The concept of morality

1. The concept of morality, its constituents
2. Primitive forms of morality
3. Morality and tradition

1. The notion of morality, its constituents
Etymologically the term morality» comes to the Latin word «mos» (set «mores»), which indicates the «character». Another meaning of the word — the law, rule, order. In contemporary philosophical literature on moral ethics course, a special form of social consciousness and a kind of public relations, one of the main ways to regulate human actions in society by means of rules.
Morality arises and evolves based on the needs of society to regulate the behavior of people in different areas of their lives. Morality is one of the methods available to people understanding the complex processes of social life. A root of the problem is to regulate relations between morality and interests of individual and society.
Moral ideals, principles and rules of any representations from people about justice, humanity, good, public goods, etc. The behavior of people who meet these representations appear moral, opposite — immoral. In other words, the moral that, in the opinion of people in the interests of society and individuals. That brings the greatest benefits. Naturally, these presentation varied from century to century, and besides, they were different in various layers and groups. Hence there is morality in the specificity of different professions. All of the grounds to say that morality has historic, social class and professional nature.
Broad field of morality, but nevertheless richness of human relations can be reduced to relations
• individual and society;
• individual and collective;
• the staff and the community;
• staff and staff;
• man and man;
• Rights to herself.
Thus, the decision of questions of morality entitled not only collective but also individual consciousness moral authority of someone depends on how correctly he understands the general moral principles and ideals of society and reflected in their historical necessity. Objectivity and exactly grounds allow self-identity, as his own consciousness, to accept and implement technical requirements, make decisions, develop rules of life for themselves and evaluate what happens. Here, mouth problem ratio will and necessity. The correct determination of the general grounds of morality does not mean an unequivocal withdrawal of his specific moral norms or principles, and direct passage of the individual «historical trend». moral activity includes not only performance, but creativity and new norms and principles, being more all meets modern ideals and ways of their implementation.
Aimless search for the exact determination of the essence of morality, it tried unsuccessfully to do even in antiquity. You can only mark a basic framework of concepts that «make» this science
• moral activity — an essential component of morality, which manifests itself in deeds. Act, or set of behaviors characterizing individual behavior gives an idea of its true morality. Therefore, only activities and realization of moral principles and rules allow individual right to recognition in her true moral culture. Deed in turn contains three components
1. Motive — morally conscious motivation to do or act the same motivation — a set of motives, which means the advantage of certain moral values in the choice of the individual committing an act. For example … Two friends, employees oxygen plant, sat in the evaporator. Standing hot summer. One said «Good to ostudytysya out!». Another quickly turned the shutter, resulting in what he said was frozen alive that broke pairs of oxygen …
It would seem that in this case no direct intentions to commit an offense and the criminal result here does not match the motives and goals of action. Here the motivation is seemingly made by inadequate actions. It acts rather be called bezmotyvnym but «zhornutist reasons», his situational conditionality does not mean his absence. This impulsive action was not criminal purpose and proper motive, but this worked stereotypical willingness to act carelessly, thoughtlessly, under the influence of some isolated representations …
2. The result — material or spiritual implications of actions that have specified values.
3. Rating surrounding, both the act and its outcome and motive. Rating deeds produced in correlation with its social significance its value for a particular person, persons, group, society, etc.
So, not every act this action, but action is motivated by subjective, that is for someone so audacious and value to a specified ratio (estimate). Act can be moral, immoral or pozamoralnym, but, nevertheless, that irreparable. For example, … raise the unit to attack morally, but if the attack will lead to irrational and senseless death, that this should not only immoral but criminal.
• Moral (moral) relationships — relationships in starostas come people doing things. Moral relations are subjective dialectics (motivation, interests, desires) and objective (norms, ideals, good luck) with which accounted considered, and for individuals who have an imperative character. Entering the moral relationship, people impose on themselves defined moral obligations and at the same time impose a moral law.
• moral consciousness — involves cognition, knowledge, motivation and volitional decisive influence on moral and ethical activity relationships. It also includes moral identity, moral self-image. Moral consciousness always axiological, because each of its element, it concludes with the assessment position produced by the system of values and based on a certain set of moral norms, patterns, principles, traditions and ideals. Moral consciousness as a system of assessments with signs or plus or minus, reflecting the reality in the light of approval and condemnation, by contrast good and evil, and related activities, intent — these categories in questions of ethics are paramount. Aristotle, for the first time in European ethics fully considered the concept of «intention» is understood as the reason for his virtue and consciously opposed, distinguished from the will and representation («Nykomahova Ethics, Book III, r.4, 5, 6, 7). The intention is not right that cannot be done, and directed that the man in power, it concerns a means to achieve the goal (you cannot say I’m going to be blessed) as opposed to the will of all that can deal with the impossible ( desire immortality, for example) and send that out of our power (desire wins a particular competitor in the race), the purposes of man. Kernel ideas of Aristotle, according to which the concerns of intention and the will — the objectives of human activities, is that content going to be, as a rule, the implementation of goals, real, taken in unity with the means to achieve them. The intention is also not present. The first is always practically oriented, yields in the world just what people in power, the second extends to all the everlasting, and the impossible and the first differences between good and evil, second — validity and falsity and the first indication is to act, says what to pursue and what to avoid, what to do with the subject, the second examines what the subject itself and how it is useful and the first praise when it agrees with debt, second — when it is truly; first concerns what is known, the second that we do not know. In addition, completing his comparative description of Aristotle, the best intentions and the best representation not found in the same people. Own a significant sign of intent Aristotle sees is that it is preceded by pre-selection, weighing motives under which he first understands the different role of reason, that motivates and pleasures «It is something that is elected to other mostly.

2. Primitive forms of morality
morality society
The main social function of morality, which determines the specificity of social being — a feature of the regulation of human behavior and interpersonal relationships.
No society could be a motivated and be a chaotic clash of selfish interests blind sat, no normalized and not regulated. This hypothetical situation of zero ordering society-tion of life British philosopher T. Hobbes (1588-1679), described as «bellum omnium contra omnes» («the war of all against all» — Lat.). Intolerance of such a state of society makes people, according to Hobbes, UC fins between a kind of agreement, the social contract that, on the basis of reciprocity, limiting the right of every individual, thus must ensure implementation of these bases among them, especially the right to life and its protection (which implies the emergence of state and law).
However, before the idea of Hobbes social contract thinkers put forward late antiquity, in the XVI century. we find it in the Netherlands sociologist and lawyer G. Greece (1583-1645), later it developed such prominent thinkers as J. Locke, Spinoza, Kant, J.J. Rus co. This idea reflected the belief in the immanence (internal prytamannosti) social life of people of certain forms of its legal regulation.
In fact, we see that in the initial team of human mu as it zoomed past the general biological determinants of behavior — instinct stud ity for species conservation, maternal instinct — begins to branch out and approved by a proper regulatory system of regulation of life is such that one way or another appeal to the human awareness bridge. Buying sometimes in their specific manifestations already quite sensible nature, these initial behavioral norms are however examples of zhorstokosti such integrity and comprehensiveness of pressure on the individual who spoke in a human like we hardly find in all the subsequent history of mankind. In not making these rules syncretic (nerozchlenovano to future separation) combined influence of magic, custom, myth, and that in later times was called the morality — not in vain in the literature sometimes refers to «mononormy» initial zhyttyeustroyu.
A striking example of such «mononorm is in produc society on the family system of prohibition — taboo or tabuatsiya (with Polynesian). The fact that modern researchers know about the phenomenon of taboo that gives reason to see it complicated, but the entire complex representations, based on — a categorical prohibition of certain actions and intentions aimed at the «inviolable» objects that excite the sense of mortal terror threat — and yet reverence, charm, if not zvablyvost.
As far as we can judge, taboos were associated primarily with the prohibition of incest — sexual relations between relatives, and the cult of totem — the sacred animal, whose name is now called himself a family. With the development of primitive mankind appear more and new kinds of taboos, if only to bring them into the list, he would have consisted of one thousand prohibitions. Among the most important groups of taboo can cite the following fire protection and housing, protection of labor operations, protection of implements and weapons, protection of important people — leaders, priests, protection of weaker members of the tribe — women, children, the elderly, protection from hazards associated with touching the corpse, restrictions on consumption of certain foods; ban tion and limitations related to certain important documents and personal life phases (initiation, sexual intercourse, childbirth, marriage, monthly, etc..) protection of property and so on.
We can assume that the entire set of similar taboos in general satisfy the need to protect important elements of life activity of the descent group. While explaining tion origin of particular forms tabuatsiyi sometimes extremely difficult. Thus, a critical issue in the history of the original remains the problem of morality tabuyuvannya incest. Stimulating tion values of the categorical prohibition is no doubt — thanks to advances in understanding her relatives all system links achievements ing greater harmony and cooperation within the tribal community, finally, overall growth is against this backdrop of human consciousness speak for themselves. But why was the ban introduced herself? Hypotheses of this there are many, but doubtless among them yet. If, say, out of ideas about the dangers of blood mixing for generations, how could it know about the original people for whom a mystery link between intercourse and childbirth? Currently there are psychoanalytic, semiotic, economic tic economic (as a woman fighting for labor), and other explanation for this truly a turning point in the history of human morality. Perhaps, however, that here we are faced with the limit at which the social and cultural history of morals interfere with the more general anthropological and existential factors.
