throw themselves into an egoistic "life for the sake of entertainment." Both do not contribute to development and, therefore, are futile. Therefore, a consistent morality is needed, following which ensures success as to an individualand the whole society.

Modern morality makes more demands on man than ever before in human history. Traditional morality gave a person clear rules for life, but did not require anything more from him. The life of a person in a traditional society was regulated, it was enough just to live according to the order established for centuries. It didn’t require mental effort, it was simple and primitive.

Modern morality requires a person to develop and achieve success by their own efforts. But she does not say how to do this, only stimulating a person to constantly search, overcome himself and strain his forces. Instead, modern morality gives a person the feeling that he is not a cog in a meaningless machine, invented for some unknown reason, but the creator of the future and one of the builders of himself and the whole world

Culture

You are a very experienced doctor, you have five dying patients on your hands, each of whom needs a different organ transplant in order to survive. Unfortunately, at the moment there is no organ available for transplantation. It so happened that there is one more, 6 people who dies from a fatal disease, and if he is not treated, he will die much earlier than others. If the sixth patient dies, you can use their organs to rescue five others. However, you have a medicine at your disposal with which you can save the life of the sixth patient. You:

Wait until the sixth patient dies, and then use his organs for transplantation;

Save the life of a sixth patient without the others getting the organs they need.

If you chose the second option, knowing that the medicine would only delay the date of his death slightly, would you still do the same? Why?

8. Rogue Robin Hood

You witnessed how a person robbed a bank, but then he did something unusual and unexpected with the money. He transferred them to an orphanage, which lived very poorly, was dilapidated and was deprived proper nutrition, appropriate care, water and amenities. The money greatly benefited the orphanage as it went from poor to prosperous. You:

Call the police, although they will most likely take the money away from the orphanage;

You will not do anything, leaving alone the robber and the orphanage.

7. Friend's wedding

Your best friend or a girlfriend is going to the crown. The ceremony will begin in one hour, however, on the eve of coming to the wedding, you learned that the chosen one (chosen one) of your friend had connections on the side. If your friend connects his life with this person, he is unlikely to be faithful, but on the other hand, if you tell him about it, you will upset the wedding. Will you be able to tell about what you learned to your friend or not?

6. Plagiarism of the report

You are the head of the student council and are faced with a difficult decision for one of your alumni. This girl has always been a worthy student. Throughout her years of study, she received only high grades, she has many friends, and perfect behavior. However, towards the end of the school year, she fell ill and did not attend school for a while. She missed three weeks of class, and when she returned, she was told that in one of the subjects she did not live up to in order to finish school perfectly. She was so desperate that, having found a report on the necessary topic on the Internet, she passed it off as her own. Her teacher caught her doing this and sent her to you. If you decide that this is rip-off, then she will not receive a high grade, and therefore, will not be able to qualify for a budgetary study at the university of her dreams. What would you do?

5. Source of youth

Your loved one is immortal because he and his family drank from the fountain of youth, suspecting nothing. You love him very much and you know that this is your destiny. However, the only way to stay with him is to drink from the fountain of youth too. But, if you do this, all your relatives and friends, as well as all your acquaintances, will grow old and, in the end, will die. On the other hand, if you do not drink from the source, you will grow old and eventually die, and the person with whom you are now will never see you again and will be sentenced to eternal loneliness. Which would you choose?

4. Concentration camp

You are a concentration camp prisoner. The sadistic guard is about to hang your son, who tried to escape, and tells you to push the stool out from under his feet. He tells you that if you don't, then he will kill your other son, who is another innocent prisoner. You have no doubt that he will do exactly as he says. What will you do?

3. Son and granddaughter

Much to your dismay, your son is lying tied up on the tracks as the train is approaching. It so happened that you have time to use the switch and direct the train in the other direction, thus you can save your son. However, on the other side lies a tied granddaughter, the daughter of this very son of yours. Your son begs you not to kill his daughter or touch the switch. What will you do?

2. Sacrifice of a son

A very angry, psychologically unstable man tried to kill your son when he was very young, but then, having killed the child's uncle and aunt, who were looking after him, he never got to the baby. After the murder, you fled underground, but now you find that the prophecy has come true, and that part of the killer's soul has moved into your child. In order to overcome this evil and defeat this person, your son must go to him and allow himself to be killed. Otherwise, after a while, your son, with a part of the soul of the villain, can become such himself. The son courageously accepts his fate and decides to go to the villain in order to bring peace. You are as a parent:

Hold him because you feel you have to protect;

Accept his choice.

1. Friendship

Jim works in large company, he is responsible for hiring employees. His friend Paul applied for a job, but there are several people who are more qualified than Paul and have a higher level of knowledge and skills. Jim wants to give this position to Paul, however, he feels guilty because he has to be impartial. He tells himself that this is the essence of morality. However, he soon changed his mind, and decided that friendship gives a moral right to be partial in some matters. So he gives this job to Paul. Was he right?

Social moral principles form personal principles, most intensively in the process of socialization of a person, but continue to influence throughout his life. At the same time, the change in social moral principles, in turn, occurs under the influence of personal principles. So with the development of capitalism in our country, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe moral character of the leader has changed quite dramatically. The image of an honest, sympathetic, hero-leader of production was replaced by a businessman with good connections and capital, who is able to conduct double-entry bookkeeping, skillfully use, perhaps, illegal, but effective methods in the process of managing the company and fighting competitors. With this arrangement of things, the image of a modern businessman does not arouse disgust among the public, but is accepted as one of the aspects of our everyday life, leads to a reassessment of values, and, as a consequence, to a change in the general understanding of morality.

A strong factor influencing the transformation of moral principles is also a change in worldview, which can occur both under the influence of personal experiences and events of a national or world level. Indeed, during the Great Patriotic War concepts such as murder and theft had a completely different perception from the point of view of morality, if it was a question of self-defense and the need to somehow feed themselves. Another example is the chaos of the 90s of the last century, when banditry flourished in the country based on the loss of ideology and fear of the unknown.

The change in moral principles over time is an actual attribute of our modernity. But at the same time, our society is not doomed to demoralization, despite the strong influence of Western ideology, society still retains its moral character. The immediate guarantee of the preservation of morality in modern society is conscience - a sense of moral responsibility for one's behavior in front of the surrounding people and society.

The formation of morality and its development is a long process and is still very far from its culmination. We can say that morality in the proper sense of this concept is still in the process of formation. Its triumph as a social phenomenon, when its historical ties with religion will be forgotten, when it becomes a ubiquitous and defining law of interpersonal relations, is still ahead. And there is nothing discouraging about this. Moreover, this speaks of the extraordinary complexity and duration of the formation of the human being in person, the grandeur and immeasurable depth of the historical process.

The moral values \u200b\u200bof modern society differ markedly from the traditional ones. For example, out of 10 biblical commandments, five do not work: three dedicated to God (because they conflict with the freedom of conscience), about the Sabbath (contradicting the freedom to control your time), and “do not commit adultery” (contradicting the freedom of personal life) ... Conversely, some of the necessary commandments in religion are missing. A similar picture is not only with the Bible, but also with the attitudes of other religions.

Modern society has its own essential values, which in traditional societies were far from in the first place (and were even considered negative):

- "don't be lazy, be energetic, always strive for more";
- “self-develop, learn, become smarter - thereby you contribute to the progress of mankind”;
- “achieve personal success, achieve wealth, live in abundance - thereby you contribute to the prosperity and development of society”;
- "Do not cause inconvenience to others, do not meddle in someone else's life, respect the personality of another and private property."

The main focus is on self-development, which leads, on the one hand, to the achievement of personal goals (for example, career growth), and on the other hand - to the "non-consumer" attitude towards other people. Of course, all the classic moral imperatives are preserved: “don't kill”, “don't steal”, “don't lie”, “sympathize and help other people”. And these basic settings will no longer be violated in the name of God, which is what most religions sin (especially in relation to the "gentiles"). Moreover, the most problematic commandment - “do not lie” - will increase to the greatest extent, which will radically increase the level of trust in society, and hence the effectiveness of public mechanisms, including the elimination of corruption. After all, a person who constantly develops himself is always confident in his own strength and there is no need for him to lie. Lying is not beneficial to him - it can undermine his reputation as a professional. Moreover, a lie is not needed, because many things cease to be "shameful" and they do not need to be hidden. In addition, the attitude towards self-development means that a person sees his main resource within himself and there is no need for him to exploit others.

If we talk about the priority of values, then the main thing for Modern society is human freedom and condemnation of violence and intolerance. Unlike religion, where it is possible to justify violence in the name of God, modern morality rejects all violence and intolerance (although it can use state violence in response to violence).

