What does the concept of ethics mean? Definition of ethics. History of professional ethics

1. Terminology (basic concepts) The difficulties of studying the phenomenon of mass communication are associated primarily with its truly comprehensive nature, penetration into almost all pores of modern society, the role and influence, sometimes implicit, hidden, which

3. Standards of library ethics 3.1. Free access to information At the beginning of the century, librarians were concerned with the issue of collecting and systematizing knowledge that was scattered throughout the world. Many of them argued that this knowledge, constantly increasing and widely disseminated,

1.1. Basic concepts First of all, let us define the semantic component of the concepts “sex” and “gender” and terms directly related to them. In English-language literature, the concepts of “gender” and “sex” are defined by one word “sex”. In Russian, the word "gender" means

The term “ethics” comes from the ancient Greek word “ethos” (“ethos”). Initially, ethos was understood as a habitual place of living together, a house, a human dwelling, an animal’s lair, a bird’s nest. Subsequently, it began to primarily denote the stable nature of a phenomenon, custom, custom, character; Thus, in one of the fragments of Heraclitus it is said that the ethos of man is his deity. This change in meaning is instructive: it expresses the connection between a person’s social circle and his character. Starting from the word “ethos” in the meaning of character, Aristotle formed the adjective “ethical” in order to designate a special class of human qualities, which he called ethical virtues. Ethical virtues are properties of a person’s character and temperament; they are also called spiritual qualities. They differ, on the one hand, from affects as properties of the body and, on the other hand, from dianoetic virtues as properties of the mind. For example, fear is a natural affect, memory is a property of the mind, and moderation, courage, generosity are properties of character. To designate the totality of ethical virtues as a special subject area of ​​knowledge and to highlight this knowledge itself as a special science, Aristotle introduced the term “ethics”.

To accurately translate the Aristotelian concept of ethics from Greek into Latin, Cicero coined the term “moralis” (moral). He formed it from the word “mos” (mores - plural) - the Latin analogue of the Greek “ethos”, meaning character, temperament, fashion, cut of clothing, custom. Cicero, in particular, spoke about moral philosophy, understanding by it the same field of knowledge that Aristotle called ethics. In the 4th century AD. In Latin, the term “moralitas” (morality) appears, which is a direct analogue of the Greek term “ethics”.

Both of these words, one of Greek and the other of Latin origin, are included in modern European languages. Along with them, a number of languages ​​have their own words that denote the same reality, which is summarized in the terms “ethics” and “morality”. This is “morality” in Russian, and “Sittlichlkeit” in German. They, as far as one can judge, repeat the history of the emergence of the terms “ethics” and “morality”: from the word “temper” (Sitte) the adjective “moral” (sittlich) is formed and from it a new noun “morality” (Sittlichkeit).

In their original meaning, “ethics”, “morality”, “morality” are different words, but one term. Over time, the situation changes. In the process of cultural development, in particular, as the uniqueness of ethics as a field of knowledge is revealed, different meanings begin to be assigned to different words: ethics mainly means the corresponding branch of knowledge, science, and morality - the subject studied by it. There are also various attempts to separate the concepts of morality and morality. According to the most common of them, going back to Hegel, morality is understood as the subjective aspect of the corresponding actions, and morality is the actions themselves in their objectively expanded completeness: morality is how actions are seen by the individual in his subjective assessments, intentions, experiences of guilt, and morality is what a person’s actions actually are in the real experience of life of a family, people, and state. One can also distinguish a cultural and linguistic tradition, which understands morality as high fundamental principles, and morality as down-to-earth, historically changing norms of behavior; in this case, for example, the commandments of God are called moral, and the instructions of the school teacher are called moral.

In general, attempts to assign different substantive meanings to the words “ethics,” “morality,” and “morality” and, accordingly, to give them different conceptual and terminological meanings have not gone beyond the scope of academic experiments. In general cultural vocabulary, all three words continue to be used interchangeably. For example, in the living Russian language, what is called ethical norms can just as rightly be called moral norms or ethical norms. In language that claims scientific rigor, significant meaning is attached mainly to the distinction between the concepts of ethics and morality (morality), but this is not fully maintained. Thus, sometimes ethics as a field of knowledge is called moral philosophy, and the term ethics (professional ethics, business ethics) is used to denote certain moral phenomena.

Within the framework of an academic discipline, “ethics” is a science, a field of knowledge, an intellectual tradition, and “morality” or “ethics,” using these words interchangeably, is what is studied by ethics, its subject.

What is morality? This question is not only the initial, first in ethics; throughout the history of this science, covering about two and a half thousand years, it remained the main focus of its research interests. Different schools and thinkers give different answers to this question. There is no single, indisputable definition of morality, which is directly related to the uniqueness of this phenomenon. It is no accident that reflections on morality turn out to be different images of morality itself. Morality is more than a set of facts that is subject to generalization. It acts at the same time as a task that requires, among other things, theoretical reflection for its solution. Morality is not just what it is. Rather, it is what should be. Therefore, the adequate attitude of ethics to morality is not limited to its reflection and explanation. Ethics is also obliged to offer its own model of morality: moral philosophers in this respect can be likened to architects, whose professional calling is to design new buildings.

We will look at some of the most general definitions (characteristics) of morality, widely represented in ethics and firmly entrenched in culture. These definitions are largely consistent with popular views of morality. Morality appears in two interrelated, but nevertheless different guises: a) as a characteristic of a person, a set of moral qualities, virtues, for example, truthfulness, honesty, kindness; 6) as a characteristic of relationships between people, a set of moral norms (demands, commandments, rules), for example, “don’t lie,” “don’t steal,” “don’t kill.” Accordingly, we will reduce the general analysis of morality into two headings: the moral dimension of the individual and the moral dimension of society.

lat. - disposition, custom) is a branch of philosophical knowledge that studies the nature of morality and morality, the laws of their historical development and role in public life. Ethics examines the norms of human life from the standpoint of good and evil. Morality can be based on different ideas: religious moral sanction, eudaimonism as a selfish pursuit of happiness, class interests, etc. There is Christian ethics based on the moral ideals of the Bible, on the recognition of the Sermon on the Mount and the three holy virtues - faith, hope and love, ideas sin and redemption. There is also professional ethics, in particular pedagogical. Ethics plays a huge role in human life. This is a kind of system of protection against complete self-will and normative norms for conflict-free interaction.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

ETHICS

lat ethica, from the Greek etmke tech-ne - science and art of morality), the doctrine of morality, morality The term “E” was introduced by Aristotle, who placed E between the doctrine of the soul (psychology) and the doctrine of the state (politics ) Center part of E he considered the doctrine of virtues as morals. personality traits, his system already contained many “eternal questions” about the nature and source of morality, about free will and the foundations of morality. actions, the highest good, justice, etc.

Throughout its history, E has acted simultaneously as a practical (moral) philosophy, the doctrine of a correct and worthy life, and as knowledge about morality (about its nature, origin, etc.) Thus, E has performed two socially significant functions - moral-educational and cognitive-educational. Relative independence, the discrepancy between these functions served as the reason for the gradual separation within E of two interconnected parts - normative E and theoretical. E, oriented, respectively, to the study of life and to the knowledge of morality. In the 2nd half of 20, the demarcation of these parts of E led to their actual registration in different disciplines. This differentiation is largely due to didacticism. requirements related to the organization of teaching E in educational institutions (schools, colleges, universities, etc.) The inclusion of E in educational programs is a trend characteristic of all developed countries. An E course can be introduced with the aim of having a positive impact on morals. consciousness of the students, on their value orientations, in this case the content of the course consists mainly of normative components of ethics. teachings, if the accentuated goal is to increase the worldview culture of students, to gain them knowledge about society, the mechanisms of its regulation (which include morality), etc., then the emphasis is on scientific. -explain aspects of E Although expected educational or cognitive. the result of teaching this subject depends on the method and contains factors, the initial choice of normative or theoretical. E as the basis of the educational course is of decisive importance. For example, the morals planned by the teacher. -educated the effect of the course E developed by him is often not achieved due to the fact that students are presented mainly with descriptive and explanatory (theoretical) material. Such a mistake is usually a consequence of the “enlightenment” illusion deeply rooted in the pedagogical environment that any knowledge (and especially knowledge about morality) in itself is beneficial for the individual, morally elevates it, etc. To avoid such mistakes in teaching E, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between its normative and theoretical. issues

Normative ethics is a system of moralistic reasoning aimed at maintaining the foundation of morals in society. values ​​It is designed to formulate answers to questions about good and evil, about the correct behavior of a person in everyday life situations. Normative and ethical. the doctrine proclaims and defends a certain moral position, expressing it in the form of morals. ideals, principles, rules and norms of behavior In contrast to naked moralizing, which is characterized by edification, suggestion, reference to authorities and role models, normative E appeals to reason, its methods are proof, argument, argument. If moralizing is like ped. While the technique is appropriate in relation to an undeveloped (childish or uncultured) consciousness, normative E. is addressed to a critically thinking person who is capable of questioning any postulates. Reasonable arguments in favor of certain moral provisions contribute to the transformation of a social imperative (moral norm) external to the individual into an internal one. impulse (sense of duty, moral motivation of behavior). Regulatory and ethical reflection and evidence form one of the means of forming morals. beliefs.

Being a philosopher discipline, normative ethics is not directly concerned with proving specific, private moral assessments and prescriptions. Development and justification of morals. imperatives in relation to individual or typical situations that people encounter in their personal and society. life, is the field of activity of preachers, literary moralists, teachers, creators of prof. ethical codes (“medical E.”, “Business E.”, etc.), i.e. in general, educators in the broad sense of this concept. All this activity represents concretization and practicality. the use of certain general ethics. principles; Thus, the teacher ultimately relies on one or another philosophical normative and ethical. position.

The peculiarity of normative ethics as a moral philosophy is that it provides a rational basis for fundamental values, which serve as a guide for the practicing educator. Ch. task of philosophy justifications of morality - to give them a supra-individual status and affirm the unconditionality of moral requirements. A moral philosopher, as a rule, does not speak on his own behalf, not on behalf of a candidate. social institution (in these cases, its judgments would bear the stamp of arbitrariness, optionality), but as a conductor of some higher idea. Moral imperatives and assessments acquire such an indisputable status by giving them either a sacred-supernatural (mystical, divine) or natural-objective meaning. In the first case, the categorical principles and norms of morality are ensured by the absolute authority of God, in the second - by belonging to the objective world order, with the inevitably operating laws of which a person is forced to reckon. These two ways of justifying morality determine the general directions of normative and ethical. thoughts, within which there are numerous. branches.

In religion teachings, the leading motive for the authoritarian justification of morality is the understanding of God as the personification of Good, and the norms of morality as deities, commandments, due to which these norms in the mind of the believer receive a positive and unconditionally binding meaning. Often God acts as an omniscient guardian of his commandments, inevitably rewarding a person in accordance with his sins and merits. In this case, morality is supported not so much by sacred authority and the intrinsic value of the Good, but by the threat of punishment or the promise of reward, therefore the actual moral meaning of such justification disappears. However, the authoritarian approach was not dominant in the history of Ethnicity. The second method, associated with the objectification of moral values, occupied a much greater place, as a result of which they became uncontested and, in this sense, absolute. By proving the objectivity of good, duty, etc., the philosopher thereby substantiates these values, forces a reasonable individual to accept them and agree with them. Thus, in the teachings of Plato, goodness, or benefit, is an objectively existing “idea” that embodies in its pure form the integral highest value as such. Such values, once their objectivity is recognized, immediately acquire a normative, goal-indicating meaning. Plato, following Socrates, believed (with certain reservations) that a person, cognizing objective good, thereby becomes virtuous. Philosopher interpreted the objectivity of morality differently. rationalism of modern times, dissolving normative and ethical. problems in the theory of knowledge. For R. Descartes, G. W. Leibniz, I. Kant, the objectivity of a certain judgment (including moral) meant its logical. necessity, compulsion for the mind. The famous categorical imperative was this kind of necessary position (maxim), with which, as Kant believed, every rational being cannot but agree, and therefore the formulation of this maxim itself is already its rational justification. Representatives of intuitionism of the 18th-20th centuries took a similar position. (R. Price, J. E. Moore, etc.); According to their views, “moral truth” is perceived directly (intuitively) as self-evident, which serves as its justification. These concepts recognized the autonomy of morality, i.e. it was assumed that own. the principles of morality are objective, absolute and do not require outside reinforcement.

The concepts of heteronomous ethics make the principles of morality dependent on other, deeper and stronger foundations that give these principles contain, certainty, and obligation. Such grounds are various. Philosopher provisions in which certain characteristics of the world, society, and person are fixed. Thus, the idea of ​​world necessity, the objective predetermination of all events, their inability to control man, served as the basis for a life teaching preaching humility, self-restraint, wise dispassion, etc. [directions in Chinese (Taoism) and other Greek. (stoicism) philosophy]. From ideas about the objective “legislation” of nature, imperatives such as “live in harmony with nature”, “everything natural is good”, etc. (the teachings of other Greek philosophers - Cynics, Sophists, etc.) emerged. If this meant not external, but human nature, then these imperatives were transformed into calls: “listen to the voice of your own nature,” “follow your natural aspirations,” etc., which formed the basis of normative and ethical. naturalism, represented by the teachings of hedonism, eudaimonism, and the theory of egoism.

