What are moral principles? Principles and standards of morality, examples

Universal Moral Principles exist in addition to specific moral norms, such as “don’t steal” or “be merciful.” Their peculiarity is that they set the most general formulas, from which all other specific norms can be derived.

Talion principle

Talion rule considered the first universal principle. In the Old Testament the talion formula is expressed as follows: "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth". In primitive society, talion was carried out in the form of blood feud, and the punishment had to strictly correspond to the harm caused. Before the emergence of the state, the talion played a positive role by limiting violence: a person could refuse violence out of fear of retribution; Talion also limited retaliatory violence, leaving it within the limits of the harm caused. The emergence of the state, which took over the functions of justice, turned the talion into a relic of uncivilized times, crossing it out of the list of basic principles of moral regulation

Principle of morality

Golden Rule of Morality formulated by the first civilizations independently of each other. This principle can be found among the sayings of the ancient sages: Buddha, Confucius, Thales, Christ. In its most general form, this rule looks like this: “( Do not act towards others as you would (not) want them to act towards you" Unlike talion, the golden rule is based not on fear of revenge, but on one’s own ideas about good and evil, and also abolishes the division into “us” and “strangers,” presenting society as a collection of equal people.

Commandment of love becomes the basic universal principle in.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ expressed this principle this way: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is similar to it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

New Testament ethics is an ethics of love. The main thing is not formal obedience to laws and rules, but mutual love. The commandment of love does not cancel the ten commandments of the Old Testament: if a person acts according to the principle of “love your neighbor,” then he cannot kill or steal.

The principle of the golden mean

The principle of the golden mean presented in works. It reads: Avoid extremes and observe moderation. All moral virtues are a mean between two vices (for example, courage is located between cowardice and recklessness) and go back to the virtue of moderation, which allows a person to curb his passions with the help of reason.

Categorical Imperative - a universal formula of morality proposed by Immanuel Kant. It reads: act in such a way that the reasons for your action can become a universal law,; in other words, do so that your actions can become a model for others. Or: always treat a person as an end, and not just as a means, i.e. never use a person only as a means to your ends.

The Greatest Happiness Principle

The Greatest Happiness Principle Utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) proposed it as a universal. It states that everyone should behave in such a way that to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Actions are assessed by their consequences: the more benefit an action brings to different people, the higher it is rated on the moral scale (even if the act itself was selfish). The consequences of each possible action can be calculated, all the pros and cons can be weighed, and the action that will bring more benefit to the greatest number of people can be chosen. An action is moral if the benefit from it outweighs the harm.

Principle of justice

Principles of justice American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) proposed:

First principle: Every person should have equal rights to fundamental freedoms. Second principle: Social and economic inequalities should be so arranged that (a) they can reasonably be expected to benefit everyone, and (b) access to positions and positions is open to everyone.

In other words, everyone should have equal rights in relation to freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, etc.) and equal access to schools and universities, to official positions, jobs, etc. Where equality is impossible (for example, in where there are not enough goods for everyone), this inequality should be arranged to the benefit of the poor. One possible example of such a redistribution of benefits would be a progressive income tax, where the rich pay more taxes, and the proceeds go to the social needs of the poor.

Each universal principle expresses a certain moral ideal, which is mainly understood as philanthropy. However, not all principles are compatible: they are based on different values and different understandings of the good. Based on general principles, one should first determine the extent to which a particular principle is applicable to a situation and identify possible conflicts between different principles. A decision will be clearly moral only if all applicable principles are consistent with the decision made. If there is a serious conflict of principles, it is worth considering other factors, for example, the requirements of professional codes, expert opinions, legal and religious norms accepted in society, understand the degree of your responsibility for the decision, and only then make an informed moral choice.

The morality of Modern society is based on simple principles:

1) Everything is permitted that does not directly violate the rights of other people.

2) The rights of all people are equal.

These principles stem from those trends described in the section "Progress of Morals." Since the main slogan of Modern society is “maximum happiness for the maximum number of people,” moral standards should not be an obstacle to the realization of the desires of a particular person - even if someone does not like these desires. But only as long as they do not harm other people.

It should be noted that from these two principles comes the third: “Be energetic, achieve success on your own.” After all, every person strives for personal success, and the greatest freedom provides the maximum opportunity for this (see the subsection “Commandments of Modern Society”).

Obviously, the need for decency follows from these principles. For example, deceiving another person is, as a rule, causing him harm, and therefore is condemned by Modern morality.

The morality of Modern society was described in a light and cheerful tone by Alexander Nikonov in the corresponding chapter of the book “Monkey Upgrade”:

From all today's morality, tomorrow there will be only one rule left: you can do whatever you want without directly infringing on the interests of others. The key word here is “directly”.

Morality is the sum of unwritten standards of behavior established in society, a collection of social prejudices. Morality is closer to the word "decency". Morality is more difficult to define. It is closer to the biological concept of empathy; to such a concept of religion as forgiveness; to such a concept of social life as conformism; to such a concept of psychology as non-conflict. Simply put, if a person internally sympathizes, empathizes with another person and, in connection with this, tries not to do to another what he would not like for himself, if a person is internally non-aggressive, wise and therefore understanding - we can say that he is a moral person.

The main difference between morality and ethics is that morality always presupposes an external evaluative object: social morality - society, the crowd, neighbors; religious morality - God. And morality is internal self-control. A moral person is deeper and more complex than a moral person. Just like an automatically operating unit is more complex than a manual machine, which is driven by someone else’s will.

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

The world is moving towards immorality, it is true. But he goes towards morality.

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

4 Question Moral values and ideals.

Morality is a Russian word that comes from the root “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.

Morality is taking 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 the behavior of an individual, along with the law, morality is an internal attitude of the individual to act in accordance with his conscience.

Moral (moral) values- this is 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 values and norms: humanism and patriotism

The simplest and historically first forms of moral reflection were norms and their totality, forming a moral code.

Moral standards are... single private instructions, for example, “don’t lie”, “respect your elders”, “help a friend”, “be polite”, etc. The simplicity of moral norms makes them understandable and accessible to everyone, and their social value is self-evident and does not require additional justification. At the same time, their simplicity does not mean ease of execution and requires moral composure and volitional efforts from a person.

Moral values and norms are expressed in moral principles. These include humanism, collectivism, conscientious fulfillment of public duty, hard work, patriotism, etc.

Thus, the principle of humanism (humanity) requires the individual to follow the norms of benevolence and respect for any person, readiness to come to his aid, to protect his dignity and rights.

Collectivism requires a person to be able to correlate his interests and needs with common interests, respect his comrades, and build relationships with them on the basis of friendliness and mutual assistance.

Morality requires a person to develop the ability to fulfill its requirements. In classical ethics, these personal abilities were called somewhat pompously, but very accurately - virtues, that is, the ability to do good. The concepts of virtues (moral qualities of a person) concretize the value ideas of moral consciousness about good and bad, righteous and sinful in the characteristics of the person himself. And although a lot of both good and bad are mixed in every person, moral consciousness strives to highlight the most valuable moral characteristics of a person and combine them in a generalized Ideal image of a morally perfect person.

Thus, in the moral consciousness, the concept of a moral ideal of an individual is formed, the embodiment of the idea of a morally impeccable person, combining all conceivable virtues and serving as a role model. For the most part, the ideal finds its embodiment in mythological, religious and artistic images - Ilya Muromets, Jesus Christ, Don Quixote or Prince Myshkin.

At the same time, awareness of the dependence of a person’s moral characteristics on the conditions of social life evokes in the moral consciousness a dream of a perfect society, where conditions will be created for the education of morally perfect people. Therefore, following the personal moral ideal, the concept of the moral ideal of society is created in moral consciousness. Such are the religious hopes for the coming “kingdom of God,” literary and philosophical utopias (“The City of the Sun” by T. Campanella, “The Golden Book of the Island of Utopia” by T. More, the theories of the utopian socialists).