From the point of view of Modern morality, traditional society is simply overflowing with immorality and lack of spirituality, including severe violence towards women and children (when they refuse to obey), towards all dissidents and "violators of traditions" (often ridiculous), a high degree of intolerance towards non-believers etc. An important moral imperative of modern society is respect for law and law, because only the law can protect human freedom, ensure the equality and security of people. And, on the contrary, the desire to subjugate another, to humiliate someone's dignity are the most shameful things. A society where all of these values \u200b\u200bare at work in full would be perhaps the most efficient, complex, fastest growing and richest in history. It would be the happiest too, because would provide a person with maximum opportunities for self-realization. It should be noted that all of the above is not an invented, artificial construction. This is just a description of what millions of people are already following - Modern people, who are becoming more and more. This is the moral of a person who has studied hard, who through his own efforts has become a professional who values \u200b\u200bhis freedom and is tolerant of other people.

Modern morality is not about indulging selfishness and "base instincts." Modern morality makes more demands on man than ever before in human history. Traditional morality gave a person clear rules for life, but did not require anything more from him. The life of a person in a traditional society was regulated, it was enough just to live according to the order established for centuries. It didn’t require mental effort, it was simple and primitive.

Modern morality requires a person to develop and achieve success by their own efforts. But she does not say how to do this, only stimulating a person to a constant search, to overcome himself and to strain his forces. Instead, modern morality gives a person the feeling that he is not a cog in a meaningless machine, invented for some unknown reason, but the creator of the future and one of the builders of himself and this whole world. In addition, self-development, increased professionalism leads to the acquisition of material wealth, gives prosperity and prosperity already "in this life."

Without a doubt, modern morality destroys many senseless rules and prohibitions (for example, in the field of sex) and in this sense makes life easier and more enjoyable. But at the same time, modern morality rigidly imposes on a person the requirement to be just a person, and not to be led by his own animal instincts or herd feelings. This morality requires manifestations of reason, and not primitive emotions such as aggression, revenge, the desire to subjugate other people or submit to authority, which "will arrange and decide everything for us." And it is far from easy to become tolerant, to overcome personal and social complexes.

But the main thing is that Modern morality focuses not on “pleasing oneself beloved” and not on selfless (more precisely, self-deprecating) achievement of “great goals”, but on self-improvement and perfection of everything that surrounds Modern man.

If we look in the "Great Encyclopedic Dictionary", we will see that there the definition of the words "morality" and "morality" mean the same thing. It is difficult to agree with this. Even in ancient antiquity, morality was understood as the elevation of a person above himself, it was an indicator of how a person is responsible for his behavior and actions. Morality is closely related to the character and temperament of a person, his spiritual qualities, the ability to moderate and suppress his egoism. Morality presupposes certain norms and laws of behavior in society.

Morality in modern society is based on the principles of not creating obstacles for another person. That is, you can do whatever you want, but only until you begin to harm others. If, for example, you are deceiving another person and this has done him harm, then what if it has not? Then it is not condemned. This is the moral of our behavior today.

The concepts of "morality and ethics" of tomorrow will go even further. Live as you want, the main thing is not to poke your nose into other people's affairs and someone else's life, if you are not asked. Decide for yourself, not for others, and if you want to help someone, then first ask him if he needs it? Perhaps your views on what is good and what is bad do not coincide at all. And remember: everyone has their own morality. Combine only a few general rules: do not touch someone else, do not encroach on the life of another person, his freedom and property - everything is quite simple.

As if delimiting the concepts of morality and morality, you can give such definitions. Morality can also be called the word "decency", that is, it is the sum of some norms of behavior and prejudices adopted in a given society. Morality is a deeper concept. A moral person can be called someone who is wise, non-aggressive, does not wish a person evil, sympathizes and empathizes with him, is ready to help another. And if morality is more formal and comes down to certain permitted and prohibitive actions, then morality is a more subtle and situational thing.

The main difference between the concepts of "morality" and "morality" is that morality presupposes evaluation by society, neighbors, God, leadership, parents, and so on. While morality is such an internal self-control, an internal assessment of one's thoughts and desires. It does not depend on external factors, these are the inner convictions of a person.

Morality depends on a social group (religious, national, social, and so on), which prescribes certain norms of behavior in this society, its prohibitions and regulations. All human actions are consistent with these codes. For the proper adherence to these laws, it is supposed to be encouraged from society in the form of respect, glory, awards and even material goods... Therefore, moral standards are closely related to the statutes of a particular group and depend on the place of their use and time.

Morality, in contrast to morality, has a more universal character. It is not aimed at achieving any benefits and awards, but at other people. A moral person sees in another person not himself, but his personality, he is able to see his problems, help and sympathize. This is the fundamental difference between these concepts, and morality is most expressed in religion, where love for one's neighbor is preached.

From the above, it becomes clear that the concept of morality and morality are different things and how they, in fact, differ.

It might be useful to read: