Moral culture. Basic functions of morality
Such qualities as non-conflict and the ability to forgive, the ability to empathize, understand and accept differences in opinions and views, in behavior and goals are very important for people. Do you know that they all make up the moral culture of the individual?
In strict scientific language, the moral culture of a person is the development of social moral experience and the manifestation of important moral principles in their own behavior and communication. To put it simply, moral culture is manifested in the fact that a person controls himself and his emotions in any situation and his actions do not violate the rights of other people. It recognizes and respects their right to be different, different from each other and not meet expectations. He is pleasant to others, remaining himself, without flattery and pretense.
Politeness, a sense of tact and proportion, benevolence and, at the same time, ease of behavior and the preservation of one's nature - this is the real moral culture of the individual. And it’s not enough to know the generally accepted rules and etiquette, here you still need intuition and common sense, which will tell you how to act more correctly in this or that case, while maintaining your dignity and culture of behavior.
This is especially necessary in a situation of conflict, because in disagreements and disputes, in communication, the moral culture of a person is manifested, or vice versa, its absence. Often, many of us behave intemperately and rudely, make hurtful remarks and pry into our own business, act tactlessly towards other people. There is a lack of self-control and that very culture - and it necessarily implies that behavior must be conscious.
Therefore, the moral culture of communication is always a connection between the internal culture of a person and his external behavior during the dialogue. Our values, principles, ideals influence how we manifest ourselves in friendship and love, teamwork and communication. But this does not mean that an unsociable and reserved person is immoral. Sometimes in unsociable people a spiritual and sympathetic nature is hidden, ready for help and self-sacrifice. And always active bright people inside may be deeply dishonorable. Therefore, the formation of the foundations of the moral culture of the individual is not memorizing the rules of etiquette and ostentatious good breeding. But the internal acceptance of moral values and the development of their own, among which the most important is respect for other people and their freedom.
This moral value has become so significant precisely in the conditions modern society in which the equality of people and their rights become the most important, and violence and humiliation of another's dignity is condemned. Today, a person should be able to control himself and his impulsive impulses, listening more to his mind than to emotions, especially destructive ones.
Modern moral culture encourages every person to develop and go towards their goals, acting deliberately and without causing discomfort to other people, without interfering in their lives and their decisions.
However, it cannot be said that our society has already become highly moral. Unfortunately, aggression and lack of spirituality, violence and rejection of other people's opinions are not uncommon. And this the main problem modern moral culture. If all people would strive to develop and improve themselves, stop deceiving and hypocrisy, being indifferent and intolerant, they would create an unusually successful and prosperous society. Alas, this has not yet happened.
But social norms have already formed, important values already accepted by society. The rest is up to each of us: to become a reasonable and independent person who consciously manages himself and his life, effectively and with dignity behaves in complicated and contradictory situations and makes the world around him better.
The words "morality", "morality", "ethics" are close in meaning. But they originated in three different languages. concept "ethics"(from the Greek ethos - temper, character, custom) was introduced 2300 years ago by Aristotle, who called "ethical virtues" the qualities of a person manifested in his behavior: courage, prudence, honesty, and "ethics" - the science of these qualities.
concept "morality"(from lat. mores - temper, custom) was introduced by Cicero by analogy with the concepts introduced by Aristotle. concept "moral"(from Russian temper) has been used since the 18th century as a synonym for the first two.
Today, these concepts are used as synonyms, but have shades of meaning:
· morality, morality- values, principles, norms that determine human behavior;
· ethics a) the principles themselves (for example, medical ethics); b) the science of them (the science of morality, morality);
concept "morality" can be used with a negative assessment (for example, misanthropic morality); concept "moral"– only with a positive assessment.
Moral culture is a set of values and norms that regulate the relationship between people in their daily lives.
The main aspects of moral culture- these are 1) values and 2) regulators (norms). Values- what the ancients considered ethical virtues (justice, honesty, diligence, patriotism). Moral (moral) regulations- rules of conduct, focused on these values.
In every culture there is a certain system of universally recognized regulations that are considered mandatory for everyone. Such regulations are called moral norms. There are 10 of them in the Old Testament - the "commandments of God" written on the tablets. In the New Testament - 7.
Moral values and regulations are closely related. Any rule implies the presence of the value to which it is directed. For example, honesty is a moral value, the regulative “Be honest” follows from it.
The most important feature of morality is the finality of moral values and the imperative nature of moral regulations. The goal of morality is an end in itself, the highest, final goal, which cannot be a means to achieve other goals. Therefore, it is impossible to answer the question "Why strive for moral values?". Imperative means obligatory, obligatory to fulfill.
Main sociocultural functions morality:
1. Motivational function. Moral principles (values, norms) motivate human behavior as the reasons for any actions. As a result of education and self-education, attitudes are formed in accordance with which a person does what he should and does not do what he should not do. Therefore, when evaluating a person's act, we evaluate a) its result, the act itself; b) his motive. On the basis of the first and second, the personality itself is evaluated;
2. Constitutive function (from lat. constitus - established, established) affirms the leading role of morality in culture. "The ethical is a constitutive element of culture," wrote A. Schweitzer. Moral values and norms are the main, leading, central in any culture, priority compared to other aspects of culture. Therefore, the criteria of morality are decisive in assessing the achievements of science, politics, art;
3. Coordinating function (follows from the previous one): morality ensures unity, coherence of actions, community of people in a variety of situations. The basic moral principles are of a universally valid nature.
The process of moral development of the individual, the formation of moral culture takes place in 3 stages:
1) Elementary Morality. It is characterized by regulation from the outside. The main motive for moral behavior is fear, fear of punishment for violating norms. The level of morality depends on who gives instructions, instructions;
2) conventional morality. It is also based on external moral regulation, but there is also the development of one's own ideas about good and evil. Conventional morality is oriented towards public opinion. Moral demands are perceived as necessary for fulfillment; there is no critical attitude towards them. A person follows the rules not because he accepts them as binding on himself, but in order to look "good" in the eyes of others. The main motives of moral behavior are shame and honor;
3) Autonomous Morality. It arises as a result of the internalization of public opinion. It is autonomous, as it does not depend on the opinions of other people. Personality makes good deeds not because she will be praised, rewarded or condemned, but because they arise from an inner need ("I can not help it"). The main motive of moral behavior is conscience. Shame is an expression of responsibility towards other people; conscience is in front of you.
Morality types:
1) Hedonism- ethics of pleasure. A variety of hedonism is eudemonism, the ethics of happiness (for example, Don Juan). Rigorism- the ethics of duty. The highest moral principle is duty.
2) selfishness(ego- I ) - ethics of life for oneself. From the point of view of an egoist, the good is that which corresponds to the interests of the person himself. Altruiz m(lat. alter - another) - the ethics of life for others.
3) Individualism- recognition of priority personal interests before the public, the autonomy of the individual, non-conformism. Collectivism - dependence on the team, subordination of their interests to the public, conformism.
4) The ethics of struggle is the ethics of cooperation. This typology was introduced by V. Lefebvre.
Basic principles fighting ethics:
1. allow a compromise between good and evil, if it can later be useful for good;
2. the end justifies the means; those. if the end is good, immoral means may be allowed;
3. intransigence, orientation to the struggle in relations with people who take a different position: "Whoever is not with us is against us", "If the enemy does not surrender, he is destroyed";
Basic principles ethics of cooperation:
1. compromise between good and evil is unacceptable; every deviation from good is condemned;
2. the end does not justify the means; it is impossible to use "bad" means in the name of a "good" goal;
3. Relations between people should be dominated by an orientation towards cooperation, even if they hold different views.
5) Men's ethics - women's ethics. It is due to differences in the requirements for gender behavior of men and women.
Basic principles of modern moral culture:
1. "Golden Rule" of morality . Historically, the first notion of justice is the talion, which is based on the idea of equal retribution. Talion regulated relations between clans. With the collapse of the family around 500 BC. (China, India, Greece) being nominated" Golden Rule morality": "Do towards others as you would like them to do towards you." Unlike the talion, the "golden rule" regulates relations between individuals - it is more fair, since it proceeds from the recognition of the equality of people;
2. Moral autonomy of the individual - the conquest of modern times. The principle of autonomy implies a) respect for a person, b) his self-respect, c) responsibility for the consequences of his actions, d) freedom in choosing his behavior;
3. Humanism, which is understood as a) philanthropy, concern for his happiness and well-being; b) rejection of all forms of violence against a person; c) equality of people, social and natural human rights to life, freedom, health protection, spiritual development etc. The beginning of the ideas of humanism in European culture was the Renaissance.
human history- a contradictory process, where there is a lot of evil and violence against a person. However, the development of humanistic relations is the only way further development humanity.
Literature
1. Karmin A.S. Culturology. culture social relations[Text] / A.S. Karmin. St. Petersburg: Lan, 2000. - 128 p.
2. Ethics: Textbook [Text] / Under the general editorship of A.A. Huseynova and E.L. Dubko. – M.: Gardariki, 2004. – 496 p.
2.5 Political culture
Politics - area human relations and interactions about power. IN this case power is understood as the highest, sovereign power in society, which belongs to the state.
Political culture is a set of regulations and values that determine the participation of people in political life.
Political culture is formed in society under the influence of socio-economic conditions that give rise to people's need for power to ensure order in society, protect the life and property of citizens, their rights and freedoms. That power is the state.
The political culture is determined by the peculiarities of the national culture. And any state power is stable as long as it enjoys the support of the people.
Political culture is expressed in political behavior. There are different types of political behavior . So, M. Weber distinguishes:
1) politicians on occasion- they are all people, because they participate in elections, rallies and demonstrations, less often - in riots, revolutions; they are especially numerous in turning points stories;
2) "part-time" policies- more or less active members of parties, proxies of deputies, members of advisory bodies. But politics is not for them the main business of life, either materially or spiritually;
3) "professional politicians"- people for whom political activity is the main life occupation: representatives of state power, party functionaries, public figures. M. Weber also divides them into those who:
a) lives "at the expense of politics", that is, for them politics is a profession and a source of income;
b) lives "for politics", that is, they see the meaning of their life in the implementation of political ideas.
Functions of political culture:
1) it forms the attitude of people to the existing power. Power is recognized as legitimate (legitimate) when it causes positive attitude of people. Legitimation of the existing power is the main task of politics;
2) it determines the political organization of society, that is, its state structure. The state may be:
By its structure: unitary and federal;
By form of government: monarchy or republic.
The political organization includes not only the state structure, but also the entire system of political relations in the country, various non-state social forces: parties, political movements, movements, election blocs, the media, trade unions; religious, youth and other associations of citizens.
Types of political culture are determined in accordance with the typology of legitimate power proposed by M. Weber. M. Weber allocate 3 types of power :
1) traditional, based on the belief in the sacredness of existing customs;
2) charismatic power based on the belief of people in the special, extraordinary qualities of the ruler, given to him by nature or fate, by God;
3) legal power based on a rational system of legal norms.
