INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………… .3

Chapter 1. CONCEPT OF MORALITY …………………………………………… ..4

Chapter 2. SOURCES OF MORALITY …………………………………………… .9

Chapter 3. THE NATURAL SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MORALITY ........ 14

Chapter 4. MORAL PROBLEMS ………………………………………… ... 21

Chapter 5. APHORISMS ON THE TOPIC OF MORALITY ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………… 26

LIST OF USED LITERATURE ……………………………………… 28

INTRODUCTION

People have always felt in morality some strange, absolute power, which could not be simply called powerful - it surpassed all human ideas about the strength and power of reason.

G. Miroshnichenko

Morality is a purely historical social phenomenon, the secret of which lies in the conditions of production and reproduction of society, namely, the establishment of such simple truths that moral consciousness, like any consciousness, "can never be anything other than conscious being", that, consequently, the moral renewal of man and society is not only not the basis and the producing cause of the historical process, but itself can be rationally comprehended and correctly understood only as a moment of practical world-transforming activity, marked a revolution in views on morality, laid the foundation for its scientific comprehension. Morality in its essence is a historical phenomenon, it changes radically from era to era. "There is no doubt that at the same time in morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, in general, progress is being observed." However, being a secondary, derivative phenomenon, morality at the same time has relative independence, in particular, it has its own logic of historical movement, has a reverse effect on the development of the economic base, and plays a socially active role in society.

In a word, the secret of morality is not contained in the individual and not in herself; as a secondary, superstructure phenomenon, it leaves its origins and goals in material and economic needs and its content, as already noted, cannot be anything other than a conscious social being.

To reveal the specifics of morality, its internal qualitative boundaries, it is necessary to determine its originality within the framework of public consciousness itself. In the era of globalization of the economy, economics requires a natural-scientific substantiation of morality.

Chapter 1. CONCEPT OF MORALITY.

Having opened the “Great Encyclopedic Dictionary” on the word “morality”, we read: “morality” - see “morality”. And the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" says: "Morality is the rules of morality, as well as morality itself." Consequently, the identity of these concepts is assumed. It is interesting that the word "morality" is absent in the German language at all. "Die Moral" is translated as "morality" and "morality". Also, the word "die Sittlichkeit" (conformity to customs, decency) is used in two meanings (morality and ethics).

MORAL (from Latin moralis - concerning morals):

1) morality, a special form of social consciousness and the type of social relations (moral relations); one of the main ways of regulating human actions in society with the help of norms. Unlike a simple custom or tradition, moral norms are ideally substantiated in the form of the ideals of good and evil, ought, justice, etc. Unlike the law, the fulfillment of moral requirements is sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public assessment, approval or condemnation). Along with universal elements, morality includes historically transient norms, principles, and ideals. Morality is studied by a special philosophical discipline - ethics.

2) Separate practical moral instruction, morality (morality of the fable, etc.).

MORALITY is a regulating function of human behavior. According to Z. Freud, its essence is reduced to the limitation of drives.

MORALITY is a general tendency to behave in a manner that is consistent with the moral code of society. This term means that this behavior is arbitrary; one who obeys this code against his will is not considered moral.

MORALITY - is taking responsibility for your actions. Since, as follows from the definition, morality is based on free will, only a free being can be moral. Unlike morality, which is an external requirement for the behavior of an individual, along with the law, morality is an internal setting of the individual to act in accordance with his conscience.

MORALITY (moral) values ​​are what the ancient Greeks called "ethical virtues." Ancient sages considered prudence, benevolence, courage, and justice to be the main of these virtues. In Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the highest moral values ​​are associated with faith in God and zealous reverence for him. Honesty, loyalty, respect for elders, diligence, patriotism are revered as moral values ​​among all peoples. And although in life people do not always show such qualities, they are highly valued by people, and those who possess them are respected. These values, presented in their flawless, absolutely complete and perfect expression, act as ethical ideals.

The subject area of ​​the term morality includes 3 definitions:

PRE-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY - the first level of moral development in Kohlberg's theory, when a person follows the rules in order to avoid punishment and deserve a reward

CONVENTIONAL MORALITY is the second level of moral development in Kohlberg's theory, when special attention is paid to the implementation of the rules determined by the approval of other people ...

POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY is the third level of moral development in Kohlberg's theory, when moral judgment is based on individual principles and conscience.

MORAL (moral) regulations are the rules of behavior focused on the specified values. Moral regulations are varied. Each individual chooses (consciously or unconsciously) in the cultural space those of them that are most suitable for him. Among them there may be those who are not approved by others. But in every more or less stable culture there is a certain system of generally recognized moral regulations, which are traditionally considered obligatory for everyone. Such regulations are moral norms. It is clear that moral values ​​and ideals, on the one hand, and moral regulations and norms, on the other, are inextricably linked. Any moral value presupposes the presence of appropriate regulations aimed at it behavior. And any moral regulation implies the existence of a value to which it is directed. If honesty is a moral value, then the following regulation follows: “Be honest”. And vice versa, if a person, by virtue of his inner conviction, follows the regulation: “Be honest”, then for him honesty is a moral value. Such interconnection of moral values ​​and regulations in many cases makes it unnecessary to consider them separately. When talking about honesty, they often mean both honesty as a value and a regulation that requires being honest. When it comes to characteristics that are equally related to both moral values ​​and ideals, and moral regulations and norms, they are usually called the principles of morality (morality, ethics).

The most important feature of morality is the finality of moral values ​​and the imperativeness of moral regulations. This means that the principles of morality are valuable in themselves. That is, to questions, for example: "What are moral values ​​for?", "Why strive for moral values?", "Why should a person observe the norms of morality?" - there is no other answer than to admit that the goal for which a person follows moral principles is to follow them. There is no tautology here: simply following moral principles is an end in itself, i.e. the highest, final goal and there are no other goals that one would like to achieve by following moral principles. They are not a means to any outside of their underlying purpose.

MORALITY is a Russian word derived from the root "temper". It first entered the dictionary of the Russian language in the 18th century and began to be used along with the words "ethics" and "morality" as their synonym.

And yet we take the liberty of arguing that the concept of "morality" is different from the concept of "morality". By definition, morality is a set of unwritten norms of behavior established in a given society that govern relations between people. We emphasize - in a given society, because in another society or in another era, these norms may be completely different. A moral assessment is always carried out by strangers: relatives, colleagues, neighbors, and finally, just a crowd. As the English writer Jerome K. Jerome noted, “the hardest burden is the thought of what people will say about us.” Unlike morality, morality presupposes that a person has an internal moral regulator. Thus, it can be argued that morality is personal morality, self-esteem.

There are people who stand out sharply among their contemporaries for their high morality. So, Socrates was called "the genius of morality." True, this "title" was given to him by much later generations. And this is quite understandable: it is not for nothing that the Bible says that "a prophet cannot be mocked, only in his own house and among his relatives."

"Geniuses of morality" have existed at all times, but it seems that there are much fewer of them than other geniuses. For example, you can call such a genius of A.D. Sakharov. Probably, Bulat Okudzhava should be ranked among them, who responded to the immoral proposal of a high-ranking official like this: “I see you for the last time, and I will be with myself until the end of my days.” And what is remarkable - none of the truly moral people have ever boasted of their morality.

Some theologians and philosophers, for example Immanuel Kant, believed that a person has innate ideas about good and evil, i.e. internal moral law. However, life experience does not support this thesis. How else to explain the fact that people of different nationalities and religions sometimes have very different moral rules? A child is born indifferent to any moral or ethical principles and acquires them in the process of education. Therefore, children need to be taught morality in the same way as we teach them everything else - sciences, music. And this teaching of morality requires constant attention and improvement.

In Nietzsche's opinion, what the philosophers called the "justification of morality", which they demanded of themselves, was, in reality, only a learned form of trust and belief in prevailing morality, a new way of expressing it and, therefore, simply an actual position within a certain systems of moral concepts - even, in the end, a kind of denial of the very possibility and the very right to pose this morality as a problem - in any case, the complete opposite of research, decomposition, vivisection and criticism of this very thing.

And so, what is MORALITY - THIS is a defining aspect of culture, its form, which gives a general basis for human activity, from the individual to society, from humanity to a small group. The destruction of morality. leads to disintegration, disintegration of society, to catastrophe; change of morality. leads to a change in social relations. Society protects the established morality. through social integrators, through various kinds of social institutions, through the protection of cultural values. The absence or weakness of these mechanisms deprives society of the ability to defend morality. from distant and latent threats, which makes it vulnerable to unexpected dangers of disorganization, moral decay. This makes society morally and organizationally disorganized. Morality includes the possibility of a variety of moral Ideals associated with various options for the unity of the integration of society. In those cultures where the formation of the moral foundation is undergoing a prolonged crisis, where it is weighed down by schism, the moral aspect of culture is in constant agitation. In any culture, morality acts as a dual opposition, for example, as conciliar - authoritarian, as traditional - liberal ideals, etc. Transitions from one pole of opposition to another can be carried out through inversion, i.e. through a logically instantaneous, explosive transition from one pole to another, or through mediation, i.e. slow creative development of a qualitatively new moral content, new dual oppositions. The relationship between inversion and mediation at each stage has an exceptionally great influence on the formation of morality, its content. The impetus for a change in ideals comes from the growth of an uncomfortable state.

Chapter 2. SOURCES OF MORALITY

Human morality as a special form of human relations has evolved for a long time. This perfectly characterizes the interest of society in it and the importance attached to morality as a form of social consciousness. Naturally, moral norms varied from era to era, and the attitude towards them has always been ambiguous.

In ancient times, "ethics" ("doctrine of morality") meant life wisdom, "practical" knowledge about what happiness is and what are the means to achieve it. Ethics is a teaching about morality, about instilling in a person active-volitional, spiritual qualities that he needs first of all in public life, and then personal. She teaches the practical rules of behavior and the way of life of the individual. But are morality, ethics and politics, as well as art, sciences? Can the teaching of observing the correct norms of behavior and leading a moral lifestyle be considered a science? According to Aristotle, "all reasoning is aimed either at activity or at creativity, or at speculative ...". This means that through thinking, a person makes the right choice in his actions and deeds, striving to achieve happiness, to realize an ethical ideal. The same can be said for works of art. The master embodies the ideal of beauty in his work in accordance with his understanding. This means that the practical sphere of life and various types of productive activity are impossible without thinking. Therefore, they are included in the realm of science, but they are not science in the strict sense of the word.

Moral activity is aimed at the person himself, at the development of the abilities inherent in him, especially his spiritual and moral forces, at improving his life, at realizing the meaning of his life and purpose. In the sphere of "activity" associated with free will, a person "chooses" a person who conforms his behavior and way of life with a moral ideal, with ideas and concepts of good and evil, ought and existence.

By this, Aristotle defined the subject of science, which he called ethics.

Christianity, undoubtedly, is one of the most magnificent phenomena in the history of mankind when viewed from the aspect of moral norms. Religious morality is a set of moral concepts, principles, ethical norms, formed under the direct influence of a religious worldview. Claiming that morality has a supernatural, divine origin, the preachers of all religions proclaim thereby the eternity and invariability of their moral principles, their timeless nature.

Christian morality finds its expression in peculiar ideas and concepts of moral and immoral, in the aggregate of certain moral norms (for example, commandments), in specific religious and moral feelings (Christian love, conscience, etc.) and some volitional qualities of a believer (patience , obedience, etc.), as well as in the systems of moral theology and theological ethics. All of these elements together make up the Christian moral consciousness.

The main feature of Christian (as well as any religious) morality is that its main provisions are put in a mandatory connection with the dogmas of the doctrine. Since the "divinely revealed" dogmas of the Christian doctrine are considered unchanged, the basic norms of Christian morality, in their abstract content, are also relatively stable, retain their strength in each new generation of believers. This is the conservatism of religious morality, which even in the changed socio-historical conditions carries the burden of moral prejudices inherited from the past.

Another feature of Christian morality, arising from its connection with the dogmas of the doctrine, is that it contains such moral precepts that cannot be found in systems of non-religious morality. Such, for example, is the Christian teaching about suffering-good, about forgiveness, about love for enemies, non-resistance to evil, and other provisions that are in conflict with the vital interests of people's real life. As for the provisions of Christianity in common with other systems of morality, they received a significant change in it under the influence of religiously-fantastic ideas.

In its most condensed form, Christian morality can be defined as a system of moral ideas, concepts, norms and feelings and the corresponding behavior, closely related to the dogmas of the Christian doctrine. Since religion is a fantastic reflection in the minds of people of external forces that dominate them in their everyday life, to the extent that real interhuman relations are reflected in the Christian consciousness in a form altered by religious fantasy.

At the base of any code of morality there is a certain initial principle, a general criterion for the moral assessment of people's actions. Christianity has its own criterion for distinguishing between good and evil, moral and immoral in behavior. Christianity puts forward its own criterion - the interest of saving a personal immortal soul for an eternal blissful life with God. Christian theologians say that God has put into the souls of people a certain universal, unchanging absolute "moral law". The Christian “feels the presence of the divine moral law,” he just needs to listen to the voice of the divine in his soul in order to be moral.

The moral code of Christianity has been created over the centuries, in different socio-historical conditions. As a result, it is possible to find in it a variety of ideological strata, reflecting the moral ideas of different social classes and groups of believers. The understanding of morality (and precisely its specificity), and its ethical concept, consistently developed in a number of special works, was the most developed, systematic and complete. Kant posed a number of critical problems related to the definition of the concept of morality. One of Kant's merits is that he separated the questions about the existence of God, the soul, freedom - questions of theoretical reason - from the question of practical reason: what should I do? Kant's practical philosophy had a tremendous impact on the next generation of philosophers (A. and W. Humboldt, A. Schopenhauer, F. Schelling, F. Gelderlin, etc.).

The doctrine of morality is at the center of Kant's entire system. Kant was able to identify, if not fully explain, a number of specific features of morality. Morality is not the psychology of a person as such, it is not reduced to any elementary aspirations, feelings, drives, motives inherent in all people, or to any special unique experiences, emotions, motives that are different from all other mental parameters of a person. Morality, of course, can take the form of certain psychological phenomena in the consciousness of a person, but only through education, through the subordination of the elements of feelings and impulses to a special logic of moral obligation. In general, morality is not reduced to the "internal mechanics" of a person's mental impulses and experiences, but is of a normative nature, that is, it imputes a person certain actions and the very motives for them according to their content, and not according to their psychological appearance, emotional coloring, mood, etc. This is, first of all, the objectively obligatory nature of moral requirements in relation to individual consciousness. By this methodological distinction between the "logic of feelings" and the "logic of morality," Kant managed to discover the essence of the moral conflict in the sphere of individual consciousness in the conflict between duty and inclinations, drives, desires, and immediate aspirations. According to Kant, debt is a one-sided and lasting wholeness, a real alternative to moral softness and opposes the latter as a principled compromise. One of Kant's historical merits in the development of the concept of morality consists in his indication of the fundamental universality of moral requirements, which distinguishes morality from many other similar social standards (customs, traditions). The paradox of Kantian ethics is that, although moral action is aimed at realizing natural and moral perfection, it is impossible to achieve it in this world. Kant tried to outline and resolve the paradoxes of his ethics without resorting to the idea of ​​God. He sees in morality a spiritual source of radical transformation and renewal of man and society.

Kant's formulation of the problem of the autonomy of ethics, consideration of the ethical ideal, reflections on the practical nature of morality, etc., are recognized as an invaluable contribution to philosophy.

Chapter 3. THE NATURAL SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF MORALITY

Over the past hundred years, new branches of knowledge have been created under the name of the science of man (anthropology), the science of primitive social institutions (prehistoric ethnology) and the history of religions, opening up to us a completely new understanding of the entire course of human development. At the same time, thanks to discoveries in the field of physics regarding the structure of celestial bodies and matter in general, new concepts of the life of the universe have been developed. At the same time, the previous teachings about the origin of life, about the position of man in the universe, about the essence of reason were radically changed due to the rapid development of the science of life (biology) and the emergence of the theory of development (evolution), as well as due to the progress of the science of mental life (psychology ) humans and animals.

It would not be enough to say that in all its branches - with the possible exception of astronomy - science made more progress during the 19th century than during any three or four centuries of earlier times. It is necessary to go back more than two thousand years, to the heyday of philosophy in Ancient Greece, in order to find the same awakening of the human mind, but this comparison would be wrong, since then a person had not yet reached such a possession of technology as we see now; the development of technology finally gives man the opportunity to free himself from slave labor.

At the same time, modern mankind has developed a daring, bold spirit of inventiveness, brought about by the recent advances in the sciences; and inventions that quickly followed each other increased the productive capacity of human labor to such an extent that it was finally possible for modern educated peoples to achieve such universal prosperity, which could not have been dreamed of either in antiquity, or in the Middle Ages, or in the first half of the 19th century. For the first time, humanity can say that its ability to satisfy all its needs has surpassed its needs, that now there is no longer a need to impose the yoke of poverty and humiliation on entire classes of people in order to give prosperity to a few and facilitate their further mental development. Universal contentment - without imposing the burden of repressive and impersonal labor on anyone - was now possible; and humanity can finally rebuild its entire social life on the basis of justice.

Whether modern educated peoples have enough building-social creativity and courage to use the achievements of the human mind for the common good - it is difficult to say in advance. But one thing is certain: the recent flowering of science has already created the mental atmosphere needed to bring into being the proper powers; and he has already given us the knowledge we need to accomplish this great task.

Returning to the sound philosophy of nature, which had been neglected since the days of Ancient Greece until Bacon awakened scientific research from his long slumber, modern science has developed the foundations of the philosophy of the universe, free from supernatural hypotheses and from the metaphysical "mythology of thoughts" - a philosophy of such great, poetic and inspiring, and so imbued with the spirit of liberation that, of course, she is capable of bringing new strength to life. Man no longer needs to clothe his ideals of moral beauty and his ideas about a justly built society in the veil of superstition; he has nothing to wait for the restructuring of society from the Highest Wisdom. He can borrow his ideals from nature, and from the study of her life he can draw the necessary strength.

One of the main achievements of modern science was that it proved the indestructibility of energy, no matter what transformations it undergoes. For physicists and mathematicians, this thought was a rich source of a wide variety of discoveries, it, in essence, permeated all modern research. But the philosophical significance of this discovery is equally important. It teaches a person to understand the life of the universe as a continuous, endless chain of transformations of energy; mechanical movement can turn into sound, into heat, into light, into electricity; and vice versa, each of these types of energy can be converted into others. And among all these transformations, the birth of our planet, the gradual development of its life, its final decomposition in the future and the transition back to the great space, its absorption by the universe are only infinitely small phenomena - a simple minute in the life of stellar worlds.

The same is done in the study of organic life. Research carried out in a vast intermediate area separating the inorganic world from the organic, where the simplest life processes in the lower fungi can hardly be distinguished, and even not completely, from the chemical movements of atoms constantly occurring in complex bodies - these studies took away from life phenomena their mysterious mystical character. At the same time, our concepts of life have expanded so much that we are now getting used to looking at the accumulations of matter in the universe - solid, liquid and gaseous (such are some of the nebulae of the stellar world) - as something living and going through the same cycles of development and decomposition as living creatures. Then, returning to the thoughts that once made their way in Ancient Greece, modern science, step by step, traced the wondrous development of living things, which began with the simplest forms that barely deserve the name of organisms, up to the endless variety of living things that now inhabit our planet and give it to it. the best beauty. And, finally, having assimilated us with the idea that every living creature is to an enormous extent a product of the environment where it lives, biology has solved one of the greatest mysteries of nature: it explained the adaptations to the conditions of life that we meet at every step.

Even in the most mysterious of all manifestations of life, in the field of feeling and thought, where the human mind has to catch the very processes by which impressions received from outside are imprinted in it - even in this area, even the darkest of all, man has already succeeded look into the mechanism of thinking, following the methods of research adopted by physiology.

Finally, in the vast area of ​​human institutions, customs and laws, superstitions, beliefs and ideals, such light has been shed by the anthropological schools of history, jurisprudence and political economy that it can be said with certainty that the pursuit of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" is no longer a dream, not a utopia. It is possible; moreover, it has also been proved that the well-being and happiness of either an entire people or a particular class cannot be based, even temporarily, on the oppression of other classes, nations and races.

Modern science has thus achieved a double goal. On the one hand, she gave the person a very valuable lesson in modesty. She teaches him to consider himself only an infinitely small part of the universe. She knocked him out of narrow egoistic isolation and dispelled his conceit, by virtue of which he considered himself the center of the universe and the subject of the Creator's special care. She teaches him to understand that without the great whole, our "I" is nothing; that "I" cannot even define itself without some "You". And at the same time, science has shown how powerful humanity is in its progressive development, if it skillfully uses the boundless energy of nature.

Thus, science and philosophy have given us both material strength and freedom of thought, necessary in order to bring to life figures capable of moving humanity onto a new path of universal progress. There is, however, one branch of knowledge left behind others. This branch is ethics, the doctrine of the basic principles of morality. Such a teaching, which would be in accordance with the current state of science and would use its achievements to build the foundations of morality on a broad philosophical foundation, and would give educated peoples the power to inspire them for the coming great restructuring - such a teaching has not yet appeared. Meanwhile, the need for this is felt everywhere and everywhere. A new realistic science of morality, freed from religious dogmatism, superstition and metaphysical mythology, just as modern natural-science philosophy has already been liberated, and at the same time inspired by higher feelings and bright hopes inspired in us by modern knowledge about man and his history - that's what is urgently demanded by humanity.

There is no doubt that such a science is possible. If the study of nature gave us the foundations of a philosophy that embraces the life of the entire universe, the development of living beings on earth, the laws of mental life and the development of societies, then this same study should give us a natural explanation of the sources of moral feeling. And it must show us where lie the forces capable of raising the moral feeling to ever greater heights and purity. If contemplation of the universe and close acquaintance with nature could inspire great naturalists and poets of the nineteenth century with high inspiration, if penetration into the depths of nature could increase the pace of life in Goethe, Byron, Shelley, Lermontov while contemplating a roaring storm, a calm and stately chain of mountains or a dark forest, and its inhabitants, why should a deeper penetration into the life of man and his fate not equally inspire the poet? When a poet finds real expression for his feeling of communication with the Cosmos and unity with all of humanity, he becomes able to inspire millions of people with his high impulse. He makes them feel the best forces in themselves, he awakens in them the desire to become even better. He awakens in people the same ecstasy that was previously considered the property of religion. Indeed, what are the psalms, in which many see the highest expression of religious feelings, or the most poetic, parts of the sacred books of the East, if not attempts to express the ecstasy of man while contemplating the universe, if not awakening in him the feeling of poetry of nature.

One of the differences between humans and animals, apart from walking, developing hands, making tools, reason, words, is morality. The birth of morality is the most important stage of anthropogenesis - the formation of a person.

“Abstract thinking gave a person domination over all extraspecific environment and thereby released intraspecific selection from the chain,” says one of the founders of ethology K. Lorenz. In the "track record" of such a selection, it is probably necessary to include that hypertrophied cruelty, from which we suffer today. Having given a person a verbal language, abstract thinking endowed him with the possibility of cultural development and transmission of supra-individual experience, but this also entailed such drastic changes in the conditions of his life that the adaptive capacity of his instincts collapsed. You might think that every gift that a person gets from his thinking, in principle, should be paid for by some kind of dangerous misfortune, which inevitably follows. Fortunately for us, this is not so, because from abstract thinking grows also that reasonable responsibility of a person, on which only the hope to cope with constantly growing dangers is based. "

The triumphal cry of wild geese observed by K. Lorenz resembles love, which is stronger than death; battles between rat packs are reminiscent of a blood feud and a war of annihilation. How, in many respects, man is close to animals: the more ethology develops, the more just this conclusion becomes. But a lot of clearly social in man also got him as compensation for some biological disadvantages or excessive advantages over other species. This is also morality.

Dangerous predators (for example, wolves) have selective mechanisms that prohibit killing a representative of their own species. Non-hazardous animals (chimpanzees) do not have such mechanisms. A person also does not, since he does not have a "predator nature" and he does not have a natural weapon belonging to his body, with which he could kill a large animal. "When the invention of an artificial weapon opened up new possibilities for murder, the old balance between the relatively weak prohibitions of aggression and the equally weak possibilities of murder was fundamentally violated."

Man does not have natural mechanisms for killing his own kind, and therefore, like wolves, there is no instinct prohibiting the killing of a representative of his own species. But man has developed artificial means of destroying his own kind, and in parallel, artificial mechanisms have developed in him as a means of self-preservation, prohibiting the killing of a representative of his own species. This is morality, which is a social evolutionary mechanism.

But social ethics is only the first stage of morality. Man has now created artificial means that allow him to destroy the entire planet, which he successfully does. If a person continues to exterminate the species of animals and plants inhabiting the Earth, then in accordance with the basic law of ecology - the science of the relationship of living organisms with the environment - a decrease in diversity in the biosphere will lead to a weakening of its stability and, ultimately, the death of man himself, who cannot exist outside the biosphere. To prevent this from happening, morality must rise to a new level, spreading to the whole of nature, that is, becoming an ecological ethics that prohibits the destruction of nature.

Such a process can be called a deepening of morality, firstly, because the criterion of morality is conscience, which is in the depths of the human soul, and, trying to listen to this inner voice, a person seems to be immersed in himself. The second reason is associated with the emergence of the concept of "deep ecology", which calls on a person to a more careful attitude towards nature from the standpoint of environmental ethics, which extends moral principles to the relationship between man and nature.

Ecology goes deeper into the field of morality. The model of "expanding consciousness" also has obvious ecological significance, which made it possible to speak about the expansion of consciousness in "deep ecology". So, from an expanding universe to an expanding consciousness and deepening morality. These are not coincidental parallels. The development of the Universe leads to social changes - this is one of the conclusions, namely ethical, from modern concepts of natural science.

When we review the tremendous advances in the natural sciences during the 19th century and see what they promise us in their further development, we cannot but realize that a new streak is opening up in front of mankind in its life, or at least what it has in its hands with every means to usher in such a new era.

Chapter 4. MORAL PROBLEMS

The bus outside the city was not very crowded, however, all the seats were taken. Someone goes where: some - home, some - to work. One happy young family in full force - mom, dad, a two-year-old baby and a girl of about twelve, apparently, is going to the dacha. Everyone is fun, the children are happy - in general, a complete idyll. At the next stop, an elderly woman enters, there is no doubt that it is very difficult for her to stand. But none of the two parents gave the old woman a seat, and the girl, who was freely sprawled on the seat, could not even dream of such a thing. How does she know that old women need to give way, who taught her this, who set an example?

Today it is often said that morality has fallen in modern society, that moral norms are being destroyed.

In the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, morality is “internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person, ethical standards; behavior rules". If now someone talks about morality, they will most likely be accused of hypocrisy and hypocrisy. Compliance with moral norms has become out of fashion and not prestigious. Elderly people say that just a few decades ago, people were different and did not hesitate to be polite, helpful. And today we are embarrassed to give a hand to a woman, to help a blind man cross the road. But this is the natural state of man, his true nature.

The story of the destruction of this true nature is vividly reflected in one Chinese poem:

“In the 50s, people helped each other,

At 60, people fought with each other,

In the 70s, people lied to each other

In the 80s, people only cared about themselves

In the 90s, people took advantage of everyone they met. "

Man was created by God, and this obliges us to live according to His laws. But we are used to living by our own laws, however, are they correct?

We were taught from childhood that the concepts of "struggle" and "happiness" are synonyms, that nobility and honor are relics of the past. Gradually, the older generation began to forget about love and mercy, and young people do not think about it.

The first lessons of morality, ethics, ethics we receive in the family.

Let's remember the ancient sages. Many of them attached great importance to the ethics of family relations, believing that all good things begin with the family. Confucius, for example, noted that "as long as traditions in the family are maintained, social morality is naturally supported, and thus self-improvement can lead to the prosperity of the family and the state, and, in the end, bring peace to everyone." And this is now so lacking for us!

Most of all, Nietzsche's thought was attracted by questions of moral philosophy: the problem of morality in a close sense is the origin and significance of the norms and ideals of human activity, and the problem of a moral worldview is the meaning and value of human life. Not only theoretical interest and "impersonal objective curiosity" attracted him to these problems: in them he saw the task of his life, his own business. “All great problems,” he says, “require great love,” with all its passion and with that enthusiasm that a person brings to an affair that is dear to her. "There is a huge difference in how the thinker treats his problems: whether personally, seeing in them his destiny, his need, and also his best happiness, - or" impersonally ", touching them and grabbing with tentacles of cold thoughts and curiosity; give my word that in the latter case nothing will come of it "

“Why,” says Nietzsche, “I have not yet met anyone, even in books, who would stand for morality in such a personal position, who would know morality as a problem and feel this problem as his personal need, torment, passion and voluptuousness? As you can see, until now morality was not a problem at all, but rather the thing in which people finally agreed after all mistrust, quarrels and contradictions - a sacred place of the world, where thinkers sighed calmly, revived and rested on their own. " Philosophers have hitherto strove to substantiate morality, and each of them thought that he had substantiated it; morality itself was considered by all to be something "given." They neglected the more modest, apparently "covered with dust and mold" task of collecting small facts of the moral life of mankind, the description and history of moral consciousness, in its various forms and various stages of development. Precisely because moralists were familiar with moral facts too crudely, in arbitrary extraction or accidental reduction, in the form of the morality of the people around them, their class, their church, their modernity, their climate or the earth's belt, precisely because they were too bad they were familiar, and did not really want to get acquainted with peoples, times and past eras - they did not meet with real problems of morality, which arise only when comparing different moral views. Strange as it may seem, in all the "science of morality" that existed until now, there has not yet been the very problem of morality, there has not even been a suspicion that there is something problematic here.

What the philosophers called the "justification of morality", which they demanded of themselves, was, in reality, only a learned form of trust and belief in the prevailing morality, a new way of expressing it and, therefore, simply an actual position within a certain system of moral concepts - even, in the end, a kind of denial of the very possibility and the very right to pose this morality as a problem - in any case, the complete opposite of research, decomposition, vivisection and criticism of this very thing.

And in the meantime, in order to really seriously pose the problem of morality and its value, not to mention to solve it, it is necessary to rise not only above private moral views, no matter how widespread and generally recognized they are, no matter how deeply they are rooted in our feelings, life and culture: we need to become higher and beyond all moral assessments, as such, go "beyond good and evil", and go not only abstractly, in thoughts, but also in feelings and in life. "To see if the towers rise high in the city, you have to get out of the city."

Chapter 5. APHORISMS ON THE TOPIC OF MORALITY

The main condition for morality is the desire to become moral

Morality does not depend on hereditary factors

K. Vasiliev

So, in everything you want people to do to you, so do you to them; for in this is the law and the prophets

By the name of morality, we mean not only external decency, but also the entire internal basis of motives

Ya.A. Kamensky

The moral qualities of a person should be judged not by his individual efforts, but by his daily life.

B. Pascal

"Good and moral are one and the same."

"Reasonable and moral always coincide"

“Two exact sciences: mathematics and moral teaching. These sciences are accurate and unquestionable because all people have the same mind, which perceives mathematics, and the same spiritual nature, which perceives (the doctrine of life) the moral doctrine. "

“It is not the quantity of knowledge that is important, but its quality. Nobody can know everything, but it is shameful and harmful to pretend that you know what you don’t know ”.

“The purpose of life of every single person is the same: improvement in goodness. And therefore, only the knowledge is needed that leads to this. "

"Knowledge without a moral foundation means nothing."

“It seems to us that the most important work in the world is work on something visible: building a house, plowing a field, feeding livestock, collecting fruits, and working on one's soul, on something invisible, is not important, such as you may or may not do. Meanwhile, this is only one thing, work on the soul, to become better and kinder every day, only this work is real, and all the other visible works are useful only when this main work on the soul is done. "

L. N. Tolstoy

“Socrates constantly pointed out to his students that with a properly organized education in every science, one should only reach a certain limit, which should not be crossed.

He had such a low opinion of them, not out of ignorance, since he himself had studied these sciences, but because he did not want to waste time and energy on unnecessary studies that could be used for what a person needs most: on his moral improvement. "

Xenophon

“Wisdom is not about knowing much. We cannot know everything. Wisdom is not in knowing as much as possible, but in knowing which knowledge is most needed, which is less and which is even less needed. Of all the knowledge a person needs, the most important knowledge of how to live well, i.e. live in such a way as to do as little evil as possible and as much good as possible. In our time, people learn all sorts of unnecessary sciences, and do not learn this one, the most necessary one. "

"The higher a person is in mental and moral development, the more pleasure life gives him, the freer he is."

“For man there is no bliss in immorality; in morality and virtue only he achieves the highest bliss ”.

A. I. Herzen

CONCLUSION

The "Golden Rule of Morality" is the oldest ethical standard of human behavior. Its most common formulation reads: "Do not act towards others as you would not want them to act towards you. The" golden rule "is already found in the early written records of many cultures (In the teachings of Confucius, in the ancient Indian Mahabrat, in the Bible, in Homer's Odyssey, etc.) and firmly enters the consciousness of subsequent eras.

When this principle will underlie the relationship of people, then we will reach “paradise on earth” and during our lifetime, we will embody the ideal of ancient and ancient philosophers, we will nullify wars and any disagreements, and there will be peace in the world. Only at this stage of human existence one should not wait for the realization of these hopes - the centrifugal force of human greed and anger is too great. It is impossible to build a paradise on earth in a world where money is elevated to the place of God, and their amount is a measure of prestige.

Natural science consciousness in the era of scientific and technological revolution actively invades all spheres of social life, becomes a direct productive force. For all the complexity of the content of science, it should be remembered that science is a spiritual phenomenon. Science is a system of knowledge about nature, society, about man. Scientific knowledge is a product of spiritual production, by its nature it is ideal. In science, the criterion for the rational development of the world occupies the main place, and from the trinity of truth, goodness, beauty, truth acts as a leading value in it. Science is a historically developed form of human activity aimed at cognizing and transforming objective reality, such an area of ​​spiritual production, which has as its result purposefully selected and systematized facts, logically verified hypotheses, generalizing theories, fundamental and particular laws, as well as research methods. Thus, science is both a system of knowledge, and their production, and practically transforming activity based on them. Science, like all other forms of man's assimilation of reality, arises and develops from the need to meet the needs of society. The role and social significance of science are not limited to its explanatory function, for the main goal of cognition is the practical application of scientific knowledge. So, the forms of social consciousness and among them the naturally scientific, aesthetic and moral consciousness determine the level of development of the spiritual life of society.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1.A.A. Gorelov. Concepts of modern natural science.- Moscow: Center Publishing House, 2000.-205 p.

2.Concepts of modern natural science: textbook / A.P. Sadokhin. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - Moscow .: YUNITI-DANA Publishing House, 2006 .-- 447 p.

3. A.A. Arutsev, B.V. Ermolaev, I.O. Kutateladze, M. S. Slutsky. Concepts of modern natural science.- Moscow: Textbook MGOU, 2000.-348 p.

4. G.I. Ruzavin. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook for universities. - Moscow: YUNITI Publishing House, 2000 .-- 287 p.

5. M.S. Kunafin. Concepts of modern natural science: Textbook.-Ufa: Publishing house Ufa, 2003. - 488 p.

Reading time: 3 minutes

Morality is the desire of a person to evaluate conscious actions, a person's state on the basis of a set of conscious norms of behavior inherent in a particular individual. The expression of the ideas of a morally developed person is conscience. These are the deep laws of a decent human life. Morality is the idea of ​​an individual about good and evil, about the ability to correctly assess the situation and determine the typical style of behavior in it. Each individual has his own moral criteria. It forms a certain code of relations with a person and the environment as a whole, based on mutual understanding and humanism.

What is morality

Morality is an integral characteristic of a person, which is the cognitive basis for the formation of a morally healthy person: socially oriented, adequately assessing the situation, having an established set of values. In today's society, in general use, there is a definition of morality, as a synonym for the concept of morality. The etymological features of this concept show the origin of the word "temper" - character. For the first time the semantic definition of the concept of morality was published in 1789 - "Dictionary of the Russian Academy".

The concept of morality combines a certain set of personality traits of the subject. Primarily these are honesty, kindness, compassion, decency, hard work, generosity, reliability. Analyzing morality as a personal property, it should be mentioned that everyone is able to bring their own qualities to this concept. For people with different types of professions, morality also forms a different set of qualities. A soldier must be brave, a fair judge, a teacher. On the basis of the formed moral qualities, the directions of the subject's behavior in society are formed. The subjective attitude of the individual plays a significant role in assessing the situation in a moral sense. Someone perceives civil marriage as absolutely natural, for others it is like a sin. Based on religious research, it should be recognized that the concept of morality has retained very little of the truth from its meaning. The modern man's ideas about morality are distorted and emasculated.

Morality is a purely individual quality that allows a person to consciously control his own mental and emotional state, personifying a spiritually and socially formed person. A moral person is able to determine the golden measure between the egocentric part of his self and sacrifice. Such a subject is able to form a socially-oriented, value-determined civic and worldview.

A moral person, choosing the direction of his actions, acts solely according to his own conscience, relying on the formed personal values ​​and concepts. For some, the concept of morality is the equivalent of a "ticket to heaven" after death, but in life it is something that does not particularly affect the success of the subject and does not bring any benefit. For this type of people, moral behavior is a way to cleanse the soul from sins, as if a cover for their own wrong actions. Man is an unhindered creature in choice, has its own course of life. At the same time, society has its own influence, is able to set its own ideals and values.

In fact, morality, as a property necessary for the subject, is extremely important for society. This is, as it were, a guarantee of the preservation of humanity as a species, otherwise, without norms and principles of moral behavior, humanity will uproot itself. Arbitrariness and gradual - the consequences of the disappearance of morality as a set of trailers and values ​​of society as such. Most likely, and the death of a certain nation or ethnic group, if its head is an immoral government. Accordingly, the level of people's living comfort depends on developed morality. Protected and prosperous is the society, the observance of values ​​and moral principles, respect and altruism in which, above all.

So, morality is internalized principles and values, based on which a person directs his behavior, performs actions. Morality, being a form of social knowledge and relations, regulates human actions through principles and norms. These norms are directly based on the point of view of the impeccable, of the categories of good, justice and evil. Based on humanistic values, morality allows the subject to be human.

The rules of morality

In everyday use of expressions morality and have the same meaning and common sources. At the same time, everyone should determine the existence of certain rules that easily outline the essence of each of the concepts. So moral rules, in turn, allow a person to develop their own mental and moral state. To some extent, these are the "Laws of the Absolute" existing in absolutely all religions, worldviews and societies. Consequently, moral rules are universal, and their failure to comply with them entails consequences for the subject who does not comply with them.

There are, for example, 10 commandments obtained as a result of direct communication between Moses and God. This is part of the rules of morality, the observance of which is argued by religion. In fact, scientists do not deny a hundred times more rules, they boil down to one denominator: the harmonious existence of mankind.

Since ancient times, many peoples have had the concept of a certain "Golden Rule", which carries the basis of morality. Its interpretation has dozens of formulations, while the essence remains unchanged. Following this "golden rule", an individual should behave towards others as he relates to himself. This rule forms the concept of a person that all people are equal in terms of their freedom of action, as well as their desire to develop. Following this rule, the subject reveals his deep philosophical interpretation, stating that the individual must learn in advance to realize the consequences of his own actions in relation to the "other individual", projecting these consequences onto himself. That is, the subject, who mentally tries on the consequences of his own action, will think about whether to act in this direction. The golden rule teaches a person to develop their inner flair, teaches compassion, empathy and helps to develop mentally.

Although this moral rule was formulated in ancient times by famous teachers and thinkers, the relevance of its purpose in the modern world has not lost. “What you don’t want for yourself, don’t do to another” - this is the rule in the original interpretation. The emergence of such an interpretation is attributed to the origins of the first millennium before our era. It was then that a humanistic revolution took place in the ancient world. But as a moral rule, it received its status of "golden" in the eighteenth century. This prescription focuses on the global moral principle according to the relationship to another person within different situations of interaction. Since its presence in any existing religion has been proven, it can be noted as the foundation of human morality. This is the most important truth of the humanistic behavior of a moral person.

The problem of morality

Considering modern society, it is easy to notice that moral development is characterized by decline. In the twentieth century, there has been a sudden fall in all laws and values ​​of morality in society in the world. The problems of morality began to appear in society, which negatively influenced the formation and development of humane humanity. This decline reached even greater development in the twenty-first century. Throughout human existence, there have been many problems of morality, which in one way or another had a negative impact on the individual. Guided by spiritual guidelines in different eras, people put something of their own in the concept of morality. They were able to create things that in modern society terrify absolutely every sane person. For example, the Egyptian pharaohs, who were afraid of losing their kingdom, committed unthinkable crimes, killing all newborn boys. Moral norms are rooted in religious laws, the adherence to which shows the essence of the human person. Honor, dignity, faith, love for the motherland, for man, loyalty are qualities that served as a direction in human life, to which at least to some extent some of the laws of God have reached. Consequently, throughout its development, society had a tendency to deviate from religious commandments, which led to the emergence of moral problems.

The development of moral problems in the twentieth century is a consequence of the world wars. The era of moral decline has been going on since the First World War, during this crazy time a person's life has depreciated. The conditions in which people had to survive have erased all moral restrictions, personal relationships have depreciated exactly like human life at the front. The involvement of humanity in inhuman bloodshed has dealt a crushing blow to morality.

One of the periods of the emergence of moral problems was the communist period. During this period, it was planned to destroy all religions, respectively, and the moral norms inherent in it. Even if in the Soviet Union the development of the rules of morality was much higher, this position could not be maintained for a long time. Along with the destruction of the Soviet world, there was a decline in the morality of society.

For the current period, one of the main problems of morality is the fall of the institution of the family. What leads to a demographic catastrophe, an increase in divorce, the birth of countless children in unmarried. The views on family, motherhood and fatherhood, and on raising a healthy child are regressing in nature. The development of corruption in all areas, theft, deception is of certain importance. Now everything is bought, exactly as it is sold: diplomas, victories in sports, even human honor. This is precisely the consequences of the fall in morality.

Education of morality

Education of morality is a process of purposeful influence on the personality, which implies the influence on the consciousness of the behavior and feelings of the subject. During the period of such upbringing, the moral qualities of the subject are formed, which allow the individual to act within the framework of public morality.

The upbringing of morality is a process that does not imply interruptions, but only close interaction between the student and the educator. To educate a child's moral qualities should be by example. It is rather difficult to form a moral personality; it is a painstaking process in which not only teachers and parents take part, but also the public institution as a whole. In this case, the age characteristics of the individual, his readiness for analysis, and information processing are always provided. The result of moral education is the development of an integral moral personality, which will develop together with its feelings, conscience, habits and values. Such education is considered a difficult and multifaceted process that generalizes pedagogical education and the influence of society. Moral education implies the formation of feelings of morality, a conscious connection with society, a culture of behavior, consideration of moral ideals and concepts, principles and behavioral norms.

Moral education takes place during the period of education, during the period of upbringing in the family, in public organizations, and directly includes individuals. The continuous process of moral education begins with the birth of the subject and lasts for his entire life.

Speaker of the Medical and Psychological Center "PsychoMed"

Perhaps it is difficult to name the problems that have also been worrying mankind for a long time as problems of morality. A wide circle of people showing interest (scientific, business, philistine) in the regulation of human relationships. If we take, for example, the treatise of the ancient Roman physician Galen "The Hygiene of Passions, or Moral Hygiene", the studies of the famous economist A. Smith on the theory of moral feelings, an entertaining presentation of the foundations of morality presented by the Russian physiologist I.I. Mechnikov in "Studies on the Nature of Man", one can see how historically long-lasting and tuned is the interest in morality among people of various professions and hobbies.

I.I. Mechnikov wrote that “the solution of the problems of human life must inevitably lead to a more precise definition of the foundations of morality. The latter should not have immediate pleasure, but the completion of the normal cycle of existence. In order to achieve this result, people must help each other much more than they do now. "

So, the essence of morality as a real social phenomenon, the existence of which is associated with the first efforts of people to live and act together, first spontaneously, and then deliberately uniting, is that it is a vital condition for the survival of people, ordering their social way of life. This alternative gave rise to a number of theoretical grounds, according to which a moral person is strictly adapted to the conditions of the external environment (English philosopher Spencer), and nature can be called the first teacher of the moral principle for a person (P.A.Kropotkin). G. Selye, the author of the generally accepted theory of stress, believes that it is biologically useful, and therefore moral standards should be based on biological laws, on the laws of human self-preservation.

One cannot but agree with this position. Indeed, the creation of living conditions for a person, in the presence of which his psychosomatic characteristics are improved, acts, for example, as one of the most important requirements of morality. However, G. Selye is categorical, and therefore absolutizes the role of biological laws in constituting the decisive word for the social image of people's life. It is no accident that morality is generally recognized as a social phenomenon.

Morality as a social phenomenon is theoretically divided into at least two levels - relations and consciousness. Morality can be understood as the orientation of an individual's relationship to people, to material and spiritual values, to the nature surrounding it, to the entire living world. Morality expresses the measure of a person's awareness of his responsibility to society for his behavior, for the performance of his duties and the realization of rights.

A characteristic tendency in the development of socialist society is the growth of the moral principle in it. In this regard, it is possible to fix a number of regularities in the general process of the development of morality as an expression of the objective needs of socialist construction.

The scientific base of modern management is widely represented by various theoretical and applied branches of knowledge. Among them, ethics as a special scientific and theoretical discipline and as a normative and applied area of ​​knowledge, professionally equipping the organizers of production, is called upon to take the right place.

Morality - in a broad sense - is a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations.

Morality - in the narrow sense - is a set of principles and norms of people's behavior in relation to each other and society.

Morality is a value structure of consciousness, a socially necessary way of regulating human actions in all spheres of life, including work, everyday life and attitude to the environment.

First, about the words. The words "morality", "morality", "ethics" are close in meaning. But they arose in three different languages. The word "ethics" comes from the Greek. ethos - disposition, character, custom. It was introduced into use 2300 years ago by Aristotle, who called "ethical" the virtues or dignity of a person manifested in his behavior - such qualities as courage, prudence, honesty, and "ethics" - the science of these qualities. The word "morality" is of Latin origin. It is derived from lat. mos (plural mores), which meant roughly the same as ethos in Greek - disposition. custom. Cicero, following the example of Aristotle, formed from him the words moralis - moral and moralitas - morality, which became the Latin equivalent of the Greek words ethical and ethics. And "morality" is a Russian word that is taking place by rooting out "temper." So three words appeared in the Russian language with approximately the same meaning. Over time, they acquired some semantic shades that distinguish them from each other. But in the practice of word use, these words are practically interchangeable (and their semantic shades can almost always be caught in the context).

Moral culture, like all social culture, has two main aspects: 1) values ​​and 2) regulators.

Moral (moral) values ​​are what the ancient Greeks called "ethical virtues". Ancient sages considered prudence, benevolence, courage, and justice to be the main of these virtues. In Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the highest moral values ​​are associated with faith in God and zealous reverence for him. Honesty, loyalty, respect for elders, diligence, patriotism are revered as moral values ​​among all peoples. And although in life people do not always show such qualities, they are highly valued by people, and those who possess them are respected. These values, presented in their flawless, absolutely complete and perfect expression, act as ethical ideals.

Moral (moral) regulations are the rules of behavior focused on the specified values. Moral regulations are varied. Each individual chooses (consciously or unconsciously) in the cultural space those of them that are most suitable for him. Among them there may be those who are not approved by others. But in every more or less stable culture there is a certain system of generally recognized moral regulations, which are traditionally considered obligatory for everyone. Such regulations are moral norms. The Old Testament lists 10 such norms - the "commandments of God", written on the tablets, which were given by God to the prophet Moses when he climbed Mount Sinai ("Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," etc.). The norms of true Christian behavior are the 7 commandments, which Jesus Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount: "Resist not an evil one"; “Give to him who asks from you, and don’t turn away from him who wants to borrow from you”; “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who offend you and persecute you,” etc.

It is clear that moral values ​​and ideals, on the one hand, and moral regulations and norms, on the other, are inextricably linked. Any moral value presupposes the presence of appropriate regulations aimed at it behavior. And any moral regulation implies the existence of a value to which it is directed. If honesty is a moral value, then the following regulation follows: “Be honest”. And vice versa, if a person, by virtue of his inner conviction, follows the regulation: “Be honest,” then honesty is a moral value for him. Such interconnection of moral values ​​and regulations in many cases makes it unnecessary to consider them separately. When talking about honesty, they often mean both honesty as a value and a regulation that requires being honest. When it comes to characteristics that are equally related to both moral values ​​and ideals, and moral regulations and norms, they are usually called the principles of morality (morality, ethics).

The most important feature of morality is the finality of moral values ​​and the imperativeness of moral regulations. This means that the principles of morality are valuable in themselves. That is, to questions like: "Why do we need them?", "Why should we strive for moral values?", "Why should we observe the norms of morality?" - there is no other answer than to admit that the goal for which we follow moral principles is to follow them. There is no tautology here: simply following moral principles is an end in itself, that is, the highest, final goal ”and there are no other goals that we would like to achieve by following them. They are not a means to any outside of their underlying purpose.

Acting as a sphere of labor communication, the collective has a significant impact on the expansion of the moral experience of people, on the acquisition of new practical knowledge and skills. The labor collective cannot but reckon with the factor that people who have come to production already have their own moral experience.

At the same time, in the work collective, thanks to the active involvement of people in socially useful activities and communication, as well as under the influence of ideological and educational work, there is a process of correcting people's moral stereotypes, their expectations and aspirations. Collective traditions are formed in it. Thus, the moral experience of the collective is clearly manifested in the form of the system of moral relations that has developed here, in the manner of the moral behavior of its members characteristic of the collective.

The components of collective moral experience are moral stereotypes, expectations-claims, traditions, skills and habits.

Moral stereotypes. Stereotypes are views, points of view of evaluation that are firmly established in the minds of people. Stereotypes can be more than individual. In a work collective where people work together and communicate for a long time, group stereotypes are formed. They express some kind of stable point of view and assessment of the team on various issues of labor activity, relationships in the team.

Collective stereotypes reflect primarily the experience of joint labor activities of people. They play a very significant role as spiritual values ​​that people are guided by, in accordance with which they determine their point of view, moral position. If the stereotype of a conscientious attitude to work has been established in the team, then here many educational problems are removed from the agenda. If a negative moral stereotype has taken hold, then the stability of its manifestation through people's behavior causes a lot of difficulties.

Such negative moral stereotypes as the position of the "little man" and non-interference, fear of conflicts, irresponsibility, priority of personal well-being, etc., are constraining factors in the development of personality consciousness. Sociological studies, recording the prevalence of embezzlement of socialist property in labor collectives, indicate that today "thugs" in a number of labor collectives are perceived as inevitable, and irresponsibility has become a characteristic feature of the official behavior of a number of workers.

Moral expectations-claims. In the structure of collective consciousness lies the desire of people to meet various needs and interests, distant and immediate goals. Collective expectations-claims can be moral or immoral both in their content and in the way they are realized. Depending on this, the prayers of the collective's behavior and the nature of its real actions are determined.

The labor collective has significant opportunities in the formation of positive expectations and aspirations of people. With the scientific and technical renewal of production, the development of full cost accounting, with the development of the social, cultural and recreational base of production, conditions are created for satisfying the various expectations and claims of the work collective. All this, undoubtedly, will contribute to the collective integration of healthy moral expectations and aspirations of people, and therefore the corresponding practical actions for their implementation.

Moral traditions. In work collectives, the presence of a variety of traditions is due to the variety of spheres of their social life. Acting as steadily repeating, established social relations of people, traditions are a specific social mechanism for the functioning of the collective. Widespread in labor collectives, revolutionary, militant, labor, international traditions reflect all the best, including the moral, that is in the social experience of various generations of people. Their role is also enormous in the moral formation of the work collective. Traditions are a kind of steps in the spiritual development of a team. The constancy of their observance gives the moral life of the collective a high civic tone.

The moral traditions of the work collective include the holding of various meetings, disputes, "round tables", etc., where such moral issues as duty, honor, dignity, effective methods of combating injustice, heartlessness, neglect of work, incorrect communication in a team. Many labor collectives have such an interesting moral tradition as the development and observance of the Laws of the struggle for the honor and dignity of the collective, for the moral image of the Soviet worker, the Moral Code of the Labor Collective, the Code of Social Norms of the Collective, Instruction on the ethics and etiquette of the leader's behavior. Such documents are evidence not only of the active moral creativity of labor collectives, but also their interest in introducing moral traditions into the daily life of the collective. The role of socialist competition in the development of moral norms is great. Traditions such as the enrollment of heroically perished soldiers in the brigade and the performance of additional tasks in connection with this, anniversary watches in honor of the holidays, gratuitous work on the days of all-Union subbotniks, and charity events have a high moral meaning.

Moral skills and habits. These components of moral experience significantly determine the moral behavior of team members. Reliability of observance of moral principles and norms of communication is largely determined by those moral skills and habits that are in the team. the need to follow the basic rules of human life becomes a habit over time. The process of liberating a person from old negative habits in general, and moral ones in particular, is complex and lengthy.

The formation of moral skills and habits presupposes preliminary serious educational work to establish healthy moral stereotypes and expectations-claims, values ​​of the orientation of its members in the collective. Practical training of all team members in specific moral skills is of great importance in establishing moral skills and habits. For example, how to properly build your relationships with people in the process of work, during informal communication. Various types of team development are very valuable, which contribute to the development of such moral experiences as companionable mutual assistance, a fair assessment of the achievements of others, management of their emotions when listening to criticism or any unpleasant words.

The moral sphere of the work collective will be based, figuratively speaking, on three pillars: moral values, mechanisms of moral self-regulation, and moral experience. We have identified the most significant moral principles of the labor collective for the practical activity of management. Let us emphasize that it was not about the collective in general, but about its moral sphere, where the decisive role belongs to moral relations and states that form and function in the social life of the collective. A leader who knows about these foundations of the moral sphere of the work collective. A leader who knows about these foundations of the moral sphere of the work collective will be able to more meaningfully maneuver them in educational work.

A business executive with developed business merits may nevertheless be unable to lead a team if he lacks moral and psychological qualities. But we must admit that we come to such an unambiguous understanding of the absolute necessity of such qualities for the implementation of managerial activity with a considerable delay. When a person was promoted to a leading position, it was customary to talk about his efficiency and ideological and political outlook. Of course, without having these qualities, it is impossible to lead, but the trouble is that moral and psychological qualities, such as honesty, incorruptibility, modesty, etc., were relegated to the second or even third plan and shrank to a faceless, bureaucratic-round formulas: "morally stable".

As a result, moral undemandingness naturally led to sad consequences, giving way to immoral people to leadership positions. "And it is no coincidence that today we are so acutely faced with negative phenomena in the moral and ethical sphere."

In any work collective, everything related to the moral and psychological qualities of a leader is perceived, for quite understandable reasons, especially acutely. These qualities are necessary to create a climate in the team that is conducive to the development of healthy interpersonal relationships, conscious discipline of labor relations, and the consolidation of a sense of job satisfaction in people.

Moral and psychological qualities are distinguished by exceptional diversity, since the psychological structure of the personality itself is complex. Let's consider some of these qualities - those that seem to us to be the most characteristic.

The ability to attract people. Another leader seems to have everything necessary to become respected in his team: intelligence and knowledge, organizational skills and hard work, breadth of horizons and a correct understanding of the problems of the system, but respect has not been won. With such a leader, in the words of Ferdowsi, "great dignity and fame are waning from bad temper." Failure to establish normal, business relationships with subordinates based on an understanding of their psychology, unwillingness to catch their moods and respond to them often negate the efforts of the leader, generate undesirable socio-psychological climate and work style in the system. The roots of many miscalculations in management should be sought precisely in the insolvency of its moral qualities. Therefore, in managerial activity, moral and psychological qualities are the same professional trait as political maturity, professional competence, organizational skills. Business qualities, not ennobled by morality, may not justify themselves.

Let us recall that leadership is always the leadership of people, their daily upbringing, moreover, first of all, not by circulars, not by instructions, not by harassment, but by high organization, adherence to principles, justice, by one's own example, by one's own moral character. People are impressed by a leader who is inclined to collective decision-making, encouraging criticism and self-criticism, suppressing tendencies of bureaucracy and sycophancy, who trusts employees and fairly evaluates the results of their work, and prefers methods of persuasion to methods of coercion.

Of great importance is the ability of a manager to select assistants for himself, to clearly distribute the functions, duties and responsibilities of each of them, to provide them with the opportunity to independently resolve issues arising in the course of production, while maintaining operational control of the work of the links. In all circumstances, the manager is called upon to be a strong leader.

Leader - a person who ensures the integration of group activities, uniting and directing the actions of the entire group. Leadership characterizes relationships based on trust, recognition of a high level of qualifications, readiness to support in all endeavors, personal sympathies, the desire to adopt positive experience. Trust in a leader is determined by his human qualities, special authority, responsible attitude to work and people. Leadership relationships ideally coincide with the formal authority of the manager.

The current stage of management restructuring in Russia is revolutionary, since the changes are, first of all, the psychology of the manager, the style of his economic behavior, managers are re-evaluating their place and role in the management system. In the era of intense competition and global changes, it is no longer enough for a leader to be just a manager, no matter how high his qualifications. According to the currently prevailing point of view, the activities of a manager are more technical in nature (planning, working with a budget, organizing, controlling). The sphere of action of the manager-leader is much broader. Instead of a consistent, gradual development of such activities, the manager strives for fundamental changes and renewal.

The leader foresees opportunities in the future that others do not see.

He expresses his attitude in a concept, in a simple and clear picture, which, in fact, is a dream that reveals what the organization should become or in what direction it needs to develop. The manager achieves understanding of this concept by explaining that it is feasible, but that its implementation depends on the contribution of each employee. By example, leadership, honoring people for their success, building pride in their work, he inspires employees to bring the vision to life.

The following main features of a modern leader can be distinguished:

Accessible to every employee, the tone of discussion of any problems is invariably benevolent;

He is deeply involved in the personnel management process, constantly pays attention to incentive systems, personally knows a significant part of employees, devotes a lot of time to finding suitable personnel and their training;

Does not tolerate the armchair style of management, prefers to appear among ordinary workers and discuss problems on the ground, knows how to listen and hear, decisive and persistent, willingly takes responsibility and often takes risks;

We tolerate the expression of open disagreement, delegates authority to performers, builds relationships on trust;

He takes the blame for failures, without wasting time looking for the culprits, for him the most important thing is to overcome the mistake;

Encourages the independence of subordinates, and the measure of this independence exactly corresponds to the abilities and professionalism of the employee;

He does not interfere with the work of subordinates without the need, but controls only the final result and sets new tasks;

Confident in himself and his own strengths, perceives failure as a temporary phenomenon;

He constantly reorganizes his work, seeks and implements new things, so the organization he heads turns out to be more mobile and stable in crisis situations, functions effectively and intensively develops.

The features of his behavior and work style are closely related to these traits of a manager-leader. In the conditions of market relations, the authoritarian style exhausts its possibilities. Democracy in management significantly increases the interest of the team in the end result of work, mobilizes the energy of people, and creates a favorable psychological atmosphere. How is this style manifested? First, orders and orders give way to persuasion, strict control to trust.

This reflects the transition from intra-organizational relations of the "boss - subordinate" type to relations of cooperation, cooperation of partners who are equally interested in the success of the business. Second, innovative managers strive to develop collective forms of work as a single "team", which dramatically increases the mutual exchange of information between members of working groups. Third, innovative managers are always open to any new ideas - from colleagues, subordinates, clients. Moreover, the behavior, priorities, and values ​​of these managers create an environment for those around them in which free expression of ideas and exchange of opinions becomes a natural form of working relationship. Fourth, the innovative leader strives in every way to create and maintain a good psychological climate in the team, he tries not to infringe on the interests of some employees at the expense of others, readily, and most importantly, publicly recognizes the merits of employees.

Let's summarize some of the results. What is a moral leader?

From the above, the following conclusion follows: the moral leader of the work collective needs to know well the mood of people; promptly eliminate everything that prevents them from working and earning; skillfully communicate with informal leaders and leaders of their collective, find a common language with them, involve them in social activities, not be afraid to de-ligate authority (managerial) powers to them, enlist their support in the moral education of the collective. In case of negative behavior of informal leaders and leaders, it is necessary to take a set of measures to neutralize them, reorient, and, in extreme cases, to publicly debunk them.

The labor collective acts morally on people as long as it itself is continuously morally improved. V.A. Sukhomlinsky warned that one should be afraid of a stop in the moral development of people, be afraid of their moral surroundings. The same can be said about the work collective. Constant moral improvement of the team is necessary.

The efforts of economic, party and social organizers of production should contribute to the achievement of this.

In order for subordinates to follow their leader, he must understand his followers, and they must understand the world around them and the situation in which they find themselves. Since both people and situations are constantly changing, the leader must be flexible enough to accommodate the ongoing change. Understanding the situation and knowing how to manage human resources are essential components of effective leadership. All this indicates that managerial work is one of those types of human activity that require specific personal qualities that make a particular person professionally fit for managerial activity.

1. Sukhomlinsky V. A. "On education" - Moscow: Political literature, 1982 - p. 270

2. Karmin A.S. Culturology: The culture of social relations. - SPb .: Lan, 2000.

3. Tatarkevich V, On the happiness and perfection of man., M. 1981. - P. 26-335

4. Freud Z. Beyond the pleasure principle // Psychology of the unconscious. - M., 1989. - S. 382-484

5.http: //psylist.net/uprav/kahruk2.htm

Each person has come across the concept of morality more than once in his life. However, not everyone knows its true meaning. In the modern world, the problem of morality is very acute. After all, many people lead the wrong and dishonest way of life. What is human morality? How is it related to concepts such as ethics and morality? What behavior can be considered moral and why?

What does the concept of "morality" mean?

Very often morality is equated with morality and ethics. However, these concepts are not entirely similar. Morality is a set of norms and values ​​of a particular person. It includes the individual's ideas about good and evil, about how one should and should not behave in various situations.

Each person has his own criteria for morality. What seems completely normal to one person is completely unacceptable to another. So, for example, some people have a positive attitude towards civil marriage and do not see anything bad in it. Others consider such cohabitation immoral and strongly condemn premarital relationships.

Principles of moral conduct

Despite the fact that morality is a purely individual concept, there are still common principles in modern society. First of all, these include the equality of rights of all people. This means that there should be no discrimination against a person on the basis of gender, race or any other basis. All people are equal before the law and the courts, all have the same rights and freedoms.

The second principle of morality is based on the fact that a person is allowed to do everything that does not contradict the rights of other people and does not infringe on their interests. This includes not only issues regulated by law, but also moral and ethical standards. For example, cheating on a loved one is not a crime. However, from the point of view of morality, the one who deceives inflicts suffering on the individual, which means that he infringes on his interests and acts immorally.

The meaning of morality

Some people believe that morality is just a prerequisite for going to heaven after death. During life, it absolutely does not affect the success of a person and does not bring any benefit. Thus, the meaning of morality lies in the cleansing of our souls from sin.

In fact, this opinion is erroneous. Morality is necessary in our life not only for a specific person, but also for society as a whole. Without it, arbitrariness will ensue in the world, and people will destroy themselves. As soon as the eternal values ​​disappear in a society and habitual norms of behavior are forgotten, its gradual degradation begins. Theft, debauchery, impunity flourish. And if immoral people come to power, the situation is aggravated even more.

Thus, the quality of human life directly depends on how moral it is. Only in a society where basic moral principles are respected and upheld can people feel secure and happy.

Morality and morality

Traditionally, the concept of "morality" is equated with morality. In many cases, these words are used interchangeably, and most people do not see a fundamental difference between them.

Morality represents certain principles and standards of human behavior in various situations, developed by society. In other words, it is a social point of view. If a person follows the established rules, he can be called moral, but if he ignores, his behavior is immoral.

What is morality? The definition of this word differs from morality in that it does not refer to society as a whole, but to each specific person. Morality is a rather subjective concept. What is normal for some is unacceptable for others. A person can be called moral or immoral, based only on his personal opinion.

Modern morality and religion

Everyone knows that any religion calls a person to virtue and respect for basic moral values. However, modern society puts at the head of all freedom and human rights. In this regard, some of God's commandments have lost their relevance. So, for example, few people can devote one day a week to serving the Lord because of the busy schedule and fast pace of life. And the commandment "do not commit adultery" for many is a restriction of the freedom to build personal relationships.

The classical moral principles concerning the value of human life and property, help and compassion to others, condemnation of lies and envy remain in force. Moreover, now some of them are regulated by law and can no longer be justified by supposedly good intentions, for example, by fighting the Gentiles.

Modern society also has its own moral values, which are not indicated in traditional religions. These include the need for constant self-development and self-improvement, dedication and energy, the desire to achieve success and live in abundance. Modern people condemn violence in all its forms, intolerance and cruelty. They respect human rights and their desire to live as they see fit. Modern morality focuses on human self-improvement, transformation and development of the whole society as a whole.

The problem of youth morality

Many people say that modern society has already begun to decay. Indeed, crime, alcoholism and drug addiction are flourishing in our country. Young people do not think about what morality is. The definition of this word is completely foreign to them.

Very often, modern people put at the head of everything such values ​​as having pleasure, an idle life and fun. At the same time, they completely forget about morality, guided only by their selfish needs.

Modern youth has completely lost such personality traits as patriotism and spirituality. For them, morality is something that can hinder freedom, limit it. Often people are ready to commit any act in order to achieve their goals, completely without thinking about the consequences for others.

Thus, today the problem of youth morality is very acute in our country. To solve it, it will take more than one decade and a lot of efforts on the part of the government.

Considering the general theoretical issues of crimes against morality in the criminal law of the Republic of Kazakhstan, first of all, one should dwell on the very concept of morality. This issue is important not only from cognitive aspects, but also from the standpoint of lawmaking and law enforcement practice. The fundamental position from which one should approach the assessment of the content and essence of crimes of the considered category depends on one or another approach to solving this problem. Depending on how conceptual approaches to solving problems are formulated, both theoretical and applied aspects of the regulation of crimes against morality will be solved accordingly.

It should be stated that for many years there have been disputes about the understanding of the category of morality. Although in the literature, both scientific and unscientific, very often they turn to the problems of morality, morality and spirituality.

The question of understanding morality in a legal context in the scientific literature is still ambiguous.

Philosophers, like lawyers, express different views about the range of social relations that make up the essence of morality, and therefore each of them defines this objectively existing social phenomenon in his own way.

Morality cannot be viewed in isolation from the concepts of morality and spirituality. Nevertheless, the question of their identity is among the controversial ones, as well as whether these categories should be distinguished at all. In literature, morality and ethics are often interpreted as phenomena of the same order.

If we turn to the existing definitions, then most often moral norms are interpreted as rules of a general nature, based on people's ideas about good and evil, dignity, honor, justice, etc., serving as a regulator and yardstick for assessing the activities of individuals, social groups, organizations.

In the sphere of ethical relations, morality acts as an internal self-regulator of the individual's behavior, his conscious, internally motivated way of participating in social life and social relations. For example, V.S. Nersesyants asserts: “the distinctive feature of morality is that it expresses the internal position of individuals, their free and self-conscious decision of what is good and evil, duty and conscience in human actions, relationships and deeds” ...

Moral norms act as external regulators of behavior. Thus, where the individual has accepted, assimilated and turned into his internal setting collective moral ideas, values, norms and was guided by them in his behavior, according to philosophers, there is a combination and coordinated action of both regulators - moral and moral. ; In principle, there are always two aspects in ethical phenomena: a personal (internal freedom of the individual and self-conscious motivation by him of the rules of moral behavior and moral assessments) and an objective, impersonal aspect (moral views, values, morals, forms, etc.) norms of human relations). If we proceed from this rule, then the first of the noted points refers to the characteristics of morality, the second - to morality. Therefore, a certain message follows, according to which, when they talk about the morality of social groups, communities and society as a whole, we are essentially talking about morality, more precisely, about group and general social mores, values, views, relationships, norms and institutions. This statement is perhaps the most widespread and often used in legal literature and in dissertation research. ;

At the same time, being a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations, morality is one of the methods of normative regulation of human behavior. Moral responsibility has a spiritual, ideal, or idealized character. Meaning the condemnation or approval of certain actions, moral responsibility appears in the form of moral assessments that a person must realize, internally accept and, in accordance with this, correct their actions and behavior.

In turn, experts in the field of legal ethics also differentiate the concepts of "morality", "morality" and "moral consciousness". For example, according to A.S. Koblikov, moral consciousness is one of the elements of morality, representing its subjective side.

Researcher M.S. Strogovich, opposing the identification of morality and moral consciousness, wrote: “Moral consciousness is views, convictions, ideas about good and evil, about worthy and unworthy behavior, and morality is the social norms operating in society that regulate the actions, behavior of people, their relationship ".

There are various approaches to understanding the nature and specifics of morality. Methodologically, two main concepts can be distinguished: historical-genetic and historical-systemic.

The historical-genetic method is one of the most common in social research. It developed based on evolutionary ideas, and its essence consists in the consistent discovery of the properties, functions and changes of the studied reality in the process of its historical movement. In this case, the history of ethics is considered as the cyclogenesis of ethical systems, where at each stage of their development, the qualitative characteristics of these systems are highlighted.

In our case, the second approach, the historical-system approach, is of greater interest. Morality here appears as a kind of spiritual and practical production of man as a social and moral being. Such an idea of ​​morality leads a line on its recognition as a side of human life, a cross-cutting element of all (including legal) social practice. With this approach, it is emphasized that a whole series of schisms in the normative system is associated with different conditions of spiritual and practical "production" - between official and unofficial morality, between expediency and morality, between public opinion and conscience.

Such discrepancies give rise to numerous contradictions between different regulatory systems, including those that are the subject of our research. For example, between a personal perception of morality and the official obligation of legal requirements, between a sense of moral duty and the rationality of a legal norm, etc. The individual finds himself simultaneously, as it were, in several "axiological worlds", embodying in each of them different, sometimes incompatible, assessments and aspirations.

In general, the historical-systemic model for explaining morality comes from the philosophical tradition that presents morality as a side of human activity based on the dichotomy of good and evil. At the same time, it does not take into account the regulatory nature of morality as an essential moment of its relationship with law.

In the same vein, the outstanding Russian philosopher B.C. Soloviev: “The very moral principle prescribes that we care about the common good, because without this, cares about personal morality become selfish, that is, immoral. The commandment of moral perfection, - argued the philosopher, - is given to us ... so that we do something for implementation in the environment in which we live, that is, in other words, the moral principle must certainly be embodied in social activity. "

Meanwhile, as it follows from the above definitions, morality, like morality, is always public in its content and is closely related to the norms of law. For example, S.A. Komarov believes that public morality rests on a system of norms and rules, ideas, customs and traditions that dominate in society and reflect the views, ideas and rules that arise as a direct reflection of the conditions of social life in the minds of people in the form of a category of good and evil, commendable and shameful, encouraged and condemned by society, honor, conscience, duty, dignity, etc.

Morality in the Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by S.A. Kuznetsova is understood as the internal (spiritual and mental) qualities of a person, based on the ideals of good, duty, honor, etc., which are manifested in relation to people or nature. Human spirituality is an integral part of morality. Very often the concept of spirituality is equated with religion. This is most likely due to the fact that we are talking about the soul of a person, his subordination to some higher forces. Let's leave this teaching to theologians. Let us state the fact that spirituality is woven into the fabric of morality and is inseparable from it.

The spirituality of a person, personality, individual is revealed through self-knowledge of one's own being, one's own behavior, one's own feelings and one's own desires. A highly spiritual person is not capable of actions that do not correspond to his inner sensation, do not agree with his mind. The spiritual life of a person is associated with the knowledge of the world, the purpose and meaning of life. With a misunderstanding of these categories, and more often the loss of the meaning of life, the loss of one's own "I", crises of a person's spiritual health may occur. And this, in turn, requires treatment, which is what modern psychology does, i.e. healing the soul. Let's leave this topic to psychologists and return to the concepts of morality and ethics.

Based on the foregoing, it should be noted that morality and morality of the category are not identical. Morality should be viewed in conjunction with spirituality.

Quite a clear position on this issue is stated in the work of S. Harutyunyan "Identity: from theory to practice". Exploring the cultural interpretation of the identity crisis, she tried to compare morality and ethics. At the same time, he finds them completely different, non-identical concepts. In her opinion:

1) morality is always a social-group phenomenon: the moral of the family, the formed social group, class morality, etc.

Morality is always universal, there is no morality of a group, class, or party;

2) morality is a set of norms and prescriptions of a social group imposed from the outside. Morality "grows" from within and has nothing to do with norms and standards;

3) morality is a means of regulating social behavior and is created primarily for management. Morality, "growing" from within, is primarily directed at oneself. If morality is directed outward, then morality is directed inward;

4) a moral deed is evaluated from the outside and can be either encouraged or punished. A moral deed is outside of punishment-reward, that is, there is always self-attitude and self-esteem.

Experiences associated with an immoral act are always outwardly oriented and have nothing to do with deep personal experiences. An act associated with moral experiences always has an intrapersonal basis. It is difficult to disagree with this opinion. Of course, morality and ethics are not some static indicators of a person's life. They are subject to constant movement and development. An individual during his life must choose and build his actions in accordance with the prevailing rules and norms of behavior in society, taking into account the existing (or forming) his own spiritual and moral outlook. Therefore, spiritual and moral development plays an important role in the process of human life. Perhaps this is a somewhat simplified formula for the process of human self-realization. But within the framework of this study, we made an attempt to determine the concepts and categories of the phenomenon under study, the mechanisms of their implementation in conditions of socio-cultural instability and a crisis of morality.

The process of interaction of morality and morality in the course of personal growth is in a state of conflict if a person has developed morality. “The absence of conflict,” writes S. Harutyunyan, “testifies to the fact that personal growth does not occur, the difficulty of resolving this conflict is presented as the difficulty of personal growth. The normal organic personality attitude in these conflicts is the primacy of morality over morality. Ultimately, the relationship between morality and morality is the central and most complex problem of personality formation, which must be solved on the basis of practical psychology, philosophy, and pedagogy. At the same time, the lack of spirituality is an obstacle to the development of personality. "

Summarizing the above, we can come to the following conclusions.

1. Morality and morality of the category are not identical. Morality as a universal human category always has an intra-personal basis. Morality acts as a set of instructions for society.

2. Spiritual and moral development of a person ensures his mental health and should be considered in the context of the object of encroachment in criminal legislation in the group of crimes against morality.