Morality in modern society. moral dilemma

Subject, tasks, structure of business ethics

The science of ethics has a number of sections. For example, a distinction is made 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 let's turn to special ethics.

To find 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 paid attention to these questions many years ago, then O. Comte, E. Durkheim. They talked about the relationship between the division of social labor and the moral principles of society. For the first time the materialistic substantiation of these problems was given by K. Marx and F. Engels.

The emergence of the first professional and ethical codes dates back to the period of the 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 they state the presence in the shop charters of a number of moral requirements in relation to the profession, the nature of work, and partners in work.

However, a number of professions that are of vital importance for all members of society arose in ancient times, and therefore, such professional and ethical codes as the Hippocratic Oath, the moral regulations of 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 it. Everyday experience, the need to regulate the relationship of people of a particular profession led to the realization and formalization of certain requirements of professional ethics.

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

Thus, this testifies to the transition from ordinary consciousness to theoretical consciousness in the sphere 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 universally recognized, this is sometimes associated with a struggle of opinions.

Above, we indicated that human activity is very diverse, and universal moral standards 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 are not, in this case, military service, defending the Fatherland with arms in hand, immoral? Of course not.

However, this does not mean that any acts committed in 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 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 contribute to the resolution of ethically controversial issues that arise in the course of professional activity (for example, should a doctor tell a patient that he is hopelessly ill?). Most of the ethical dilemmas associated with various types professional ethics ( medical ethics, journalistic ethics, business ethics, etc.) include a kind of contradiction between functionally differentiated and universal ethics.

Universal ethics refers to the norms of behavior that are binding on all people, regardless of their professional affiliation or social functions. 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.

So, for example, journalists are obliged to show the details of what happened as objectively as possible. However, there are situations when the very presence of journalists affects the nature of events. For example, some photojournalists have observed that low-level military personnel in developing countries with repressive regimes often increase the intensity of interrogation of prisoners when the camera is on them, because the interrogator has an audience and this makes him feel like a strong man. How should a photojournalist react to situations like this? On the one hand, as a journalist, he has a professional obligation 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? Significantly, some photojournalists reacted to this kind of situation by sheathing their cameras and leaving the place of interrogation.

Morality of modern society

If you open the "Big Encyclopedic Dictionary" and look at the article "Morality", we will see the following description: "Morality - see morality." The time has come to separate these concepts. Morality is the sum of the unwritten standards of behavior established in society, a collection of social prejudices. Morality is closer to the word "decency". Morality is harder to define. It is closer to such a concept of biology as empathy; to such a concept of religion as forgiveness; to such a concept 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 like 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 involves 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 working unit is more complicated than a manual machine, which is put into action by someone else's will.

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

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

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

All 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 people who now hide their sexual orientation and have heterosexual families will stop doing this, which can negatively affect fertility. 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 about how to provide 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 increase in women's independence negatively affects fertility.

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

Freedom of speech leads to the fact that pornography and scenes of cruelty begin to be published. Many people believe that this, in turn, negatively affects family values and encourages violence. In 1969, Denmark lifted all restrictions on pornography, and the number of sexual crimes immediately went down. Thus, from 1965 to 1982, the number of such crimes against children decreased from 30 per 100,000 inhabitants to 5 per 100,000. A similar situation is observed with regard to rape.

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

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

Should negative phenomena be combated by imposing prohibitions and using violence if they are violated? As historical experience shows, it is pointless to fight against the objective laws of the development of society. As a rule, negative and positive results of development are interconnected and it is impossible to deal with the negative without destroying the positive. Therefore, in those cases when such a struggle is successful, society pays for it with a lag in development - and the negative trends are simply transferred to the future.

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

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

When people talk about the "health" and "illness" of society, they forget that the state of society cannot be described in terms of healthy/unhealthy/there is no third. Non-free societies are much more "healthy" in the sense of the absence of marginals (for example, in fascist Germany, even the mentally ill were destroyed). But they are much less healthy in the sense of the absence of people aimed at development. Therefore, unfree, excessively regulated societies (including those regulated by too rigid moral norms) inevitably lose. Yes, and bans, as a rule, are not very effective - dry law, for example, does not fight alcoholism so much as it creates a mafia. The best choice is a maximum of freedom with a strict suppression of aggressive outcasts (including the destruction of criminals).

Modern Morality is making its way into Russia as well. The new generation is much more individualistic and freer. I have heard from acquaintances of entrepreneurs that hiring young people is profitable - young people are more honest, more energetic and steal less often. At the same time, during the transition period, crisis phenomena are observed, incl. and in the realm of morality. So it was, 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; more about this can be found in F. Fukuyama's book "The Great Divide").

Here, by the way, one common myth should be mentioned. Ancient Rome collapsed not as a result of "moral decay", but because it ceased to develop. The main advantage of Rome was the presence rule of law and 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 that did not have fundamental social advantages compared to its barbarian environment. From that moment on, his death was only a matter of time.

