Features of modern ethics. The Importance of Ethical Doctrines for Modern Ethics

Modern ethics is faced with a rather complicated situation in which many traditional moral values \u200b\u200bhave been revised. Traditions in which the foundation of initial moral principles was seen in many respects have often been destroyed. They lost their significance in connection with global processes developing in society and the rapid pace of change in production, its reorientation to mass consumption. As a result of this, a situation arose in which the opposing moral principles appeared equally justified, equally derived from the mind. This, according to A. MacIntyre, led to the fact that rational arguments in morality began to be mainly used to prove the theses that previously had those who brought these arguments.

This, on the one hand, led to an anti-normative turn in ethics, expressed in the desire to proclaim an individual person as a full-fledged and self-sufficient subject of moral demand, to assign to him the entire burden of responsibility for independently making decisions. The anti-normative trend is presented in the ideas of F. Nietzsche, in existentialism, in postmodern philosophy. On the other hand, there was a desire to limit the ethical field to a rather narrow circle of issues related to the formulation of such rules of behavior that can be adopted by people with different life orientations, with different understandings of the goals of human life, the ideals of self-improvement. As a result, the category of good, traditional for ethics, turned out to be outside the boundaries of morality, and the latter began to develop mainly as the ethics of rules. In line with this trend, the topic of human rights is further developed, new attempts are being made to build ethics as a theory of justice. One such attempt is presented in J. Rawls's book, Theory of Justice.

Man, to a much greater extent than before, felt his responsibility for the development of all life on Earth and began to discuss these problems not only from the point of view of his own interests of survival, but also from the point of view of recognizing the self-worth of the fact of life, the fact of existence as such (Schweitzer, moral realism).

An important step, representing a reaction to the current situation in the development of society, was an attempt to understand morality in a constructive way, to present it as an endless discourse in its continuation, aimed at developing solutions acceptable to all its participants. This is developed in the works of K.O. Apel, J. Habermas, R. Alexi and others. The ethics of discourse is directed against anti-normativism, it is trying to develop common guidelines that can unite people in the fight against global threats that confront humanity.

An undoubted achievement of modern ethics was the identification of the weaknesses of the utilitarian theory, the formulation of the thesis that some basic human rights should be understood in the absolute sense as values \u200b\u200bthat are not directly related to the issue of the public good. They must be respected even when this does not lead to an increase in public goods.

One of the problems that remains as relevant in modern ethics as in the ethics of previous years is the problem of substantiating the original moral principle, finding the answer to the question of what can be the basis of morality, can moral judgments be considered in as true or false, respectively - can any value criterion be specified to determine this? A sufficiently influential group of philosophers denies the possibility of considering normative judgments as those that can be considered true or false. These are, first of all, philosophers developing in their ethics the approach of logical positivism. They believe that the so-called descriptive (descriptive) judgments have nothing to do with normative (prescriptive judgments). The latter express, from their point of view, only the will of the speaker and therefore, unlike the judgments of the first type, they cannot be evaluated in terms of logical truth or lies. One of the classic versions of this approach was the so-called emotivism (A. Ayer). Emotivists believe that moral judgments do not have any truth, but simply convey the emotions of the speaker. These emotions affect the listener in terms of the formation of his desire to side with the speaker, caused by emotional resonance. Other philosophers of this group generally abandon the task of finding the initial meaning of moral judgments and put forward as the goal of theoretical ethics only a logical analysis of the relationship of individual judgments aimed at achieving their consistency (R. Hear, R. Bandt). Nevertheless, even analytical philosophers, who declared the analysis of the logical connection of moral judgments as the main task of theoretical ethics, nevertheless usually proceed from the fact that the judgments themselves have some basis. They can be based on historical intuitions, on the rational desires of individual individuals, but this already goes beyond the competence of theoretical ethics as a science.

A number of authors note the formalism of this position and seek to somehow soften it. So V. Franken, R. Holmes say that our initial understanding of morality will depend on whether certain judgments contradict others or not. R. Holmes believes that introducing a specific value position in the definition of morality is unlawful. Nevertheless, he admits "the possibility of including some real content (for example, references to the public good) and an idea of \u200b\u200bthe sources of morality." Such a position involves going beyond the logical analysis of moral statements, but it, despite the desire to overcome formalism (Holmes himself calls his position and the position of V. Frankena substantialist), still remains too abstract. Explaining why the individual nevertheless behaves as a moral subject, R. Holmes says: "The very interest that prompts the individual to adhere to a normal and orderly life should encourage him to also create and maintain conditions under which such a life is possible." Probably no one would mind that such a definition (and at the same time justification of morality) is reasonable. But it leaves many questions: for example, about what a normal and orderly life is all the same (what desires can and should be encouraged and which ones to limit), to what extent the individual is really interested in maintaining the general conditions of normal life, why, suppose to sacrifice life for the sake of the motherland, if you yourself no longer see its prosperity (the question asked by Lorenzo Valla)? Apparently, such questions give rise to the desire of some thinkers not only to point out the limited possibilities of ethical theory, but also to abandon the procedure for substantiating morality. A. Schopenhauer for the first time expressed the idea that a rational justification of morality undermines the fundamental nature of its principles. This position has some support in modern Russian ethics.

Other philosophers believe that the procedure for substantiating morality is nevertheless of positive significance, the foundations of morality can be found in a reasonable self-restraint of interests, in a historical tradition, common sense, corrected by scientific thinking.

In order to positively answer the question of the prospects of moral justification, it is necessary, first of all, to distinguish between the principles of ethics of duty and ethics of virtue. The Christian ethics, which can be called the ethics of duty, certainly contain a view of morality as the highest absolute value. The priority of a moral motive implies the same attitude to different people regardless of their achievements in practical life. It is an ethics of strict limits and universal love. One of the ways to justify it is an attempt to deduce morality from a person’s ability to universalize his behavior, the idea of \u200b\u200bwhat would happen if everyone did the same as I was going to do. This attempt was most developed in Kantian ethics and is continued in contemporary ethical discussions. However, unlike Kant’s approach, in modern ethics personal interest is not strictly opposed to moral ability, and universalization is considered not as what creates moral ability from the mind itself, but simply as a control procedure used to test various appropriate rules of behavior for their general acceptability.

However, such an idea of \u200b\u200bmorality, in which it is considered, first of all, as a means of controlling behavior, carried out from the point of view in order to prevent violation of the dignity of other people, not to violate their interests roughly, that is, not to use another person only as a means to realize one’s own interest (which in a crude form can be expressed in extreme forms of exploitation, slavery, zombie in one’s political interests through the use of dirty political technologies), - it turns out enough. There is a need to consider morality more broadly, in connection with its influence on the quality of fulfillment of all those types of social activities in which a person is actually involved. In this case, it again becomes necessary to speak of virtues in the ancient tradition, i.e., in connection with the sign of perfection in the performance of a certain social function. The distinction between ethics of duty and ethics of virtues is very important, because the principles on the basis of which these types of moral theory are based are to some extent contradictory, and they have different degrees of categorization. Ethics of duty tends to the absolute form of expression of their principles. In it, a person is always regarded as the highest value, all people are equal in dignity, regardless of their practical achievements.

These achievements themselves turn out to be insignificant when compared with eternity, God, and that is why a person necessarily occupies the position of a “slave” in such ethics. If all the slaves are before God, the real difference between the slave and the master is insignificant. Such a statement looks like a form of affirmation of human dignity, despite the fact that a person seems to voluntarily assume the role of a slave, the role of a lower being, who relies on the mercy of a deity in everything. But, as already mentioned, such an affirmation of the equal dignity of all people in the absolute sense is not enough to morally encourage their practical social activity. In the ethics of virtues, man himself claims to be divine. Already at Aristotle, in his highest intellectual virtues, he becomes like a deity.

This means that the ethics of virtues allows different degrees of perfection, not only perfection in the ability to control one’s thoughts, overcoming the craving for sin (a task that is set in the ethics of duty), but also perfection in the ability to fulfill the social function that a person undertakes to fulfill . This introduces relativity into a moral assessment of what a person is as a person, i.e., a different moral attitude to different people is allowed in the ethics of virtues, because their dignity in this type of ethics depends on specific personality traits of people and their achievements in practical life . Moral qualities are correlated here with various social abilities and appear as very differentiated.

Fundamentally different types of moral motivation are associated with the ethics of duty and the ethics of virtues.

In those cases when a moral motive is manifested most clearly, when it does not merge with other social motives of activity, the external situation serves as a stimulus for the beginning of moral activity. Moreover, the behavior is fundamentally different from that which develops on the basis of the familiar sequence: need-interest-goal. For example, if a person rushes to save a drowning man, he does not do this because he has experienced some emotional stress in advance, similar to, say, a feeling of hunger, but simply because he understands or intuitively feels that the subsequent life with the consciousness of unfulfilled duty will represent him torment. Thus, the behavior here is based on the anticipation of strong negative emotions associated with the idea of \u200b\u200ba violation of moral requirements and the desire to avoid them. However, the need for such selfless actions, in which the most characteristic features of the ethics of duty, is relatively rare. Revealing the essence of a moral motive, it is necessary to explain not only the fear of torment due to unfulfilled duty or remorse, but also the positive direction of long-term activity of behavior, which inevitably manifests itself when it comes to one's own good. It is clear that the justification for the need for such behavior is not carried out in some extraordinary circumstances, and for its determination, it is not an episodic but a long-term goal. Such a goal can be realized only in connection with the general ideas of the individual about the happiness of life, about the whole nature of its relationship with other people.

Can morality be reduced only to the restrictions following from the rule of universalization, to behavior based on the mind, freed from emotions that interfere with sober reasoning? Of course not. Since the days of Aristotle it is known that without emotions there is no moral action.

But if strictly defined emotions of compassion, love, remorse are manifested in the ethics of duty, the implementation of moral qualities in ethics of virtues is accompanied by numerous positive emotions of a non-moral nature. This is because there is a union of moral and other pragmatic motives of being. A person, performing positive moral actions in accordance with his virtues of character, experiences positive emotional states. But positive motivation in this case is introduced into a morally approved action not from some special moral, but from all the higher social needs of the individual. Moreover, the orientation of behavior on moral values \u200b\u200benhances the emotional sense of self in the process of satisfying extra-moral needs. For example, the joy of creativity in socially significant activities is higher than the joy of creativity in a simple game, because in the first case, a person sees in the moral criteria of society a confirmation of the real complexity, sometimes even the uniqueness of the tasks that they solve. This means enrichment of some motives of activity with others. Given such a combination and enrichment of some motives of behavior by others, it is quite possible to explain why a person has a personal interest in being moral, that is, being moral not only for society, but also for himself.

In debt ethics, the issue is more complex. Due to the fact that a person is taken here regardless of his social functions, good becomes absolute and makes the theoretician want to present him as the initial and rationally indefinable category for building the entire ethical system.

The absolute, indeed, cannot be excluded from the realm of morality and cannot be ignored by theoretical thought that wants to free a person from the burden of phenomena that are incomprehensible to him and not always pleasant for him. In practical terms, proper behavior involves a mechanism of conscience, which is cultivated as a reaction imposed on society by an individual to a violation of moral requirements. Something absolute is already concluded in the manifestation of a strong negative reaction of the subconscious to the assumption of a violation of the requirement of morality. But in critical periods of the development of society, when mass sacrificial behavior is required, automatic reactions of the subconscious and remorse alone are not enough. From the point of view of common sense and the theory based on it, it is very difficult to explain why it is necessary to give life for others. But then it is very difficult to give personal meaning to such a sacrificial act only on the basis of a scientific explanation that it is necessary, say, for the survival of the family. However, the practice of social life requires such actions, and, in this sense, produces a need to strengthen moral motives aimed at this kind of behavior, say, at the expense of the idea of \u200b\u200bGod, hope for posthumous retribution, etc.

Thus, the fairly popular absolutist approach to ethics is largely an expression of the practical need to strengthen moral motives of behavior and a reflection of the fact that morality does exist, despite the fact that from the point of view of common sense, a person seems to be unable to act against his interest. But the prevalence of absolutist ideas in ethics, the assertion that it is impossible to substantiate the principle of morality, rather indicate not the impotence of the theory, but the imperfection of the society in which we live. The creation of a political organization that excludes war and resolving nutrition problems on the basis of new energy and technology, as it was seen, for example, by Vernadsky (the transition to autotrophic humanity associated with the production of artificial protein), will humanize social life to such an extent that duty ethics its universalism and strict prohibitions on the use of man as a means will in fact prove unnecessary due to specific political and legal guarantees of the existence of man and all other living beings. In the ethics of virtues, the need to orient personal motives of activity on moral values \u200b\u200bcan be substantiated without appeal to abstract metaphysical entities, without the illusory doubling of the world necessary to give moral motives the status of being of absolute significance. This is one of the manifestations of real humanism, because it removes the alienation caused by the imposition of external, incomprehensible rational thinking principles of behavior.

The foregoing, however, does not mean that the ethics of duty is becoming unnecessary as such. It’s just that its field is shrinking, and moral principles developed within the framework of theoretical approaches to duty ethics are becoming important for the development of legal norms, in particular, in substantiating the concept of human rights. In modern ethics, approaches developed in the ethics of duty, attempts to derive morality from a person’s ability to mentally universalize their behavior are most often used to defend the ideas of liberalism, the basis of which is the desire to create a society in which an individual could best satisfy his interest, not coming into conflict with the interests of others.

The ethics of virtues is correlated with communitarian approaches, in which it is believed that personal happiness is impossible without making care of society the subject of their own aspirations, their personal desires. Ethics of duty, on the contrary, serves as the basis for the development of liberal thought, the development of general rules acceptable to all independent of individual life orientations. Communists say that the subject of morality should be not only the general rules of behavior, but also the standards of excellence of each in the kind of activity that he actually performs. They pay attention to the connection of morality with a certain local cultural tradition, arguing that without such a connection, morality will simply disappear and human society will disintegrate.

It seems that in order to solve the urgent problems of modern ethics it is necessary to combine different principles, including looking for ways to combine the absolute principles of ethics of duty and the relative principles of ethics of virtue, the ideology of liberalism and communism. Arguing from the perspective of the priority of an individual, it would be, for example, very difficult to explain the duty to future generations, to understand the natural desire of each person to keep a good memory of himself among his descendants.

The ethics of the twentieth century can be called an intellectual reaction to social disasters that occurred in this century. Two world wars and regional conflicts, totalitarian regimes and terrorism make us think about the very possibility of ethics in a world so openly alien to good. Of the great variety of ethical teachings created in the twentieth century, we consider only two. Their representatives not only constructed theoretical models of morality, but also made practical normative conclusions from them.

Another very significant variety of ethical doctrine, which had a huge impact on the development of Western culture, is ethics of existentialism (philosophy of existence). Representatives of existentialism are French philosophers J.P. Sartre (1905-1980), G. Marseille (1889-1973 gg.), A. Camus (1913–1960), German philosophers M. Heidegger (1889-1976 gg.), K. Jaspers (1883–1969). Existentialism formed in Western Europe between the two world wars. Its representatives tried to comprehend the situation of a person in crisis situations and to develop certain values \u200b\u200bthat allow him to adequately overcome the crisis.

The starting point of existentialism - existence precedes essence, the reason that determines it. Man first exists, appears, acts, and only then he is determined, i.e. gets characteristics and definitions. Openness to the future, internal incompleteness and initial readiness for free self-determination from oneself is the true existence, existence.

Existentialist ethicshe considers freedom as the basis of human moral behavior. Man is freedom. Freedom is the most fundamental characteristic of man. Freedom in existentialism - this is, first of all, the freedom of consciousness, the freedom to choose the spiritual and moral position of the individual. All the causes and factors acting on a person are necessarily mediated by him free choice. A person must constantly choose one or another line of his behavior, focus on certain values \u200b\u200band ideals. With their formulation of the problem of freedom, existentialists reflected the main foundation of morality. Existentialists rightly emphasize that the activity of people is guided mainly not by external circumstances, but by internal motivations, that each person in these or other circumstances does not react mentally in the same way. A lot depends on each person, and in the event of a negative development of events, one should not refer to “circumstances”. People have considerable freedom in determining the goals of their activities. At each particular historical moment, there is not one, but several possibilities. Given the real possibilities for the development of events, it is equally important that people are free to choose the means to achieve their goals. And the goals and means embodied in the actions already create a certain situation, which itself begins to exert influence.

Human Responsibility Closely Linked to Freedom. Without freedom, there is no responsibility. If a person is not free, if he is constantly determined in his actions, determined by some spiritual or material factors, then, from the point of view of existentialists, he is not responsible for his actions, which means that he is not also the subject of moral relations. Moreover, an individual who does not exercise free choice, renounces freedom, thereby loses the main quality of a person and turns into a simple material object. In other words, such an individual can no longer be considered a person in the true sense of the word, for he has lost the quality of true existence.

At the same time, real life shows that for many people a genuine existence is an overwhelming burden. After all, freedom requires independence and courage from a person, implies responsibility for a choice that gives this or that sense to the future, which determines what the distant world will be like. It is these circumstances that cause those unpleasant experiences of metaphysical fear and anxiety, constant anxiety, which push the person and the sphere of "non-authentic existence."

Existentialist ethics calls for opposing all forms of collectivism. It is necessary to openly realize one’s loneliness and abandonment, freedom and responsibility, meaninglessness and tragedy of one’s own existence, to gain strength and courage to live in the most unfavorable situations of hopelessness and hopelessness.

Existentialist ethics develops along the lines of Stoicism: the moral confusion and despair of a person, the loss of his dignity and fortitude is not so much the result of the clash of our mind and morality with the meaninglessness of human life and the inability to achieve prosperity in it, but the result of disappointment in our hopes of ours. As long as a person wishes and hopes for a successful outcome of his endeavors, he will fail and fall into despair, for the course of life is not in his power. It does not depend on the person in what situations he may fall, but it completely depends on him how he will emerge from them.

Among the theories of morality XXv. should pay attention to "The ethics of non-violence." All ethics consider nonviolence necessary. Since violence breeds retaliatory violence, it is knowingly ineffective a method for solving any problems. Nonviolence is not passivity, but special nonviolent action (sit-ins, marches, hunger strikes, distribution of leaflets and media appearances to popularize their position - advocates of non-violence have developed dozens of such methods). Only morally strong and courageous people are capable of carrying out such actions, capable, thanks to faith in their righteousness, not to respond with blow to blow. The motive for non-violence is love for enemies and faith in their best moral qualities. Enemies should be convinced of the wrongness, inefficiency and immorality of force methods and a compromise should be reached with them. The "Ethics of Non-Violence" considers morality not as weakness, but as a person’s strength, ability to achieve goals.

In the XX century. was developed ethics of reverence for life, the founder of which was the modern humanist A. Schweitzer. He equalizes the moral value of all existing life forms. However, he admits a moral choice situation. If a person is guided by the ethics of reverence for life, then he harms life and destroys it only under the pressure of necessity and never does it thoughtlessly. But where he is free to choose, a man seeks a position in which he could help life and avert the threat of suffering and destruction from it. Schweizer rejects evil.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

History of Ethics

Already 2500 years ago, great philosophers identified the main traits of a person’s character, his temperament and spiritual qualities, which he called ethical virtues. Cicero, having familiarized himself with the works of Aristotle, introduced the new term “morality”, which he attached the same meaning to.

The subsequent development of philosophy led to the fact that a separate discipline stood out in it - ethics. The subject (definition) studied by this science is morality. For quite a long time, the same meaning was given to these categories, but some philosophers distinguished them. For example, Hegel believed that morality is the subjective perception of actions, and morality is the actions themselves and their objective nature.

Depending on the historical processes taking place in the world, and changes in the social development of society, the subject of ethics has constantly changed its meaning and content. What was inherent in primitive people became unusual for the inhabitants of the ancient period, and their ethical standards were criticized by medieval philosophers.

Preantical Ethics

Long before the subject of ethics as a science was formed, there was a long period, which is commonly called “pre-ethics”.

One of the most prominent representatives of that time can be called Homer, whose heroes possessed a set of positive and negative qualities. But the general concept of what actions relate to virtue and which not, he has not yet formed. Neither the Odyssey, nor the Iliad are instructive in nature, but are simply a narrative of events, people, heroes, and gods living at that time.

For the first time, basic human values \u200b\u200bas a measure of ethical virtue were voiced in the works of Hesiod, who lived at the beginning of the class division of society. The main qualities of a person, he considered honest work, justice and legality of action as the basis of what leads to the preservation and increase of property.

The first tenets of morality were the statements of the five sages of antiquity:

respect the elders (Chilon);
avoid untruth (Cleobulus);
glory to the gods, and honor to parents (Solon);
observe the measure (Thales);
pacify anger (Chilo);
promiscuity is a flaw (Thales).

These criteria required certain behavior from people, and therefore became the first for people of that time. Ethics, as well as the tasks of which is the study of man and his qualities, was only in its infancy in this period.

Sophists and ancient sages

From the 5th century BC, the rapid development of sciences, arts and architecture began in many countries. Never before had such a large number of philosophers been born, various schools and movements were formed that paid great attention to the problems of man, his spiritual and moral qualities.

The most significant at that time was the philosophy of Ancient Greece, represented by two areas:

Amoralists and sophists who denied the creation of mandatory moral requirements for all. For example, the sophist Protagoras believed that the subject and object of ethics is morality, the category is unstable, changing under the influence of time. It belongs to the category of relative, since each nation in a certain period of time has its own moral principles.
They were opposed by such great minds as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, who created the subject of ethics as the science of morality and Epicurus. They believed that virtue was based on harmony between reason and emotions. In their opinion, it was not given by the gods, which means it is a tool to separate good deeds from evil ones.

It was Aristotle in his work "Ethics" divided the moral qualities of man into 2 types:

ethical, that is, associated with temper and temperament;
dianoetic - related to the mental development of a person and the ability to influence passions with the help of the mind.

According to Aristotle, the subject of ethics is 3 teachings - on the highest good, on virtues in general and in particular, and the object of study is man. It was he who introduced into the rim that morality (ethics) is the acquired qualities of the soul. He developed the concept of a virtuous person.

Epicurus and the Stoics

In contrast to Aristotle, Epicurus put forward his hypothesis of morality, according to which only a life that leads to the satisfaction of basic needs and desires is happy and virtuous, because they are easily achieved, which means they make a person serene and happy with everything.

The deepest mark after Aristotle in the development of ethics was the Stoics. They believed that all virtues (good and evil) are inherent in man in the same way as in the surrounding world. The goal of people is to develop in themselves qualities that are consistent with good, and eliminate the evil principle. The most prominent representatives of the Stoics was Zeno in Greece, Seneca and Rome.

Medieval ethics

During this period, the subject of ethics is the promotion of Christian dogmas, as religious morality began to rule the world. The highest goal of man in the medieval era is to serve God, which was interpreted through the teachings of Christ about love for him.

If ancient philosophers believed that virtues are a property of any person and his task is to increase them on the side of goodness, in order to be in harmony with himself and the world, then with the development of Christianity they have become divine grace, which the Creator gives people or not.

The most famous philosophers of that time are St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. According to the first, the commandments were originally perfect, since they came from God. He who lives according to them and glorifies the Creator will go to heaven to him, and the rest is destined for hell. St. Augustine also claimed that such a category as evil does not exist in nature. It is performed by people and angels who have turned away from the Creator for their own being.

Thomas Aquinas went even further, announcing that bliss is not possible in life - it is the foundation of the afterlife. Thus, the subject of ethics in the Middle Ages lost its connection with man and his qualities, giving way to church ideas about the world and the place of people in it.

New ethics

A new round of the development of philosophy and ethics begins with the denial of morality as the divine will given to man in the ten commandments. For example, Spinoza claimed that the Creator is nature, the cause of all things, acting according to its own laws. He believed that in the surrounding world there is no absolute good and evil, there are only situations in which a person acts in one way or another. It is the understanding of what is useful and what is harmful to the preservation of life that determines the nature of people and their moral qualities.

According to Spinoza, the subject and tasks of ethics are the study of human flaws and virtues in the process of seeking happiness, and they are based on the desire for self-preservation.

On the contrary, he believed that the core of everything is free will, which is part of moral duty. His first law of morality reads: “Do things in such a way that you always acknowledge reasonable will in yourself and others as not a means to an achievement, but a goal.”

Initially, evil (egoism) inherent in a person is the center of all actions and goals. To rise above him, people must show full respect for both their own and others' identities. It was Kant who revealed the subject of ethics briefly and accessible as a philosophical science, standing apart from its other species, creating formulas of ethical views on the world, state and politics.

Modern ethics

In the 20th century, the subject of ethics as a science is morality based on non-violence and reverence for life. The manifestation of good began to be viewed from the perspective of non-multiplication of evil. Particularly well, this side of the ethical perception of the world through the prism of good was revealed by Leo Tolstoy.

Violence breeds violence and increases suffering and pain - this is the main motive of this ethics. It was also adhered to by M. Gandhi, who strove to make India free without violence. In his opinion, love is the most powerful weapon, acting with the same strength and accuracy as the basic laws of nature, for example, gravity.

Nowadays, many countries have come to understand that the ethics of non-violence gives more effective results in conflict resolution, although it cannot be called passive. She has two forms of protest: non-cooperation and civil disobedience.

Ethical values

One of the foundations of modern moral values \u200b\u200bis the philosophy of Albert Schweitzer, the founder of the ethics of reverence for life. His concept was respect for any life without dividing it into useful, higher or lower, valuable or worthless.

At the same time, he acknowledged that, due to circumstances, people can save their lives by taking away someone else's. At the heart of his philosophy is the conscious choice of a person towards the preservation of life, if the situation allows it, and not its thoughtless withdrawal. Schweizer considered self-denial, forgiveness, and service to people as the main criteria for preventing evil.

In the modern world, ethics as a science does not dictate the rules of behavior, but studies and systematizes common ideals and norms, a common understanding of morality and its significance in the life of both an individual person and society as a whole.

The concept of morality

Morality is a sociocultural phenomenon that forms the fundamental essence of humanity. All people's activities are based on ethical standards recognized in the society in which they live.

Knowledge of moral rules and ethics of behavior help individuals adapt among others. Morality is also an indicator of the degree of responsibility of a person for his actions.

Ethical and spiritual qualities are brought up from childhood. From theory, thanks to the right actions in relation to others, they become the practical and everyday side of human life, and their violation is condemned by the public.

Ethics objectives

Since ethics studies its place in society, it solves the following tasks:

describes morality from the history of formation in antiquity to the principles and norms inherent in modern society;
gives the characteristic of morality from the position of its “due” and “existing” version;
it educates people in basic ways, gives knowledge about good and evil, and helps to improve oneself when choosing one's own understanding of the “right life”.

Thanks to this science, an ethical assessment of people's actions and their relationships is built with an orientation toward understanding, whether good or evil is achieved.

Types of Ethics

In modern society, the activities of people in numerous areas of life are very closely related, therefore, the subject of ethics considers and studies its various types:

family ethics deals with the relationship of people in marriage;
business ethics - norms and rules of doing business;
corporate studies the relationship in the team;
Teaches and studies the behavior of people at their workplace.

Today, many countries are implementing ethical laws regarding the death penalty, euthanasia and organ transplantation. As human society continues to evolve, ethics will change along with it.

Modern ethics is faced with a rather complicated situation in which many traditional moral values \u200b\u200bhave been revised. Traditions in which the foundation of initial moral principles was seen in many respects have often been destroyed. They lost their significance in connection with global processes developing in society and the rapid pace of change in production, its reorientation to mass consumption. As a result of this, a situation arose in which opposing moral principles appeared equally justified, equally derived from the mind. This, according to A. MacIntyre, led to the fact that rational arguments in morality were mainly used to prove the theses that previously had been given to those who cited these arguments.