In any case in the making of specific forms of moral regulation appears very important mechanism of action tabuatsiynoyi ban. On the one hand, the ban has on humans comprehensive and inevitable way. Z. Freud in his book «Totem and Taboo» describes the case when lighter maoriyskoho leader once led to the deaths of several people from his tribe. Governor lost his lighter, and the men found her and began to use it. When they found out who it is lighter (and all things taboo leader), he died of horror. There are many similar examples. Yes, a healthy person could die suddenly died, he learned that the leader had breakfast food, etc..
On the other hand, it is essential immanent nature of punishment for violations tabuatsiynoyi ban. A person can not punish anyone, without any outside interference, even when there are no witnesses of its «horrible» act, she, so to speak, an open yetsya for punishment depressed, seriously ill, sometimes, as we see, and dies. In this peculiar attribute of the mechanism of the ban, taboo easily recognize a prototype for future autonomous morality.
Of course, pure morality in early societies did not exist, as there was no pure art, pure philosophy or even religion pure, pure spirituality in general — ruled magical syncretism. Yet ing all of human history was the original post accumulation behavior of elements and attributes which subsequently formed dug qualitatively specific phenomenon of morality care for the elderly, children and women, a kind of discipline of labor and cooperation, a culture of human relations, the established system education, including moral. Paleolinhvistyka shows that in the ancient stone mu age (Palaeolithic) people have an idea of the good, duty, conscience, and some other basic mo by spectral category. Thus, in the language tasmaniytsiv — people who lived under the Paleolithic in the previous century, until he was cut off colonizers — even though that language had only a few words already present terms «good», «bearcat», «shame» and others.
Significant «peredmoralni» moments (or, more precisely, those that include some moral content, which gradually vyokremlyuyetsya) peculiar, as we have seen, and the development of primitive forms of behavior regulation human rights.
However, with its own morals as a special social phenomenon and its inherent forms of normative regulation, we begin to deal with later, when de kladayetsya original syncretism of human existence and, in particular, the ancient «mononorma» gives way to diferentsiyovanym arranging and regulatory influences of civilization is born. It is com development of economy and trade, consolidation of new social and economic principles that blew shut ing traditional rodopleminnyh groups form own social status and class, the emergence state owes, strengthening and catalysing these processes — you need in the formation of qualitatively different ways to regulate human life, not only related to tribal or tribal center.
When such a need arises (for southern Europe it is mainly the late Neolithic and Bronze Age — the end of III — Beginning and millennium BCE.) — In the life of human society significant changes occur. The concentration of religious and magical functions of certain items of social time and space liberates space for the deployment of rational-secular operation us-tion of human behavior. In this last area there and confirms the right, ie the system of social norms and relations, the observance of which is provided by the power and authority of the state. As we know from history, the first systems of law we formed usually by the selection and approval of the traditional, spontaneously formed customs (customary law), mandatory religion and hiynyhtions. Subsequently, however, in the process of law are increasingly beginning to manifest its own specific quality, custom system signs. Along with the law stands, acquires specific features and moral.
As is typical just for moral as tion of specific forms of regulation of human behavior?
In search of answers to this question our attention primarily on the existence in a civilized society of two fundamentally different forms of normative regulation, which complement each other — regulation and institutional pozainstytutsiynoyi.

3. Morality and tradition
Recall that morality and law is represented, from spectively, pozainstytutsiynu and institutional forms of pul regulation of human behavior, in this way they are here and discussed. However, as institutional regulation is not only legal — in fact, its at typical example can be any valid authority in society tion, that somehow the rights and obligations of its members — and morality are not the only pozainstytutsiynoyi regulation mechanism. Essential to clarify the specifics of morality as a social phenomenon arises in this regard compared to the same pozainstytutsiynoyi this form of regulation of human behavior, as custom.
Like morality, customs also made spontaneous in the life of concrete human communities. Com but with the right morals and traditions most deeply rooted in the original syncretism in ancient history. (We cannot say the original law, but the primitive customs — entirely.) This custom, although it is not always realized, is the most profound and mass-ing form of regulation and our present life — in most cases, speaking with people, selling their goals, etc., we act, but not special pondering over this, just as it zave proved, as usual for us and those around us. This applies to both daily and holidays, celebrations and more. Only faced with extraordinary situations and problems, all sorts of surprises, we have mo retreat from the ordinary — customary — and look for nontrivial gauge routes, including in the field of mo rally.
Given this, vporyadkovuyuche custom value in public life really difficult to overestimate — as well as the importance of traditions, habits established spoke in a human speech and thought someone, uniting our Seg tion with the historical experience of mankind. Destruction Us customs supposed to be able, as the rich social and cultural history of disasters tour of the XX century.,-A painful process that leads to primitivization and expansion of relationships, generating chaos and confusion. No wonder today so acute the revival of customary structures of human existence — is, so to speak, the bread of morality, without which it is — even to the highest operational its manifestations — can not exist.
However, paying tribute to the customs, we will weigh all the same and the fundamental difference of morality. If the attempt to formulate happen most common custom of the principle itself, he, as outlined in the literature, would require do so, as do all! Following custom, and I act as diady similar circumstances my grand-grandfathers, as are my neighbors and friends. You pravdannyam or justification of any act there is a certain precedent and formed his expectations what should be entirely due to the fact that was and is that the usual, routine.
In contrast, the morality based on some other principles of man she needs do so, as must all do! So, before you do something, I very first ask ourselves not how behaved like to place on my neighbor or my great-grandfather, and of things in this situation requires me to my duty. Thus, morality in comparison with custom Tipova introduces the principle difference between suschym and proper, between what was and is and what it should be. Precedent for it is no longer the final justification of any act or Held ing from it. As noted creator ethics katehorych foot imperative Kant, even if I knew the history of mankind no one has yet fulfilled its duty properly, it would not relieve me from the necessity Nosta its own duty — to do , do it here and now. After all, this moral need not depend live on empirical relations and precedents that I can see the past but only on the internal requirements of the mandatory areas as such.
It follows that the whole sheer, all moral human being can not accept because of the very fact of its availability only in the world. Moral point of view comes from the fact that the very existence and even repeat something over the centuries is not evidence of that so it should be, an old injustice, even osvya Chen manner of justice have not yet become with the proper moral position be convicted as well as the injustices committed yesterday or today. With that said it follows a radical difference and complementarity of custom and morality in public life. The Power of custom — a powerful foundation that cements, strengthens the existing system of human existence and relationships, provides sustainability in its functioning. As for morality, it can strengthen the role of this custom, if, based on its own criteria, considers the status quo justified and appropriate. If not — Revolutionizing morality appears as a factor that opposes the conservative habit and to overcome it.
On whose side is truth in this ancient custom of dispute and morals?
If not confined narrowly traditionalist or, conversely, moralistic point of view, and try to look at wool cause wider — we have to recognize what happens in different ways. In many specific cases, right, of course, has morals, and her condemnation of certain practices should be considered as evidence of their historical conclusion. Thus, in condemning the blood tion of revenge, human sacrifice, slavery mo ral, of course, was right, this confirmed the rightness of its next human development. And now we often profit from the experiences junction with the moral condemnation of the ancient customs and the recent past, the rationale is sad that can be used no.
However, it is obvious that the customs and emerged yut not scratch. No matter how archaic or absurdnymy they sometimes seem, one should consider that they have accumulated life experience and wisdom of many generations — the experience and wisdom that is not always open briefly, not very insightful look of man, immersed in their own urgent problems of today .
Therefore, in the moralistic critique of certain customs, which is age-old traditions, we should, in general, be careful not to rush, as they say, together with water and vyhlyupuvaty child. Condemning, say, the customs associated with the affirmation of inequality articles, inhuman humiliation of women, is it worth it, as we often see today, make this campaign equalizing up to the absurd limit, which lost itself cultivated for centuries antropokulturnyy image of femininity — and hence people feel less and less incentives to develop their own men of virtue?
Unlike the field right here, between tradition and morality, clear, predetermined criteria for differentiation be, of course, can not — solve all our ability to comprehend each particular case, our tact and sense of proportion, which is gen scrap some of the most important the cultural formalities capable person.

One of the conditions of moral choice is the variability of behavior, ie the presence of a range of objective opportunity to compare and give preference to certain actions, and consciously determine the meaning of his life, that is a subjective ability to choose.
Thus, during the detailed consideration of this issue is becoming more difficult, because not fully elucidated What is the opportunity and ability to choose and which character they are — objective or subjective. Depending on the answer to this question is determined and the position of the philosopher, thinker about human nature and its place in the world
In philosophical and ethical works of human nature dealt primarily with the position of specific properties — mental activity, which was perceived as a primary characteristic of a certain man, and man — as a winner in his expression. Human Morality in this case is integrally connected with her mind and is perceived as something natural, and freedom — as the existing property of every human individual.
Individual human life bears the imprint of some «zadanosti certain ethnic environment, its customs and traditions of the era in which he lives, cultural values, even before any data selection from her childhood.
Thus, in the everyday practice of a person facing a specific, real existing natural conditions of life, social and economic factors, the existing culture.
These conditions in many respects determine the range of interests, aspirations and needs of people, a number of possibilities to choose the person directly and concrete meaning to its activities, the standards and criteria by which it assesses their behavior, their life path.