The social purpose of morality lies in its extremely important role in the process of historical development of society, in the fact that morality serves as a means of its spiritual unity and improvement through the development of norms and values. They allow a person to navigate life and consciously serve society.

Good and evil are the most general concepts of moral consciousness, serving to distinguish and contrast moral and immoral, good and bad. Good is everything that is positively assessed by moral consciousness in relation to humanistic principles and ideals, contributing to the development of mutual understanding, harmony and humanity in a person and society.

Evil means a violation of the requirement to follow goodness, neglect of moral values and requirements.

Initially, ideas about good were formed around the idea of good, usefulness in general, but with the development of morality and man, these ideas are filled with more and more spiritual content. Moral consciousness considers genuine goodness to be that which serves the development of humanity in society and people, sincere and voluntary unity and agreement between people, and their spiritual cohesion. These are benevolence and mercy, mutual assistance and cooperation, adherence to duty and conscience, honesty, generosity, politeness and tact. All these are precisely those spiritual values that in some cases may seem useless and impractical, but on the whole constitute the only solid spiritual foundation for a meaningful human life.

Accordingly, moral consciousness considers everything evil that interferes with the unity and consent of people and the harmony of social relations, directed against the demands of duty and conscience for the sake of satisfying selfish motives. This is self-interest and greed, greed and vanity, rudeness and violence, indifference and indifference to the interests of man and society.

The concept of moral duty expresses the transformation of moral requirements and values into a person’s personal task, his awareness of his responsibilities as a moral being.

The requirements of moral duty, expressing moral values through the internal mood of the individual, often diverge from the requirements of a social group, collective, class, state, or even simply with personal inclinations and desires. What a person will prefer in this case - respect for human dignity and the need to affirm humanity, which constitute the content of duty and goodness, or calculated benefit, the desire to be like everyone else, to fulfill the most convenient requirements - will characterize his moral development and maturity.

Morality as an internal regulator of human behavior presupposes that the individual himself is aware of the objective social content of his moral duty, focusing on more general principles of morality. And no reference to ordinary and widespread forms of behavior, mass habits and authoritative examples can remove responsibility from the individual for misunderstanding or neglecting the requirements of moral duty.

Here, conscience comes to the fore - a person’s ability to formulate moral obligations, demand their fulfillment from himself, control and evaluate his behavior from a moral point of view. Guided by the dictates of conscience, a person takes responsibility for his understanding of good and evil, duty, justice, and the meaning of life. He sets the criteria for moral assessment for himself and makes moral judgments on their basis, primarily assessing his own behavior. And if the supports of behavior external to morality - public opinion or the requirements of the law - can be bypassed on occasion, then it turns out to be impossible to deceive oneself. If this succeeds, it is only at the cost of abandoning one’s own conscience and loss of human dignity.

Living according to conscience, the desire for such a life increases and strengthens a person’s high positive self-esteem and self-esteem.

The concepts of human dignity and honor express in morality the idea of the value of a person as a moral person, require a respectful and friendly attitude towards a person, recognition of his rights and freedoms. Along with conscience, these ideas of morality serve as a way of self-control and self-awareness of the individual, the basis for a demanding and responsible attitude towards oneself. They involve a person performing actions that provide him with public respect and high personal self-esteem, the experience of moral satisfaction, which in turn does not allow a person to act below his dignity.

At the same time, the concept of honor is more closely associated with the public assessment of a person’s behavior as a representative of a community, collective, professional group or class and the merits recognized for them. Therefore, honor focuses more on external evaluation criteria and requires a person to maintain and justify the reputation that extends to him as a representative of the community. For example, the honor of a soldier, the honor of a scientist, the honor of a nobleman, merchant or banker.

Dignity has a broader moral meaning and is based on the recognition of the equal rights of every person to respect and value of the individual as a moral subject in general. Initially, personal dignity was associated with birth, nobility, strength, class, and later - with power, power, wealth, i.e., it was based on non-moral grounds. Such an understanding of dignity can distort its moral content to the exact opposite, when the dignity of an individual begins to be associated with a person’s wealth, the presence of the “right people” and “connections”, with his “ability to live”, and in fact the ability to humiliate himself and curry favor with those on whom does he depend?

The moral value of personal dignity is focused not on material well-being and success, not on external signs of recognition (this can rather be defined as vanity and conceit), but on the individual’s internal respect for the principles of true humanity, free voluntary adherence to them despite the pressure of circumstances and temptations.

Another important value guideline of moral consciousness is the concept of justice. It expresses the idea of the correct, proper order of things in human relationships, which corresponds to ideas about the purpose of man, his rights and responsibilities. The concept of justice has long been associated with the idea of equality, but the understanding of equality itself has not remained unchanged. From primitive egalitarian equality and full compliance of actions and retribution on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, through the forced equalization of everyone in dependence and lack of rights before the authorities and the state to formal equality in rights and obligations before the law and morality in a democratic society - This is the path of historical development of the idea of equality. More precisely, the content of the concept of justice can be defined as a measure of equality, that is, the correspondence between the rights and responsibilities of people, a person’s merits and their social recognition, between action and retribution, crime and punishment. Inconsistency and violation of this measure is assessed by moral consciousness as an injustice unacceptable to the moral order of things.

5 Question Moral consciousness, its structure and levels.

Morality is a system that has a certain structure and autonomy. The most important elements of morality are moral consciousness, moral attitudes, moral activity and moral values. Moral consciousness is a set of certain feelings, will, norms, principles, ideas through which the subject reflects the world of values of good and evil. In moral consciousness, two levels are usually distinguished: psychological and ideological. In this case, it is necessary to immediately distinguish different types of moral consciousness: it can be individual, group, social.

The psychological level includes the unconscious, feelings, and will. In the unconscious, remnants of instincts, natural moral laws, psychological complexes and other phenomena appear. The unconscious is best studied in psychoanalysis, the founder of which is the outstanding psychologist of the 20th century Sigmund Freud. There is a large specialized literature devoted to the problem of the relationship between psychoanalysis and ethics. The unconscious for the most part has an innate character, but it can also appear as a whole system of complexes already formed by life, which significantly influence the choice of evil. Psychoanalysis distinguishes three levels in the human psyche: “I” (“Ego”), “It” (“Id”) and “Super-I” (“Super-Ego”), the last two levels are the main elements of the unconscious. “It” is often defined as the subconscious, and the “Super-Ego” as the superconscious. The subconscious often appears as the subjective basis for the choice of evil. Moral feelings play a very important role in morality. Moral feelings include feelings of love, compassion, reverence, shame, conscience, hatred, anger, etc. Moral feelings are partly innate, i.e. inherent in a person from birth, given to him by nature itself, and in part they are socialized and educated. The level of development of a subject's moral feelings characterizes the moral culture of a given subject. A person’s moral feelings must be heightened, sensitive and correctly reacting to what is happening. Shame is a moral feeling through which a person condemns his actions, motives and moral qualities. The content of shame is the experience of guilt. Shame is the initial manifestation of moral consciousness and, unlike conscience, has a more external character. As an elementary form of moral consciousness, shame, first of all, expresses a person’s attitude towards satisfying his natural needs. Conscience is a moral and psychological mechanism of self-control. Ethics recognizes that conscience is a personal consciousness and personal experience regarding the correctness, dignity, honesty and other values of goodness of everything that has been done, is being done or is planned to be done by a person. Conscience is the connecting link between the moral order in a person’s soul and the moral order of the world in which a person lives. There are different concepts of conscience: empirical, intuitionistic, mystical. Empirical theories of conscience are based on psychology and try to explain conscience through the knowledge acquired by a person, which determines his moral choice. Intuitionism understands conscience as an “innate ability of moral judgment”, as the ability to instantly determine what is right. Conscience can be of different types - they distinguish between “good and perfect conscience”, “faded and imperfect conscience”. In turn, a “perfect” conscience is characterized as active and sensitive, an “imperfect” conscience is characterized as calm, or lost, partial and hypocritical. Will as a subjective ability for self-determination is very essential for human morality, for it characterizes human freedom when choosing good or evil. On the one hand, ethics proceeds from the position that the human will is initially distinguished by its free character when choosing good and evil. And this is the distinctive feature of man, distinguishing him from the animal world. On the other hand, morality contributes to the development of this ability, forms the so-called positive freedom of a person, as his ability to choose good and despite his own biases or external coercion. In ethics, there have been attempts to consider the will as a whole as the basis of morality. The ideological level of moral consciousness includes norms, principles, ideas, theories.

6 Question Moral relations.

Moral relations- these are the relationships that develop between people when they realize moral values. Examples of moral relations can be considered relations of love, solidarity, justice or, on the contrary, hatred, conflict, violence, etc. The peculiarity of moral relations is their universal nature. They, unlike law, cover the entire sphere of human relations, including a person’s relationship to himself.

As already noted, it is pointless from a legal point of view to judge a suicide, but from a moral point of view, a moral assessment of a suicide is possible. There is a Christian tradition of burying suicides outside the cemetery behind its fence. The problem for ethics is the moral attitude towards nature. The problem of nature in ethics appears as a scandal. By the “ethical problem of nature” we mean the problem of analyzing what constitutes morality, the goodness of nature itself, as well as the problem of analyzing the moral attitude towards nature, in general, everything that is associated in morality and ethics with the natural factor. Beginning with Aristotle, the actual ethical analysis of morality had as its main subject man, his virtues, his behavior and relationships. And therefore, it is logical that for such a “proper ethical” approach, nature, at best, could be perceived as certain natural moral feelings, as innate transcendental imperatives of reason. Nature in itself, as well as our living smaller brothers, turned out to be of no interest to ethics; the attitude towards nature seemed adiaphoric. But such an attitude towards nature contradicts our moral feelings, our intuition of good and evil. We will always see a certain meaning in Eastern ethical teachings that preach love for all living things, in the Christian prayer “Let every breath praise the Lord,” in the noble principle of “reverence for life.” It is impossible not to recognize the obvious truth expressed in these beautiful words: “A man is truly moral only when he obeys the inner urge to help any life that he can help, and refrains from causing any harm to a living one. He does not ask how much this or that life deserves his efforts, nor does he ask whether and to what extent it can feel his kindness. For him, life as such is sacred. He will not tear a leaf from a tree, will not break a single flower, and will not crush a single insect. When he works at night by a lamp in the summer, he prefers to close the window and sit in the stuffiness, so as not to see a single butterfly that has fallen with scorched wings onto his table. If, while walking down the street after rain, he sees a worm crawling along the pavement, he will think that the worm will die in the sun if it does not crawl to the ground in time, where it can hide in a crack, and transfer it to the grass. If he passes by an insect that has fallen into a puddle, he will find time to throw it a leaf or straw to save it. He is not afraid that he will be ridiculed for his sentimentality. This is the fate of any truth, which is always the subject of ridicule before it is recognized.” It is also necessary to comprehend the fact of the beneficial influence of nature on man. Forests, mountains, sea, rivers, lakes heal a person not only physiologically, but also spiritually. A person finds peace and relaxation, inspiration in nature, in communication with it. Why do our favorite places in the forest or on the river bring us such joy? Obviously, this is connected not only with associations and previous impressions that awaken in consciousness with familiar images, but the familiar paths, groves, meadows, and steeps that we perceive bring peace, freedom, and spiritual strength to our soul. If there is no positive moral value in nature itself, in its creatures, then such a fact of its spiritual-healing function remains rationally inexplicable. Another fact that we believe indirectly indicates the morality of nature is the environmental problem.

But, similarly, the ecological explosion became a reality because the moral value of nature itself was initially “destroyed” in people’s minds. Man has ceased to realize that in nature there is both good and evil. Ethics also has a certain fault in this, which, while striving for scientificity, shared the shortcomings of science, in particular the fact that “science always encounters only what is allowed as an accessible object by its method of representation.” This is the limitation of any ecological analysis. Ecology studies nature using methods available to it and, above all, empirical ones, but for which the transcendence of nature itself is inaccessible. This in no way means that environmental research is not needed - no, it is necessary from both theoretical and practical points of view. However, they can and should be supplemented with philosophical and ethical studies addressed to another, axiological layer of natural existence, which are also, naturally, limited in their kind. The choice of a person as a conscious emotional being is always of an interested, value-based nature, and what does not have value for a person cannot move him to action. Ecological data, in order to become an imperative of human behavior, must themselves “become” values; the subject must also see their value aspect. Ethics, based on concrete scientific material, should help a person realize the value of the world around him. It is possible and necessary to talk about the morality of nature, living and inanimate, as the totality of its moral values, about the moral attitude of man to nature, but it makes no sense to raise the question of the morality of nature itself, meaning by the latter a system of certain values of good and evil, coupled with a certain consciousness, relationships, actions. Nature is not a living being, it is not spiritualized, it has no freedom of choice either in good or in evil. Man seems morally undeveloped precisely in his relationship with nature. And this is already manifested in our modern language, which simply does not have words to denote the values of inanimate and living nature. A very important problem arises of improving language through the development of a “moral language” in it, which can reflect the entire world of moral values. And here it is possible and necessary to use the language of our ancestors, who were closer to nature and perceived it syncretically, through the unity of sensual, rational and intuitive forms. We must turn to the experience of peasants, who are not as alienated from nature by rational culture as modern man. But this appeal must be critical, taking into account the moral discoveries of culture. It is impossible not to admit that “inanimate nature” has “revealed” and will “reveal” to man the infinite variety of its objects and their connections, although the limitations of this uniqueness and unity are also undeniable. Infinite diversity here appears as a boring monotony, deadening, evoking melancholy and even horror in its similarity to undeveloped, small individuality. The gray desert, blinding with light and suffocating with heat, is so boring, although its billions of yellow grains of sand do not exactly repeat each other. The snow-covered tundra is equally majestic, but also boring, monotonous in the white color of its myriads of sparkling snowflakes, among which there are also no identical ones. Majestic, but boring, the dead, calm mirror of the sea. It seems that the endless, black space of space, in which small bright points of stars twinkle at great distances, is also boring, although majestic.

This boredom of “inanimate nature” is associated with its inexpressive individuality, attached to the goodness and majesty of infinity, primarily through quantity. But the truth is that nowhere can a person more clearly and fully realize the infinity and transcendence of the very value of existence than in the same monotonous, monotonous space, sea, desert. It is more difficult to see, to feel the uniqueness of everything that exists here and the unity that also takes place here, including the unity of one’s own human “I”, i.e. living and intelligent being, with the inanimate and unreasonable - it is more difficult to realize oneself as a creative subject of the noosphere. Life and mind by “inanimate nature” are not rejected or destroyed; they have the opportunity to assert themselves. And the living mind itself can either realize or destroy this opportunity by taking the path of confrontation. To educate a moral person who would be able to recognize the morality of nature and consciously create the noosphere and ecosphere is the most important task of culture. The next most important element of morality is moral activity.

7 Question Moral activity.

Moral activity there is a practical implementation of the values of good and evil realized by man. The “cell” of moral activity is the action. An act is an action that is subjectively motivated, presupposes freedom of choice, has meaning and therefore evokes a certain attitude towards itself. On the one hand, not every human action is a moral act; on the other hand, sometimes a person’s inaction appears to be an important moral act. For example, a man does not stand up for a woman when she is insulted, or someone remains silent in a situation where they need to express their opinion - all such inactions are negative moral actions. In general, there are not many human actions that can be identified that are not moral actions, but simply actions-operations. Moral action presupposes free will. Free will manifests itself as external freedom of action and as internal freedom of choice between different feelings, ideas, and assessments. It is precisely where there is no freedom of action or freedom of choice that we have actions-operations for which a person does not bear moral responsibility. If there is no freedom of action or freedom of choice, then a person does not bear moral responsibility for his actions, although he may experience them emotionally. Thus, the driver is not responsible for hitting a passenger who violated traffic rules when it was physically impossible to stop the car due to its inertia. The driver himself, as a human being, can experience the tragedy very deeply. The set of actions is a line of behavior with which a way of life is associated. These relationships indicate the meaning of actions for a person.

8 Question Justice.

Justice- the concept of what is due, containing the requirement of compliance between action and retribution: in particular, the correspondence of rights and duties, labor and reward, merit and their recognition, crime and punishment, compliance with the role of various social strata, groups and individuals in the life of society and their social positions in it; in economics - the requirement of equality of citizens in the distribution of a limited resource. The lack of proper correspondence between these entities is assessed as injustice.

It is one of the main categories of ethics.

two types of justice:

Equalization- refers to the relationship of equal people regarding objects (“equal - for equal”). It does not relate directly to people, but to their actions, and requires equality (equivalence) of labor and payment, the value of a thing and its price, harm and its compensation. Relations of equalizing justice require the participation of at least two persons.

Distribution- requires proportionality in relation to people according to one or another criterion (“equal to equal, unequal to unequal”, “to each his own”). Distributive justice relationships require the participation of at least three people, each of whom acts to achieve one goal within an organized community. One of these people, the dispenser, is the “boss.”

Equalizing justice is a specific principle of private law, while distributive justice is a principle of public law, which is a set of rules of the state as an organization.

The requirements of egalitarian and distributive justice are formal, not defining who should be considered equal or different, and not specifying which rules apply to whom. Different answers to these questions are given by different concepts of justice, which complement the formal concept of justice with substantive requirements and values.

9 Question Moral duty.

Debt as an embodied claim to absoluteness, the unconditional categoricalness of one’s own demands is such an obvious feature of morality that it cannot but be reflected in ethics even in those cases when the latter is built on an experimental basis (such as Aristotle’s ethics) or even challenges this very claim (such as skeptical ethics). Democritus spoke about debt.

This concept acquired categorical status in the ethics of the Stoics, who designated it with the term “to kathakon”, understanding by it proper, appropriate. It (mainly thanks to Cicero, in particular, his treatise “On Duties”) also entered Christian ethics, where it was predominantly designated by the term “officium”. In the German Enlightenment, duty is considered as a fundamental moral category. This line was continued by Kant and Fixte. The problem of the absoluteness of morality in its applied aspect, which no ethical system could bypass, becomes the subject of a comprehensive and focused analysis in oral philosophy of Kant. Kant raised the concept of duty to the utmost theoretical and normative heights, connecting with it the specifics of morality.

“The Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals” is Kant’s first work specifically devoted to moral problems. In it, Kant formulated and substantiated the main discovery of his ethics: “Everyone understood that a person is bound by his duty to the law, but did not realize that he is subject only to his y own and nevertheless universal law and that he is obliged to act only in accordance with his own a will that establishes, however, universal laws."

Kant calls the need to act out of respect for the moral law a duty. Duty is the manifestation of the moral law in the subject, the subjective principle of morality. It means that the moral law itself, directly and directly, becomes the motive of human behavior. When a person performs moral actions for the sole reason that they are moral, he acts out of duty.

There are several different types of worldviews that differ in their understanding of the idea of human moral duty.

When the moral duty of an individual extends to all members of the group, we are dealing with sociocentrism.

If it is believed that a person should protect all sentient beings on earth, this kind of ethics is called pathocentrism.

If the focus is on man and his needs, it is recognized that only man has value and, therefore, man has a moral duty only to people, then such a philosophical concept is called anthropocentrism.

If, finally, it is recognized that a person has a moral duty to all living beings on earth, is called upon to protect all living things, animals and plants, then this kind of worldview is called biocentrism, i.e. the focus is on “bios” - life, living things.

Anthropocentrism has been the dominant worldview of humanity for many centuries. Man was opposed to all other creatures on earth and it was taken for granted that only the interests and needs of man are important, all other creatures have no independent value. This worldview conveys the popular expression: “Everything is for man.” The philosophy and religion of the West supported the belief in the uniqueness of man and his place in the center of the universe, in his rights to the lives of all other living beings and the planet itself.

Anthropocentrism proclaimed the right of man to use the world around him, living and inanimate, for his own purposes. The anthropocentric concept of the world has never considered the possibility of a person having a duty to anyone.

The emergence of anthropocentrism as a worldview concept dates back to the ancient era. In Ancient Greece, there were several philosophical schools, one of which, founded by Aristotle, recognized the legitimacy of inequality between people, in particular slavery, and saw a gap between people and animals; It was believed that animals were created for the benefit of man. This teaching of Aristotle was presented in a more primitive form by Aristotle's follower Xenophon and others. Xenophon's anthropocentrism was a convenient philosophy that freed man from remorse over the fate of other beings, and gained great popularity. This doctrine received significant support from the 13th century Catholic religious philosopher Thomas Aquinas. In his book Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argues that plants and animals exist not for their own sake, but for the sake of man; dumb animals and plants are devoid of intelligence and therefore it is natural that they are used by man for his benefit.

Currently, anthropocentrism is beginning to be seen as a negative form of worldview. Anthropocentrism has shown itself to be untenable both as a philosophy and as a scientific approach to determining the status of man in the natural environment, and as a practical guide to action that justified any human actions in relation to other living forms.

Thus, debt is a set of demands presented to a person by society (team, organization), which appear before him as his obligations and compliance with which is e by internal moral need.

This definition, revealing the essence of debt, includes two sides: objective and subjective.

The following is the Comae of the Comae of the Complex, E Meta. The objectivity of these requirements should be understood in the sense of independence from the desires of an individual person.

The subjective side of duty is the individual’s awareness of the requirements of society, the team as necessary, in relation to himself as a performer of a certain social role, as well as internal readiness and even the need to fulfill them. This side of debt depends on the person, his individuality. It reveals the general level of moral development of this or that person, the level and depth of their understanding of their tasks. The individual appears here as an active bearer of certain moral responsibilities to society, which recognizes them and implements them in its activities.

Duty is the moral necessity of action. To act morally is to act out of duty. To do something out of duty means to do it because morality dictates so.

Debt can be understood narrowly - as the need to return what you received from others. Then everyone will strive not to miscalculate and not to give away more than they received. But duty can also be understood broadly as the need to improve performance and oneself without counting on immediate material reward. This will be a true understanding of duty. It was demonstrated by Soviet soldiers during the Great Patriotic War, when they stopped the tank advances of the Nazis by tying themselves with grenades and lying under the tanks. They did this not out of despair and fear, but with a cold-blooded calculation to stop it for sure. If it were possible to ask a person why he is heading towards certain death, he would probably answer that there is no other way to do it. Not because there is physically no other way out. It is impossible to do otherwise for moral reasons - your own conscience does not allow this.

We often do not notice what great power is hidden in the simple word “must”. Behind this word lies the greatness of the power of a person’s moral abilities. People who make personal sacrifices, and, if necessary, even death out of a sense of duty, asking: “If not me, then who?”, represent the color of humanity and are worthy of with utmost respect. Anyone who has never in his life understood the harsh beauty of the word “must” does not possess moral maturity.

As a moral need of a person, duty has different levels of individual development in different people. One person fulfills the instructions of social duty, fearing condemnation from society or even punishment from it. He does not violate it because it is not profitable for him (“I act in accordance with my duty, otherwise the sin will not be returned”).

The other - because he wants to earn public recognition, praise, a reward ("I act according to my duty - perhaps they will notice, they will say thank you"). The third - because he is convinced: although this is difficult, it is still an important and necessary duty (“I act in accordance with my duty because it is necessary”).

And finally, for the fourth, the fulfillment of duty is an internal need that causes moral satisfaction (“I act in accordance with duty because I want it that way - I want to serve people"). The last option is the highest fully mature stage in the development of moral duty, an internal need of a person, the satisfaction of which is one of the conditions for his happiness.

Moral duty is a rule, but the rule is purely internal, understood by reason and recognized by conscience. This is a rule from which no one can free us. Moral qualities are the requirements of an individual for himself, reflecting the desire for good. Moral duty is the desire for self-improvement with the goal of establishing the human in a person.

Duty is a moral obligation towards oneself and others. Moral duty is the law of life; it must guide us, both in the last little things and in high deeds.

Moral need: to be faithful to duty is a great strength. However, one duty cannot regulate all the moral practices of people. Duty focuses on the fulfillment of such moral norms, which represent, as it were, a program of behavior offered to a person from the outside; it acts as a person’s obligation to society and the team. In the demands of duty it is impossible to foresee and take into account all the richness of tasks and situations generated by life. Real morality is broader, more diverse, more multifaceted.

Many relationships between people concern only themselves; they are hidden from society and therefore cannot be directed or regulated by it. When different levels of debt collide with each other, a person is forced to independently evaluate each of them and make the right decision. Situations in people's behavior are so diverse that society is able to develop requirements for all occasions in life.

Finally, a morally developed person has the need to do good not only at the behest of society, but also out of internal needs. For example, a person, saving another, dies himself. The duty to help another in trouble exists. But society does not oblige a person to die while helping another. What makes a person undertake such a feat?

Often people, wanting to say that they did not do anything more than what was required of them by their given role in a particular situation, say: “We were simply doing our duty.” And when they say about someone that he is a man of duty, it is a great honor, praise, testifying to the fact that this person is reliable, that you cannot rely on him, that he t everything that is required from him. Being a person of value is valuable, honorable, and important.

And yet a person often does more than what is contained in the demands of duty, does what it seems he is not obliged to do. Who forces a person to do good beyond his responsibilities?

The moral life of society has developed institutions that operate and regulate human behavior where they should become insufficiently effective. Among such regulators, conscience has an important place.

Conscience is the awareness and feeling of a person’s moral responsibility for his behavior to himself and the internal need to act fairly.

It is impossible to violate one’s moral duty with impunity, since the punishment for violating a moral duty depends entirely on the most strict and unforgiving judge - our own conscience. Anyone who acts against his conscience loses the right to be called an honest person, and at the same time the respect of all honest people. Man's inner duty is left to his free will; remorse, this guardian of inner honesty, prevents and supports the sense of duty.

10 Question Conscience and shame.

Conscience- the ability of an individual to independently formulate his own moral duties and exercise moral self-control, demand that he fulfill them and evaluate the actions he commits; one of the expressions of a person’s moral self-awareness. It manifests itself both in the form of rational awareness of the moral significance of the actions performed, and in the form of emotional experiences, the so-called. "remorse"

Shame- a negatively colored feeling, the object of which is some action or quality of the subject. Shame is associated with a feeling of social unacceptability of what one is ashamed of.

11 Question Concept, types and characteristics of professional ethics.

- 84.00 Kb

Introduction………………………………………………………………..2
The concept of morality……………………………………………………….. 3
The structure of morality………………………………………………………... 4
Moral principles……………………………………………………6
Moral standards………………………………………………………..7
Moral ideal………………………………………………………...9
Conclusion……………………………………………………………11
References…………………………………………………… ...12

1. Introduction

Moral principles, norms and ideals arose from people’s ideas about justice, humanity, goodness, public good, etc. The behavior of people that corresponded to these ideas was declared moral, the opposite - immoral.

To reveal the topic of the test, it is important to define morality and consider its structure.

The correct definition of the general basis of morality does not yet mean the unambiguous derivation of specific moral norms and principles from it. Moral activity includes not only the implementation, but also the creation of new norms and principles, finding the ideals that best suit modern times and ways to implement them..

The purpose of this work is to consider moral principles, norms, and ideals.

Main tasks:

1. Define the essence of morality.

2. Consider moral principles and their role in guiding a person’s moral behavior.

3. Consider moral standards in human communication.

4.Give the concept of a moral ideal.

2. The concept of morality.

The word (term) “morality” itself goes back to the Latin word “mores”, meaning “disposition”. Another meaning of this word is law, rule, regulation. In modern philosophical literature, morality is understood as morality, a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations.

Morality is one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society through norms. It is a system of principles and norms that determine the nature of relations between people in accordance with the accepted concepts of good and evil, fair and unfair, worthy and unworthy in a given society. Compliance with moral requirements is ensured by the power of spiritual influence, public opinion, inner conviction, and the conscience of a person.

Morality arises and develops based on the need of society to regulate the behavior of people in various spheres of their lives. Morality is considered one of the most accessible ways for people to understand the complex processes of social life. The fundamental problem of morality is the regulation of relationships and interests of the individual and society. The peculiarity of morality is that it regulates the behavior and consciousness of people in all spheres of life (production activities, everyday life, family, interpersonal and other relationships). Its prescriptions are universal, universal in nature and applicable in a wide variety of life situations. Almost everywhere where a person lives and acts. Morality also extends to intergroup and interstate relations.

The scope of moral activity is wide, but, nevertheless, the wealth of human relationships can be reduced to relationships:

individual and society;
individual and collective;
collective and society;
team and team;
man and man;
person to himself.

Thus, in resolving moral issues, not only collective, but also individual consciousness is competent: the moral authority of someone depends on how correctly he understands the general moral principles and ideals of society and the historical necessity reflected in them. The objectivity of the foundation allows the individual to independently, to the extent of his own consciousness, perceive and implement social demands, make decisions, develop rules of life for himself and evaluate what is happening.

3. The structure of morality.

The structure of morality is multi-tiered and multifaceted; it is impossible to cover it at the same time.The very way in which morality is illuminated determines its visible structure. Different approaches reveal its different sides:

biological - studies the prerequisites of morality at the level of an individual organism and at the population level;
psychological - examines the psychological mechanisms that ensure the fulfillment of moral norms;
sociological - clarifies the social conditions in which morals develop, and the role of morality in maintaining the stability of society;
normative - formulates morality as a system of duties, regulations, ideals;
personal - sees the same ideal ideas in personal refraction, as a fact of individual consciousness;
philosophical - represents morality as a special world, the world of the meaning of life and the purpose of man.

These six aspects can be represented by the colors of the faces of the Rubik's Cube. A cube that is fundamentally impossible to solve, i.e. achieve monochromatic edges, a single-plane vision. When considering the morality of one side, we have to take others into account. So this structuring is very conditional.

In order to reveal the nature of morality, you need to try to find out how, in what ways it harmonizes personal and social interests, what it relies on, what motivates a person to be moral in general.

Morality rests primarily on conviction, on the power of consciousness, social and individual. We can say that morality rests, as it were, on three “pillars”.

Firstly, these are traditions, customs, and mores that have developed in a given society, among a given class, social group. The emerging personality assimilates these morals, traditional forms of behavior that become habits and become the property of the spiritual world of the individual.

Secondly, morality is based on the power of public opinion, which, by approving some actions and condemning others, regulates the behavior of an individual and teaches him to comply with moral norms. The instruments of public opinion are, on the one hand, honor, good name, public recognition, which become the result of a person’s conscientious performance of his duties, his strict adherence to the moral norms of a given society; on the other hand, shame, shaming a person who has violated moral standards.

Finally, thirdly, morality is based on the consciousness of each individual, on the understanding of the need to harmonize personal and public interests. This determines voluntary choice, voluntariness of behavior, which occurs when conscience becomes a solid basis for the moral behavior of an individual.

A moral person differs from an immoral person, from one who has “no shame or conscience,” not only and not so much in that his behavior is much easier to regulate, to subordinate to existing rules and norms. The personality itself is impossible without morality, without this self-determination of one’s behavior. Morality turns from a means into a goal, into an end in itself of spiritual development, into one of the most necessary conditions for the formation and self-affirmation of the human personality.

In the structure of morality, it is customary to distinguish between constituent elements. Morality includes moral principles, moral standards, moral ideals, moral criteria, etc.

4.Moral principles.

Principles are the most general justification for existing norms and a criterion for choosing rules. Principles express universal formulas of behavior. The principles of justice, equality, sympathy, mutual understanding and others are the conditions for normal coexistence of all people.

Moral principles are one of the forms of expression of moral requirements, in the most general form revealing the content of morality existing in a particular society. They express fundamental requirements concerning the moral essence of a person, the nature of relationships between people, determine the general direction of human activity and underlie private, specific norms of behavior. In this regard, they serve as criteria of morality.

Moral principles include the following general principles of morality:

humanism – recognition of man as the highest value;
altruism - selfless service to one's neighbor;
mercy - compassionate and active love, expressed in readiness to help everyone in need;
collectivism - a conscious desire to promote the common good;
rejection of individualism - the opposition of the individual to society, to any sociality.

In addition to the principles that characterize the essence of a particular morality, there are so-called formal principles that relate to the methods of fulfilling moral requirements. Such, for example, are consciousness and its opposites, formalism, fetishism, fanaticism, and dogmatism. Principles of this kind do not determine the content of specific norms of behavior, but also characterize a certain morality, showing how consciously moral requirements are fulfilled.

Moral principles have universal significance, embrace all people, and consolidate the foundations of the culture of their relationships, created in the long process of historical development of society.

When we choose principles, we choose a moral orientation as a whole. This is a fundamental choice on which private rules, norms and qualities depend. Loyalty to the chosen moral system (principle) has long been considered a personal dignity. It meant that in any life situation a person would not stray from the moral path. However, the principle is abstract; Once a line of behavior has been outlined, it sometimes begins to assert itself as the only correct one. Therefore, you must constantly check your principles for humanity and compare them with ideals.

5.Moral standards.

Moral norms are social norms that regulate a person’s behavior in society, his attitude towards other people, towards society and towards himself. Their implementation is ensured by the power of public opinion, internal conviction based on the ideas accepted in a given society about good and evil, justice and injustice, virtue and vice, due and condemned.

Moral norms determine the content of behavior, how it is customary to act in a certain situation, that is, the morals inherent in a given society or social group. They differ from other norms operating in society and performing regulatory functions (economic, political, legal, aesthetic) in the way they regulate people’s actions. Moral standards are brought up daily by the power of tradition, the power of habit, and the assessments of loved ones. Already a small child, based on the reaction of adult family members, determines the boundaries of what is “possible” and what is “not allowed.” A huge role in the formation of moral norms characteristic of a given society is played by the approval and condemnation expressed by others.

In contrast to simple customs and habits, when people act in the same way in similar situations (birthday celebrations, weddings, farewell to the army, various rituals, habit of certain work activities, etc.), moral norms are not simply fulfilled due to the established generally accepted order, but find ideological justification in a person’s ideas about proper or inappropriate behavior, both in general and in a specific life situation. 5. Moral standards………………………………………………………..7
6. Moral ideal………………………………………………………...9
7. Conclusion……………………………………………………………11
8. References……………………………………………………...12

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

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

SEE MORE:

Moral principles

When making a decision, formulating a point of view, a person is guided by his own moral principles, compiled on the basis of knowledge acquired throughout his life’s journey. The driving force of this principle is moral will. Each person has his own standard for fulfilling it. So, someone understands that it is impossible to kill people, but for others it is impossible to take the life of not only a person, but also any animal. It is worth noting that this form of moral statements, moral principles, can have the same form and be repeated from generation to generation.

High moral principles

It would not be superfluous to note that the main thing is not knowledge of the basic moral principles of a person, but their active application in life. Beginning their formation in childhood, they must develop into prudence, goodwill, etc.

Moral principles

The foundation of their formation is the will, the emotional sphere, and the intellect.

In the case when a person consciously identifies certain principles for himself, he is determined with a moral orientation. And how faithful she will be to her depends on her integrity.

If we talk about high moral principles, then they can be divided into three categories:

"Can". The internal beliefs of an individual fully comply with the rules and laws of society. Moreover, such principles are not capable of harming anyone.
"Need to". Saving a drowning person, taking a bag from a thief and giving it to its owner - all these actions characterize the moral qualities inherent in a person, prompting her to act in a certain way, even though this may contradict her internal attitudes. Otherwise, she may be punished or such inaction can cause a lot of harm.
"It is forbidden". These principles are condemned by society; in addition, they may entail administrative or criminal liability.

Moral principles and, in turn, human qualities are formed throughout life’s journey in interaction with other people and society.

A person of high moral principles tries to determine for himself what the meaning of life is, what its value is, what exactly his moral orientation should be and what happiness is.

Moreover, in every action, deed, any such principle is capable of revealing itself from a completely different, sometimes unknown, side. After all, morality truly shows itself not in theory, but in practice, in its functionality.

Moral principles of communication

These include:

Conscious renunciation of personal interests for the sake of the interests of other people.
Refusal of hedonism, life's pleasures, pleasure in favor of achieving the ideal set for oneself.
Solving public problems of any complexity and overcoming extreme situations.
Showing responsibility for caring for others.
Building relationships with others from a place of kindness and goodness.

Lack of moral principles

Scientists at the University of California recently proved that compliance moral principles suggests that such individuals are less susceptible to stressful attacks in everyday life, that is, this indicates their increased resistance to various diseases and infections

Anyone who does not bother to develop personally, who is immoral, sooner or later begins to suffer from his own inferiority. Inside such a person, a feeling of disharmony with his own “I” arises. This, in addition, provokes the occurrence of mental stress, which triggers the mechanism for the appearance of various somatic diseases.

Psychology of influence

Every day, each of us is faced with the psychological influence that affects us in almost all areas of our lives. In this article we will talk about existing types of psychological influence.

State of mind

States of mind can change very quickly, whether we want it or not. In this article we will talk about the types of states of mind and their characteristics.

Types of emotional states

In this article we will talk about the existing types of emotional states, what are their differences and distinctive features, and what impact they have on the general mental state of a person.

Role conflict

This article will tell you what role conflict is, the most common causes of its occurrence, and how you can resolve this kind of conflict with the least possible losses.

Moral principles.

Moral principles play a dominant role in moral consciousness. Expressing the requirements of morality in the most general form, they constitute the essence of moral relations and are a strategy for moral behavior. Moral principles are recognized by the moral consciousness as unconditional requirements, adherence to which is strictly obligatory in all life situations. They express the main
requirements relating to the moral essence of a person, the nature of relationships between people, determine the general direction of human activity and underlie private, specific norms of behavior.
Moral principles include such general principles of morality as:

1 .The principle of humanism. The essence of the principle of humanism is the recognition of man as the highest value. In ordinary understanding, this principle means love for people, protection of human dignity, people's right to happiness and the possibility of self-realization. It is possible to identify three main meanings of humanism:

— guarantees of basic human rights as a condition for preserving the humane foundations of his existence;

- support for the weak, going beyond the usual ideas of a given society about justice;

— formation of social and moral qualities that allow an individual to achieve self-realization on the basis of public values.

2. The principle of altruism. This is a moral principle that prescribes selfless actions aimed at the benefit (satisfaction of interests) of other people. The term was introduced into circulation by the French philosopher O. Comte (1798 - 1857) to capture the concept opposite to the concept selfishness. Altruism as a principle, according to Comte, says: “Live for others.”

3. The principle of collectivism. This principle is fundamental in uniting people to achieve common goals and carry out joint activities; it has a long history and is fundamental to the existence of humanity. The collective seems to be the only way of social organization of people from primitive tribes to modern states. Its essence lies in the conscious desire of people to contribute to the common good. The opposite principle is the principle of individualism. The principle of collectivism includes several particular principles:

— unity of purpose and will;

— cooperation and mutual assistance;

— democracy;

- discipline.

4.Principles of justice proposed by the American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002).

First principle: Every person should have equal rights to fundamental freedoms.

Second principle: Social and economic inequalities must be adjusted so that:

- they could reasonably be expected to benefit everyone;

— access to positions and positions would be open to everyone.

In other words, everyone should have equal rights in relation to freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, etc.) and equal access to schools and universities, to official positions, jobs, etc. Where equality is impossible (for example, in an economy where there is not enough wealth for everyone), this inequality must be arranged to the benefit of the poor. One possible example of such a redistribution of benefits would be a progressive income tax, where the rich pay more taxes, and the proceeds go to the social needs of the poor.

5. The principle of mercy. Mercy is compassionate and active love, expressed in readiness to help everyone in need and extending to all people, and ultimately to all living things. The concept of mercy combines two aspects:

— spiritual-emotional (experiencing someone else’s pain as if it were your own);

- concrete and practical (impulse for real help).

The origins of mercy as a moral principle lie in the Axaic clan solidarity, which strictly obligated, at the cost of any victims, to rescue a relative from trouble.

Religions such as Buddhism and Christianity were the first to preach mercy.

6. The principle of peacefulness. This principle of morality is based on the recognition of human life as the highest social and moral value and affirms the maintenance and strengthening of peace as the ideal of relations between people us and states. Peacefulness presupposes respect for the personal and national dignity of individual citizens and entire nations, state sovereignty, human rights and people's rights a significant lifestyle choice.

Peacefulness contributes to the maintenance of social order, mutual understanding between generations, the development of historical and cultural traditions, the interaction of various social groups, ethnicities, nations, ltyp. Peacefulness is opposed by aggressiveness, belligerence, a penchant for violent means of conflict resolution, suspicion and distrust in relations between people, nations, and societies. chemical systems. In the history of morality, peacefulness and aggressiveness are opposed as two main trends.

7. The principle of patriotism. This is a moral principle, in a general form expressing a feeling of love for the Motherland, concern for its interests and readiness to defend it from enemies. Patriotism is manifested in pride in the achievements of one’s native country, in bitterness because of its failures and troubles, in respect for its historical past and in caring attitude towards people’s memory, national and cultural traditions.

The moral significance of patriotism is determined by the fact that it is one of the forms of subordination of personal and public interests, unity of man and the Fatherland. But patriotic feelings and ideas only morally elevate a person and a people when they are associated with respect for the peoples of other countries and do not degenerate into the psychology of the nation pure exclusivity and distrust of “outsiders.” This aspect in patriotic consciousness has become especially relevant recently, when the threat of nuclear self-destruction or environmental catastrophe required rethinking patriotism as a principle commanding everyone to contribute to their country’s contribution to the preservation of the planet and the survival of humanity.

8. The principle of tolerance. Tolerance means respect, acceptance and proper understanding of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of self-expression and ways of expressing human individuality. It is promoted by knowledge, openness, communication and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is a virtue that makes peace possible and helps replace the culture of war with a culture of peace.

The manifestation of tolerance, which is consonant with respect for human rights, does not mean tolerating social injustice, abandoning one’s own or yielding to other people’s beliefs.

Moral principles.

This means that everyone is free to hold their own beliefs and recognizes the same right for others. This means recognizing that people by nature differ in appearance, attitude, speech, behavior and values and have the right to live in the world and maintain their individuality.

This also means that one person's views cannot be imposed on others.

Morality and law.

Law, like morality, regulates the behavior and relationships of people. But unlike morality, the implementation of legal norms is controlled by public authority. If morality is an “internal” regulator of human actions, then law is an “external” state regulator.

Law is a product of history. Morality (as well as mythology, religion, art) is older than him in its historical age. It has always existed in human society, but law arose when the class stratification of primitive society occurred and states began to be created. The sociocultural norms of a primitive stateless society concerning the division of labor, distribution of material goods, mutual defense, initiation, marriage, etc. had the force of custom and were reinforced by mythology. They generally subordinated the individual to the interests of the collective. Measures of social influence were applied to their violators - from persuasion to coercion.

Both moral and legal norms are social. What they have in common is that both types serve to regulate and evaluate the actions of an individual. Various things include:

SEE MORE:

Moral principles.

Moral principles. Moral and ethical principles

Moral principles include such general principles of morality as:

— guarantees of basic human rights as a condition for preserving the humane foundations of his existence;

- support for the weak, going beyond the usual ideas of a given society about justice;

— formation of social and moral qualities that allow an individual to achieve self-realization on the basis of public values.

The collective seems to be the only way of social organization of people from primitive tribes to modern states. Its essence lies in the conscious desire of people to contribute to the common good. The opposite principle is the principle of individualism. The principle of collectivism includes several particular principles:

— unity of purpose and will;

— cooperation and mutual assistance;

— democracy;

- discipline.

4.Principles of justice proposed by the American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002).

First principle: Every person should have equal rights to fundamental freedoms.

Second principle: Social and economic inequalities must be adjusted so that:

- they could reasonably be expected to benefit everyone;

— access to positions and positions would be open to everyone.

In other words, everyone should have equal rights in relation to freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, etc.) and equal access to schools and universities, to official positions, jobs, etc. Where equality is impossible (for example, in an economy where there is not enough wealth for everyone), this inequality must be arranged to the benefit of the poor. One possible example of such a redistribution of benefits would be a progressive income tax, where the rich pay more taxes, and the proceeds go to the social needs of the poor.

— spiritual-emotional (experiencing someone else’s pain as if it were your own);

- concrete and practical (impulse for real help).

The origins of mercy as a moral principle lie in the Axaic clan solidarity, which strictly obligated, at the cost of any victims, to rescue a relative from trouble.

Religions such as Buddhism and Christianity were the first to preach mercy.

The manifestation of tolerance, which is consonant with respect for human rights, does not mean tolerating social injustice, abandoning one’s own or yielding to other people’s beliefs. This means that everyone is free to hold their own beliefs and recognizes the same right for others. This means recognizing that people by nature differ in appearance, attitude, speech, behavior and values and have the right to live in the world and maintain their individuality. This also means that one person's views cannot be imposed on others.

Morality and law.

Both moral and legal norms are social. What they have in common is that both types serve to regulate and evaluate the actions of an individual. Various things include:

SEE MORE:

Following the principle of the “golden mean”

Total Quality Management System (TQM)

As the main goal, modern missions necessarily include the quality of the organization's activities. Only such missions provide the organization with competitiveness in modern conditions. As practice has shown, the quality of activities and the quality of the organization are unthinkable without self-assessment.

The concept of self-assessment of an organization's activities is based on eight principles of total quality management. It is based on a continuous process of performance assessment, the purpose of which is the development of the organization. The founder of the concept of self-assessment, based on the process of self-diagnosis, Tito Conti defines it as an analysis of the ability of an economic entity to solve basic problems and achieve goals, to identify weaknesses in processes and system factors affecting the development of the organization.

The concept of “diagnostic self-esteem”, or “cross-diagnosis”, was also first introduced by Tito Conti. He identified two types of self-esteem. The first is self-assessment of work, which is based on comparative analysis. “The results must be comparable so that one organization can be compared with another.” For this purpose, a standard (non-changing) model, a weight measure, an approach “as when checking from left to right” is used. Such checks are commonly used in the assessment of quality award applicants and in second and third party certification. The second type is diagnostic self-assessment, focused on improving the organization’s performance using open (flexible) models that can be adapted for any organization. In this case, a weight measure is not needed.

Tito Conti defines the differences between the two approaches to self-assessment: “Self-assessment (check) of work is a standard model of international awards, diagnostic self-assessment is a specific individual model.”

When checking, the assessment is carried out “from left to right”: from causes to effects. When diagnosing - “from right to left”: from consequences to causes.

The purpose of diagnostic self-assessment is to identify the root causes of emerging problems in the organization. Root cause analysis is a tool to determine not just what happened, but also why. Only when the researcher is able to record what caused an event, such as failure to implement a plan, will he be able to develop and take effective corrective measures to prevent its reoccurrence. Discovering the root causes of events prevents their recurrence.

Personnel strategy in the concept of self-assessment of the organization’s activities differs from other strategies.

Note. The mission of an organization is a clear statement of the purpose of the organization, its image, why it exists. The mission must reflect the following aspects: the scope of the organization’s activities, what market it operates in, what product it offers to customers or clients, what are its guidelines, fundamental values or principles, what it strives for, the solution of what problems is decisive in its activities for the future, what technologies in the field of production and management uses.

Total Quality Management (TQM) is an approach to managing an organization based on the participation of all its members and aimed at achieving long-term success through customer satisfaction and benefits for all members of the organization and society. The implementation of a total quality system (TQM) usually proceeds in several main directions:

Creation of documented quality systems.
Relationships with suppliers.
Relationships with consumers.
Motivating employees to improve quality.
Improvement in quality.

The first and main difference is that the personnel strategy is aimed primarily at top and middle management of the organization. It must define and adopt a model of business excellence. With the understanding that as personnel develop, they become “individualized,” it becomes increasingly difficult for management to find a dream that would unite them into a common group. However, every person strives for improvement, so management must convince staff of the importance of achieving such a dream and the need to fulfill it. It is better not to start such a belief with setting the ultimate goal and the need to achieve it “at all costs.” It makes more sense to set relatively manageable intermediate goals and use the Deming Cycle before they are gradually accomplished, allowing each employee to feel the joy of achieving a joint result and at the same time increase their capabilities. As subordinates' ability to complete a task increases, it is important to encourage their involvement in solving a wider range of issues, demonstrate the usefulness of their own work, and develop in them a deep sense of responsibility for the work performed.

Management must be open: accept new ideas, respect the principle of the “golden mean” in the amount of trade secrets, be accessible, listen and respond, while not forgetting to seek feedback.

The second difference is that the implementation of a personnel strategy consists of two stages:

The first stage is aimed at effective initial self-assessment of the organization’s activities. Its importance lies in the fact that the effectiveness of all other activities depends on it. The following preparation is required: develop support for the model; train key employees in the principles of its implementation. Completing the first stage involves conducting a self-assessment; reviewing results and linking them to business plans; development and implementation of plans; evaluation of results. This depends on the support of senior management, a clear identification of the main players, an approach to self-assessment in accordance with the current knowledge and training of employees;
the second stage is aimed at regularly conducting self-assessment of the organization’s activities.
The success of the first stage of the personnel strategy determines the relative ease of implementation of the second.

Failure to achieve success in the first stage makes the second pointless.

The third difference is the creation of an atmosphere of trust and honesty in the organization, which provides the basis for its continuous improvement. From practice, atmosphere is a product of an organization, formed on the basis of its own experience and achieved results. To do this, it is necessary to explain to employees the validity of the changes, describe them in detail, and inform them of what and why is happening in the organization, including both positive and negative events.

Employees involved in the process of organizational self-assessment must clearly understand how to obtain complete information, assess its insufficiency, and have an idea of the possibility of greater self-awareness.

The fourth difference is the formation of a team (a group responsible for combining the potential of the organization aimed at carrying out self-assessment). Such a team must communicate with other professional teams to continuously improve the organization's performance. The positive dynamics of the team are ensured by the following characteristics:

A sense of security that comes from freedom to communicate and act without feeling threatened.

An “amnesty” should be declared after any employee leaves the team.

Opportunity to participate in the self-assessment team of proactive employees of the organization.
Freedom of interaction in teams, without which it is impossible to conduct self-assessment, providing for members to feel comfortable interacting both within the group and with other groups.
Agreement, which manifests itself in the involvement and cohesion of team members.
Trust in each other and in the manager-leader, determined by the requirement of honesty and compliance between words and deeds.
Influence, or the ability of the team as a whole or its individual members to demonstrate leadership qualities.

For teamwork, it is useful to have no clear dividing lines between individual activities, to expand and intersect the responsibilities of people of different qualifications, and to form common interests for those working in related fields. Expanding the range of work and problems assessed is not only a recognition of their increased capabilities, but also the development of a teamwork style.

The fifth difference is trained personnel, which is the basis of the concept of self-assessment of the organization’s activities. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the employees involved in this process. The development program must be supported by senior management, meet self-assessment objectives at every stage, and be based on an open and transparent organizational culture.

Our proposed personnel strategy is aimed at increasing the efficiency of the process of self-assessment of the organization's activities. It is carried out within the framework of the concept of self-assessment of the organization’s activities, is based on the principles of total quality management, and takes into account the philosophy of “continuous improvement” formulated by E. Deming.

Note. Personnel strategy (personnel management strategy) is a priority direction for the formation of a competitive, highly professional, responsible and cohesive workforce that contributes to the achievement of long-term goals and the implementation of the overall strategy of the organization. The strategy allows us to link numerous aspects of personnel management in order to optimize their impact on employees, primarily on their work motivation and qualifications. The main features of the personnel management strategy are: a) its long-term nature, which is explained by the focus on developing and changing psychological attitudes, motivation, personnel structure, the entire personnel management system or its individual elements, and such changes, as a rule, require a long time; b) connection with the strategy of the organization as a whole, taking into account numerous factors of the external and internal environment; the causes of emerging social problems and possible ways to resolve them.

Literature

State standard of the Russian Federation. GOST R ISO 9000 - 2001. Quality management systems. Fundamentals and vocabulary. - M.: IPC "Publishing Standards", 2001. - 26 p.
Conti T. Self-esteem in organizations Trans. from English I.N. Rybakova; scientific ed. V.A. Lapidus, M.E. Serov. - M.: RIA "Standards and Quality", 2000. - 328 p.
Conti T. Opportunities and risks when using models of business excellence // Standards and quality. - 2003. - N 1.- P. 76 - 81.
Deming W.E. Way out of the crisis. - Tver: Alba, 1994. - 498 p.
Staff motivation.
Key factor of management / Ed. Yoshio Kondo / Trans. from English E.P. Markova; scientific

Universal Moral Principles

ed. V.A. Lapidus, M.E. Serov. - N. Novgorod, SMC "Priority", 2002. - 206 p.

K. f.-m. n.,

associate professor of the department

"Labor Economics

and basics of management"

Voronezh State

What are moral principles? Principles and standards of morality, examples

Talion principle

Principle of morality

The principle of the golden mean

The Greatest Happiness Principle

Principle of justice

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

Similar documents

SEE MORE:

Moral principles

High moral principles

Moral principles

Moral principles of communication

Lack of moral principles

Moral principles.

Moral principles.

SEE MORE:

Moral principles.

Moral principles. Moral and ethical principles

SEE MORE:

Following the principle of the “golden mean”

Total Quality Management System (TQM)

Literature

Universal Moral Principles