In the 19th-20th centuries. Concepts in which morality is justified by reference to the objective laws of the development of nature or society have become widespread, i.e. Actions consistent with the direction of nature were recognized as due or justified. evolution (evolutionary E.) or corresponding to the objective course, trends, “objective needs” of history (Marxist E.). A special line is formed by concepts in which the role of the objective basis of morality is played by non-moral values. The “objectivity” of these values ​​is often identified with their social, i.e. supra-individual or supra-group status, and in this case morals. the imperative addressed to an individual or a group is justified as follows: something is good or proper because it serves the public (universal) good, social progress, the establishment of a just system, the interests of the state or nation, or is aimed at achieving the greatest. happiness for the most number of people (utilitarianism), etc. In other cases, objective extra-moral values ​​are understood as “non-human”, absolute, supreme (deities, self-will, standing “above” good; cosmic goals, etc.), so that moral the dignity of actions, the binding nature of the corresponding instructions is determined by their subordination to the highest. values-goals (teleology, the doctrine of the expediency of the world order).

Theoretical ethics is a science that describes and explains morality as a special social phenomenon. This science answers the questions: what is morality, how does it differ from other societies. phenomena; what is its origin, how has it changed historically; what are the mechanisms and patterns of its functioning; what is its social role, etc. All these issues began to be formalized explicitly only in the 18th century. Kant saw the specificity of morality in the self-sufficiency, unconditional bindingness and universality of its imperatives (formalism, absolutism). A. Shaftesbury, D. Hume and others saw the difference, a sign of moral assessments and prescriptions in their special mental. substrate - “morals. feelings" (psychologism). Hume also noted logical. the uniqueness of moral statements (“judgments of what should be”), their non-derivability from statements about facts (“judgments of what is”). The development of this thought was the idea of ​​the impossibility of science. justification of morality (neopositivism), the presence of a special (“deontic”) logic of moral reasoning, etc. For representatives of intuitionism, the specificity of morality meant the irreducibility of a moral motive to any other, the uniqueness of the content of moral concepts (good, duty), their irreducibility to any then other contents. Thus, Moore qualified any definition of good through other concepts as “naturalistic.” error"; this mistake, in his opinion, is characteristic of the entire trs., “sch. E. Mn. philosophers various directions (Aristotle, Kant, A. Schopenhauer, etc.) recognized free will as a necessary sign of moral consciousness, without which, they believed, moral choice is impossible, and therefore, moral responsibility of the individual is impossible. At the same time, free will was opposed either to natural (including mental) determination, or to supernatural predestination (voluntarism, determinism, fatalism). The problem of free will was also posed in a different context - in connection with the clarification of the source of morality, its origin. Free will was no longer considered in this case as a prerequisite for a morally responsible choice between good and evil, but as the ability of a person to arbitrarily set his values, to establish the criterion of good and evil (existentialism, personalism).

In the 19th-20th centuries. theoretical problems Ethics increasingly came under the jurisdiction of specific sciences, for which morality formed part of their subject area. Thus, sociology (including social psychology) elucidates the phylogeny of morality and its societies. functions, the content of its principles and norms, the relationship with other social phenomena, etc. Personal psychology studies the ontogenesis of morality, its mental. substrate and mechanism. Ethology looks for the prerequisites for human morality in the behavior of animals. Logic and linguistics explore the language of morality, rules and forms of normative and ethical. reasoning. Theoretical E. brings together all these scientific. data concerning the essence, origin and functioning of morality; it covers a wide array of knowledge, including philosophy. will explain the concepts and ideas that make up the methodological. scientific base knowledge of morality.

Practical theoretical value E. lies in the fact that the knowledge it produces about the laws and conditions for the formation and change of morality can be used for consciousness. intervention in this process in order to achieve the desired result, for example, consolidating certain morals in the mind of the individual. installations. Theoretical Education itself, of course, does not contain specific methods of moral education, but it serves as a methodological tool. the basis for the corresponding practically oriented discipline (theory of moral education). If normative E., justifying moral values, can influence morals. position of the individual directly by its very content, then the influence of the theoretical. E. affects indirectly - through the development of methods and techniques of moral education. activities. Therefore, teaching theoretical E. has its own characteristics: as a teacher. discipline, it is designed for an audience not of “educated” people, but of educators; It is advisable to include it in training and advanced training programs for teachers.

Lit.: Moore J. E., Principles of Ethics, M., 1984; Guseinov A. A., Irrlitz G., A Brief History of Ethics, M., 1987; Maksimov P.V., The problem of substantiating morality, M., 1991. L.V. Maksimov.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