New scientific discoveries and new technologies have given a powerful surge to the development of applied ethics. In the XX century. many new professional codes of morality were developed, business ethics, bioethics, the ethics of a lawyer, a media worker, etc. were developed. Scientists, doctors, philosophers began to discuss such problems as organ transplantation, euthanasia, the creation of transgenic animals, human cloning. Man, to a much greater extent than before, felt his responsibility for the development of all life on Earth and began to discuss these problems not only from the point of view of his own interests of survival, but also from the point of view of recognizing the intrinsic value of the fact of life, the fact of existence as such (Schweitzer, moral realism).

Professional ethics acts as the ethics of rules and works at the level of creating deontological principles of behavior for those who belong to this profession. It constitutes a significant area of \u200b\u200bapplied ethics. But there are other areas. This is corporate ethics in which codes and organizations that monitor their implementation are created for members of certain corporations. The area of \u200b\u200bapplied ethics also relates to social threats of a global nature. To prevent these threats, humanitarian examinations are carried out, mechanisms of democratic procedures for making important public decisions are being worked out.

An important step, representing a reaction to the current situation in the development of society, was an attempt to understand morality as an endless discourse in its continuation - a conversation of humanity aimed at developing solutions acceptable to all its participants. This is developed in the works of K.O. Apel, J. Habermas, R. Alexi, etc. The ethics of discourse is directed against anti-normativism, it is trying to develop common guidelines that can unite people in the fight against global threats that confront humanity. Discursive ethics suggests that all decisions in the future development of society should become communicative. These are such decisions that people agree to voluntarily make because they are convinced of their feasibility, and not because they are promised something or intimidated by something (strategic decisions). Communicative decisions mean that the interests of people are not suppressed, are not eliminated in the name of other interests, and those who become the objects of planned management agree to the manipulations performed with their interests.

Another characteristic feature of modern morality is the incredible expansion of the public sphere, i.e. areas where the interests of large groups of people are represented, where actions are evaluated in terms of the perfection of the performance of certain social functions. In this area, we are confronted with the activities of politicians, leaders of political parties, business leaders, and the mechanism for making global decisions. It turned out that traditional ethics is in many ways not applicable for this sphere, because it is clear that, say, a lawyer cannot treat a prosecutor as himself. During the trial, they act as adversaries.

Therefore, theorists raise the question of developing a new ethics related to the adoption of honest rules of a certain game, a new understanding of justice, including the inclusion in this concept of issues of international justice, attitudes towards future generations, attitudes towards animals, attitudes towards people with disabilities from birth, etc. .

Questions:

1. What is the origin of the term ethics?

2. What is motivation?

3. How is the “golden rule” different from the “talion”?

4. What is the rationale for morality?

5. What was specific to antique ethics?

6. What are the specifics of the ethics of the New Time?

7. What is good and evil, can these categories be contrasted in the absolute sense?

8. How can morality be defined?

9. How is morality different from other means of social regulation?

10. What is the situation in modern ethics?

11. What is the ethics of discourse?

Topics of essays:

1. The emergence of morality

2. The Golden Rule of Morality

3. Ethics of Aristotle

5. The rationale for morality: opportunities and limits

7. Love as a principle of moral relationships

8. Ethics of Discourse

Literature:

1. Aristotle, Nikomakhova ethics // Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T.4. M .: Cape 1984.

2. I. Kant Foundations of the metaphysics of morals // Kant I. Sobr. Op. in 8 vols. T. 4. M.: CHORO, 1994.

3. Apel K.-O. The transformation of philosophy. M .: Logos, 2001.

4. Huseynov A.A. Great prophets and thinkers. Moral teachings from Moses to the present day. M .: Veche, 2009.

5. Huseynov A.A. Apresyan R.G. Ethics. M .: Gardariki, 2000.

6. Makintair A. After virtue. M .: Academic project; Ekaterinburg: Business Book, 2000.

7. Razin A.V. Ethics. M .: INFRA-M, 2012.

8. Habermas J. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Per with him. St. Petersburg: Science, 2000.

It might be useful to read: