The best person is a highly moral person. Act morally, and everything else will follow. Behave like a normal person.
Inspirational words, however, do not carry specifics. How to comprehend this high morality? And if the "rest" is not applied? And who is this “normal”? We don’t get direct answers, which means we’ll have to look deeper into the “skull box” of today's patient. We put on gloves, stretch our legs and proceed to the "showdown".
Moral concept
Morality denotes our actions as good or bad. Moreover, this assessment is based on ideas accepted by society. In essence, morality is a kind of guidebook on how to act and what not to do. It can be either universal or accepted in a particular society or an individual.
Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the essence and basic morality. The difference from morality is very ephemeral. It consists in the fact that the first considers something practical, prescribes a certain model of behavior in society. The second explains the principles, philosophical aspects of morality and works with the theoretical part, as if more reasoning than prescribing.
Morality in society
Of course, at different times and in different communities, there was and still exists its own essence of rights and morality. If now a man enters the house of his ill-wishers with an ax at the ready and takes out all the valuables from there, simultaneously revealing a couple of skulls, he will go to jail, and society will at least hate him. But if he had done the same in the days of the Vikings, he would have become famous as a brave man. The example is very rude, but very graphic.
Such norms often depend on the position of the state, and some moral principles are strengthened artificially. The same Viking state existed due to robberies and raids, which means that such behavior was encouraged. Or a more pressing example: a modern state. As soon as unrest or even hostilities begin, the state apparatus artificially enhances the feeling of patriotism, appealing to a sense of duty brought up from childhood. The only peculiarity of this debt is that the more you repay, the more you should. This is called moral duty.
Morality is not a teaching about how we should make ourselves happy, but about how we should become worthy of happiness.
/ Immanuel Kant /
Or take the institution of the family for complete understanding. It is no secret that men are polygamous by nature, and their main goal is the maximum possible continuation of offspring. In other words, the instinct to impregnate as many females as possible. The moral standards of most countries condemn this. In this way, the functioning of the institution of the family is ensured. Why it is needed and why it is done is a very voluminous issue that deserves separate consideration. We will talk about him another time. Now we just mentally link together the concept and essence of morality.
Structure
The moral side of morality is very heterogeneous and is often interpreted ambiguously. Let us single out those that best explain the essence of morality. Three main elements can be chosen, the interpretation of which differs slightly:
- Moral consciousness.
- Moral activity.
- Moral relations.
Moral consciousness considers the subjective side of certain actions. Reflects the life and beliefs of people. Includes values, norms and ideals. This is a value judgment that relates specifically to the end result, and not to the reasons. In other words, only the morality of an act or phenomenon is evaluated from the point of view of moral beliefs, and not its causal relationship. Evaluation occurs from the height of the concepts of "good and evil" in the framework of morality.
Let’s learn to think well - this is the basic principle of morality.
/ Blaise Pascal /
Moral activity - any human activity that is evaluated in the framework of existing morality. The correctness of the act is considered in conjunction with the intentions, process and influence on other things. That is, if moral consciousness determined the morality of beliefs and ideals, then moral activity determines the moral level of the process of their "implementation."
Moral relations are any relationships between people that are evaluated in terms of moral "correctness." In other words, the "due" and "undesirable" behavior of one person during communication with another is indicated. It is considered the fact of the influence of interaction, and not just ideals or the process as a whole.
Human morality is visible in its relation to the word.
/Lev Tolstoy/
The conflict of morality and philosophy
Within the framework of morality, a conflict arises with certain types of philosophy, because, since such an essence and structure of morality evaluates the phenomenon independently, it means that freedom of moral choice is assumed. At the same time, some philosophical schools deny freedom of choice in part, recognizing the fatalism of fate (Buddhism), or completely - natural fatalism (Taoism). Hence the difficulty in interpreting morality when it comes to the whole world and history.
Moral classification
For a deeper understanding, it is necessary to look at morality in the context. It carries in itself some concepts that are close in meaning, which, however, can sometimes be misunderstood. Consider the ones closest to today's topic:
- Individual morality.
- Public morality.
- The official moral.
- Individual morality.
Individual morality is a concept inherent in a person (what I think is right, how I was raised, whom I condemn, and who I admire). These are more or less stable beliefs of an individual.
Public morality is the right actions and beliefs regarding the majority opinion. How do “decent” people do, how is it customary to do, and how others should live.
The official morality is similar to the public one in that it is accepted by the majority. This is what the school brings up in a person, and what is customary to say to officials. In other words, this is what any official institutions are trying to instill in a person, in order to educate “correct” behavior. This is the essence of professional morality.
Individual morality is a person’s assessment of himself. This can be done by trying on social, individual or any moral and concepts. However, the conclusions will always remain purely personal, made by a particular person, and therefore unique in their own way.
Functions
Morality, as we already understood from the description above, is one of the most important cogs in the system of society. Its functions are comprehensive and cover every area of life, so describing them separately is a long job. However, we can draw an approximate picture if we classify these very functions. We will speak mainly on the example of public morality. We highlight the following functions:
- Estimated.
- Regulatory.
- Controlling.
- Educational.
Evaluation morality considers these or those actions from the point of view of concepts of morality. Evaluation may come from public morality or from personal. For example, you see someone stealing a TV from a store. You immediately think: “Ah, what a scoundrel! And you are not ashamed to steal. A swindler!” And then you are visited by the thought: "Although, maybe his family is starving, but he still will not lose from these little businessmen." Here you have worked evaluative morality, and first public, and then personal.
The more random our morality, the more it is necessary to take care of the rule of law.
/ Friedrich Schiller /
Regulatory morality establishes rules and norms of behavior, to which value is applied. The reins of such morality can lead as a separate group of people, and the natural development or degradation of society. This happens alternately, and often the potential direction of morality is traced in advance. For example, when a country creates artificial “enemies” around itself, this primarily indicates an internal social split, and such actions serve to bring people together. Certain individuals create "enemies", and then society naturally rallies in the face of "common misfortune."
Controlling morality also deals with the fact that it “monitors” the fulfillment of norms by its regulatory counterpart. Control, as a rule, proceeds from the concepts of morality accepted by the public majority. For example, you see how a man follows his polygamous nature with might and main, breaking the hearts of lovely ladies. You will think: "Ah, a good guy, takes everything from life!" Public opinion will immediately slap you on the shoulder: "Hey, you must have mixed something up. This is terrible behavior. He is a womanizer and a scoundrel. His actions are worthy of extreme condemnation." And you are: "Ah, yes …" This is where the controlling function of morality is manifested.
Moralization is the work of mediocre people.
/ Mikhail Prishvin /
So that you do not have such a separate opinion, and the majority do not have to spit on you again, there is educational morality. She is responsible for shaping your worldview. If the eighth-grader Petya chases girls instead of studying, then he will have an educational conversation with his parents. “Well, this is nature, you cannot escape from it, ” the parent will say. And here parenting will begin. They will be explained to them that if they do not want others who are completely unfamiliar to you to think badly of them, then they must tame their tomboy.
The origin and evolution of morality
The roots of morality go back to the most distant times of the existence of mankind. We cannot track them reliably, and we are not able to say whether morality was artificially created or if it was laid in the mind from the beginning. However, we have the opportunity to consider the origin and essence of morality by looking at the evolution of morality. Traditionally, three approaches are applied to the issue of moral development:
- Religious.
- Naturalistic.
- Social.
Religious approach
A religious approach puts morality into the laws given by any God or gods. This representation is the oldest of those present. Indeed, people who lived long before us were inclined to explain strange things by divine intervention. And since people kneel before the deities, the appearance of dogmas is only a matter of time. These rules were not transmitted directly, but through a prophet who had some contact with the "upper world."
Since these dogmas were first introduced in a primitive society, the decrees could not abound in complexity. They often called for humility and peace, in order to reduce fear, and hence the aggression of oppressed peoples. After all, if we look at history, then most religions arose precisely from the suffering. They had a “fire of revolution” burning in their souls, which had to be controlled, at the same time rallying people.
For example, the ten commandments in Christianity. They are well known to many. If we look at them, we will not see any difficulties in understanding. All ingenious is simple. The same situation with many religions. There are no rules in the style: "Just make sure that people do not spit on you." This would be incomprehensible, and everyone would interpret in their own way. No, these are direct instructions in an imperative tone. "Dont kill". "Do not steal." "Do not believe in other Gods." Everything is concise, and there can be no double meaning.
Naturalistic approach
He puts the laws of nature and evolution at the core of morality. This means that morality is inherent in us initially (as an instinct) and in the course of time simply changes (evolves). One of the arguments in favor of this approach is animal morality. They, as we know, do not have their own civilization, which means that they hardly believe in gods.
There are widespread cases of manifestations of such qualities as: caring for the weak, cooperation, mutual assistance. Most often found in flock or herd animals. Of course, we are not talking about the fact that the wolf, out of pity, did not eat the deer. This is from the category of fiction. But, if we take the same wolves, then they have an unusually developed sense of their collective, their pack. Why do they help each other? Of course, we will answer that those that did not help each other became extinct. The principle of survival. But is this not the main law of evolution? Everything that is weak perishes, the strong develops.
Transferring this to people, we see the theory that morality is a survival tool given by nature from the very beginning. She only “wakes up” when needed. For the most part, representatives of the natural sciences or related to them are on the side of this theory. Philosophers put reason in the basis, and therefore cannot take such an approach to morality.
Social approach
The social approach shows morality on the part of society. It develops and changes, adapting to its needs. That is, morality did not originate from the gods and was not originally laid down, but only artificially created by public institutions. Obviously, morality was invented as a tool for regulating relations.
This approach opens up space for controversy. After all, no one will argue with the old man Moses, who could communicate with God face to face, as no one would go against the centuries-old wisdom of nature. And that means that morality is perceived as something given and immutable. But when we take a social approach, we become open to disagreement.
