Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Fear will hold you back. Initially, fear came up with all the laws, religions and ideologies. If they leave, the fear will return and it will all need to be invented again. And fear is such a thing-while a person eats and shits-there is fear, at the level of instincts, which will not get rid of.
In fact, humans, as a social species, have a tendency to interact adequately with self-like animals almost at the biological level. The mythical period of the “war of all against all” existed only in the imagination of philosophers who supported the theory of the “Social Contract”. The basic rules of the hostel are quite universal and simple, and only have some variations. So, religions write down these norms, and at the same time build variations in the framework of the absolute.
I would also like to note that “scoundrels” who strive for destructive behavior, assholes and psychopaths who want to punish those who disagree with them, have always existed. Everywhere they were dealt with differently. But here's the trick: the emphasis of a particular society on some ideology, a certain moral norm, or a harsh religious dogma, did not always help to neutralize them.
Just in tolerant “gayropeysky” (as our leavened patriots put it) and Western-style societies in general, a person and a citizen are taught from childhood that they should respect the opinion of others and not meddle in other people's affairs. And if he does, it will be against the law. (By the way, the notorious article 282 was originally about this). Yes, sometimes the law won't stop a psychopath. But sometimes it will stop you! In general, he is left alone with his anger.
But in the above-mentioned ideologized states, where they were very fond of shouting about morality, or where religion prevails as an unquestionable authority, these individuals SUDDENLY received a wide scope for action. Because such countries and societies always have certain official enemies, or renegades. And so you can mock them, and do dirty things to them (under the sanctimonious “for their own good”), and even sometimes swoop down on them in a crowd and physically destroy them. You don't need to go far for examples.
In the land of the Soviets, in other countries of “people's democracy”, and also under fascist regimes, as well as theocratic ones, informing on each other flourished and flourishes. Sometimes for the sake of small benefits, sometimes purely ” out of the goodness of my heart.” (Unfortunately, in spiritual Russia, too, as I see it, this is starting to become fashionable again). The next stage: those who are by nature outright executioners and sadists, under the most severe totalitarian (but ideologically savvy) regimes, could satisfy their perverted nature, and went to the NKVD, Gestapo, securitate, etc.
And finally, as an outstanding example of the third stage. In Mao-tse-tung China, morality was treated almost on an astronomical scale (in a strange way, it always coincided with the personal views on the life of the Great Helmsman). Almost every day, party members and intellectuals were forced to self-criticize each other on such occasions that it would seem to us pure schizophrenia (for example, a husband and wife were reprimanded at meetings for the fact that they, instead of serving the Party in a comprehensive way, dared to go to each other's houses and sleep together right after the wedding-they did not think of this, to be fair, even in the Stalinist USSR). But large-scale brain-fucking the leader did not seem enough. As a climax, millions of hot young creatures (from spermotaxis, from anger against their parents, etc.) came out on the street, under the approval of above, who, relying on all these lofty slogans and rules, could maim and kill people in broad daylight. They were actively served by “interesting personalities” who later settled in psychiatric hospitals. A party official who was aiming for a certain position would inform an associate that he had thrown out a newspaper with a portrait of Himself, and they would break his skull; but he would be killed a day later for an inappropriate facial expression on the denunciation of a third person. But these young doomsayers sincerely believed, basically, that they were acting in the name of something bright, kind and good, and they were very careful of each other in observing the norms (which changed and tightened every day, but this is not important).
As an example of the liberation of dark instincts against the background of religion, you can take the story of the “Salem Witches”. It would seem that they were the vanguard of American society at that time; sensible, highly moral hard workers living in simplicity – not like the depraved “papists”. However, they themselves ended up no better than the cursed inquisitors. Because of the antics of several young lying hysterics, they began to inform on each other en masse, which usually led to the death of the slanderer, and at the same time they had SELF-JUSTIFICATION. It is not difficult to find what this ultimately led to, a small, highly moral community.
if.
If this is the case, it remains to be expected that the relativity of values is also not absolute, and “one's own morality” is still not immoral.
However, everything is exactly the opposite. Values are NOT relative, the word “relativity “does not”stick” to them at all. It's not even a myth, it's fiction. The fact that everyone has their own morals is also a fiction. Everyone has their own temperament – and that does not mean that it is unique.
Even if this were the case, morality is still morality. Temper – temper. I have my own chair, but in the main it's similar to yours. There is a cup of its own, but it is also a cup (and specifically mine is generally serial).
The opposite is true in the sense that the law” everything ” does not replace it. I never replaced it. The law fills in the gaps and compensates for cultural differences. And sometimes-and opposes them. It opposes “morality”.
…..
Also, who do you want to”keep”? =))
What are the relationships between ethics, morality and morality?
Depending on the answer, the psychotypes of the individual and their connections with the surrounding society are distinguished.
Ethics (et) – generally accepted norms of behavior of a certain group
, which are accepted by all participants and characterize the group itself.
High society fixed the rules of etiquette for its members in eating, in the ways of introducing each other, in the manner of dressing, speaking, and much more.
The category of morality permeates the entire pyramid of social strata based on ideological, historical, political and economic constants fixed by state Laws for all and rules for the elite.
Moral principles: “not caught – not a thief”, “bite your neighbor, shit on the bottom”, “nothing personal – only business” and others-are widely spread in our state and are enshrined in the administrative, criminal, procedural and other Codes of the Russian Federation.
The rules ( traffic, baggage inspection, construction of cottages in a protected area) and many others do not apply to those who are excluded from the general number, and can ignore general prohibitions, having various identification cards or flashing lights with sirens.
Morality is given to everyone, by definition, as a sign of Divine Providence-the union of man with the World of justice.
Each of us has a rating system: “what is good and what is not so good.” Many of those who live on this Planet are given a free CHOICE of the path along which the individual rises up or, conversely, descends to the deepest bottom – the deepest gorge.
Morality, as a qualitative indicator of the development of the human Soul, imposes a system of internal restrictions on the individual, which prevents the manifestation of meanness, deception, and greed.
Each of us, even at conception, receives an immortal, and absolutely unblemished soul, which is inextricably linked with such a concept as conscience. We can say that the soul is our conscience. Over the years, when we break spiritual laws, we sully our soul, thereby hardening our conscience. Nevertheless, everyone has a conscience, and that's what it is, the very deterrent that works, in addition to the fear of the law.
The law, fortunately, is not intended to replace everything else) It is a measure between interreses. But not by Merrill Morraley, as you all would like! Although even today, everyone tries to interpret the Law as they want, it is constantly improving. Dark holes close. The assumptions of the amendment are introduced, taking into account the interests of previously infringed storron rights. You should learn lawmaking to understand that even an apple doesn't just fall off the tree.
Always what was previously considered meanness and a matter of honor is now devalued, as in cartoons they make fun of once spiritual and wise lines – Goethe's Faust, Othello.. Turning them into cheap farrs and ballagann. And you yourself, unsuspecting, gradually turn into immoral brutes.
Every day your mother tells you that the most precious thing in life is not your mother, but a bag of porridge or yogurt. Isn't this a blatant substitution of morrali?
Morral is always brought up from childhood. If children are initially poorly educated, allowed to confuse black and white, then what do you expect from a society that will grow up when you are no longer in the world, and you will not be able to prevent them when this society establishes its new Laws.
Values are absolute, and so are morals. But everyone has their own opinions about morality. As well as religious views and ideas about the family. But good is always good, and evil is always evil. The law helps in this only partially, and sometimes even interferes with it altogether, helps to create evil.
Any society develops its own CULTURE: a system of restrictions that make the individual acceptable to this society.
Every member of society absorbs this culture to one degree or another and makes it a part of their self.
This is what allows society to exist. Legal laws are a much later invention that complements and formalizes the requirements of culture. But they are external restrictions, whereas cultural restrictions are internal, and they are not perceived by a person as restrictions.
the universal law that is in the conscience of people ( the very word conscience means conscious message), laid down in a person by the Creator, sounds and is interpreted as follows: they say you know what you don't like in relation to you, so you know how to deal with others. Just the voice of conscience is silenced by all sorts of methods, reflashed by different ideologies, etc. Религ Religion, in particular Christianity, as I believe, helps a person to awaken his conscience and wake up from the dope of selfishness and live with love and respect for each other.
In fact, basically the morality is basically the same almost everywhere – lying is not good, stealing, offending the weak, changing, killing, robbing, serving cannibalistic regimes and ideologies, raping – all this is not good, etc.
Only the level of resistance, the degree of readiness for confrontation that you yourself are capable of, can protect you and your loved ones from meanness and crimes against you and your loved ones.
Neither the state, nor higher powers, nor the mythical “moral law” (aka conscience), the existence of which you will assume in the aggressor, will protect you and will not save you.
Your personal strength – both physical, psychological, and intellectual-is basically enough to protect yourself or your neighbor in each specific situation: a girl from a rapist, an old woman from a boor, a child from an adult.
Thinking about how to solve this issue “in principle”, “in general”, “globally” is like operating with idiotic constructions like “How do we equip Russia” or “Is there life on Mars”.
A banal benefit. Moral behavior is more profitable than non-moral behavior. Perhaps not in the short term, but in the medium and long term – always. Another thing is that morality is a very rubbery concept. It may be the most wonderful, but more or less long-lived options are simply profitable.
From destructive actions can keep the maximum development of society-civilization, in which punishment for an offense will become inevitable, and ideally simply impossible.
The artificial environment will easily come to this, everything is already visible. A single law, economic and political competition, and the separation of branches of government lead to the restriction of the state's monopoly on violence, and in general, there are no problems ahead ))
Robots work hard, people are happy!
Correct answer: there are no “values”, “morals” or other primitive fantasies that humanity has been trying to explain the foundations of society for thousands of years.
Natural selection rules the world! Each person has different degrees of genetic “courage”, “greed”, “compassion” and other social feelings that are later strengthened or weakened by family and society.�
By and large, all social behavior can be reduced to a level of cooperation (or selfishness). If a certain community of people has too high a level of aggression towards their fellow tribesmen, it is doomed to extinction. If it's too low, too.
Thus, the most viable communities are those in which the proportion of different qualities is closer to the effective one. These principles are fixed over time in the form of “morality” and other commandments.
In fact, “morality” is not primary, but secondary. It is not the cause, but the result.
Some (many), including religious preachers, moral “authorities” and “servants of the law”, are not deterred by anything and without any “if”. Why this secret apology for a common religion and / or morality? And who should choose them (common staples) for the rest and impose them on everyone else?
The most effective mechanism of “retention” is personal morality, when and if available. At times of critical importance to society, measures of coercion to socially conformal behavior (the law) are applied. Everything else, including the attitude to other people's actions, is a personal choice of everyone, which does not need to be forcibly unified.
If values are relative, and everyone has their own morals, then it is logical to assume that there are no such things as” crime “or”meanness”. On the other hand, if they do exist, then it seems that these values are not entirely relative and subjective. People have been struggling with this problem for thousands of years, and it's naive to hope that TheQuestion experts will now solve it for you in 10 minutes (UPD: well, I mean, they will, of course, but all this will be behavioral nonsense).
Tolstoy, in conversations with Goldenweiser, complained that people kept coming to him with such questions, hoping that he would solve them:”…As often happens, I asked questions — it happens every day, you can see, probably, and today there is such a letter — what is God? what is good and evil? what is the meaning of life? “and he naively thinks that these questions came to him first: and yet, for six or seven thousand years, the best minds of all nations have devoted all their energies to solving these questions. And he thinks that I, Lev Nikolaevich, must and can answer him – and this is the most comical of all…”