But society is waiting for death even if freedom crosses certain limits and some people have unpunished freedom to harm others. 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 morality of Modern society is in complete freedom, with the exception of the right to cause direct harm to another person. Moreover, Modern society should be intolerant of any attempt to cause such damage, ie. restrict someone's freedom. In this, Modern society must be uncompromising and even cruel: as experience shows, the main problems of the most modern countries lie precisely in excessive humanism in relation to intolerant and aggressive people.

The morality of modern society (as opposed to religious morality) is a morality based on reason. Such a 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 transition (transition from an industrial society to a post-industrial, modern one) unconsciously feels guilty because of the continuing action of traditional moral attitudes. Religious figures still have high moral authority and they condemn modern society (for example, the new Pope Benedict XVI stated that "the modern emerging culture opposes not only Christianity, but faith in God in general, all traditional religions"; similar statements are made by Orthodox hierarchs and Islamic authorities).

Hence all the talk about the supposedly existing "rottenness" and "decay", although in reality there is much less immorality (moreover, the people of traditional cultures, especially fundamentalists, are the bearers of the highest form of immorality - violence and aggressiveness). Religious figures, condemning the morality of modern society, usually argue as follows: a departure from religious morality leads to the abolition of moral principles in general, as a result of which people will begin to steal, kill, and so on. They do not want to notice that morality modern people moves in the exact opposite direction: towards the condemnation of violence and aggression in any form (and, for example, towards the condemnation of theft, because Modern people are, as a rule, a wealthy middle class).

As studies show, the lowest degree of both religiosity and crime is observed among highly educated people. Those. the 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 figures is fully justified. For these people, a "punishing club" in the form of hell is needed; however, on the other hand, they easily resort to violence "in the name of God."

The morality prevailing in a transitional society is uncomfortable for a person, because it is contradictory, and therefore does not give him strength. It tries to reconcile the incompatible: the liberal human right to choose and the traditional roots that denied such a right. Solving this contradiction, some go into fundamentalism, others rush into the selfish "life for fun." Both that, and another does not promote development and, therefore, is futile. Therefore, a consistent morality is needed, the observance of which ensures success as to an individual as well as the whole society.

Modern morality makes more demands on man than ever before in human history. Traditional morality gave a person clear rules of 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 established order for centuries. It did not require soulful efforts, it was simple and primitive.

Modern morality requires a person to develop and achieve success by his own efforts. But she does not say how to do this, only stimulating a person to constant search, overcoming himself and exerting his strength. In return, modern morality gives a person the feeling that he is not a cog in a meaningless machine invented for no 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 which needs a transplant of various organs in order to survive. Unfortunately, at the moment there is not a single organ available for transplantation. It so happened that there is another 6 people who are dying 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 his organs to save five others. However, you have at your disposal a medicine 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 giving others the organs they need.

If you had chosen the second option, then, knowing that the drug would only slightly delay the date of his death, would you still have done the same? Why?

8 Robber Robin Hood

You witnessed how a man robbed a bank, but then he did something unusual and unexpected with the money. He gave them to the orphanage, which lived very poorly, was dilapidated and was deprived of proper nutrition, appropriate care, water and amenities. This money has greatly benefited the orphanage, and it has grown from poor to prosperous. You:

Call the police, although they will certainly take the money from the orphanage;

You will not do anything, leaving alone both 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 this, you will upset the wedding. Will you be able to say what you learned to your friend or not?

6. Report plagiarism

You are the head of the student council and faced with a difficult decision regarding one of the graduates. This girl has always been a worthy student. Throughout her years of study, she received only high marks, she has many friends, and an ideal behavior. However, towards the end of the school year, she fell ill and did not attend school for some time. She missed three weeks of classes, and when she returned, she was told that in one of the subjects she did not live up to graduating perfectly from school. 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 it and sent her to you. If you decide that this is plagiarism, then she will not get a high mark, and therefore she will not be able to apply for a budget education at the university of her dreams. What would you do?

5. Fountain of youth

Your loved one is immortal because he and his family drank from the fountain of youth without suspecting anything. You love him very much and know that this is your destiny. However, the only way to stay with him is to also drink from the fountain of youth. 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 don't drink from the fountain, you will grow old and eventually die, and the person you are with now will never see you again and will be condemned to eternal solitude. What would you choose?

4. Concentration camp

You are a concentration camp prisoner. The sadistic guard is about to hang your son who was trying to escape and tells you to push the stool out from under him. He tells you that if you don't, he will also 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

To your great horror, your son lies bound on the tracks as the train approaches. 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 the bound granddaughter, the daughter of this particular son of yours. Your son is begging you not to kill his daughter or touch the switch. How will you do it?

2. Sacrifice of the son

A very angry mentally unstable man tried to kill your son when he was very young, but then, having killed the uncle and aunt of the child who looked 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 man, your son must go to him and let himself be killed. Otherwise, after a while, your son, with a part of the soul of the villain, himself may become one. The son courageously accepts his fate and decides to go to the villain in order to bring peace. You as a parent:

Hold it because you feel you must protect it;

Accept his choice.

1. Friendship

Jim works at big company He is responsible for hiring employees. His friend Paul has applied for a job, but there are a few people who are more qualified than Paul and have a higher level of knowledge and skills. Jim wants to hand over the position to Paul, but feels guilty about having to be impartial. He tells himself that this is the essence of morality. However, he soon changed his mind, and decided that friendship gives the moral right to be biased in some matters. Thus, he gives this position to Paul. Was he right?

Public moral principles form personal principles, most intensively in the process of human socialization, but continue to influence throughout his life. At the same time, the change in public moral principles, in turn, occurs under the influence of personal principles. So, with the development of capitalism in our country, the idea of the moral character of the leader has changed quite a lot. The image of an honest, sympathetic, leading-edge hero was replaced by a businessman with good connections and capital, capable of double-entry bookkeeping, skillfully using, perhaps illegal, but effective methods in the process of managing a company and fighting competitors. With this arrangement of things, the image of a modern businessman does not cause 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 result, to a change in the general idea of morality.

A strong factor influencing the transformation of moral principles is a change in worldview, which can occur both under the influence of personal experiences and events of a national or world level. After all, during the Great Patriotic War such concepts as murder and theft had a completely different perception from the point of view of morality, if it was about self-defense and the need to somehow feed. 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.

Changing 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 conscience is a sense of moral responsibility for one's behavior before the surrounding people, 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 the ubiquitous and defining law of interpersonal relations, is yet to come. And there is nothing discouraging in this. Moreover, this speaks of the extraordinary complexity and duration of the formation of the human being in man, of the grandeur and immeasurable depth of the historical process.

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

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

- "do not 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 interfere in someone else's life, respect the personality of another and private property."

The main emphasis 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 a “non-consumer” attitude towards other people. Of course, all classical 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 the sin of most religions (especially in relation to "gentiles"). Moreover, the most problematic commandment - "do not lie" - will be strengthened to the greatest extent, which will radically increase the level of trust in society, and hence the effectiveness of social mechanisms, including the elimination of corruption. After all, a person who constantly develops himself is always confident in own forces And he doesn't have to lie. Lying is not beneficial to him - it can undermine his reputation as a professional. Moreover, lies are not needed, because many things cease to be "shameful" and do not need to be hidden. In addition, the focus on 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 the condemnation of violence and intolerance. Unlike religion, where it is possible to justify violence in the name of God, modern morality rejects any violence and intolerance (although it can use state violence in response to violence).

From the point of view of Modern morality, the traditional society is simply overwhelmed with immorality and lack of spirituality, including harsh violence against women and children (when they refuse to obey), against 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 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 these values are fully operational would be perhaps the most efficient, complex, fastest growing and richest in history. It would also be the happiest, 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 man who studied hard, who through his own efforts became a professional who values his freedom and is tolerant of other people.

Modern morality is not an indulgence of selfishness and "lower instincts". Modern morality makes more demands on man than ever before in human history. Traditional morality gave a person clear rules of 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 established order for centuries. It did not require soulful efforts, it was simple and primitive.

Without a doubt, modern morality destroys many meaningless 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 demands that a person be a person, and not go on about his own animal instincts or herd feeling. This morality requires manifestations of reason, and not primitive emotions like aggression, revenge, the desire to subjugate other people or obey an authority that "arranges and decides everything for us." And it is far from easy to become tolerant, to overcome personal and social complexes in oneself.

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

If you look in the "Big Encyclopedic Dictionary", we will see that there the definition of the words "morality" and "morality" mean the same thing. It's hard to agree with this. Even in ancient antiquity, morality was understood as the rise of a person above himself, it was an indicator of how a person is responsible for his behavior and actions. Morality is closely connected with the character and temperament of a person, his spiritual qualities, the ability to moderate and suppress his egoism. Morality, on the other hand, 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, as long as you do not harm others. If, for example, you deceive another person and it harmed him, then what if it didn't? Then it is not condemned. This is the moral of our current behavior.

The concepts of "morality and morality" of tomorrow will go even further. Live as you like, the main thing - do not 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 about 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's, 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, we 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 one who is wise, non-aggressive, does not wish harm to a person, sympathizes and empathizes with him, and is ready to help another. And if morality is more formal and comes down to certain permitted and forbidding actions, then morality is a more subtle and situational thing.

The main difference between the concepts of "morality" and "morality" is that morality involves 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 beliefs 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 prescriptions. All human actions are correlated with these codes. For the appropriate adherence to these laws, encouragement from society is expected in the form of respect, fame, awards, and even wealth. Therefore, moral standards are closely related to the charters 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 aimed not at achieving some benefits and rewards, 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 all of the above, it becomes clear that the concept of morality and morality are different things and how they actually differ.

It might be useful to read: