Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

Ethics is one of the oldest and most fascinating areas of human knowledge. The term "ethics" comes from the ancient Greek word "ethos" (ethos), meaning the actions and deeds of a person, subject to himself, having various degrees of perfection and suggesting the moral choice of the individual. Initially, back in the time of Homer, ethos is a dwelling, a permanent residence. Aristotle interpreted ethos as the virtues of the human character (as opposed to the virtues of the mind). Hence the derivative of ethos - ethos (ethicos - relating to temper, temperament) and ethics - a science that studies the virtues of a human character (courage, moderation, wisdom, justice). To this day, the term "ethos" is used when it is necessary to single out the universal moral foundations that manifest themselves in historical situations that threaten the existence of world civilization itself. And at the same time, from ancient times, ethos (the ethos of the primary elements in Empedocles, the ethos of man in Heraclitus) expressed the important observation that the customs and characters of people arise in the process of their living together.

In ancient Roman culture, the word "morality" denoted a wide range of phenomena and properties. human life: temper, custom, character, behavior, law, fashion prescription, etc. Subsequently, another word was formed from this word - moralis (literally related to character, customs) and later (already in the 4th century AD) the term moralitas (morality). Therefore, in terms of etymological content, the ancient Greek ethica and Latin moralitas coincide.

At present, the word "ethics", having retained its original meaning, denotes a philosophical science, and morality refers to those real phenomena and properties of a person that are studied by this science. So, the main spheres of morality are the culture of behavior, family and household morality, labor morality. In turn, the structure of ethics as a science expresses its historically fixed functions: the definition of the boundaries of morality in the system of human activity, the theoretical justification of morality (its genesis, essence, social role), as well as a critical value assessment of morals (normative ethics).

The Russian fundamental principle of moral themes is the word "nature" (character, passion, will, disposition towards something good or vicious). For the first time, "morality" is mentioned in the "Dictionary of the Russian Academy" as "conformity of free deeds with the law." It also gives an interpretation of moralizing “a part of wisdom (philosophy. - I.K.), containing instructions, rules that guide a virtuous life, curbing passions and fulfilling the duties and positions of a person.”

Among the many definitions of morality, one should single out the one that is directly related to the issue under consideration, namely: morality belongs to the world of culture, is part of human nature (changeable, self-created) and is a public (non-natural) relationship between individuals.

So, ethics is the science of morality (morality). But since morality is socio-historically conditioned, we should talk about historical changes in the subject matter of ethics. Ethics itself originated in the process of transition from primitive society to early civilizations. Consequently, ethical knowledge was not a product of human civilization, but a product of even more ancient, primitive communal relations. In this case, we mean, rather, normative ethics, and not ethics as a philosophical science. During the period under review, morality began to stand apart as a special, relatively independent form of social consciousness. Individual moral consciousness expressed the reflection of moral norms that opposed the real mores of ancient Greek society. Some of these norms attributed to the seven wise men can be cited: “Honor the elders” (Chilo), “Hurry to please your parents” (Thales), “Prefer old laws, but fresh food” (Periander), “Measure is the best” (Cleobulus) , “Willfulness should be extinguished sooner than a fire” (Heraclitus), etc. Ethics is born as concrete historical value orientations (as applied to a particular historical epoch) are given an abstract, universal form that expresses the needs of the functioning of early class civilizations.

It should be noted that morality is studied not only by ethics, but also by pedagogy, psychology, sociology, and a number of other sciences. However, only for ethics, morality is the only object of study, giving it a worldview interpretation and normative guidelines. Questions about what is the source of morality (in human nature, space or social relations) and whether the moral ideal is achievable, are transformed into the third, perhaps the main question for ethics: how and for what to live, what to strive for, what to do?

In the history of ethics, the evolution of the object of study can be traced as follows. Antique ethics is characterized as a doctrine of virtues, a virtuous (perfect) personality. Here, virtue is identified with any specific bearer of it (the same hero of myths) and is associated, first of all, with such moral qualities as courage, moderation, wisdom, justice, generosity, etc.

The humanists of the Italian Renaissance supplemented these virtues with another one, in which the traditions of ancient and medieval culture, - the virtue of philanthropy. K. Salutati (1331-1406) called this virtue humanitas; it combines the interpretation of humanitas as education, instruction in the noble arts, coming from Cicero and Aulus Gellius, and the attitude towards humanitas as a set of natural human properties in the Middle Ages. Humanitas, according to Salutati, is that virtue "which is also commonly called benevolence." The head of the Florentine Academy M. Ficino (1433-1499) defined humanitas as the main moral property. Under the influence of humanitas as the virtue of philanthropy, he believed, people become inherent in the desire for unity. How more people loves his equals, the more he expresses the essence of the family and proves that he is a man. And vice versa, if a person is cruel, if he moves away from the essence of the family and from communication with his own kind, then he is a person only in name.

The Christian ethics of the Middle Ages focused on the study of morality as an objective, impersonal phenomenon. Criteria for distinguishing between good and evil were taken out of the personality. From the point of view of Christian ethics, God is the absolute source of morality. In it, a person finds the reason, foundation and purpose of his being. Moral norms are elevated into a world law, following which a person who is god-like in essence, but hopelessly sinful in the social and natural dimension, is able to overcome the gap between his purpose (to be like God) and everyday life. To the virtues mentioned above, Christian ethics adds three more new ones - faith (in God), hope (in his mercy) and love (in God).

In the ethics of modern times, one of the most ancient normative requirements, expressing the universal content of morality, received a new sound. At the end of the XVIII century. this requirement is called the "golden rule", which is formed as follows: "act towards others as you would like them to act towards you." I. Kant gave a stricter expression of this rule, presenting it in the form of the so-called categorical imperative. And here we should pay attention to the fact that in this way Kant sets an important humanistic dominant to morality: “Do so,” he writes in the Critique of Practical Reason, “so that you always treat humanity both in your own person and in the person of any other but as an end and would never treat it only as a means. According to Kant, the categorical imperative is a universal obligatory principle that all people must be guided by, regardless of their origin, position, etc.

Having traced the evolution of the object of ethics, it is necessary to indicate three functions of ethics: it describes morality, explains morality, and teaches morality. According to these three functions, ethics is divided into empirical-descriptive, philosophical-theoretical and normative parts.

Here it is necessary to note some differences between morality and morality, although at the level of everyday consciousness these concepts are recognized as synonyms. On this occasion, there are several points of view that do not exclude, but, on the contrary, complement each other, revealing some nuances. If morality is understood as a form of social consciousness, then practical actions of a person, customs, mores are related to morality. In a slightly different way, morality acts as a regulator of human behavior through strictly fixed norms, external psychological influence and control, or public opinion. If we correlate morality with morality thus understood, it is the sphere of moral freedom of the individual, when universal and social imperatives coincide with internal motives. Morality turns out to be an area of ​​self-activity and creativity of a person, an internal attitude to do good.

One more interpretation of morality and morality should be pointed out. The first is an expression of humanity (humanity) in an ideal, complete form, the second fixes a historically specific measure of morality. In the Russian language, the moral, noted V. I. Dal, is that which is opposite to the bodily, carnal. Moral - relating to one half of the spiritual life; opposite to the mental, but constituting a spiritual principle in common with it. To mental V. I. Dal refers truth and falsehood, and to moral - good and evil. A moral person is a good-natured, virtuous, well-behaved, in agreement with conscience, with the laws of truth, with the dignity of a person, with the duty of an honest and pure-hearted citizen. V.G. Belinsky elevated to the rank of "the basic law of morality" the human striving for perfection and the achievement of bliss in accordance with duty.

The moral culture of a person is a characteristic of the moral development of a person, which reflects the degree of mastering the moral experience of society, the ability to consistently implement values, norms and principles in behavior and relationships with other people, readiness for constant self-improvement. A person accumulates in his mind and behavior the achievements of the moral culture of society. The task of forming the moral culture of the individual is to achieve the optimal combination of traditions and innovations, to combine the specific experience of the individual and the entire wealth of public morality. The elements of the moral culture of the individual are the culture of ethical thinking (“the ability of moral judgment”, the ability to use ethical knowledge and distinguish between good and evil), the culture of feelings (a benevolent attitude towards people, an interested and sincere empathy for their sorrows and joys), a culture of behavior and etiquette.

Society at all times distinguished between the concepts of good and evil, i.e. had a certain morality. Ethics is concerned with the history of the development of the distinction between these concepts.

At the center of ethics is morality, i.e. system of moral relations, motives of action, feelings and consciousness. These systems define the "framework" boundaries of relations, actions and interactions of people in society. The specific content of these systems ( ethical standards, standards, rules, requirements) depends on the historical stage of development of society, i.e. on how the society of this historical period understands the categories of good and evil, what is the interpretation of the highest good. The essence of the highest good can be political, economic, social, religious and other concepts, each of which can have a different form: for example, in the political sphere - capitalist morality, bourgeois morality; in the economic sphere, the morality of the social market economy.

Study of historical development morality, which is at the center of ethics, shows that in different historical periods, society had differences in the way of thinking, in ideas about the world, in systems of spiritual values.

Today, Russian society is characterized by new requirements for the individual, for his morality, for his behavior and actions.

The role of ethics as a science in the present, modern Russian society period is long: it must analyze the moral state of society, indicate the reasons that caused this state, propose solutions that would help update the moral guidelines of society.

Distinguish between universal ethics (it is also called universal) and professional ethics.

Professional ethics develops norms, standards, requirements specific to certain types activities. Thus, professional ethics is a code of conduct, a prescribed type of relationship that seems to be the best in terms of the performance of employees of their official duties in a particular professional field(in the production of products, in the provision of services, etc.).

Any professional communication should proceed in accordance with professional and ethical norms and standards, the mastery of which depends on a number of factors. They can be grouped into two groups:

• first group- a complex of ethical ideas, norms, assessments that a person has from birth, an idea of ​​what is good and what is evil - i.e. own ethical code, with which a person lives and works, no matter what position he holds and no matter what work he performs;
• second group- those norms and standards introduced from outside: rules internal regulations organizations, company code of ethics, oral instructions from management, professional code of ethics.

It is good if one's own ideas about what is ethical and what is unethical coincide with professional ethical standards introduced from outside, because if such a coincidence is absent - in whole or in part, then problems of greater or lesser degree of difficulty may arise in understanding, mastering and practical application of ethical principles. rules that are not included in the complex of personal moral ideas.

Business ethics is professional ethics that regulates the system of relations between people in the field of business.

Consider the principles, norms, requirements that form the basis of the ethics of business relations.

Principles are abstract, generalized ideas that enable those who rely on them to correctly shape their behavior, their actions, their attitude to something.

In relation to the principles of business ethics, the above is formulated as follows: principles of business ethics, i.e. professional ethics, give specific employee in any organization, a conceptual ethical platform for decisions, actions, actions, interactions, etc.

There is no disagreement among business theorists and practitioners on the scale of the global economy as to which principle should open the list of ethical principles and norms, both for the subjects of ethics - individual employees, and for the collective carriers of ethical principles - organizations.

The central position of the so-called gold standard is generally accepted: "Within the framework of your official position, never allow in relation to your subordinates, to management, to colleagues of your official level, to clients, etc. such actions that you would not want to see in relation to yourself."

The second principle: fairness is necessary in providing employees with the resources necessary for their work activities (cash, raw materials, material, etc.).

The third principle requires the obligatory correction of an ethical violation, regardless of when and by whom it was committed.

According to the fourth principle, called the principle of maximum progress, the official behavior and actions of an employee are recognized as ethical if they contribute to the development of the organization (or its divisions) from a moral point of view.

The logical continuation of the fourth principle is the fifth - the principle of minimum progress, according to which the actions of an employee or organization as a whole are ethical if they at least do not violate ethical standards.

The essence of the sixth principle is as follows: ethical is the tolerant attitude of the employees of the organization to the moral principles, traditions, etc. that take place in other organizations, regions, countries.

According to the eighth principle, individual and collective principles are equally recognized as the basis for developing and making decisions in business relations.

The ninth principle reminds us that we should not be afraid to have our own opinion when solving any official issues. However, nonconformism as a personality trait should be manifested within reasonable limits.

The tenth principle is no violence; "pressure" on subordinates, expressed in various forms, for example, in an orderly, command manner of conducting an official conversation.

The eleventh principle is the constancy of the impact, expressed in the fact that ethical standards can be introduced into the life of the organization not by a one-time order, but only with the help of ongoing efforts on the part of both the manager and ordinary employees.

The twelfth principle - when acting (on a team, on an individual employee, on a consumer, etc.), take into account the strength of possible counteraction. The fact is that, recognizing the value and necessity of ethical standards in theory, many employees, faced with them in practical everyday work, for one reason or another, begin to oppose them.

The thirteenth principle is the expediency of advancing with trust - to the employee's sense of responsibility, to his competence, to a sense of duty, etc.

The fourteenth principle strongly recommends striving for non-conflict. Although the conflict in business area has not only dysfunctional, but also functional consequences, nevertheless, the conflict is a fertile ground for ethical violations.

The fifteenth principle is freedom that does not restrict the freedom of others; usually this principle, although in an implicit form, is due to job descriptions.

The sixteenth principle may be called the principle of facilitation; the employee must not only act ethically himself, but also promote the same behavior of his colleagues.

The seventeenth principle is: do not criticize a competitor. This refers not only to a competing organization, but also to an "internal competitor" - a team of another department, a colleague in which one can "see" a competitor.

Here are the basic principles of business ethics; the list of them can be continued, taking into account the specifics of the activities of a particular organization.

The principles of business ethics should serve as the basis for the development of each employee of any company of his own personal ethical system.

Personal ethical standards should be based on ethical principles inherent in this level of social development.

The work of ethical commissions of corporations should be based on the same ethical principles. Content ethical codes firms also originates from the principles of ethics.

“Whether you help someone or not, many of you will agree that helping is good. The vast majority of people have an innate sense of morality.

Morality is important as the basis of a positive attitude towards each other. We try to adhere to the rules of conduct that we have established for ourselves, which determine what can be considered decent or indecent.

For example, take a look at these examples of behavior - are they bad, and if so, why?

Clean the toilet with the flag of your country.

Have sex with a dead chicken.

Most people understand that this is wrong behavior, but it is not easy for us to explain why. Why does our moral compass point in this direction? Is it just a feeling or is there some kind of guiding force in our psychology? Is our moral compass the result of training or is it innate?

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, the author of these examples, believes that to some extent morality is an innate instinct. He found that people from different cultures have similar ideas about what is good and what is bad. He believes that all human communities rely on the same six moral principles.

Six moral principles

1. Care / harm. Our basic instinct is to feel for other people's suffering and not harm them. This moral postulate underlies altruism and helpful, caring behavior.

2. Freedom / oppression. Our sense of exchange rests on this moral principle; it defines our relationship to justice and individual rights.

3. Freedom / oppression . It is the consciousness that we have the right to freedom of choice and the opportunity to live not under the control or domination of another person.

4. Loyalty / betrayal. Patriotism towards family or community.

5. Authority / rebellion. Through this moral principle, we show reverence or respect for leaders or traditions. It is based on our hierarchical nature: some members of our community are given great power or special status.

6. Purity / holiness. A moral principle based on an instinctive aversion to contagion. The infection can be physical or more abstract - moral.

According to Haidt, these moral principles explain our attitude towards the previous two examples. The reason sex with a dead chicken is considered unacceptable is because it offends our sense of purity/holiness, as we experience both physical and moral disgust. It is wrong to clean the toilet with the flag of one's country, as it offends the sense of loyalty to one's community.

People often mistakenly accuse others of lacking moral principles. However, they may have no less moral principles than those who accuse them, but their attitude is based on other foundations. For example, a person who prefers casual sexual relations relies on his moral right to have freedom of choice; and the one who considers it wrong, relies on the principle of purity / holiness.

Main thought: Many human conflicts erupt due to the fact that people have different understandings of good and evil. For example, your partner believes that he has a moral right to freedom, so he returns home late; and you think that he should show devotion and spend the evening with you.

Louise Dacon, Psychology. How to understand yourself and other people, M., Pretext, 2015, p. 133-135.

METHODOLOGICAL LEVEL OF GENERAL

DEVALUATION OF MORAL VALUES -

DANGEROUS TREND OF MODERN CIVILIZATION

Our civilization is faced with the problem of preserving and reproducing universal moral foundations, which have seriously shaken in the modern society of general consumption, which exists according to the rule "take everything from life" and is built on the foundation of pragmatic success, the indicators of which are a high social and financial position, tasty food, holidays in prestigious resorts, varied sex, quality goods and services, high salaries, low loans ...

Consumer success of the liberal-globalist model, about which in question, does not correspond to the system of universal human values ​​of a traditional society, if measured on the scales of the principle of social justice and socio-natural harmony, and also take into account the Eastern maxim: "if there is Tao in a society, it is a shame to be poor, and if there is no Tao in a society, it is a shame to be rich ".

It seems that in our world Tao as an oriental principle of harmony in the socio-natural environment is completely absent, which turns society into a "society of the spectacle" (Guy Debord). About him in an ancient Chinese treatise " Tao Te Ching", compiled by Lao Tzu, the following is written: "When a state deviates from the laws of the great Way, hypocritical talk about "philanthropy" and "justice" begins in it. When discord reigns in the family, ostentatious "respect" and "tolerance" appear. When lawlessness and chaos flourish in a state, talkers appear who call for the observance of laws.

The leveling of the principle of Tao inevitably gives rise to social inequality times of "wild capitalism", undermining the spiritual and moral foundations of a just world order and escalating the process of dehumanization, which many researchers write about:

"Corruption, crime, lawlessness, fraud, general ignorance and bad manners, terrorism, theft, vandalism, human trafficking, homelessness, contract killings, hostage-taking, poverty, environmental disasters, a system of double standards, etc. like a cancer spread across At the same time, the number of highly cultured people is decreasing everywhere, there is an increase in contempt for reason, conscience and morality, the moral foundations of society are collapsing, patriotism, love for nature, animals and man as a whole are ridiculed, as highest achievement developing nature" (V.P. Popov, I.V. Kraynyuchenko).

"The agony of the consumer society inexorably dictates its conditions to the whole world. Every year these conditions become tougher, as the air and water in most of the planet become unsuitable for normal human life, the area of ​​​​forests and fertile soils, non-renewable resources are depleted. The situation is aggravated by the mass production of genetically modified food, new, artificially created epidemics. major man-made disasters, increasingly recurring forest fires. Everywhere observed growing and increasingly fierce struggle for markets and favorable living conditions" (E. Kislitsyna, L. Fionova, M. Shubin).

"The destruction of culture began, the destruction of morality, morals reigned, when it was necessary to "justify the good" and the crime ceased to be a crime. The most terrible predictions came true, and now we can only testify to unheard-of corruption and dehumanization ... "( Valentin Rasputin, "How many years will there be in the 21st century").

"The twentieth century has seriously abandoned humanistic values. Man "became a crowd of shame and disgrace" (G. Guattari), "dehumanized insignificance" (D. Orwell), "moral zero" (S. Bulgakov, S. Frank), "aggressive creature "(Z. Freud)," a sick beast "(M. Scheler, F. Dostoevsky, A. Gelen), a player with" a thousand faces "(J. Deleuze, K. Berg)," a small man with an unstable and destructive psyche " (W. Reich, E. Fromm), a "mad worker", choking on technical power and leading a dialogue with death (M. Heidegger, St. Lem, M. Blanchot)…

The mechanism of this process is still not completely clear, but it seems that the atmosphere of late capitalism, oppressive and destructive for the psyche of people (capitalism of consumerism, omnipotence of corporations, dehumanization, "capitalocracy", deindustrialization and speculation) is already affecting bodily processes. As in magic: where the information influences the physical" (B.G. Ushakov [V.I. Vernadsky…, 2013]).

Umberto Eco in his last book ("Pape Satan Aleppe") writes about the liquefaction (degradation, deconcentration, diffusion) of brains characteristic of Europeans, which is accompanied by the loss of Europe's deep foundations of "community" as centers of crystallization of knowledge and human self-awareness. objective circumstances.

It is artificially and fundamentally modernized: it is divided into clusters, standardized, digitized and put on wiretapping, recording and subsequent ban in the direct (moral-political and physical) and in the figurative (virtual) sense...

Cult of the LGBT movement, homosexual families and marriages, freechild, development of the institution of surrogate motherhood, sexual "education" (corruption) of children in early age and other technologies for promoting a "new" family, social and educational policy are aimed specifically at making the mass person lose the ability to self-preservation, uncontrolled reproduction and struggle for offspring" (Vladimir Lepekhin, 2016).

As Erich Fromm wrote, "Any society that denies love is doomed to destruction ... capitalism denies love, reducing it to commodity-money relations" you to me, I to you ". And therefore it will inevitably be destroyed (though it will not be " creative destruction" by Schumpeter, rather it will be the "cleansing creation" of socialism). Our society must regain morality (not in its primitive traditionalist or bourgeois-philistine interpretation), otherwise it will be swept away by those who are not deprived of it. For example, Muslims, who, within the framework of their morality, often act flawlessly. Only through the acquisition of morality, the restoration of morality can one stop the self-destruction that our society has been suffering for the past twenty years. I prefer to look for the origins of this morality not in the past, but in the future."

METHODOLOGICAL LEVEL OF SPECIAL .

THREE VALUE PARADIGMS

There are two most fundamental behavioral matrices, or moral principles, opposed to each other: " man to man - wolf " And " man is man's friend, comrade and brother ".

First principle relies on a sufficiently developed and confirmed by many facts evolutionary theory, according to which in our world the strongest survive as a result of the struggle for existence. This applies not only to the natural, but also to the social history of our planet, which appears as a series of constant confrontations, wars and conflicts. The essence of this phenomenon was conveyed by Voltaire in " Poem about the death of Lisbon":

All beings, having accepted the laws of being,

Joylessly live and meet death, like me.

Here is a hawk stretched out over a dead victim,

He celebrates, covered in blood, his fierce feast:

Everything is good for him; but soon, in turn,

On a hawk, an eagle is overthrown from the heights.

The eagle is smitten with lead, the weapon of man;

And man, in the fields where Mars rules from eternity,

Among the heaps of the dead, pierced, prostrate,

It becomes, alas, the prey of birds of prey.

Thus all the members of the universe groan and mourn;

Everyone oppresses each other, born for suffering.

And in this chaos you strive to create,

Combining all troubles in unity, grace?

What a blessing! O mortal, dust of the earth!

Everything is good, you scream, but, muffling your tears:

You are caught by the world and by your own soul

He refuted his fruitless argument a hundred times.

According to second principle in human society, the law of mutual support and cooperation prevails, and the evolutionary process is realized not as a result of the struggle for existence, but as an altruistic process of mutual assistance (P.A. Kropotkin), when the weak, sick and unadapted to life survive and prosper.

This conclusion can be supported by the following maxim: if this were not so, if only the strongest survived, then humanity would have degraded long ago, since the most talented and brilliant people, as generally quite unadapted and non-pragmatic beings, would be rejected. As a result, humanity would lose momentum for progressive development.

Let's take a closer look at these two principles.

The first principle according to which "man is a wolf to man" is based both on many historical facts and on the events of recent times, which make us all perplexed and ask the sacramental question: why in our civilization, boasting of myriads of cultural and technical achievements, are many of both "civilized ", and the most inhuman forms of oppression of man by man, for example, slavery in its most monstrous form, unknown to slave traders of past centuries, when not only man, his vitality, the body with its internal organs, but the human consciousness itself is in the full ownership of modern slave owners?

Second principle It is illustrated by many opposite facts that testify to the triumph in our world of the principle of mutual assistance and cooperation as the most reasonable and rational. Let's take a look at some of these facts.

In 1974, the philosopher and psychologist Anatoly Rappoport from the University of Toronto expressed the opinion that the most effective manner of communication between people is: 1) cooperation; 2) exchange; 3) forgiveness. In other words, if an individual, structure, or group collides with other individuals, structures, or groups, it is best for them to seek an alliance. At the same time, the law of reciprocity is also especially important, which means the symmetrical interaction of people, when we pay people with what they pay us: for example, if they helped us, we have every reason to return help with the same intensity with which this help was given to us.

In 1979, mathematician Robert Axelrod organized a competition between autonomous computer programs that could react like living beings. The only condition was that each program must be provided with a means of communication and must communicate with its neighbors.

R. Axelrod received fourteen diskettes with programs sent by his colleagues from different universities. Each program offered different behaviors (in the simplest - two options for the course of action, in the most complex - hundreds). The winner had to score the most points.

Some programs tried as quickly as possible to start exploiting a neighbor, stealing points from him and changing a partner. Others sought to act alone, jealously guarding their achievements and avoiding contact with those who could steal them. There were programs with such rules of behavior: "If someone shows hostility, you need to ask him to change his attitude, then punish him." Or: "cooperate, and then suddenly treacherously betray."

Each of the programs has repeatedly come into conflict with each of the competitors. A. Rapaport's program, armed with the SWOP behavior model (Cooperation, Mutual Exchange, Forgiveness), came out the winner. Moreover, the SWAP program, embedded in the midst of other programs, initially lost to aggressive neighbors, but subsequently not only won a complete victory, but also "infected" others, as rivals realized that its tactics were most effective in earning points.

This information is confirmed by the peculiarities of interaction in the animal world. In the 60s of the twentieth century (France), a horse breeder bought four very good, frisky gray horses, very similar to each other, but their character was terrible.

As soon as they were together, they began to quarrel; it was impossible to harness them together, since each horse tried to run in its own direction. The veterinarian came up with the idea to place the horses in four adjacent stalls and attach toys to the common partitions: wheels that could be turned with their faces, balls that rolled towards the neighbor from a hoof strike, various bright geometric objects suspended on ropes. The veterinarian regularly changed horses so that they all got to know each other and started playing together. A month later, the four horses became inseparable; from now on, they not only allowed themselves to be harnessed side by side, but seemed to perceive work as new game [Werber, 2009, p. 133-134].

In fact, first behavior matrix("survival of the fittest") implements the principle individualism, egocentrism, self-sufficiency .

While second behavior matrix("people tend to help each other") expresses the principle collectivism, conciliarity, humanity .

The question arises as to Which principle is more true?

According to the cornerstone law of dialectics - the law of unity and struggle of opposites - nature and the social world are built on the principle of dynamic binary oppositions, which, in the process of struggle and unity of opposite principles and tendencies, act as a driving mechanism for the development of the Universe. This development invariably reveals a change in the states of unity and struggle in the development of each system. Therefore, both of these states (unity and struggle) are equally important for nature and society.

However, the change of these states on the evolutionary landscape necessarily implies the third - neutral state , in which the first two pass into each other.

Based on this, we can talk about three fundamental modes of socio-natural being:

1) unity and collectivism;

2) plurality and individualism;

3) integrity and integrity, in which the states of unity and plurality integrate, reconcile and pass into each other.

These modes generally correlate with three types of ethical norms corresponding to three stages in the development of a cultural and historical subject, about which P.A. Sorokin wrote:

ideational (supersensible) ethical norms are embodied in the canons of New Testament Christianity: "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal ". “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, give thanks to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you.
"Therefore, be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 9-14).

Or: "an act will always be good when it represents a victory over the flesh; it will be bad if the flesh has conquered the soul, and it will be indifferent if neither one nor the other" [Kropotkin, 1991, p. 290]. The ethical systems of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, that is, almost all world religions, are also in the forerunner of these norms.

sensual ethical standards: "Maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. The highest goal is pleasure. Let's eat, drink, be merry, because tomorrow we will be gone. Wine, women and song. Follow your desires while you are alive ... Life is short, let's enjoy her."

idealistic ethical standards (synthesis of the two above ethical systems): " Complete happiness man cannot be anything other than a vision of the divine essence (Thomas Aquinas, " Sum of theology"); "... as far as possible, one must rise to immortality and do everything for the sake of life, corresponding to the highest in oneself" (Aristotle, " Nicomachean ethics"). "In the conviction that the soul is immortal and capable of enduring any evil and any good, we will all keep to the higher path and observe justice in every possible way, along with rationality, so that while we are here, we will be friends to ourselves and the gods ... and in that thousand-year wandering ... you will be fine "(Plato," State") [Sorokin, 1992, p. 488-489].

The above three cultural-axiological types of the social system (sensual, supersensory (ideational) and intermediate between them - idealistic) correspond to three mental modes of a person - right-, left-hemispheric and "central, intermediate"; within the framework of the latter, the functions of the hemispheres of the human brain are synchronized.

These three mental dimensions of a person can also be correlated with three forms of comprehension of being - sensual, rational and meditative. [Urmantsev, 1993], that is, right-, left-hemispheric and their functional synthesis. The latter takes place in a state of meditation, where, as evidenced by encephalographic studies, functional synchronization of the hemispheres is observed, that is, the hemispheres act as a single whole. .

The considered arrangement of essential forces in the Universe ( unity - plurality - wholeness ) is realized in three slogans of the Great French Revolution as one of the most essential and fundamental socio-historical practices of mankind: freedom equality Brotherhood .

It is easy to see that freedom corresponds to individualism, equality to catholicity, and brotherhood to integrity. Wherein it is on the basis of fraternal relations that opposites are reconciled - freedom and equality.

Applied to social systems brotherhood assumes that all people, being brothers and sisters to each other, come from a single divine source, that is, they were created by God.

Materialists invariably come to this conclusion, too, since the evolutionary rule that mankind descended from one pair of people - male and female - suggests the presence of some kind of divine principle that created these first man and woman.

The dialectical law of binarity requires that in order to implement the second principle - humanity and conciliarity- requires the presence of the opposite principle - individualism and egocentrism. This conclusion can be illustrated by the words from the apocryphal Gospel of Philip, which says: "Light and darkness, life and death, right and left are brothers to each other. They cannot be separated from each other. Therefore, the good are not good, and the bad are not bad, and life is not life, and death is not death. Therefore, each one will be torn at its core from the beginning. But those who are above the world are unbroken, eternal." [Svintsitskaya, 1981, p. 228].

Reconciling these two opposite principles (freedom and equality) is the principle of brotherhood, which, as we have shown, has a divine nature.

Thus, in order for the principle of humanity and catholicity to be possible and gain vitality and universality, and not be only a temporary and transient mode of socio-natural being, which from time to time must be replaced by the opposite principle of individualism and egocentrism - for this this catholic state must be immersed in the state of the Divine, in which all and all opposites are reconciled. Therefore, only in the sphere of Divine reality, which presupposes faith in God and following His commandments, does the principle of humanity acquire an absolute meaning and turn into an absolute life value.

Outside the Divine, which acts as the absolute beginning of being, all its opposite aspects appear as relative and replacing each other in the process of the evolutionary formation of the Universe and the unfolding of its forms.

In the absolute sphere of the Divine, not only humanity, but also individualism become absolute values, when humanity is realized as absolute love, and individualism as a free personal beginning of a person identical only to itself. Note that the last value is free personality - acts as a cornerstone condition for the existence of a person, because if he is not free, that is, he is a biorobot, then everything life values and principles lose their meaning (N.A. Berdyaev).

So, in the sphere of the Absolute (Divine), the conciliar and individual principles of socio-natural reality coexist with each other without conflicts and contradictions, when all people (collective) and one person (individual) mutually support and determine each other: "one for all and all for one ".

As we see, on the above philosophical reasoning allows us to outline the essence of humanity as a conciliar principle, which is realized in a state of human immersion in Divine reality.

Therefore, the principle of humanity in its most complete and fundamental embodiment is realized as the principle of Divinity, and man and humanity at their core reveal the divine nature. That is, to be human means to believe in God.

Based on the analysis carried out, it is possible to resolve the specific problem of social conflict, which is one of the most important causes of somatic and spiritual pathologies of modern man.

***

This is an excerpt from articles A.V. Wozniuk "How moral principles are possible"

Each person is capable of different things. There are rules that are established by the inner convictions of people or the whole team. These norms dictate the behavior of an individual and the unwritten laws of coexistence. These moral frameworks, located within a person or a whole society, are moral principles.

The concept of morality

The study of morality is a science called "ethics", related to the philosophical direction. The discipline of morality studies such manifestations as conscience, compassion, friendship, the meaning of life.

The manifestation of morality is inextricably linked with two opposites - good and evil. All moral norms are aimed at maintaining the first and rejecting the second. It is customary to perceive goodness as the most important personal or social value. Thanks to him, a person creates. And evil is the destruction of the inner world of a person and the violation of interpersonal relationships.

Morality is a system of rules, standards, beliefs that is reflected in people's lives.

A person and society evaluate all events in life through the prism of morality. Politicians pass through it, economic situation, religious holidays, scientific achievements, spiritual practices.

Moral principles are internal laws that determine our actions and allow or do not allow us to cross the forbidden line.

High moral principles

There are no norms and principles that are not subject to change. Over time, what seemed unacceptable can easily become the norm. Society, mores, worldviews are changing, and with them the attitude to certain actions is changing. However, in society there are always high moral principles that time cannot influence. Such norms become the standard of morality to which one should strive.

High moral principles are conditionally divided into three groups:

1. Internal beliefs completely coincide with the norms of behavior of the surrounding society.
2. Right actions are not questioned, but their implementation is not always possible (for example, rushing after a thief who stole a bag from a girl).
3. The implementation of these principles can lead to criminal liability when they are contrary to the law.

How moral principles are formed

Moral principles are formed under the influence of religious teachings. Of no small importance are hobbies for spiritual practices. A person can independently add up moral principles and norms for himself. Parents and teachers play an important role here. They give a person the first knowledge about the perception of the world.

For example, Christianity carries a number of restrictions that a believing person will not cross.

Religion has always been closely linked with morality. Failure to comply with the rules was treated as a sin. All existing religions interpret the system of moral and ethical principles in their own way, but they also have general norms (commandments): do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not commit adultery, do not do to another what you do not want to receive yourself.

The difference between morality and customs and legal norms

Customs, legal norms and moral norms, despite the seemingly similarity, have a number of differences. The table shows several examples.

Sometimes legal norms are absolutely identical and repeat moral ones. A great example is the "don't steal" principle. A person does not engage in theft, as it is bad - the motive is based on moral principles. And if a person does not steal because he is afraid of punishment, this is an immoral reason.

People often have to choose between moral principles and law. For example, stealing some medicine to save someone's life.

Permissiveness

Moral principles and permissiveness are cardinally opposite things. In ancient times, morality was not just different from the current one.

It would be more correct to say - it was not at all. Its complete absence sooner or later leads society to death. Only thanks to the gradually developing moral values, human society was able to go through the immoral ancient era.

Permissiveness develops into chaos that destroys civilization. Moral rules should always be in a person. This allows not to turn into wild animals, but to remain rational beings.

IN modern world a vulgarly simplified perception of the world has become widespread. People are thrown into extremes. The result of such differences is the spread of radically opposite moods in people and in society.

For example, wealth - poverty, anarchy - dictatorship, overeating - hunger strike, etc.

Functions of morality

Moral and ethical principles are present in all spheres of human life. They perform several important functions.

The most important is educational. Each new generation of people, adopting the experience of generations, inherits morality. Penetrating into all educational processes, it cultivates in people the concept of a moral ideal. Morality teaches a person to be a person, to perform such actions that will not harm other people and will not be done against their will.

The next function is the evaluation function. Morality evaluates all processes, phenomena from the position of uniting all people. Therefore, everything that happens is considered as positive or negative, good or evil.

The regulatory function of morality lies in the fact that it is she who dictates to people how they should behave in society. It becomes a way to regulate the behavior of each individual person. How a person is able to act within the framework of moral requirements depends on how deeply they have penetrated his consciousness, whether they have become an integral part of his inner world.