3 Answers

  1. There's really no difference. Generally.

    Now exactly the same thing is happening as it was in ancient times, only in a milder form.

    Does the parents impose their point of view on their children, do they force them to follow a pre-planned path, do they marry them off to an already chosen person? Yes.

    Are there any different manifestations of xenophobia in society, such as racism, homophobia, and so on? Absolutely.

    Are there different types of discrimination in our society based on gender, appearance, illness, etc.? In some cases, even more than before.

    It has become better only from a legal and scientific point of view, but from an ethical point of view, life has not changed and will never change, because morality comes from the person himself.

    A good person will be kind even if he is an atheist, and an evil person will be even if he is a deep believer.

  2. Ancient ethics is the ethics of the Highest Man. It is based on the idea of human freedom and equality of human opportunities, and the possibility of human development – on the idea of becoming like the gods.

    In the modern world, the Judeo-Christian concept and corresponding ethics prevail: a person is weak, sinful, guilty and will be punished. Relationships between people are not relationships of equal strength, and equal to the gods, and the relationship of children who find out the relationship in the sandbox under the supervision of a strictly parent…

    That's the difference.

  3. Well, let's try to highlight the main differences (as I understand them, this is a subjective point of view):

    1. Ancient ethics was based on the objective existence of certain ideas that exist separately from man (truth, goodness, beauty). Modern secular ethics is subjective and relies on the idea of a contract between people who determine their own values.

    2. Ancient ethics as a whole acted as the ethics of determinism, that is, people and gods obey fate, certain inexorable laws. One can know these laws of the Cosmos and follow them (“knowledge is remembering” (Plato). Modern secular ethics is voluntaristic, it relies on the desires of people, although it recognizes that these desires can be determined biologically (and even uses the rationale from the theory of evolution as an argument).

    3. Ancient culture was cosmocentric and people in it always lost to the gods and the forces of fate in the end. Hence the image or cult of the “hero” emerged in it (later in Rome this is transformed into the cult of the “civil martyr” first, and then of the “Caesar”). A hero is someone who courageously defies fate, knowing that he is ultimately doomed to suffering and death (Prometheus, Hercules, Theseus, Bellerophon, etc.). Ethics was anthropocentric, turned to the problems of human morality, the relationship of man and society. Modern secular culture is fundamentally anti-heroic, the hero of antiquity is not needed for it, it has its own heroes, as a rule, “ordinary people”, “average people”. Even in the comics about superheroes, it is emphasized that they are ordinary people and that is why they win. It can't even be said to be anthropocentric. Rather, we are faced with the cult of success and material benefits (hedonism). Hedonistic teachings were also present in antiquity, but they did not become widespread (until the decline of ancient culture).

    4. In ancient ethics, with all the tragic significance of the individual, the primacy was given to groups of people and traditions. Modern secular ethics denies collectivism (the primacy of individual rights) and deprives it of any basis and support. On the one hand, in the philosophical and ethical teachings of neo-and post-positivism, as well as neo-Darwinism, the sense of community turns into a fact of biology (“herd instinct”, “grouping”). On the other hand, neoliberal thinkers emphasize the individual, and on the third hand, we can take postmodern thought, where the sense of community, if it exists, then as a continuous chain of nonlinear chaotic connections (rhizome), that is, in such a community there is no person and humanity is lost.

    1. Ancient ethics is characterized by the identity of reason, goodness, and beauty. Evil is perceived as ignorance (Socrates), good always has beauty. For the modern ethical consciousness, this sounds like wildness. After the 19th and 20th centuries, the image of” evil reason “or” evil beauty ” entered both philosophical teachings and general cultural usage. Moreover, some philosophical and ethical teachings of the twentieth century aestheticized cruelty (atheistic existentialism). If we take postmodernism, on the contrary, it denies the “logocentrism” of culture and, accordingly, welcomes semantic (semantic) chaos, as such values are devoid of ontological support.

    2. Ancient ethics early raised the question of the opposite between the morality of an act and following the law (at least the execution of Socrates, as well as Plato's dialogues). The law, if there is an evil ruler behind it, was contrasted with the heroism of a thinker who refused to recognize it. Now modern ethical teachings very often verbally and ancient postulates in practice demonize and stigmatize the “opponents” of the law, endow them with the features of rejected, unworthy of mercy people, or, if we recall psychoanalytic ethics, reduce unethical actions and rebellion against the law to the return of man to the animal state.

    You can probably go on, but I'll stop there for now. The modern secular culture of Enlightenment is in decline ,which is noted by all. Hence the differences in ethics.

Leave a Reply