Accordingly, allocated 3 types of political culture :
1) Legal culture of the traditional type: traditional power is considered legitimate. This type of power is characteristic of patriarchal societies. Society is likened to a family, where the ruler is the father, and the subjects are the children who must love him and obey unquestioningly. The level of freedom is extremely low, as is the level of political activity;
2) Legal culture of a charismatic type: charismatic power is considered legitimate. The ruler has indisputable authority based on faith in his supernatural abilities. It is characteristic of transitional eras and is based, like the first, on personal relationships. The main source of laws is the ruler, who is often deified and becomes the object of a sacred cult (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Napoleon, Gandhi, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, etc.);
3) Legal culture of legal type: legal authority is recognized as legitimate. Management is carried out with the help of a bureaucratic apparatus. Power is impersonal, since it does not belong to a specific person, but to positions that are elective. characteristic of modern societies.
There are two models of legal culture, which correspond to two kinds political regimes - totalitarian and democratic.
1) totalitarian model (from lat. totalitas - integrity, whole), her traits:
concentration of power in the hands of one person - the leader of the ruling party;
fusion of the party apparatus with the state,
non-legal nature of the state;
Use of administrative-command methods of management;
total state control over all spheres of society, including the private life of citizens;
Lack of political pluralism, unanimity;
· the great importance of ideology, which acts as a "quasi-religion", substantiating the legitimacy of power;
lack of freedom of speech, censorship of the press;
restriction of the rights and freedoms of the individual;
dominance of collective interests over personal ones;
the priority of ideological values over all others;
the supremacy of politics over economics;
xenophobia (hostile attitude towards everything alien);
Lack of personal initiative, initiative, etc.;
2) Democratic model, its features:
controllability of the state power to the population;
electivity and turnover of state power;
the legal nature of the state;
political pluralism, a variety of political organizations;
· separation of powers;
· the interests of the individual dominate the interests of the state;
freedom of speech and press;
high social activity of the masses;
Limiting state intervention privacy citizens, into the life of civil society, etc.
Literature
1. Weber M. Politics as a vocation and profession [Text] / M. Weber // Weber M. Selected works. - M., 1990.
2. Karmin A.S. Culturology. Culture of social relations [Text] / A.S. Carmine - St. Petersburg: Lan, 2000. - 128 p.
3. Malkova T.P., Frolova M.A. Weight. Elite. Leader [Text] / T.P. Malkova, M.A. Frolova. - M.: Knowledge, 1992. - 40 p.
2.6 Legal culture
Law is a specialized sphere of culture, in which the content and purpose of the activity of all subjects is to ensure social order and the protection of human rights through laws.
Law in its meaning in the life of society is close to morality, as it regulates the behavior and relations of people, but
Morality is older, arose long ago; law arises together with the class stratification of society and the emergence of the state;
· Compliance with legal norms is controlled by public authorities, is mandatory, and their violation must be punished. Morality is not of such a coercive, obligatory character;
Morality is the "internal" regulator of human behavior; law - "external", state.
Nevertheless, law must be subject to moral requirements: good laws are laws that do not contradict morality established in society.
Legal culture is a complex of regulations and values on which the legal order that actually exists in the country is built.
The first legal documents in the world that arose at the dawn of civilization were the laws of King Hammurabi, carved on basalt pillars and including 282 articles (XVIII century BC); in India - "Laws of Manu", including 2685 articles written in rhythmic prose (I century BC). First legal documents based on the idea talion- the punishment should be equal to the crime ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"). Ancient law bears the features of class stratification, serves to protect wealth and property. The extreme cruelty of punishments is characteristic: chopping off the head, drowning, impalement, self-mutilation.
A significant step in the development of legal culture was made in antiquity, especially in Ancient Rome. Laws are based on the principle of equality of all free citizens before the law. There are different areas of law: civil, administrative, criminal, family. The process is regulated judicial trial. Roman law formed the basis of European law.
Functions of legal culture:
1. legal culture determines the nature and forms of legislation existing in the country;
2. conditions the actions of the authorities, i.e. their attitude to the laws they create, observance of laws and control over the observance of laws by the population;
3. determines the legal behavior of the population, i.e. determines the extent to which the citizens of the country know the laws, observe them, enjoy their rights and fulfill their duties.
Accordingly, in the legal culture there are 3 main aspects:
I. Legislative culture, which is currently being built in accordance with the following principles:
1) the principle of social justice (punishment must be commensurate with the crime);
2) the principle of equality (equality of all citizens before the law);
3) the principle of protecting the rights of the individual (protection of the rights of the individual from encroachment by the state);
4) the principle of unity of rights and duties (there are no rights without duties, and vice versa);
5) the presumption of innocence (every person is considered innocent of anything, unless proven otherwise).
II. legal culture of power: executive, legislative, judicial power must act in the interests of the people, the people, the entire population of the country, and not in their own interests.
Basic requirements for the legal culture of power:
laws should be created and changed in accordance with the needs and interests of the people ;
The authorities are obliged to strictly maintain law and order ;
· Punishment must be inevitable and rehabilitating (an ideal that is still unattainable in modern society).
III. legal culture of the population - the most important component of legal culture. If the legal culture of the population is low, then the authorities a) either allow permissiveness, leading to mass disorder; b) or forced to resort to the use of force, terror.
Requirements for the legal culture of the population:
1. Respect for the law. The lack of such respect is a characteristic feature of the legal culture of the population in Russia, which is reflected in the well-known Russian proverb "The law that draws - where you turn, it went there." Distrust of the law, due to all the features of national history; the lack of rights of the individual, its subordination to the interests of the state, the lack of human dignity - features of the legal culture in Russia;
2. Law Knowledge. You need to know the laws because
a) ignorance of the laws does not exempt from responsibility, and knowledge can help not to commit a crime;
b) a person who does not know the laws may be a victim of deception, fraud by other people;
3. Appeal to the law. It is necessary to resolve conflicts that arise between people within the framework of the law, and not through threats, scandals and other means. For example, in modern Western countries Every middle-class family has its own lawyer. "Contact my lawyer" is the first reaction of a person who is confronted with the legal authorities. There are currently over 700,000 lawyers in the United States, and suing someone is a fairly common occurrence for the average American.
Literature
1. Karmin A.S. Culturology. Culture of social relations [Text] / A.S. Carmine - St. Petersburg: Lan, 2000. - 128 p.
2. Obolonsky A.V. The drama of Russian political history: the system against the individual [Text] / A.V. Obolonsky. – M.: Lawyer, 1994. – 352 p.
At present, there is a wide and growing interest in a deeper philosophical understanding of culture. At the same time, we are aware that culture is not relative, not situational, that it cannot be tied to any current social or political interests, but expresses the very essence of humanity, is a factor in the development of a humane society.
I believe, I am sure that many also believe that the culture of the individual is entirely based on his moral culture in the very broad sense. Moral culture implies both respect for tradition, generally accepted patterns of behavior, and the ability to find one’s own, creative solution. In those cases when we are faced with "eternal" problems, universal situations, such as birth and death, illness and health, youth and old age, love and marriage, it is very important to listen to tradition, to act in accordance with etiquette. This is how life is built. And on how high the level of culture of society, its development and progress largely depend.
Moral culture is represented by the subjects of society and their relationships. It includes: a) signs and elements of the culture of moral consciousness of the subjects of society; b) culture of behavior and communication; c) a culture of moral deeds and activities. Moral culture correlates with other types of culture of the material and spiritual life of society, but above all it is opposed to the antipodes of morality: evil, inequality, injustice, dishonor, lack of dignity and conscience, and other antimoral phenomena.
In terms of content, moral culture is the development of moral consciousness and worldview of the subjects of society; the unity of the morally proper and the morally existing; manifestation in the system of behavior, communication and activity of the norms of goodness, honor, conscience, duty, dignity, love, interaction, etc.; implementation of life on the principles of humanism, democracy, diligence, social equality, combination reasonable selfishness(dignity) and altruism, peacefulness.
Moral culture is also the effectiveness of the moral regulation of people's lives, the complementarity of moral and legal regulation, adherence to the "golden rule of morality", the rules of etiquette.
Everywhere there are talks and many are even convinced that public and personal morality is currently experiencing a severe crisis. There are many things to worry about. And the growth of crime, and social injustice, and the collapse of the ideals that served as the official pillar of morality. It is quite obvious that moral culture cannot be any high if social system inefficient, ignoring the requirements of justice and common sense.
There is a need to make adjustments to the relationship between people through moral culture, which is a factor in the development of a reasonable society, becoming more and more obvious every day.
Our consciousness has a way of direct impact on the material world. This, as they sometimes say, is a manifestation of the triumph of thought over matter. The great Russian physiologist I.P. Pavlov said: "Man is the only system that is able to regulate itself within wide limits, that is, to improve itself." It is important to note here that much depends on us.
If we want our civilization to survive, it is necessary to prevent such incidents as soon as possible. That is why our duty, our sacred duty is to create a new idea of ourselves and consciousness through moral culture, so that, guided by this new model in practice, humanity could not only survive, but find itself on a more perfect level of being.
Of course, the cracks in the moral culture of society are obvious, so, in my opinion, the moral culture of communication can serve as an example, faced with various misunderstandings between people when communicating almost every day.
The moral culture of communication presupposes the presence of moral convictions, knowledge of moral norms, readiness for moral activity, common sense, especially in conflict situations.
Moral communication is an expression of content and level spiritual appearance personality.
The moral culture of communication is a unity of moral consciousness and behavior. This often requires selflessness and self-control from a person. And when it comes to the Motherland, patriotism, a sense of duty, then the ability of self-sacrifice.
The moral culture of communication is divided into: 1) internal and 2) external.
Internal culture is moral ideals and attitudes, norms and principles of behavior, which are the foundation of the spiritual image of the individual. These are the spiritual foundations on which a person builds his relationships with other people in all areas. public life. The internal culture of the individual plays a leading, determining role in the formation of the external culture of communication, in which it finds its manifestation. The ways of such manifestation can be diverse - the exchange of greetings with other people, important information, establishing various forms cooperation, friendship, love, etc. Internal culture is manifested in manners, ways of addressing a partner, in the ability to dress without causing criticism from others.
The internal and external culture of moral communication are always interconnected, complement each other and exist in unity. However, this relationship is not always obvious. There are many people who, behind seeming unsociableness, some secrecy, reveal a spiritually rich personality, ready to respond to your request, provide assistance, if necessary, etc. At the same time, there are such individuals who, behind an external gloss, hide their miserable and dishonorable essence.
There are many examples in life when for some people the outer side of communication becomes an end in itself and is actually a cover for achieving selfish and selfish goals. A variety of such behavior are hypocrisy, hypocrisy, conscious deceit.
Recognition of the value of a person is closely related to the specific assessments of people entering into communication. Many of the difficulties that arise in the process of communication are generated by the discrepancy between the self-esteem of the individual and its assessment by others. As a rule, self-esteem is always higher than the assessment of others (although it can be underestimated).
The holy fathers said: a person is formed from childhood, even from the womb, and not when he finishes school. And now Special attention should be given to education in our school, it is the main institution that gives education young generation. Alas, the school has now lost its educational moment, it gives only the sum of knowledge, but we must remember that at the school bench it is decided not only whether a young person will learn to count and write, but also how he will grow up. How he perceives the world, how he treats his neighbor, how he evaluates all actions.
Therefore, even from the school bench, it is necessary to conduct moral conversations with children. Starting from the age of two, the child enters the scope of moral norms. Knows what is good and what is bad. First, adults, and then peers, begin to make sure that he observes certain forms of behavior. If you inspire a child that it is necessary to take care of those who need it, to help a person who is in pain or grief, we can safely say that the child will grow up caring, understanding the pain and grief of others. This does not require any special techniques and methods, you just need to demonstrate more often. positive examples. Moral conversations teach you to see the advantages and disadvantages of your own behavior and the behavior of others in everyday life and in in public places(on the street, in transport, in the store); learn the concepts of "fair - unfair", "fair - unfair", "right - wrong"; form a "code of honor", the ability to act fairly, to subordinate their desires to common interests.
Fairy tale - the first piece of art, which allows the child to experience a sense of belonging to the grief and joy of the heroes, to hate greed and treachery, to passionately desire the victory of good. The fairy tale expands the moral experience of the child.
The future of Russia is formed on the school bench. Naturally, everything affects morality: the press, the family, the school, and even just a random passerby. Therefore, the entire responsibility for morality in society does not lie with someone alone. You can't say that one Orthodox journalist can affect morale. If one person writes that
There are not enough good, moral topics on television and a lot of things that destroy the soul, bring some kind of confusion, temptation. Television should have a creative force, help build our state, and build it strong. And a strong state cannot be without morality, without faith, without love for the Fatherland and neighbor.
Religion and morality are closely linked. Religion is impossible without morality, and morality is impossible without religion. Faith without works is dead. Only demons believe with such faith (they believe and tremble). True faith (living, not dead) cannot exist without good deeds. Just as a naturally fragrant flower cannot but be fragrant, so true faith cannot but bear witness to good morality. In turn, morality without a religious foundation and without religious light cannot exist and will certainly wither, like a plant deprived of roots, moisture and sun. Religion without morality is like a barren fig tree; morality without religion is like a cut down fig tree.
culture moral life society
The world of culture is traditions and rituals, these are norms and values, these are creations and things - all that can be called the being of culture. Personality as a creator and bearer of culture is exceptionally multifaceted. It can be characterized from the point of view of its moral and aesthetic culture, the measure of its psychological maturity and intellectual development, from the side of its ideological positions. But in all the richness of the culture of the individual, one can single out its system-forming axis, which is the moral structure of the individual. Morality is the core of spiritual culture. The structure of the moral culture of the individual includes the culture of human consciousness and the culture of everyday behavior. The culture of moral consciousness and behavior should be considered as an integral system of elements expressing the objective social necessity for the consistent formation of such a culture of moral consciousness that would be adequately embodied in behavior. In turn, the culture of moral behavior is a form of the objectified culture of moral consciousness. This feature of moral culture is explained by its single "goal", "mission", which consists in the formation of "moral reliability" of the individual. The unity of the culture of moral consciousness and behavior ensures that the individual masters the moral culture of society and the practical implementation of this culture.
Process moral formation personality includes such elements of purposeful influence on it as ethical education - the formation of knowledge of the individual in the field of moral activity; ethical training - the formation of skills in the field of moral activity; moral education and self-education - the formation of moral attitudes, value orientations of the individual, etc.
It is on the basis of the unity of these factors that the formation of the moral culture of the individual develops its moral wisdom as the unity and harmony of knowledge of moral requirements - and their embodiment in actions, the ability to find the optimal noble solution, and a penetrating moral feeling, unique personal experience life, and the main wealth of the moral culture of society.
In the culture of human consciousness, one can single out such elements as the culture of ethical thinking and the culture of moral feelings. The starting point in ethical thinking is knowledge about simple rules morality, norms and principles of morality, ideal. Indeed, in any case, before accepting the requirements of a given system of morality or culture as a whole, one must know them. Moral knowledge expands the scope of moral choice and makes the choice itself more justified. Based on the moral knowledge that a person has and comparing it with reality, he develops certain moral orientation, which represent a person's "own" characterization of good and evil, justice, the meaning of life, happiness, moral ideal, his "personal" assessment of facts, relationships, people, himself from the point of view of moral values. The role and importance of values in life and society cannot be overestimated. In this regard, we can agree with the well-known Russian scientist P. Sorokin, who rightly noted that without human assessments, "devoid of their significant aspects, all phenomena of human interaction become simply biophysical phenomena" and it is value that serves as the foundation of any culture. The criteria for ethical thinking of a person are, first of all, the optimal resolution of moral conflicts and the ability to choose means to achieve a certain moral goal.
Let us turn to the second component of the moral culture of the individual - the culture of her moral feelings, the emotional side of individual morality. The range of these feelings can be very wide: from a situational reaction to a personal insult to high civic sorrows and joys. They can be directed inward (feelings of shame, remorse, remorse, etc.) and outward (feelings of compassion, hatred, indifference, etc.).
Moral emotions and feelings play a special role in human communication. Here they are the highest value and goal. Communication devoid of emotional warmth cannot satisfy one of the highest, humanistic in its basis, human needs for "luxury human communication"(Exupery). However, the role of moral feelings in the structure of personality should not be absolutized, because they are not a panacea for all moral errors and immorality.
Dialectical unity, an alloy of rational and rational level in the moral structure of personality are beliefs. A guarantee of the moral reliability of a person is the confidence that a person, under any difficult or unfavorable circumstances, will not give up his principles. The content of moral beliefs depends on what ideas, knowledge and views are perceived by the individual.
The culture of everyday behavior of a person is made up of a culture of deed and etiquette. Etiquette is a ritualized form of human relationships in a particular environment, which has a class, national and historical coloring. Despite all the variety of etiquette forms, one can find in them something stable, representing enduring universal significance, namely: politeness, tact, modesty, accuracy, simplicity.
The culture of a person's act has a much more complex characteristic. All the diversity of human activity can serve as a way of manifesting a certain moral position personalities: facial expressions, gesture, speech, silence, clothing, etc. an act in the moral sphere is not identical with a physical action: an act can be a verbal action or simply avoidance of an action. There is always a motive in an action. Every action is mediated moral attitude person to another person.
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. His morality is determined by the way he thinks. 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 culture of feelings, the culture of behavior and etiquette.
Evolution modern man continues at the present time, since the socio-biological environment as an agent of selection is constantly changing. The main forms of selection operate in society: stabilizing, destructive, balanced and guiding. The transformation in the course of human evolution of biological prerequisites into a form dependent on the social process does not eliminate the natural foundations of man.
The formation of a future personality begins from early childhood and is determined by the most complex and interactions of circumstances that can not only contribute to its development, but also actively prevent natural and organic development, predetermining the tragedy of a person's being.
Games that parents impose on children are considered a means for their social development, actualize the problem - "the games that the child chooses, and the games that the child chooses."
The activity of the creator of culture - an artist, writer, musician, etc. - is directed not at the material, but at reality, the reality of life, at some event. Their works are created so that a person, through their work, can understand harsh reality or the beautiful unreality of our life, enrich your inner world and thereby become more cultured.
In my opinion, the main component of moral culture is cultural thinking, let's talk about this in more detail.
The culture of thinking as a certain level of human mental abilities largely depends on how mental activity of a person corresponds to the laws and requirements of logic. It should be emphasized that mastering the laws and requirements of logic to perfection is something without which a culture of thinking is generally impossible.
Culture of thinking - the highest level and quality of human thinking, determined by the conscious development of the personality of their ways of thinking that meet the requirements human culture. K. m. involves its organization, optimization and improvement. It represents the ability to optimally use intellectual knowledge, the scientific achievements of mankind, the logical sequence of thinking, its focus on solving problems. actual problems and tasks. K. m. presupposes the connection by the subject of the abilities of understanding, interpretation, explanation, proof (argument), reflection and dialogue. To develop a culture of thinking, a person needs constant intellectual work, activities to overcome the spontaneous, situational, stereotypical way of thinking.
A special way to implement the thought process as a cultural one is reflection, which combines organization, criticism and consistent construction of the content of mental activity.
The question arises: is it necessary to know a special theory in order to think correctly? After all, one can reason logically without knowing any theory, like little children who speak a language without knowing its grammar.
(The great German idealist philosopher Hegel remarked ironically that it is possible to digest food without knowing physiology.)
Indeed, many people follow logical laws involuntarily, instinctively, without even thinking, without even knowing about these laws. At the same time, they follow natural logic, for example, to eat and breathe, which gives them the illusion that thinking also does not need analysis and control. But if the task of a physiologist is to “teach a person how to eat, breathe, how to work and rest correctly in order to live longer”, then the task of logic is to teach a person to think correctly logically, not to make their own logical errors and find them in the reasoning of others.
From these judgments, we found out that logic is, for the most part, a culture of thinking. From this it follows that the culture of thinking, in turn, teaches a person moral culture.
Personality culture can also be characterized in terms of aesthetic culture. This can be considered on the example of the central link in the aesthetic consciousness of a person - aesthetic taste. Taste is usually understood as the ability of a person to intuitively comprehend and emotionally evaluate aesthetic and artistic values. There are two prerequisites for the formation aesthetic taste: psychological and sociocultural. The first includes the developed basic mental abilities of a person: emotionality, intelligence, imagination, fantasy, intuition. The underdevelopment of any of these prerequisites causes a distortion of taste. Aesthetic taste arises when a person is included in the context of human culture, aesthetic relations.
Therefore, a very important content side of taste is the standards assimilated by the individual, the cultural experience of society. The values assimilated by people turn for each person into original prototypes and criteria of perception, which are called aesthetic standards. Objective criterion taste - the ratio of personal aesthetic experience to the experience of society: the more fully the individual has mastered the experience of society, the more developed. In aesthetic experience, society has both classics, tradition, and actual experience with its innovation, therefore, a developed aesthetic taste is characterized by the development of both. Undeveloped taste is when a person absolutizes certain aesthetic or artistic values, their level, form and content, thereby impoverishing, excluding spiritual richness and diversity of aesthetic values.
The functional side of the state of taste is aesthetic needs.
There are three levels of development of aesthetic needs:
- 1. Initial - "sleeping taste", that is, the aesthetic need is in its infancy, so often a push is needed to develop needs;
- 2. Average, "normal", that is steady aspiration a person to the perception and experience of aesthetic or artistic values known to him;
- 3. Creative - the need to create something new aesthetic world. Creative taste is the highest level of development of aesthetic taste, the ability to see through the various forms of the world a new, previously unknown meaning.
Another relatively independent part that characterizes the cultural appearance of a person is the degree of development of her intellect. The intellect of each person is a rather complex formation. It is necessary to distinguish in it reason and reason. F. Engels noted that the mind operates according to a strictly defined scheme, algorithm, without awareness of the method itself, its boundaries and possibilities, while the mind seeks to go beyond the existing system, to push its boundaries.
Isolation of the rational and rational side allows you to better understand character traits rational sphere of human consciousness. The “duet” of the voices of reason and reason is a very important quality of a person’s thinking; the level of his intellectual culture largely depends on their interrelations. Thus, the main components of a person’s culture are: moral and aesthetic culture and intellectual development of the individual. All of them are interconnected and directly affect the development of the individual.
culture personality taste
Understanding the connection between morality and culture, or, more precisely, understanding the place and role of morality in culture, the meaning of what is called moral culture, depends not only on one or another interpretation of culture, but also on our ideas about what morality is. The latter is important, if only because in the Russian language and in domestic ethics two concepts are habitually used: “morality” and “morality”. And about the relationship between these two concepts of ethics, they are far from being expressed ambiguously.
Therefore, one has to choose one of the possible understandings. But not just “some”, but one that will better clarify the features of moral culture.
The meaning of both is generally the same, but the use of each of these terms shows some shades of meaning. The concept of “morality” emphasizes the normativity of morality, its social existence, moments of duty to a greater extent.
When using the concept of "morality", the individualization of morality, its individual existence, the realizability of norms, ideals, due in people's lives, in their actions, their consciousness and self-consciousness are more often emphasized.
In both cases, we are talking about the relationship of people to each other. And not about any interhuman relations, but about those in which “good” and “evil” are revealed: “... morality in general is value orientation behavior, carried out through the dichotomy (separation in two) of good and evil. Whatever concepts, relationships, actions in the sphere of morality, morality we take, - all of them, one way or another, are based on the ability of a person to distinguish between good and evil. Most relations in the sphere of morality are concrete modifications of the manifestations of good and evil in different aspects of life. Honesty is clearly good, and dishonesty is evil. The same with justice and injustice, decency and dishonesty, mercy and cruelty, etc. Shame, conscience express that a person has felt (realized) the significance of his deviation from the line of good. Evil is not a value, but good is often, and apparently correctly, considered the key moral value. Good is not an abstraction, but as an attitude realized in the thoughts, feelings, intentions and actions of people.
Speaking of moral culture, then it is natural to assume that the ennoblement, spiritualization of life is manifested through the realization of goodness in it in its various modifications. No matter how differently morality and, in particular, goodness are manifested and understood in general in specific cultures, ethnic groups, social strata, the absence of moral culture is still precisely the inability of a person to distinguish between good and evil, inability, and unwillingness to do good. This is a state in which the good still or no longer acts as a vital value for a person, as an effective value. In civilized societies, such a subhuman or monstrous state is practically impossible for either an individual or for social groups. Another thing is what is considered good and what is evil in each particular case? A civilized society requires at least a minimum of morality. Therefore, the question of the essence of moral culture is a question of its nature and degree, that is, its level. And the level of culture, including moral culture, is determined by what basic needs dominate in the life of a given person, a given group of people.
The lowest level of culture (below which, I repeat, a developed society does not allow either an individual or a group to fall) is determined by the fact that the main things in life are the needs (and values) of one’s own, so to speak, material-thing, existence and comfort. A person of this level knows that good is significant. In any case, good in relation to himself. That is, he knows the difference between good and evil. Moreover, he can behave accordingly, making a choice in life situations in favor of good. But not because doing good is his duty. And not because he is kind and wants to do good. And only because such is the external norm of behavior in relation to him, acting in this society, but to some extent familiar to him. And most importantly, because it will be better for him from a good deed, because it will be “counted”, either on earth, or at least in its post-earth existence.
The society in which such a person lives, by the existing norms of morality, rules of conduct, customs, always encourages good and tries to block manifestations of evil. Immorality (however understood) is condemned. And if a person is condemned where he lives and acts, then his life is more difficult. And for him, the conditions of his material and material security, the normality of relations, his peace of mind are very important. His own, but concerning the people who are directly connected with him: his parents, his wife, his children, his friends. Good and in relation to them is realized mainly in the sphere of material relations. To do good means to provide, clothe, shoe, feed, support financially. Of course, society requires from any person to some extent both honesty and justice.
A person of the lowest level of culture will be limitedly honest, decent, fair, but only insofar as it is useful for him. After all, if he is caught, let's say, in deceit, then they will be treated badly, and then his material and spiritual comfort will be in jeopardy.
A person of this level is not a monster, not a villain. Feelings of pity and impulses of mercy may also be characteristic of him. In the novel by M.
Bulgakov's “Master and Margarita”, Woland, characterizing the ordinary Moscow population, part of which gathered for a performance in a variety show, says about them: “Well, ... people are like people. They love money, well .... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts ... ordinary people...”. But pity and mercy and other moral movements of the souls of these people are unstable and often manifest themselves in a rude form, sometimes even insulting.
Because delicacy, tact are too subtle matters for them. A person is sure that if he took pity, showed mercy (in whatever form it may be expressed), the one who was pitied should be grateful. In general, the sense of duty of others towards oneself is developed at this level. But the sense of duty is limited. Firstly, in relation to whom, to what exactly a person has a debt. Usually we are talking about loved ones: father's duty, maternal duty, filial, daughter. Secondly, one's duty is limited by the line beyond which it begins to contradict the benefit, benefit, and self-interest. When a person of the lowest level of culture has a conflict between his duty and his benefit, the duty cannot stand.
Shame, conscience, as internal regulators of relationships and behavior, can manifest itself at this level of culture, but in a weakened form, and are relatively easy to overcome: "shame is not smoke, it does not eat eyes." They try to get rid of the torment of conscience one way or another. Or justifying themselves, looking for others to blame. Or even questioning the value of conscience itself. One of the heroes of
Wilde said that conscience and cowardice are one and the same, conscience is only a sign of a company.
Nevertheless, there is certainly some kind of moral formalization of relations, actions in a person of a lower level of culture. After all, he learned something from the achievements of civilization, somehow mastered the elementary manifestations of the culture of the society in which he lives. But talking about moral culture, in relation to this level, is problematic, because a person is, as it were, on the verge of culture and lack of culture. On this edge, moral hypocrisy is possible: in the form of excessive concern for the morality of other people and emphasized observance by the person himself of all the rules of decency, the simplest moral norms. And really only a minimum of morality is alive in this person.
Well, he observes the rules of decency, good manners. Well, he is not excessively cruel, or, if cruel, then allegedly fair and justified. He even happens to be kind in moderation. And if he violates some norms of morality, then it is not destructive for his society.
And of course there are violations. Behavior that is assessed as immoral, immoral, is characteristic of people of the lowest level of culture. This may not manifest itself in general, but in certain areas and moments of human relationships. For example, in sexual relations. Violations usually try to hide, hide.
If we are not talking about the townsfolk, but about the underworld, then it has its own ideas about good and evil, honor, decency, its own rules of moral behavior. Criminals, their groups and layers, in a peculiar way, but also realize a minimum of morality in relationships, being at the lowest level of culture, bordering on its complete absence. And the dominant of their vital needs is also their practical interest, their own benefit (with the exception of pathological cases).
On the whole, at the lowest level of culture, the moral culture of life appears as a kind of “formality”, “processing”, normalization of relations between people in terms of morality. This formalization is not quite stable, mainly external, always with a minimum of really moral content.
At a higher, next level, it is moral values that can act as the highest values of life and culture.
A person of this level is characterized by a developed moral consciousness. Both one's own behavior and the behavior of other people are morally evaluated. And most often these assessments are concentrated in one form or another of preaching a truly moral way of life.
Such a person actually strives first of all to do and in every possible way to affirm goodness, even through self-sacrifice.
The existing norms of morality are not external to him. If he accepts them, then with all his heart. But more important than the norms is a sense of duty in relation not only to relatives, relatives, but to all people. A person tries to be extremely honest with himself and with others, uncompromisingly fair. His mercy often takes on a wide scale, and it is sometimes so active that the one in respect of whom the act of mercy is performed becomes sick.
A person of this level of moral culture really sympathizes and tries to help others, but his care is sometimes too intrusive. With his own violations of morality (after all, he is also not an angel), his torments of conscience are extremely bright and strong. And he himself believes and it seems to others that for him the highest value is another person. But it is not so.
Because for him morality, ideal moral life moral duty is higher than any particular person. Hence, the position of non-resistance to evil by violence is also possible, in which it is important not to deviate from the ideals of good, even if evil also conquers other people (in life situation) are defenseless against him. In this case, at this level of culture, the absolutization of morality in general and concrete morality in particular is possible, and does take place. Norms, commandments, requirements, principles of morality are being absolutized. And there is an irresistible temptation to impose on other people certain type morality, which is considered universal, but in fact is characteristic only for a generation, layer, group. In general, the described level of moral culture is characterized by a bias towards the obligatory good. Civilization, refinement of intentions and actions of a person, their moral formalization - here it seems to be completely obvious. But it is also obvious that concentrating in the ideals of goodness (for granted!), the self-worth of a person turns out to be narrowed. Absolutized goodness, paradoxical as it may seem, can turn into evil from time to time: spiritual violence, self-violence, insensitivity, internal brokenness.
Only a full-fledged culture is characterized by the fact that the unconditional and highest value for a person is another person, and not truth, goodness, beauty. And this is not altruism.
The altruistic position rather corresponds to the already considered second level of culture. At the highest level, the affirmation of the other as the dominant value does not come at the cost of sacrificial self-giving. It's just natural. What is important here is not the conviction that it is necessary to do good, but the desire to do it and the ability to do it not in general, but in relation to a specific other person. In relation to morality, it seems to be about the same thing that is on the second level, about the dominant good in life. But at the third level, rigorism and preaching are completely absent. The attitude to the current normative morality allows for the possibility of its change. Attitude to violations of norms, rules. moral principles- cautious and selective, taking into account the originality of real situations. And the same goes for debt. Especially when it comes to assessing the actions of other people, communicating with them about their morality or immorality. A truly cultured person always remembers his moral imperfection, that the right to judge in the sphere of morality is doubtful. That in this area, more than in any other, is truly biblical: “And that you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but you don’t feel the beam in your eye” (Bible. Book of the New Testament. From Matthew. Ch.7.3). The main ones are delicacy, tact, which do not allow to offend another in vain with their supposedly moral superiority.
The mercy of such a person, his concern for others - is not burdensome, not offensive, most often simply invisible. At the same time, a person is more sensitive to his weaknesses, his violations of morality, than to when others do it.
To a considerable extent, he is tolerant of human weaknesses and knows how to forgive, because he does not consider himself and his morality perfect. A. Schweitzer wrote: “I must forgive everything infinitely, because if I don’t do this, I will be untrue towards myself and will act as if I am not as guilty as the other towards me.” And further: “I must forgive quietly and imperceptibly. I don’t forgive at all, I don’t bring it to this at all.”
In man top level less culture internal conflicts in terms of suppressing one's desires, inclinations, since he is moral at will. He does not oppose moral values (as allegedly higher) to other equally high values.
Such a person is not just moral, he is fully cultured.
Staying ordinary a normal person(not a saint), he does not avoid sin, immorality. After all: "A clear conscience is an invention of the devil." And he suffers, if he sins, strongly and for a long time. In general, he is often ashamed of himself and of others.
But his torment is internal, it is his torment, and they should not cause pain, or even inconvenience, to other people. He doesn't show them off.
Of course, delicacy and tact do not presuppose moral amorphism and inactivity. But the type of moral activity in the case under consideration is completely different from that on the second level.
It is for the highest level of culture that it is common to fight evil with the help of judgment not on others, but on oneself. And this is primarily to influence others. Of course, at this level there is also an active opposition to evil with manifestations of strength, courage, and fortitude. It is also possible that evil is condemned when it is resisted, when a person finds himself in moral opposition to the obvious anti-humanity of the intentions and actions of other people (fascism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc.). That is, this level is not characterized by the position of non-resistance to evil by violence.
The moral culture of the highest standard is not isolated from other spheres of culture. This culture is full-fledged precisely because truth, goodness, beauty are all in this case only different expressions of one thing - human humanity. And it must be defended.
