heat exchange 3) maintaining health; 4) physical activity.

2. To human needs determined by his biological

organization, includes the need for:

1) self-realization; 2) self-preservation; 3) self-knowledge; 4) self-education

3. Personality is:

1) any representative of human society; 2) socially significant features that characterize a person as a member of society; 3) every human individual; 4) a set of biological and social characteristics of a person.

4. Individuality is:

1) specific features inherent in humans as a biological organism; 2) a person’s temperament, his character; 3) the unique originality of both natural and social in man; 4) the totality of human needs and abilities.

5. Socialization of the individual is:

1) communication with others; 2) change in social status; 3) assimilation of social experience accumulated by humanity; 4) transition from one social group to another.

6. A sign of human activity that distinguishes it from the behavior of animals is:

1) manifestation of activity; 2) goal setting; 3) adaptation to the surrounding world; 4) interaction with nature.

7. What is “disturbance of ecological balance”?:

a) sharp deterioration of the natural environment;

b) changes in the ecosystem, leading ultimately to its replacement by another ecosystem for a long or indefinite period.

8. To what area does the concept of “morality” belong:

a) social;

b) spiritual;

c) political;

d) economic.

9. Choose the correct statements:

a) Human freedom consists in his ability to live outside of society.

b) No man - no society.

c) Each new generation is included in already established social relations.

d) The life of society is not subject to change.

e) Knowledge, work skills, moral standards are products social development.

10. Choose the correct statements:

a) Labor creates everything necessary for people’s lives.

b) Throughout history, society has viewed work as the greatest good.

c) Labor is connected with nature and affects - directly or indirectly - natural objects.

d) The advent of automatic technology frees people from the need to work.

e) The introduction of machines into production made it possible to replace the human hand in many operations.

11. Choose the correct statements:

a) Political relations always concern power and the state.

b) Politics and political relations arose with the emergence of human society.

c) Only the state issues laws that are binding on all its citizens.

d) The interests of large social communities are formulated and expressed by political parties.

e) Membership in one of the political parties is the responsibility of every citizen.

12. What are the factors of production?:

3) capital;

4) entrepreneurial abilities;

5) information.

13. What type of economy is most common?:

a) traditional;

b) centralized;

c) market;

d) mixed.

14. Choose the correct statement:

a) the main principle of the market - a transaction must be profitable either only for the seller or only for the buyer;

b) the main problem of the economy is the distribution of limitless resources;

c) three main questions of economics - what, how and for whom to produce.

15. Align:

1) power, state, presidential elections, voting rights

2) production of material goods, finance, banks, trade

3) classes, nations, primary groups, inequality

4) theater, religion, science, moral standards, values

A) the spiritual sphere of social life

B) social sphere of society

C) the economic sphere of society

D) the political sphere of society

The criterionological approach to the category of morality requires, first of all, to achieve understanding and orientation in the space of life and, in general, natural criteria in order to build a system of assessment of knowledge of the highest level. Such a desire is very difficult to fulfill, because morality itself is already such a high-level evaluative system that allows humanity and each individual to correlate virtually any actions and thoughts with each other.

Morality is a more detailed and subtle regulation of behavior than morality. Moral requirements apply to any moment of behavior and to any life situation. It requires every human action to correspond to its requirements; this also covers the sphere of attitude towards oneself. It follows that the sphere of morality is wider than the sphere of morality, but less formalized and normative. Morality can be represented as a wide field of spontaneous formation of Man’s assessments of his behavior, including those that are not the scope of moral norms. Some of these assessments become normative over time and take the form of law. Until this happens, there will be a large number of immoral people who skillfully act in plain sight, without breaking the bounds of the law.

This word appeared in the Russian language in the 18th century, came from the root “character” and began to be used as a synonym for the words “morality” and “ethics”. However, after some time these terms began to be distinguished.

Morality is a concept that relates to an individual and is understood subjectively. Morality is a life attitude a certain person, which includes individual forms of behavior in certain situations, values, goals, concepts of good and evil, etc. in the understanding of a particular person. Thus, morality is a purely individual concept. So, for one, living with the girl he loves outside of marriage and not cheating on her is completely moral, but for another it is unacceptable, since living fully with a girl and not being married to her is an example of anti-moral behavior. The subjective point of view allows morality to be assessed as high or low depending on the specific opinion.

When we try to comprehend this concept, we first of all note that the concept of morality combines in a special way, if not successfully, the knowledge of human civilization about the ideal and reality: the ideal attracts reality to itself, forcing it to change according to moral principles.

In addition, this category, as an expanded concept, combines the essential social root cause of people’s real actions: they voluntarily take upon themselves personal responsibilities to conform their actions to certain general ideas (general mores) and to correlate these actions and their thoughts with the goals, objectives, and criteria of society . In another way, life turns into a Game with a Win for Everyone.

Every person in his life has encountered the concept of morality more than once. However, not everyone knows its true meaning. In the modern world, the problem of morality is very acute. After all, many people lead an incorrect and dishonest lifestyle. What is human morality? How does it relate to concepts such as ethics and morality? What behavior can be considered moral and why?

What does the concept of “morality” mean?

Very often morality is identified with morality and ethics. However, these concepts are not entirely similar. Morality is a set of norms and values ​​of a particular person. It includes an individual’s ideas about good and evil, about how one should and should not behave in various situations.

Each person has his own criteria of morality. What seems completely normal to one is completely unacceptable to another. So, for example, some people have a positive attitude towards civil marriage and do not see anything bad in it. Others consider such cohabitation immoral and sharply condemn premarital relationships.

Principles of moral behavior

Despite the fact that morality is a purely individual concept, there are still common principles in modern society. First of all, these include the equality of rights of all people. This means that there should be no discrimination against a person on the basis of gender, race or any other basis. All people are equal before the law and the court, everyone has the same rights and freedoms.

The second principle of morality is based on the fact that a person is allowed to do everything that does not contradict the rights of other people and does not infringe on their interests. This includes not only issues regulated by law, but also moral and ethical standards. For example, deceiving a loved one is not a crime. However, from a moral point of view, the one who deceives causes suffering to the individual, and therefore infringes on his interests and acts immorally.

The meaning of morality

Some people believe that morality is only a necessary condition for going to heaven after death. During life, it has absolutely no effect on a person’s success and does not bring any benefit. Thus, the meaning of morality lies in cleansing our soul from sin.

In fact, such an opinion is erroneous. Morality is necessary in our lives not only for a specific person, but also for society as a whole. Without it, there will be arbitrariness in the world, and people will destroy themselves. As soon as eternal values ​​disappear in a society and habitual norms of behavior are forgotten, its gradual degradation begins. Theft, debauchery, and impunity flourish. And if immoral people come to power, the situation worsens even more.

Thus, the quality of life of humanity directly depends on how moral it is. Only in a society where basic moral principles are respected and observed can people feel secure and happy.

Morals and ethics

Traditionally, the concept of “morality” is identified with morality. In many cases, these words are used interchangeably, and most people do not see a fundamental difference between them.

Morality represents certain principles and standards of behavior of people in various situations, developed by society. In other words, it is a public point of view. If a person follows established rules, he can be called moral, but if he ignores them, his behavior is immoral.

What is morality? The definition of this word differs from morality in that it does not apply to society as a whole, but to each individual person. Morality is a rather subjective concept. What is the norm for some is unacceptable for others. A person can be called moral or immoral based only on his personal opinion.

Modern morality and religion

Everyone knows that any religion calls a person to virtue and respect for basic moral values. However, modern society puts human freedom and rights at the forefront of everything. In this regard, some God's commandments have lost their relevance. So, for example, few people can devote one day a week to serving the Lord because of their busy schedule and fast pace of life. And the commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery” for many is a restriction on the freedom to build personal relationships.

Classic moral principles regarding the value of human life and property, help and compassion for others, condemnation of lies and envy remain in force. Moreover, now some of them are regulated by law and can no longer be justified by supposedly good intentions, for example, the fight against infidels.

Modern society also has its own moral values, which are not outlined in traditional religions. These include the need for constant self-development and self-improvement, determination and energy, the desire to achieve success and live in abundance. Modern people condemn violence in all its forms, intolerance and cruelty. They respect human rights and his desire to live as he sees fit. Modern morality places emphasis on human self-improvement, transformation and development of society as a whole.

The problem of youth morality

Many people say that modern society has already begun to decay morally. Indeed, crime, alcoholism and drug addiction are thriving in our country. Young people do not think about what morality is. The definition of this word is completely foreign to them.

Very often, modern people put values ​​such as pleasure, an idle life and fun at the forefront of everything. At the same time, they completely forget about morality, guided only by their selfish needs.

Modern youth have completely lost such personal qualities as patriotism and spirituality. For them, morality is something that can interfere with freedom and limit it. Often people are ready to commit any act to achieve their goals, without thinking at all about the consequences for others.

Thus, today in our country the problem of youth morality is very acute. Solving it will require more than a decade and a lot of effort on the part of the government.

It is perhaps difficult to name problems that have also been of concern to humanity for a long time as problems of morality. There is a wide range of people who show interest (scientific, business, lay) in the organization of human relationships. If we take, for example, the treatise of the ancient Roman physician Galen “Hygiene of the Passions, or Moral Hygiene”, the research of the famous economist A. Smith on the theory of moral feelings, the most entertaining presentation of the foundations of morality presented by the Russian physiologist I.I. Mechnikov in “Studies on Human Nature,” then one can see how historically long-lasting and determined the interest in morality is among people of various professions and hobbies.

I.I. Mechnikov wrote that “the solution to the problems of human life must inevitably lead to a more precise definition of the foundations of morality. The latter should not have immediate pleasure, but the completion of the normal cycle of existence. In order to achieve this result, people must help each other much more than they do now.”

So, the essence of morality as a real social phenomenon, the existence of which is associated with the first efforts of people to live and act together, first spontaneously and then deliberately uniting, is that it is a vital condition for the survival of people, the ordering of their social way of life. This alternative gave rise to a number of theoretical justifications, according to which a moral person is strictly adapted to the conditions of the external environment (English philosopher Spencer), and nature can be called the first teacher of moral principles for a person (P.A. Kropotkin). G. Selye, the author of the generally accepted theory of stress, believes that it is biologically useful, and therefore moral standards should be based on biological laws, on the laws of human self-preservation.

One cannot but agree with such a position. In fact, the creation of living conditions for a person, in the presence of which his psychosomatic characteristics are improved, acts, for example, as one of the most important requirements of morality. However, G. Selye is categorical, and therefore absolutizes the role of biological laws in constituting the final word on the social way of life of people. It is no coincidence that morality is generally recognized as a social phenomenon.

Morality as a social phenomenon is theoretically divided into at least two levels - attitude and consciousness. Morality can be understood as the direction of a person’s relationship with people, with material and spiritual values, with the nature around him and with the entire living world. Morality expresses the extent to which an individual is aware of his responsibility to society for his behavior, for the fulfillment of his duties and the exercise of his rights.

A characteristic trend in the development of socialist society is the growth of moral principles in it. In this regard, it is possible to record a number of patterns in the general process of development of morality as an expression of the objective needs of socialist construction.

The scientific base of modern management is widely represented by various theoretical and applied branches of knowledge. Among them, ethics is called upon to occupy its due place as a special scientific and theoretical discipline and as a normative and applied field of knowledge that professionally equips production organizers.

Morality - in a broad sense - is a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations.

Morality - in a narrow sense - is a set of principles and norms of behavior of people in relation to each other and society.

Morality is a value structure of consciousness, a socially necessary way of regulating human actions in all spheres of life, including work, life and attitude towards the environment.

First - about words. The words “morality”, “morality”, “ethics” are close in meaning. But they originated in three different languages. The word "ethics" comes from the Greek. ethos - disposition, character, custom. It was introduced into use 2300 years ago by Aristotle, who called “ethical” the virtues or dignity of a person that are manifested in his behavior - qualities such as courage, prudence, honesty, and “ethics” - the science of these qualities. The word "morality" is of Latin origin. It is derived from Lat. mos (plural mores), which meant approximately the same as ethos in Greek - disposition. custom. Cicero, following the example of Aristotle, derived from him the words moralis - moral and moralitas - morality, which became the Latin equivalent of the Greek words ethical and ethics. And “morality” is a Russian word that comes from the root of “nrav”. It first entered the Russian language dictionary in the 18th century and began to be used along with the words “ethics” and “morality” as their synonym. This is how three words with approximately the same meaning appeared in the Russian language. Over time, they acquired some semantic shades that distinguish them from each other. But in the practice of word usage, these words are practically interchangeable (and their semantic shades can almost always be understood from the context).

Moral culture, like all social culture, has two main aspects: 1) values ​​and 2) regulations.

Moral values ​​are what the ancient Greeks called “ethical virtues.” The ancient sages considered prudence, benevolence, courage, and justice to be the main virtues. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the highest moral values ​​are associated with faith in God and zealous reverence for him. Honesty, loyalty, respect for elders, hard work, and patriotism are revered as moral values ​​among all nations. And although in life people do not always show such qualities, they are highly valued by people, and those who possess them are respected. These values, presented in their impeccable, absolutely complete and perfect expression, act as ethical ideals.

Moral (moral) regulations are rules of behavior focused on specified values. Moral regulations are varied. Each individual chooses (consciously or unconsciously) in the cultural space those that are most suitable for him. Among them there may be those who are not approved by others. But in every more or less stable culture there is a certain system of generally accepted moral regulations, which, by tradition, are considered mandatory for everyone. Such regulations are moral norms. The Old Testament lists 10 such norms - “the commandments of God”, written on the tablets that were given by God to the prophet Moses when he climbed Mount Sinai (“Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” etc.). The norms of truly Christian behavior are the 7 commandments that Jesus Christ indicated in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not resist evil”; “Give to the one who asks from you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you”; “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who use you and persecute you,” etc.

It is clear that moral values ​​and ideals, on the one hand, and moral regulations and norms, on the other, are inextricably linked. Any moral value presupposes the presence of appropriate regulations for behavior aimed at it. And any moral regulation implies the presence of a value towards which it is aimed. If honesty is a moral value, then the regulative follows: “Be honest.” And vice versa, if a person, by virtue of his inner conviction, follows the regulative: “Be honest,” then for him honesty is a moral value. Such a relationship between moral values ​​and regulations in many cases makes their separate consideration unnecessary. When talking about honesty, they often mean both honesty as a value and a regulation that requires one to be honest. When it comes to characteristics that are equally related to both moral values ​​and ideals and moral regulations and norms, they are usually called principles of morality (morality, ethics).

The most important feature of morality is the finality of moral values ​​and the imperativeness of moral regulations. This means that the principles of morality are valuable in themselves. That is, to questions like: “Why do we need them?”, “Why should we strive for moral values?”, “Why should we observe moral standards?” - there is no other answer than to admit that the purpose for which we follow moral principles is to follow them. There is no tautology here: simply following moral principles is an end in itself, that is, the highest, final goal” and there are no other goals that we would like to achieve by following them. They are not a means to achieve any underlying goal.

Acting as a sphere of labor communication, the team has a significant impact on expanding the moral experience of people and on their acquisition of new practical knowledge and skills. The work collective cannot but take into account the fact that people who come to production already have their own moral experience.

At the same time, in the work collective, thanks to the active inclusion of people in socially useful activities and communication, as well as under the influence of ideological and educational work, the process of correcting people’s moral stereotypes and their expectations and aspirations is underway. Collective traditions are formed in it. Thus, the moral experience of the collective is clearly manifested in the form of the system of moral relations that has developed here, in the manner of moral behavior of its members characteristic of the collective.

The components of collective moral experience are moral stereotypes, expectations, aspirations, traditions, skills and habits.

Moral stereotypes. Stereotypes are views and points of view that are firmly established in people’s minds. Stereotypes can be not only individual. In a work team where people work together and communicate for a long time, group stereotypes develop. They express some stable points of view and assessments of the team on various issues of work activity and relationships in the team.

Collective stereotypes reflect, first of all, the experience of people working together. They play a very significant role as spiritual values ​​that people are guided by, according to which they determine their point of view and moral position. If a stereotype of a conscientious attitude to work has been established in the team, then many educational problems are removed from the agenda. If a negative moral stereotype has become established, then the stability of its manifestation through people’s behavior causes a lot of difficulties.

Such negative moral stereotypes as the position of the “little man” and non-interference, fear of conflicts, irresponsibility, priority of personal well-being, etc., are limiting factors in the development of individual consciousness. Sociological studies, recording the prevalence of theft of socialist property in work collectives, indicate that today “nonsense” in a number of work collectives is perceived as inevitable, and irresponsibility has become a characteristic feature of the official behavior of a number of workers.

Moral expectations-claims. The structure of collective consciousness lies in the desire of people to satisfy various needs and interests, distant and immediate goals. Both in their content and in the methods of implementation, collective expectations and claims can be moral or immoral. Depending on this, the prayers of the collective’s behavior and the nature of its real actions are determined.

The workforce has significant capabilities in forming positive expectations and aspirations of people. With the scientific and technical renewal of production, the development of full self-financing, with the development of the social, cultural and health base of production, conditions are created to satisfy the various expectations and demands of the work collective. All this will undoubtedly contribute to the collective integration of healthy moral expectations and aspirations of people, and therefore the corresponding practical actions for their implementation.

Moral traditions. In work collectives, the presence of various traditions is due to the diversity of spheres of their social life. Acting as steadily recurring, established social relations of people, traditions are a specific social mechanism for the functioning of a team. Widespread revolutionary, militant, labor, and international traditions in work collectives reflect all the best, including moral, that exists in the social experience of different generations of people. Their role is also enormous in the moral formation of the labor collective. Traditions are a kind of steps in the spiritual development of the team. The constancy of their observance gives the moral life of the team a high civic tone.

The moral traditions of the work collective include holding various meetings, debates, round tables, etc., at which such moral issues as duty, honor, dignity, effective methods of combating injustice, callousness, disdain for work, incorrect communication in a team. Many labor collectives have such an interesting moral tradition as the development and observance of the Laws of the struggle for the honor and dignity of the collective, for the moral character of the Soviet worker, the Moral Code of the labor collective, the Code of Social Norms of the collective, and Instructions on Ethics and Etiquette of Leader Behavior. Such documents are evidence not only of the active moral creativity of work collectives, but also of their interest in introducing moral traditions into the daily life of the collective. The role of socialist competition in mastering moral norms is great. Traditions such as enlisting heroically dead soldiers in a brigade and performing additional tasks in connection with this, anniversary watches in honor of holidays, free work on the days of all-Union cleanup days, and charity events have a high moral meaning.

Moral skills and habits. These components of moral experience significantly determine the moral behavior of team members. The reliability of adherence to moral principles and norms of communication is largely determined by the moral skills and habits that exist in the team. the need to observe the basic rules of human society becomes a habit over time. The process of freeing a person from old negative habits in general, and moral ones in particular, is complex and lengthy.

The formation of moral skills and habits presupposes preliminary serious educational work to establish healthy moral stereotypes, expectations, aspirations, and orientation values ​​of its members in the team. Of great importance in establishing moral skills and habits is the practical training of all team members in specific moral skills. For example, how to properly build your relationships with people in the process of work, during informal communication. Various types of improvement in a team are very valuable, which contribute to the development of such moral experience as comradely mutual assistance, fair assessment of the achievements of other people, managing one’s emotions when listening to criticism or any unpleasant words.

The moral sphere of the work collective will be built, figuratively speaking, on three pillars: moral values, mechanisms of moral self-regulation and moral experience. We have identified the most significant moral principles of the work collective for the practical activities of management. Let us emphasize that we were not talking about the collective in general, but about its moral sphere, where the decisive role belongs to the moral relations and states that form and function in the social life of the collective. A leader who knows about these foundations of the moral sphere of the work collective. A leader who knows about these foundations of the moral sphere of the work collective will be able to maneuver them more meaningfully in educational work.

An executive with developed business virtues may nevertheless be unable to lead a team if he lacks moral and psychological qualities. But we must admit that we arrive at such a clear understanding of the absolute necessity of such qualities for the implementation of management activities with considerable delay. When nominating a person to a leadership position, it was customary to talk about his efficiency and ideological and political outlook. Of course, without these qualities, it is impossible to lead, but the trouble is that moral and psychological qualities, such as honesty, incorruptibility, modesty, etc., were relegated to the background, or even the third plan, and were compressed into a faceless, official-rounded formula: “morally stable.”

As a result, moral undemandingness naturally led to sad consequences, giving the way to leadership positions for immoral people. “It is no coincidence that today we are so acutely faced with negative phenomena precisely in the moral sphere.”

In any work collective, everything related to the moral and psychological qualities of the leader is perceived, for obvious reasons, especially acutely. These qualities are necessary to create a climate in the team that is conducive to the development of healthy interpersonal relationships, conscious discipline of labor relations, and strengthening people’s sense of job satisfaction.

Moral and psychological qualities are exceptionally diverse, since the psychological structure of the personality itself is complex. Let's consider some of these qualities - those that seem to us the most characteristic.

The ability to attract people to you. Some leaders seem to have everything necessary to become respected in their team: intelligence and knowledge, organizational skills and hard work, broad-mindedness and a correct understanding of the problems of the system, but respect has not been won. For such a leader, in the words of Ferdowsi, “great virtues and glory are diminished by bad character.” The inability to establish normal, business relationships with subordinates, based on an understanding of their psychology, the reluctance to capture their moods and respond to them often nullify the efforts of the manager and give rise to an undesirable socio-psychological climate and work style in the system. The roots of many miscalculations in management should be sought precisely in the failure of its moral qualities. Therefore, in managerial activities, moral and psychological qualities are the same professional trait as political maturity, professional competence, and organizational abilities. Business qualities that are not refined by morality may not justify themselves.

Let us remember that leadership is always the leadership of people, their daily upbringing, and, first of all, not with circulars, not instructions, not scolding, but with high organization, adherence to principles, justice, one’s own example, one’s moral character. People are impressed by a leader who is prone to collective decision-making, encouraging criticism and self-criticism, suppressing tendencies of bureaucracy and sycophancy, who trusts employees and fairly evaluates the results of their work, who prefers methods of persuasion to methods of coercion.

Of great importance is the manager’s ability to select assistants, clearly distribute the functions, duties and responsibilities of each of them, provide them with the opportunity to independently resolve issues that arise during production, while maintaining operational control of the work of the units. In all circumstances, a manager is called upon to be a strong leader.

A leader is a person who ensures the integration of group activities, unites and directs the actions of the entire group. Leadership characterizes relationships based on trust, recognition of a high level of qualifications, willingness to support in all endeavors, personal sympathy, and the desire to adopt positive experience. Trust in a leader is determined by his human qualities, special authority, and responsible attitude towards business and people. Leadership relationships optimally coincide with the formal powers of the manager.

The current stage of management restructuring in Russia is revolutionary, since, first of all, the psychology of the manager and the style of his economic behavior are being changed, and managers are reassessing their place and role in the management system. In an era of intense competition and global changes, it is no longer enough for a leader to be just a manager, no matter how high his qualifications. According to the current prevailing point of view, the activities of a manager are more technical in nature (planning, working with the budget, organization, control). The scope of action of a manager-leader is much wider. Instead of consistent, gradual development of such activities, the manager strives for radical transformations and renewal.

A leader sees opportunities in the future that others do not see.

He expresses his attitude in a concept, in a simple and clear picture, which is essentially a dream that reveals what the organization should become or in what direction it should develop. The manager builds understanding of the concept by explaining that it is feasible, but that its implementation depends on the contribution of each employee. Through his example, leadership, giving people credit for their successes, and instilling pride in their work, he inspires employees to bring the vision to life.

The following main features of a modern leader can be identified:

Accessible to every employee, the tone of discussion of any problems is invariably friendly;

Deeply involved in the personnel management process, constantly pays attention to incentive systems, personally knows a significant part of the employees, devotes a lot of time to finding suitable personnel and training them;

Does not tolerate an armchair style of management, prefers to appear among ordinary workers and discuss local problems, knows how to listen and hear, is decisive and persistent, willingly takes responsibility and often takes risks;

We tolerate expressions of open disagreement, delegate authority to performers, and build relationships on trust;

He takes the blame for failures without wasting time searching for the culprits; for him the most important thing is to overcome the mistake;

Encourages the independence of subordinates, and the degree of this independence exactly corresponds to the abilities and professionalism of the employee;

Does not interfere unnecessarily in the work of subordinates, but controls only the final result and sets new tasks;

Confident in himself and his own abilities, he perceives failures as a temporary phenomenon;

He constantly restructures his work, searches for and implements new things, so the organization he heads turns out to be more mobile and stable in crisis situations, functions effectively and develops intensively.

The characteristics of his behavior and work style are closely related to the indicated traits of a manager-leader. In conditions of market relations, the authoritarian style exhausts its possibilities. Democracy in management significantly increases the team's interest in the final result of work, mobilizes people's energy, and creates a favorable psychological atmosphere. How does this style manifest itself? Firstly, instructions and orders give way to persuasion, strict control to trust.

This reflects the transition from intra-organizational relations of the “boss - subordinate” type to relations of cooperation, cooperation of partners equally interested in the success of the business. Secondly, innovative managers strive to develop collective forms of work as a single “team”, which dramatically increases the mutual exchange of information between members of work groups. Thirdly, innovative managers are always open to any new ideas - from colleagues, subordinates, clients. Moreover, the behavior, priorities, and values ​​of these managers create an environment for those around them in which the free expression of ideas and the exchange of opinions become a natural form of working relationships. Fourthly, an innovative leader strives in every possible way to create and maintain a good psychological climate in the team; he tries not to infringe on the interests of some employees at the expense of others; he readily, and most importantly, publicly recognizes the merits of employees.

Let's summarize some results. What is a moral leader?

From the above, the following conclusion follows: a moral leader of a work collective needs to know well the mood of people; promptly eliminate everything that prevents them from working and earning; skillfully contact with informal leaders and leaders of your team, find with them mutual language, involve them in public activities, do not be afraid to delegate power (managerial) powers to them, and enlist their support in moral education team. In case of negative behavior of informal leaders and leaders, it is necessary to take a set of measures to neutralize them, reorient them, and, in extreme cases, to publicly debunk them.

The work collective influences people morally until it continuously improves morally. V.A. Sukhomlinsky warned that one must be afraid of a stop in the moral development of people, afraid of their moral surroundings. The same can be said about the labor collective. Constant moral improvement of the team is necessary.

The efforts of economic, party and public organizers of production should contribute to achieving this.

In order for subordinates to follow their leader, he must understand his followers, and they must understand the world around them and the situation in which they find themselves. Since both people and situations are constantly changing, a leader must be flexible enough to adapt to continuous change. Understanding the situation and knowing how to manage human resources are essential components of effective leadership. All this indicates that management work is one of those types of human activity that require specific personal qualities that make a particular person professionally suitable for management activities.

1. Sukhomlinsky V. A. "On education" - Moscow: Political Literature, 1982 - p. 270

2. Karmin A.S. Culturology: Culture of social relations. - St. Petersburg: Lan, 2000.

3. Tatarkevich V., On the happiness and perfection of man., M. 1981. - S. 26-335

4. Freud Z. Beyond the pleasure principle // Psychology of the unconscious. – M., 1989.- P. 382-484

5. http://psylist.net/uprav/kahruk2.htm

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….3

Chapter 1. THE CONCEPT OF MORALITY………………………………………………..4

Chapter 2. ORIGINS OF MORALITY………………………………………………….9

Chapter 3. NATURAL SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF MORALITY…….14

Chapter 4. MORAL ISSUES…………………………………………...21

Chapter 5. APHORISMS ON THE TOPIC OF MORALITY…………………………………24

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………26

LIST OF REFERENCES…………………………………………………………28

INTRODUCTION

People have always felt in morality some strange, absolute force, which simply could not be called powerful - it surpassed all human ideas about the strength and power of the mind.

G. Miroshnichenko

Morality is a purely historical social phenomenon, the secret of which lies in the conditions of production and reproduction of society, namely the establishment of such simple truths that moral consciousness, like any consciousness, “can never be anything other than conscious being,” that, therefore, the moral renewal of man and society not only is not the basis and productive cause of the historical process, but can itself be rationally comprehended and correctly understood only as a moment of practical world-transforming activity, marked a revolution in views on morality, and marked the beginning of its scientific understanding. Morality in its essence is a historical phenomenon; it changes radically from era to era. “There is no doubt that in morality, as in all other branches human cognition overall, progress is being made. However, being a secondary, derivative phenomenon, morality at the same time has relative independence, in particular, it has its own logic of historical movement, has a reverse impact on the development of the economic basis, and plays a socially active role in society.

In a word, the secret of morality lies not in the individual and not in itself; as a secondary, superstructural phenomenon, its origins and goals go back to material and economic needs and its content, as already noted, cannot be anything other than conscious social existence.

In order to identify the specificity of morality, its internal qualitative boundaries, it is necessary to determine its originality within the framework of social consciousness itself. In the era of economic globalization, economics requires a natural scientific justification for morality.

Chapter 1. THE CONCEPT OF MORALS.

Opening the "Big" encyclopedic Dictionary“on the word “morality”, we read: “morality” - see “morality”. And in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language it is said: “Morality is the rules of morality, as well as morality itself.” Consequently, the identity of these concepts is assumed. It is interesting that the German language does not have the word “morality” at all. “Die Moral” is translated as both “morality” and “morality”. Also, the word “die Sittlichkeit” (conformity to customs, decency) is used in two meanings (morality and morality).

MORALITY (from Latin moralis - relating to morals):

1) morality, a special form of social consciousness and type of social relations (moral relations); one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society through norms. Unlike simple custom or tradition, moral norms receive ideological justification in the form of the ideals of good and evil, due, justice, etc. Unlike law, the fulfillment of moral requirements is sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public assessment, approval or condemnation). Along with universal human elements, morality includes historically transitory norms, principles, and ideals. Morality is studied by a special philosophical discipline - ethics.

2) Separate practical moral instruction, moral teaching (moral of a fable, etc.).

MORALITY is the regulating function of human behavior. According to Z. Freud, its essence comes down to the limitation of drives.

MORALITY is the general tendency to behave in a manner that is consistent with the moral code of a society. This term means that the behavior is voluntary; one who obeys this code against his will is not considered moral.

MORALITY is the acceptance of responsibility for one's actions. Since, as follows from the definition, morality is based on free will, only a free being can be moral. Unlike morality, which is an external requirement for an individual’s behavior, along with the law, morality is an internal attitude of an individual to act in accordance with his conscience.

MORAL (moral) values ​​are what the ancient Greeks called “ethical virtues.” The ancient sages considered prudence, benevolence, courage, and justice to be the main virtues. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the highest moral values ​​are associated with faith in God and zealous reverence for him. Honesty, loyalty, respect for elders, hard work, and patriotism are revered as moral values ​​among all nations. And although in life people do not always show such qualities, they are highly valued by people, and those who possess them are respected. These values, presented in their impeccable, absolutely complete and perfect expression, act as ethical ideals.

The subject area of ​​the term morality includes 3 definitions:

PRE-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY - the first level of moral development in Kohlberg's theory, when a person follows rules to avoid punishment and earn reward

CONVENTIONAL MORALITY is the second level of moral development in Kohlberg's theory, when special attention is paid to following rules determined by the approval of other people...

POSTCONVENTIONAL MORALITY is the third level of moral development in Kohlberg's theory, when moral judgment is based on individual principles and conscience.

MORAL (moral) regulations are rules of behavior focused on specified values. Moral regulations are varied. Each individual chooses (consciously or unconsciously) in the cultural space those that are most suitable for him. Among them there may be those who are not approved by others. But in every more or less stable culture there is a certain system of generally accepted moral regulations, which, by tradition, are considered mandatory for everyone. Such regulations are moral norms. It is clear that moral values ​​and ideals, on the one hand, and moral regulations and norms, on the other, are inextricably linked. Any moral value presupposes the presence of appropriate regulations for behavior aimed at it. And any moral regulation implies the presence of a value towards which it is aimed. If honesty is a moral value, then the regulative follows: “Be honest.” And vice versa, if a person, by virtue of his inner conviction, follows the regulation: “Be honest,” then for him honesty is a moral value. Such a relationship between moral values ​​and regulations in many cases makes their separate consideration unnecessary. When talking about honesty, they often mean both honesty as a value and a regulation that requires one to be honest. When it comes to characteristics that are equally related to both moral values ​​and ideals and moral regulations and norms, they are usually called principles of morality (morality, ethics).

The most important feature of morality is the finality of moral values ​​and the imperativeness of moral regulations. This means that the principles of morality are valuable in themselves. That is, to questions such as: “Why are moral values ​​needed?”, “Why strive for moral values?”, “Why should a person observe moral standards?” - there is no other way to answer than to admit that the purpose for which a person follows moral principles is to follow them. There is no tautology here: simply following moral principles is an end in itself, i.e. the highest, final goal and there are no other goals that one would like to achieve by following moral principles. They are not a means to achieve any underlying goal.

MORALITY is a Russian word that comes from the root “morality”. It first entered the Russian language dictionary in the 18th century and began to be used along with the words “ethics” and “morality” as their synonym.

And yet, we take the liberty of asserting that the concept of “morality” differs from the concept of “morality”. By definition, morality is a set of unwritten norms of behavior established in a given society that regulate relationships between people. We emphasize - in a given society, because in another society or in another era these norms may be completely different. Moral assessment is always carried out by strangers: relatives, colleagues, neighbors, and finally, just a crowd. As the English writer Jerome K. Jerome noted, “The heaviest burden is the thought of what people will say about us.” Unlike morality, morality presupposes the presence of an internal moral regulator in a person. It can thus be argued that morality is personal morality, self-esteem.

There are people who stand out sharply among their contemporaries for their high morality. Thus, Socrates was called the “moral genius.” True, such a “title” was assigned to him by much later generations. And this is quite understandable: it is not for nothing that the Bible says that “a prophet is never mocked, only in his own home and among his relatives.”

There have been “moral geniuses” at all times, but it seems that there are much fewer of them than other geniuses. For example, one can call A.D. Sakharov such a genius. Probably, Bulat Okudzhava should be counted among them, who responded to the immoral proposal of one high-ranking official: “This is the last time I will see you, but I will be with myself until the end of my days.” And what is noteworthy is that none of the truly moral people ever boasted of their morality.

Some theologians and philosophers, for example Immanuel Kant, believed that humans have innate ideas about good and evil, i.e. internal moral law. However, life experience does not confirm this thesis. How else can we explain the fact that people of different nationalities and religions sometimes have very different moral rules? A child is born indifferent to any moral or ethical principles and acquires them in the process of upbringing. Therefore, children need to be taught morality in the same way as we teach them everything else - science, music. And this teaching of morality requires constant attention and improvement.

According to Nietzsche, what philosophers called “the justification of morality,” which they demanded of themselves, was, in fact, only a scientific form of trust and belief in the prevailing morality, a new way of expressing it and, therefore, simply a factual position within some specific systems of moral concepts - even, in the end, a kind of denial of the very possibility and very right to pose this morality as a problem - in any case, the complete opposite of research, decomposition, vivisection and criticism of precisely this.

And so, what is MORALITY - THIS is the defining aspect of culture, its form, which provides the general basis for human activity, from the individual to society, from humanity to the small group. Destruction of morality. leads to collapse, disintegration of society, to disaster; change of morality. leads to changes in social relations. Society protects established morality. through social integrators, through various kinds of social institutions, through the protection of cultural values. The absence or weakness of these mechanisms deprives society of the opportunity to protect morality. from distant and hidden threats, which makes it vulnerable to unexpected dangers of disorganization and moral decay. This makes society morally and organizationally disorganized. Morality includes the possibility of diversity of moral Ideals associated with various options for the unity of the integration of society. In those cultures where the formation of a moral foundation is experiencing a long crisis, where it is burdened by schism, the moral aspect of culture is in constant excitement. In any culture, morality appears as a dual opposition, for example, conciliar - authoritarian, traditional - liberal ideals, etc. Transitions from one pole of opposition to another can be carried out through inversion, i.e. through a logically instantaneous, explosive transition from one pole to another, or through mediation, i.e. slow creative development of qualitatively new moral content, new dual oppositions. The relationship between inversion and mediation at each stage has an extremely large influence on the formation of morality and its content. The impetus for changing ideals comes from a growing discomfort.

Chapter 2. ORIGINS OF MORALITY

Human morality as a special form of human relations has been developing for a long time. This perfectly characterizes society’s interest in it and the importance attached to morality as a form of social consciousness. Naturally, moral standards varied from era to era, and attitudes towards them were always ambiguous.

In ancient times, “ethics” (“the study of morality”) meant life wisdom, “practical” knowledge about what happiness is and what the means are to achieve it. Ethics is the doctrine of morality, of instilling in a person the active-willed, spiritual qualities that he needs, first of all, in public life, and then in personal life. It teaches practical rules of behavior and lifestyle for an individual. But are morality, ethics and politics, as well as art, sciences? Can the teaching of observing correct standards of behavior and leading a moral lifestyle be considered a science? According to Aristotle, “all reasoning is aimed either at activity or creativity, or at the speculative...”. This means that through thinking a person makes the right choice in his actions and deeds, striving to achieve happiness and realize the ethical ideal. The same can be said for works of art. The master embodies in his work the ideal of beauty in accordance with his understanding. This means that the practical sphere of life and various types of productive activity are impossible without thinking. Therefore they fall within the realm of science, but they are not sciences in the strict sense of the word.

Moral activity is aimed at the person himself, at developing the abilities inherent in him, especially his spiritual and moral powers, at improving his life, at realizing the meaning of his life and purpose. In the sphere of “activity” associated with free will, a person “chooses” individuals who conform their behavior and lifestyle with a moral ideal, with ideas and concepts about good and evil, what is proper and what is.

With this, Aristotle defined the subject of science, which he called ethics.

Christianity, undoubtedly, represents one of the most majestic phenomena in the history of mankind when viewed from the aspect of moral standards. Religious morality is a set of moral concepts, principles, and ethical standards that develop under the direct influence of a religious worldview. By asserting that morality has a supernatural, divine origin, preachers of all religions thereby proclaim the eternity and immutability of their moral principles, their timeless nature.

Christian morality finds its expression in unique ideas and concepts about moral and immoral, in the totality of certain moral norms (for example, commandments), in specific religious and moral feelings (Christian love, conscience, etc.) and some volitional qualities of a believer (patience , obedience, etc.), as well as in systems of moral theology and theological ethics. All of the above elements together constitute Christian moral consciousness.

The main feature of Christian (as well as any religious) morality in general is that its main provisions are placed in mandatory connection with the dogmas of the faith. Since the “divinely revealed” dogmas of Christian doctrine are considered unchangeable, the basic norms of Christian morality, in their abstract content, are also distinguished by their relative stability and retain their force in each new generation of believers. This is the conservatism of religious morality, which, even in changed socio-historical conditions, carries the burden of moral prejudices inherited from past times.

Another feature of Christian morality, arising from its connection with the dogmas of the faith, is that it contains such moral instructions that cannot be found in systems of non-religious morality. Such, for example, is the Christian teaching about suffering as good, about forgiveness, about love for enemies, non-resistance to evil and other provisions that are in conflict with vital interests real life of people. As for the provisions of Christianity, common to other moral systems, they received a significant change in it under the influence of religious and fantastic ideas.

In its most condensed form, Christian morality can be defined as a system of moral ideas, concepts, norms and feelings and behavior corresponding to them, closely related to the tenets of Christian doctrine. Since religion is a fantastic reflection in the heads of people of external forces that dominate them in their everyday lives, real interpersonal relationships are reflected in the Christian consciousness in a form modified by religious fantasy.

At the basis of any moral code lies a certain initial principle, a general criterion for the moral assessment of people's actions. Christianity has its own criterion for distinguishing between good and evil, moral and immoral behavior. Christianity puts forward its own criterion - the interest of saving a personal immortal soul for an eternal blissful life with God. Christian theologians say that God has placed in the souls of people a certain universal, unchanging absolute “moral law.” A Christian “feels the presence of the divine moral law”; it is enough for him to listen to the voice of the deity in his soul in order to be moral.

The moral code of Christianity was created over centuries, in different socio-historical conditions. As a result, one can find in it a variety of ideological layers, reflecting the moral ideas of different social classes and groups of believers. The understanding of morality (and precisely its specificity), and its ethical concept, consistently developed in a number of special works, was the most developed, systematic and complete. Kant posed a number of critical problems related to the definition of the concept of morality. One of Kant's merits is that he separated questions about the existence of God, soul, freedom - questions of theoretical reason - from the question of practical reason: what should I do? Kant's practical philosophy had a huge impact on the generations of philosophers that followed him (A. and W. Humboldt, A. Schopenhauer, F. Schelling, F. Hölderlin, etc.).

The doctrine of morality is at the center of Kant's entire system. Kant managed to identify, if not fully explain, a number of specific features of morality. Morality is not the psychology of man as such; it does not come down to any elementary aspirations, feelings, drives, and impulses inherent in all people, nor to any special unique experiences, emotions, impulses that are different from all other mental parameters of a person. Morality, of course, can take the form of certain psychological phenomena in a person’s consciousness, but only through education, through the subordination of the elements of feelings and impulses to the special logic of moral obligation. In general, morality does not come down to the “internal mechanics” of a person’s mental impulses and experiences, but has a normative nature, that is, it imputes to a person certain actions and the very motivations for them according to their content, and not according to their psychological appearance, emotional coloring, mental state, etc. n. This, first of all, consists of the objectively obligatory nature of moral demands in relation to individual consciousness. With this methodological distinction between the “logic of feelings” and the “logic of morality,” Kant was able to discover the essence of the moral conflict in the sphere of individual consciousness in the conflict of duty and inclinations, drives, desires, and immediate aspirations. Duty, according to Kant, is one-sided and strong integrity, a real alternative to moral laxity and opposes the latter as principled compromise. One of Kant's historical merits in the development of the concept of morality is his pointing out the fundamental universality of moral requirements, which distinguishes morality from many other similar social norms (customs, traditions). The paradox of Kantian ethics is that, although moral action is aimed at realizing natural and moral perfection, it is impossible to achieve it in this world. Kant tried to outline a solution to the paradoxes of his ethics without resorting to the idea of ​​God. He sees in morality the spiritual source of radical transformation and renewal of man and society.

Kant's formulation of the problem of the autonomy of ethics, consideration of the ethical ideal, reflections on the practical nature of morality, etc. are recognized as an invaluable contribution to philosophy.

Chapter 3. NATURAL SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF MORALITY

Over the past hundred years, new branches of knowledge have been created under the name of the science of man (anthropology), the science of primitive social institutions (prehistoric ethnology) and the history of religions, revealing to us a completely new understanding of the entire course of human development. At the same time, thanks to discoveries in the field of physics regarding the structure of celestial bodies and matter in general, new concepts about the life of the universe have been developed. At the same time, previous teachings about the origin of life, about the position of man in the universe, about the essence of the mind were radically changed due to the rapid development of the science of life (biology) and the emergence of the theory of development (evolution), as well as thanks to the progress of the science of mental life (psychology). ) humans and animals.

To say that in all its branches - with the possible exception of astronomy - the sciences made more progress during the nineteenth century than during any three or four centuries of previous times would not be enough. One must go back more than two thousand years, to the heyday of philosophy in Ancient Greece, to find the same awakening of the human mind, but this comparison would also be incorrect, since then man had not yet reached such a mastery of technology as we see now; the development of technology finally gives man the opportunity to free himself from slave labor.

At the same time, modern humanity has developed a daring, bold spirit of invention, brought to life by the recent successes of the sciences; and the rapid succession of inventions has so increased the productive capacity of human labor that it has finally become possible for modern educated peoples to achieve a level of general prosperity that could not have been dreamed of either in antiquity, or in the Middle Ages, or in the first half of the 19th century. For the first time, humanity can say that its ability to satisfy all its needs has surpassed its needs, that there is no longer any need to impose the yoke of poverty and humiliation on entire classes of people in order to give prosperity to a few and facilitate their further mental development. General contentment - without imposing on anyone the burden of oppressive and depersonalizing labor - was now possible; and humanity can finally rebuild its entire social life on the basis of justice.

It is difficult to say in advance whether modern educated peoples have enough social creativity and courage to use the achievements of the human mind for the common good. But one thing is certain: the recent flowering of science has already created the mental atmosphere necessary to call into life the necessary forces; and he has already given us the knowledge necessary to accomplish this great task.

Returning to the sound philosophy of nature, neglected from the times of ancient Greece until Bacon awakened scientific research from its long slumber, modern science has worked out the foundations of a philosophy of the universe, free from supernatural hypotheses and from the metaphysical "mythology of thoughts" - a philosophy so great, poetic and inspiring, and so imbued with the spirit of liberation that it is certainly capable of bringing new forces into life. Man no longer needs to clothe his ideals of moral beauty and his ideas about a justly constructed society in the veil of superstition; he has nothing to expect from the Supreme Wisdom for the restructuring of society. He can borrow his ideals from nature, and from the study of her life he can draw the necessary strength.

One of the main achievements of modern science was that it proved the indestructibility of energy, no matter what transformations it undergoes. For physicists and mathematicians, this idea was a rich source of a wide variety of discoveries; in essence, all modern research is imbued with it. But the philosophical significance of this discovery is equally important. It teaches a person to understand the life of the universe as a continuous, endless chain of energy transformations; mechanical movement can turn into sound, into heat, into light, into electricity; and vice versa, each of these types of energy can be converted into others. And among all these transformations, the birth of our planet, the gradual development of its life, its final decomposition in the future and the transition back into the great cosmos, its absorption by the universe are only infinitesimal phenomena - a simple minute in the life of the stellar worlds.

The same thing happens in the study of organic life. Studies made in the vast intermediate region separating the inorganic from the organic world, where the simplest processes of life in the lower fungi can hardly be distinguished, and even then not completely, from the chemical movements of atoms constantly occurring in complex bodies - these studies have robbed life phenomena of their mysterious mystical character. At the same time, our concepts of life have expanded so much that we are now accustomed to looking at accumulations of matter in the universe - solid, liquid and gaseous (such are some nebulae of the stellar world) - as something living and going through the same cycles of development and decomposition that living things go through creatures. Then, returning to the thoughts that once made their way in ancient Greece, modern science has traced step by step the marvelous development of living beings, beginning with the simplest forms barely worthy of the name of organisms, right up to the infinite variety of living beings that now inhabit and give our planet the best beauty. And finally, having mastered us with the idea that every Living being is to an enormous extent a product of the environment in which it lives, biology has solved one of the greatest mysteries of nature: it has explained adaptations to the living conditions that we encounter at every step.

Even in the most mysterious of all manifestations of life, in the region of feeling and thought, where the human mind has to grasp the very processes by which impressions received from the outside are imprinted on it - even in this region, still the darkest of all, man has already succeeded look into the mechanism of thinking, following the research methods adopted by physiology.

Finally, in the vast field of human institutions, customs and laws, superstitions, beliefs and ideals, such light has been shed by the anthropological schools of history, law and political economy that it can be said with confidence that the desire for "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" is no longer a dream, not a utopia. It is possible; Moreover, it has also been proven that the well-being and happiness of neither an entire people nor a separate class can be based, even temporarily, on the oppression of other classes, nations and races.

Modern science has thus achieved a double goal. On the one hand, she taught a person a very valuable lesson in modesty. She teaches him to consider himself only an infinitesimal particle of the universe. She knocked him out of his narrow egoistic isolation and dispelled his conceit, due to which he considered himself the center of the universe and the subject of special care of the Creator. She teaches him to understand that without the great whole our “I” is nothing; that "I" cannot even define itself without some "You". And at the same time, science has shown how powerful humanity is in its progressive development if it skillfully uses the boundless energy of nature.

Thus, science and philosophy have given us both the material strength and the freedom of thought necessary to call into existence figures capable of moving humanity onto a new path of universal progress. There is, however, one branch of knowledge that is left behind the others. This branch is ethics, the doctrine of the basic principles of morality. Such a teaching, which would be in accordance with the modern state of science and would use its achievements to build the foundations of morality on a broad philosophical foundation, and would give educated peoples the power to inspire them for the coming great restructuring - such a teaching has not yet appeared. Meanwhile, the need for this is felt everywhere and everywhere. A new realistic science of morality, freed from religious dogmatism, superstition and metaphysical mythology, just as modern natural science philosophy has already been liberated, and at the same time inspired by the highest feelings and bright hopes inspired in us by modern knowledge about man and his history - this is what humanity urgently demands.

That such a science is possible - there is no doubt about it. If the study of nature has given us the foundations of a philosophy that embraces the life of the entire universe, the development of living beings on earth, the laws of mental life and the development of societies, then this same study should give us a natural explanation of the sources of moral feeling. And it should show us where the forces lie that are capable of raising moral feeling to greater and greater heights and purity. If contemplation of the universe and close acquaintance with nature could inspire great inspiration in the great naturalists and poets of the nineteenth century, if penetration into the depths of nature could intensify the pace of life in Goethe, Byron, Shelley, Lermontov while contemplating a roaring storm, a calm and majestic chain of mountains or a dark forest and its inhabitants, then why couldn’t a deeper penetration into the life of man and his destiny equally inspire the poet? When the poet finds true expression for his sense of communication with the Cosmos and unity with all humanity, he becomes able to inspire millions of people with his high impulse. He makes them feel the best in themselves, he awakens in them the desire to become even better. It awakens in people the same ecstasy that was previously considered the property of religion. Indeed, what are the psalms, in which many see the highest expression of religious feeling, or the most poetic parts of the sacred books of the East, if not attempts to express the ecstasy of man in contemplating the universe, if not the awakening in him of a sense of the poetry of nature.

One of the differences between humans and animals, in addition to walking upright, developing the hand, making tools, reason, and speech, is morality. The birth of morality is the most important stage of anthropogenesis - the formation of man.

“Abstract thinking gave man dominance over the entire non-specific environment and thereby unleashed intraspecific selection,” says one of the founders of ethology, K. Lorenz. The “track record” of such selection should probably include the exaggerated cruelty from which we still suffer today. Having given man a verbal language, abstract thinking endowed him with the possibility of cultural development and the transmission of supra-individual experience, but this also entailed such drastic changes in the conditions of his life that the adaptive ability of his instincts collapsed. One might think that every gift that a person receives from his thinking must, in principle, be paid for by some dangerous misfortune that inevitably follows. Fortunately for us, this is not so, because from abstract thinking arises that rational human responsibility, on which alone the hope of coping with the ever-growing dangers is based.”

The triumphant cry of wild geese observed by K. Lorenz resembles love, which is stronger than death; Fights between rat packs resemble blood feuds and wars of extermination. How in many ways man is still close to animals: the more ethology develops, the more just this conclusion becomes. But much of what is clearly social in man also came to him as compensation for some biological shortcomings or excessive advantages over other species. This is what morality is.

Dangerous predators (for example, wolves) have selective mechanisms that prohibit killing a member of their own species. Non-dangerous animals (chimpanzees) do not have such mechanisms. Man does not either, since he does not have the “nature of a predator” and he does not have natural weapons belonging to his body with which he could kill a large animal. “When the invention of artificial weapons opened up new possibilities of murder, the previous balance between the relatively weak prohibitions of aggression and the equally weak possibilities of murder was radically disrupted.”

Man does not have natural mechanisms for killing his own kind and therefore does not, like wolves, have an instinct that prohibits the murder of a member of his own species. But man has developed artificial means of exterminating his own kind, and in parallel, artificial mechanisms have developed in him as a means of self-preservation, prohibiting the killing of a member of his own species. This is morality, which is a social evolutionary mechanism.

But social ethics- only the first stage of morality. Man has now created artificial means that allow him to destroy the entire planet, which he is successfully doing. If man continues to exterminate the species of animals and plants inhabiting the Earth, then, in accordance with the basic law of ecology - the science of the relationship of living organisms with the environment - a decrease in diversity in the biosphere will lead to a weakening of its stability and ultimately the death of man himself, who cannot exist outside the biosphere. To prevent this from happening, morality must rise to a new level, extending to all of nature, that is, becoming an environmental ethic that prohibits the destruction of nature.

Such a process can be called the deepening of morality, firstly, because the criterion of morality is conscience, located in the depths of the human soul, and, trying to listen to this inner voice, a person seems to plunge into himself. The second reason is associated with the emergence of the concept of “deep ecology,” which calls on people to be more careful about nature from the standpoint of environmental ethics, which extends moral principles to the relationship between man and nature.

Ecology goes deeper into the moral realm. The “expanding consciousness” model also has obvious ecological implications, which has led to talk about the expansion of consciousness in “deep ecology.” So, from an expanding universe to expanding consciousness and deepening morality. These are not random parallels. The development of the Universe leads to social changes - this is one of the conclusions, namely ethical, from modern concepts of natural science.

When we survey the enormous successes of the natural sciences during the 19th century and see what they promise us in their further development, we cannot help but realize that a new period in its life is opening up before humanity, or at least that it has in its We have every means in our hands to usher in such a new era.

Chapter 4. MORAL ISSUES

The bus heading out of town was not too crowded, however, all the seats were occupied. Some go where: some go home, some go to work. One happy young family in its entirety - mother, father, two-year-old baby and a girl of about twelve, apparently, is going to the dacha. Everyone is having fun, the children are happy - in general, a complete idyll. At the next stop, an elderly woman enters; there is no doubt that it is very difficult for her to stand. But neither of the two parents gave up their seat to the old lady, and the girl, who was lounging freely on the seat, could not even think of such a thing. How does she know that old women need to give way, who taught her this, who set an example?

Nowadays it is often said that morality has fallen in modern society, that moral standards are being destroyed.

In the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, morality is “the internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person, ethical standards; behavior rules". If today someone talks about morality, he will most likely be accused of hypocrisy and hypocrisy. Complying with moral standards has become neither fashionable nor prestigious. Older people say that just a few decades ago people were different and did not hesitate to be polite and helpful. And today we feel embarrassed to shake hands with a woman or help a blind man cross the road. But this is the natural state of man, his true nature.

The story of the destruction of this true nature is vividly depicted in one Chinese poem:

“In the 50s, people helped each other,

At 60 people fought each other,

In the 70s people deceived each other

In the 80s people only cared about themselves

In the '90s, people took advantage of everyone they met."

Man was created by God, and this obliges us to live according to His laws. But we are used to living according to our own laws, but are they correct?

From childhood we were taught that the concepts of “struggle” and “happiness” are synonymous, that nobility and honor are relics of the past. Gradually, the older generation began to forget about love and mercy, but young people do not think about it.

We receive our first lessons in morality, morality, and ethics in the family.

Let us remember the ancient sages. Many of them attached great importance to the ethics of family relationships, believing that all good things begin with the family. Confucius, for example, noted that “as long as traditions are maintained in the family, public morality is naturally maintained, and thus, improving oneself can lead to the prosperity of the family and the state, and ultimately bring peace to all.” And this is what we really miss right now!

Most of all, Nietzsche's thought was attracted by questions of moral philosophy: the problem of morality in the narrow sense - the origin and meaning of the norms and ideals of human activity, and the problem of moral worldview - the meaning and value of human life. It was not just theoretical interest and “impersonal objective curiosity” that attracted him to these problems: in them he saw the task of his life, his personal business. “All great problems,” he says, “require great love,” with all its passion and with the enthusiasm that a person brings to a cause dear to her. “There is a huge difference in how a thinker relates to his problems: whether personally, seeing in them his destiny, his need, as well as his best happiness, or “impersonally,” touching them and grasping them with the tentacles of cold thought and curiosity; one can probably give your word that in the latter case nothing will come of it"

“Why,” says Nietzsche, “have I still not met anyone, even in books, who would stand for morality in such a personal position, who would know morality as a problem and feel this problem as his personal need, torment, passion and voluptuousness? Apparently, hitherto morality was not a problem at all, but rather something on which people finally agreed after all the mistrust, quarrels and contradictions - a sacred place of the world, where thinkers sighed calmly, came to life and rested from themselves." Philosophers have hitherto sought to substantiate morality, and each of them thought that he had substantiated it; Morality itself was considered by everyone to be something “given.” They neglected the more modest, apparently “covered with dust and mold” task of collecting small facts of the moral life of mankind, describing and history of moral consciousness, in its diverse forms and various stages of development. Precisely because the moralists were familiar with moral facts too crudely, in an arbitrary extraction or a random reduction, in the form of the morality of the people around them, their class, their church, their modernity, their climate or the earth's zone, precisely because they were too bad are familiar, and did not really want to get acquainted, with peoples, times and past eras - they did not encounter real problems of morality, which arise only when comparing different moral views. Strange as it may seem, in all the hitherto existing “science of morality” there was not yet the problem of morality itself, there was not even a suspicion that there was something problematic here.

What philosophers called “the justification of morality,” which they demanded of themselves, was, in fact, only a scientific form of trust and belief in the prevailing morality, a new way of expressing it and, therefore, simply a factual position within some specific system of moral concepts , - even, in the end, a kind of denial of the very possibility and very right to pose this morality as a problem - in any case, the complete opposite of research, decomposition, vivisection and criticism of precisely this.

Meanwhile, in order to really seriously pose the problem of morality and its values ​​- not to mention resolving it - one must rise above not only private moral views, no matter how widespread and generally accepted they may be, no matter how deeply rooted they may be. our feelings, life and culture: we need to rise above and beyond any moral assessments, as such, to go “beyond good and evil,” and go not only abstractly, in thoughts, but also in feelings and in life. “To see how high the towers in the city rise, you need to leave the city.”

Chapter 5. APHORISMS ON THE TOPIC OF MORALITY

The main condition for morality is the desire to become moral.

Morality does not depend on hereditary factors

K. Vasiliev

So, in everything you want people to do to you, do so to them; for in this is the law and the prophets

By the name morality we mean not only external decency, but also the entire internal basis of motives

Y.A.Kamensky

The moral qualities of a person should be judged not by his individual efforts, but by his daily life

B.Pascal

“Good and moral are the same thing.”

“Reasonable and moral always coincide”

“Two exact sciences: mathematics and moral teaching. These sciences are accurate and indubitable because all people have the same mind, which perceives mathematics, and the same spiritual nature, which perceives (the teaching of life) moral teaching.”

“It is not the quantity of knowledge that is important, but its quality. No one can know everything, and it is shameful and harmful to pretend that you know what you don’t know.”

“The goal of every individual person’s life is one: improvement in goodness. And therefore, only the knowledge that leads to this is needed.”

“Knowledge without a moral basis means nothing.”

“It seems to us that the most important work in the world is working on something visible: building a house, plowing a field, feeding livestock, picking fruits, but working on your soul, on something invisible, is an unimportant matter, such as you can do it, or you can not do it. Meanwhile, only this one thing, work on the soul, on becoming better and kinder every day, only this work is real, and all other visible work is useful only when this main work on the soul is done.”

L. N. Tolstoy

“Socrates constantly pointed out to his students that with a properly organized education in each science, one must only reach a certain limit, which should not be crossed.

He had such a low opinion of them not out of ignorance, since he himself studied these sciences, but because he did not want time and effort to be wasted on unnecessary activities, which could be used for what is most necessary for a person: his moral improvement.”

Xenophon

“Wisdom is not knowing a lot. There is no way we can know everything. Wisdom does not lie in knowing as much as possible, but in knowing which knowledge is most necessary, which is less necessary, and which is even less necessary. Of all the knowledge a person needs, the most important is knowledge of how to live well, i.e. live in such a way as to do as little evil as possible and as much good as possible. In our time, people learn all sorts of unnecessary sciences, and do not learn this one, the most necessary one.”

“The higher a person is in mental and moral development, the more pleasure life gives him, the freer he is.”

“For man there is no bliss in immorality; only in morality and virtue does he achieve the highest bliss.”

A. I. Herzen

CONCLUSION

The “Golden Rule of Morality” is the oldest ethical norm of human behavior. Its most common formulation is: “Do not act towards others as you would not want them to act towards you.” The “Golden Rule” is already found in the early written monuments of many cultures (In the teachings of Confucius, in the ancient Indian Mahabratha, in the Bible, in Homer’s “Odyssey”, etc.) and firmly enters the consciousness of subsequent eras. In Russian, it appears in the form of a proverb: “What you don’t love in another, don’t do it yourself.”

When this principle underlies the relationships between people, then we will achieve “heaven on earth” during our lifetime, we will embody the ideal of ancient and ancient philosophers, we will nullify wars and any disagreements, and there will be peace in the whole world. Only at this stage of human existence cannot one expect the fulfillment of these hopes - the centrifugal force of human greed and anger is too great. It is impossible to build heaven on earth in a world where money is elevated to the place of God, and its quantity is a measure of prestige.

Natural scientific consciousness in the era of scientific and technological revolution actively invades all spheres of social life and becomes a direct productive force. With all the complexity of the content of science, it should be remembered that science is a spiritual phenomenon. Science is a system of knowledge about nature, society, and man. Scientific knowledge is a product of spiritual production; by its nature it is ideal. In science, the criterion of rational development of the world occupies the main place and from the trinity of truth, goodness, beauty, truth acts as the leading value in it. Science is a historically established form of human activity aimed at knowing and transforming objective reality, a field of spiritual production that results in purposefully selected and systematized facts, logically verified hypotheses, generalizing theories, fundamental and particular laws, as well as research methods. Thus, science is both a system of knowledge, and its production, and practically transformative activities based on it. Science, like all other forms of human exploration of reality, arises and develops from the need to meet the needs of society. The role and social significance of science are not limited to its explanatory function, because the main goal of knowledge is practical application scientific knowledge. So, the forms of social consciousness, including natural scientific, aesthetic and moral consciousness, determine the level of development of the spiritual life of society.

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

1.A.A. Gorelov. Concepts of modern natural science. - Moscow: Publishing House Center, 2000.-205 p.

2. Concepts of modern natural science: textbook / A.P. Sadokhin. — 2nd ed., revised. and additional - Moscow: Publishing house UNITY-DANA, 2006. - 447 p.

3. A.A. Arutsev, B.V. Ermolaev, I.O. Kutateladze, M.S. Slutsky. Concepts of modern natural science. - Moscow: Textbook MGOU, 2000.-348 p.

4. G.I. Ruzavin. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook for universities. - Moscow: UNITY Publishing House, 2000. - 287 p.

5. M.S. Kunafin. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook.-Ufa: Ufa Publishing House, 2003. - 488 p.