Ethical Theories in Contemporary Western Philosophy. Contemporary ethical theory

26.09.2019

Characteristics of the hero from the comedy "Minor" D

Pyotr Andreevich Grinev, the main character of the story

The image and characteristics of svidrigailov in the novel crime and punishment dostoevsky composition

The image and characteristics of Mitrofanushka in Fonvizin's "The Minor": the description of Mitrofan Prostakov

The end of the 19th and 20th centuries became critical and tragic for all mankind: revolutions, world wars, the division of the world into 2 hostile camps. This, of course, was reflected in the development of modern ethical concepts. The most widespread were only 2 of them: the ethics of violence and the ethics of non-violence.

Contemporary ethics violence. Expressions of ideas of violence were: Karl Marx, F. Nietzsche and E. Dühring. Dühring and Nietzsche attributed to violence a decisive role in the history of mankind. They considered it justified to sacrifice during a change of power and system, they believed that a person has the right to radically change social life if it does not meet his aspirations, and those who do not want this can be forced under the threat of violence to do what they do not want. Marx and Engels, who engaged in polemics with Dühring regarding the denial of violence, nevertheless became the founders of the practice of violence, elevated it to the rank of the current law of any revolution. The destruction of people takes place when the social order changes. The ethics of violence continued to develop in the writings of Lenin, and was applied by him directly in practice - the dictatorship of the proletariat. This ethic gave birth to the bloodiest dictatorships of the 20th century - Stalinism and Hitlerism.

Contemporary ethics of nonviolence. It arose in opposition to the ethic of violence, which was widespread in the 20th century. The main ethical principle of this direction is the absence of any violence against a person, both moral and physical. Through this, a person builds relationships with nature and the people around him.

Leo Tolstoy played a significant role in the development of ethical categories of nonviolence. He believed that through violence people justify the presence of the most negative vices: evil, greed, envy, lust for power. But these qualities are destructive, first of all, for their bearer. You should change your moral values, come to God and accept the main principle of Christianity - you cannot respond with evil to violence.

The name of another exponent of the ethics of nonviolence, ML King, is associated with the opening of the Institute of Nonviolence in New York. He substantiated the basic principles of philanthropy, as well as the methods of their development in oneself. King understood that the implementation of these principles is not an easy task, but it is also the key one, ensuring a person's survival. Love should become the driving force of any person, even for his enemies. Hence, an important quality of upbringing in oneself is forgiveness.

The ideas of another humanist of the 20th century, Gandhi, also gained fame. He fought for the independence of his country exclusively in a peaceful way. Gandhi believed that the principles of non-violence are inherent only in strong people who raised them through reason. The laws of love are as effective in the world as the laws of gravity - a loving person gets a lot in return. Harmony of reason and love in a person is the real foundation of non-violence.

The pinnacle of the ethics of nonviolence was the direction of the ethics of reverence for life, developed by Albert Schweitzer. Education in the soul of love, forgiveness, respect for others is possible through the contemplation of the perfection of the device of nature and man by the Creator. Schweitzer's ethics is practical, it provides for the education of the necessary qualities that will bring harmony into a person's life.

Topic 10: Ethical Theories in Contemporary Western Philosophy

Introduction

2. Ethics in the philosophy of existentialism

3. Humanistic ethics of E. Fromm

4. "Ethics of reverence for life" by A. Schweitzer

Conclusion

Introduction

The twentieth century has become a century of rapid development of science and technology, qualitative changes in production and, at the same time, a century of global problems such as the threat of nuclear war, environmental and demographic problems. On the one hand, we can talk about the crisis of the ideas of rationalism in our days, on the other, about the excessive and one-sided rationalization and technicalization of consciousness. The general crisis of culture and the desire to harmonize and improve the world and soul of individuals were reflected in ethical searches.

This paper highlights the provisions of some modern ethical theories that took place in the twentieth century. This topic is important because the development of history is largely determined by the views and ideologies that prevail in society. Ethics is one of the components that has a direct impact on their development. You need to know the basic ethical principles by which the history of the past has developed in order to make your own ethical choice in the future.

The aim of this work is to study the ethical and philosophical views of the outstanding thinkers of the twentieth century.

1. Ethical concept of F. Nietzsche

The course of history in the 19th-20th centuries seemed to completely refute the foundations of humanistic classical philosophy, and reason and science, although they confirmed their triumph in the knowledge and subordination of the forces of nature, also revealed their powerlessness in the structure of human life. The claims of classical philosophy, proceeding from the belief in the natural structure of the world and its movement in the direction of progressive ideals, in the rationality of man and the world of civilization and culture created by him, in the humanistic orientation of the historical process itself, turned out to be unconfirmed. Therefore, it took either the indication of new ways and means for the realization of these claims, or the exposure of their illusory nature and the deliverance of humanity from vain expectations and hopes.

Philosophy of life F. Nietzsche marked the final "reassessment of all values" of the previous philosophy, culture and morality.

Nietzsche saw his task precisely in waking up humanity, dispelling its illusions, in which it plunged deeper and deeper into a state of crisis and degeneration. This required potent drugs that could shock, excite the audience. Therefore, Nietzsche does not skimp on biting statements, harsh assessments, philosophical paradoxes and scandals. He considered his works a real "school of courage and audacity", and himself - a true philosopher of "unpleasant", "terrible truths", overthrowing "idols", by which he understood traditional values and ideals, and a debunker of delusions rooted not even in the weakness of knowledge , and above all in human cowardice!

Many times he calls himself "the first immoralist", a real "atheist", "antichrist", "world-historical monster", "dynamite", designed to blow up the swamp of established ideas.

Nietzsche strives for the everyday ideas of cultural consciousness, for the "values" of civilization and culture - religion, morality, science, to comprehend the true essence of being - the instinctive striving of life for self-affirmation. He understands life as a disordered and chaotic deployment of the energy of chaos inherent in being, a stream that is not outputted and directed nowhere, subject to the madness of the orgiastic principle and completely free from any moral characteristics and evaluations. In ancient culture, the symbol of such an understanding of life, Nietzsche considered the ecstasy of the god of wine, the daring revelry and fun of Dionysus, symbolizing for a person a sense of strength and power, the bliss of delight and horror from his liberation and complete merger with nature.

However, the energy of life is inherent in its development to go through periods of rise and fall, the creation and destruction of life forms, the strengthening and weakening of the instinctive desire for self-realization. On the whole, this is a harsh and merciless struggle between various manifestations of life, distinguished by the presence in them of the “will to live” and “the will to power” over its other manifestations.

Therefore, according to Nietzsche, "life itself is essentially appropriation, harm, overcoming the alien and the weaker, oppression, severity, forcible imposition of its own forms, annexation and ... exploitation."

Exploitation, oppression, violence, therefore, is not a belonging to some imperfect, unreasonable society, but is a necessary manifestation of living life, a consequence of the will to power, which is precisely the will to live.

A stronger will to live and to rule overwhelms a weakened will and dominates it. This is the law of life, but it can be distorted in human society.

Man is one of the imperfect manifestations of life, which, although superior to other animals in cunning and foresight, in his ingenuity, is immeasurably inferior to them in another respect. He is unable to live a completely immediate instinctive life, obeying its cruel laws, because under the influence of consciousness and its illusory ideas about its "goals" and "purpose", his vital instincts are weakened, and he himself turns into a failed, sick animal.

Consciousness, reason seek to streamline the vital energy of being, shape and direct the life stream in a certain channel and subordinate it to a rational principle, the symbol of which in antiquity was the god Apollo, and if this succeeds, then life weakens and strives to self-destruction.

Social life is the struggle between the Dionysian and Apollo principles in culture, the first of which symbolized the triumph of healthy life instincts, and the second - the decadence experienced by Europe, i.e. the weakening of the will to power taken to the extreme, leading to the dominance in European culture of unnatural values that undermine the very sources of life.

The decay and degradation of European culture are due, according to Nietzsche, to its cornerstone foundations - the Christian morality of humanity, the exorbitant ambitions of reason and science, which “derive” from the historical necessity the ideas of social equality, democracy, socialism and, in general, the ideals of the optimal organization of society on the basis of justice and rationality. Nietzsche attacks these values of traditional humanism with all his force, showing their unnatural orientation and nihilistic character. Following them weakens humanity and directs the will to live towards Nothing, towards self-destruction.

It was in the values of Christian morality, the ideals of reason and science that Nietzsche discerned a "fraud of a higher order", which he tirelessly engaged in denouncing all his life, putting forward the slogan "revaluation of all values."

Christianity is a "monstrous disease of the will" and arises out of fear and want, among the weakest and wretched carriers of a weakened will to live. Therefore, it is permeated with hatred and aversion to a healthy life, masked by a belief in "perfect heavenly life", which was invented only in order to better slander this earthly one. All Christian fantasies are a sign of deep exhaustion and impoverishment of the present life, its illness and fatigue, so that Christianity itself lives on the drug addiction of human misery.

However, remaining a manifestation, albeit sick, but still the will to live, Christianity, in order to survive among the strong and cruel, invents a bridle for the strong and fearless through the most unbridled moralizing, identifying itself with morality. Through the cultivation of the moral values of Christianity, a sick life catches a healthy one and destroys it, and the more true, the deeper the ideals of self-denial, self-sacrifice, mercy and love for one's neighbor are spread.

Such a traditional philanthropic morality is interpreted by Nietzsche as "the will to deny life", "the hidden instinct of destruction, the principle of decline, humiliation." Christian morality is initially permeated with sacrifice, it grows out of a slave state and seeks to extend it to its enslavers, inventing God for this. Faith in God requires a conscious sacrifice to him of his freedom, pride, dignity, open self-abasement of man, promising in return for heavenly bliss.

Nietzsche very subtly plays with the main provisions of Christian morality, revealing its hypocritical and deceitful nature. “He who humbles himself wants to be exalted,” he corrects the preaching of Christ.

He deciphers the demand for selflessness and disinterestedness, “not to seek benefits” as a moral fig leaf for expressing powerlessness - “I can no longer find my own use ...”.

The consciousness, unbearable for a weak will, “I am worthless”, takes on in Christian morality the form “everything is worthless, and this life is also worthless”. The ascetic ideal of holiness, the cultivation of dispassion and suffering is for him an attempt to give a meaning to the meaninglessness of suffering, when it is impossible to get rid of it because of one's own weakness, for any meaning is better than complete meaninglessness. Dispassion is only a spiritual castration of a person and, by undermining the root of human passions, one can only destroy life itself.

Compassion and love for one's neighbor is only the flip side of painful self-hatred, for these and other virtues are clearly harmful to their owner, but useful and therefore hypocritically praised by his competitors, who seek to bind their owner with their help. Therefore, concludes Nietzsche, "if you have virtue, then you are its victim!"

In addition, through mercy and compassion, Christian morality artificially supports too much of that which should have perished and made way for the more powerful manifestations of life.

Essential in morality is, according to Nietzsche, one thing - that it is always a "long oppression" and the manifestation of the herd instinct in an individual person.

And although religion and the morality it preaches are necessary and useful for the overwhelming masses, for the herd, for people strong and independent, representing the dominant race, all this becomes superfluous. Nevertheless, they can use this superfluous means of their dominion over the flock in order to better compel it to obedience, without becoming themselves prisoners of poor morality. For along with this wretched morality, which requires the sacrifice of man to God, there are other higher "morals" in which God himself is sacrificed!

"We must free ourselves from morality in order to be able to live morally!" - exclaims Nietzsche, proclaiming the need to reassess "eternal values", abandon the morality of slaves and restore the rights of life. This is available only to overlords, strong and free minds, holders of an unbreakable will, possessing their own measure of values and assigning themselves a measure of respect and contempt for others. They are true aristocrats of the spirit who do not seek harmony with others, retain the “pathos of distance” and the habit of “looking down”. They retain their independence from the dogmas of everyday morality, are free from its fetters and are disgusted with all moral chatter about duty, selflessness, holiness, for they themselves impose their own laws.

This "morality of masters" is the morality of strength and selfishness, which "is the most essential property of a noble soul," by which Nietzsche understood "an unshakable belief that a being" like us "should naturally obey and sacrifice other beings" ...

This morality also has certain responsibilities, but only in relation to their own kind and equal, while in relation to beings of a lower rank, "you can act according to your discretion ... being on the other side of good and evil." "In every deed of a superior man," Nietzsche contemptuously casts at the side of an ordinary man in the street, "your moral law has been violated a hundredfold."

Nietzsche easily and originally deals with the problem of "free will", which tormented the previous ethics. Any will is a manifestation of the instincts of life, and in this sense it is not free and not rational. We need to talk not about free and unfree will, but about a strong will that rules and commands and takes responsibility, and a weak will, which only obeys and fulfills. The first is free to the extent that it is strong, and the second is not free in the same sense.

Therefore, the morality of freedom and dignity exists only for the highest people, and for others, only the slavish morality of self-denial and asceticism is available, in which the weakened instincts of life are discharged not outside, but inside the human soul by the aggression of self-destruction.

From the same positions Nietzsche dealt with the "scientific" humanism of the socialists and democrats. "Fanatics of brotherhood", as he called them, just like Christian morality, ignore the laws of nature, seeking to eliminate exploitation, overcome the natural inequality of people and impose on them "the common herd happiness of green pastures." This will inevitably lead to the same result - the weakening and degradation of humanity, for man always develops in struggle and rivalry, and inequality and exploitation are a necessary condition of life.

In the morality of a socialist society, the will of God is replaced by the public benefit derived from history and the common good, which is guarded by the state. At the same time, the interests of an individual do not mean anything, why Nietzsche considers socialism as the younger brother of despotism, in which the state seeks to transform a person from an individual into an organ of a collective. A person, naturally, tries to resist this, and then state terrorism becomes an obligatory means of implanting loyal feelings, consciousness and obedience to actions.

In such a morality, everything that distinguishes and elevates the individual above the general level frightens everyone, is condemned by everyone and is subject to punishment. The state pursues an equalizing policy, leveling everyone, naturally, at the lowest level, as a result of which the democratic form of government is, according to Nietzsche, a form of grinding and devaluing a person and relegating him to the level of mediocrity.

Thus, Nietzsche's philosophy was a kind of revelation and a tub of cold water for traditional classical ethics, focused on humanistic ideals and the progress of reason. His idea that "there is no pre-established harmony between the advancement of truth and the good of mankind" became one of the central values in philosophy in the XX century.

With his “philosophy of life,” he passionately sought to destroy the concept of man as a “creature”, as an object and a means to achieve goals alien to him, and to help self-creation in him as a “creator”, a free agent. Nietzsche tried to overcome the idea of morality as an objective system of constraints, norms and prohibitions that did not depend on a person, alienated from him and suppress him, and present it as a sphere of freedom.

With his work, he defended the vitality and value of individualism, with which he associated a new understanding of humanism, however, inevitably coming along this path to the absolutization of subjectivism and relativity of moral values, to the opposition of aristocratic morality ("everything is allowed") and the morality of lower beings.

Nietzsche was able to theoretically foresee and express the essential characteristics of the moral practice of the socialist reorganization of society, but he did not see the inner kinship of his "new order" with totalitarian social systems. For the rights and freedoms of morality of the elect in Nietzsche were compensated by the powerlessness and ruthless suppression of the plebeians. The morality of the "supermen" turned out to be a superhuman morality, free from moral obligations to humanity and permeated with contempt for universal values.

Either one of the characteristics of these relations, he leaves aside others, considering them to be derived from it, and at the same time creates rather complex philosophical constructions. 5. Modern religious philosophy. During the years of dogmatization of Marxism, any religious philosophy in connection with militant atheism was viewed as reactionary. Of course, criticism of Marxism from the representatives of this ...

Old and New Testaments) found their expression only in Christianity. In the future, Christianity and the moral values of the Bible will be accepted as synonyms. This abstract does not consider the further history of Christianity and the Christian Church. 2. Western philosophy of the XX century By the middle of the XIX century. Western European philosophical thought found itself in a deep crisis. ...

Not in Mexico, without having received the appropriate professional training and even, to be honest, without having studied deeply a single book on these subjects? By the way, adherents of structuralism often even defined structuralism at once as “method and philosophy”. So, the main book of a prominent representative of this trend in France N. Muloud "Les structures, la recherche et le savoir" (the name of the Russian ...

That and the other culture and a certain detachment from both12. * * * Concluding the conversation about the two great intellectual traditions of the East, let us draw the main conclusions that are essential for the purpose of this book. Turning its face to Chinese philosophical thought, modern philosophy can find in it a completely different model of the development of philosophical speculation, which gave rise to a discourse that retained the original model ...

Plan
INTRODUCTION 3
1. ETHICAL CONTENT, MORAL RELATIONS IN MANAGEMENT AND
MANAGEMENT. 4
2. MANAGEMENT, MANAGEMENT ETHICS: CONCEPT, VALUE AND FUNCTIONS. 7
3. MORAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES. VALUES AND ETHICS OF THE MANAGER.
10
4. RELATIONSHIP OF MORALITY AND RIGHT IN MANAGEMENT. fourteen
CONCLUSION 16
REFERENCES 17
Introduction
Ethics is a large and important part of universal human culture, morality,
morality developed over many centuries of life by all peoples in
in accordance with their ideas about good, justice, humanity - in
the field of moral culture and about beauty, order, improvement, household
expediency - in the field of material culture.
You can give a lot of examples of complete disrespect for others, tolerated
people:
a neighbor in a theater or a concert hall widely and "forever"
your hands on both armrests;
a person in a museum or exhibition who obstructs his back
exhibits from other visitors;
unceremonious colleagues interrupting important business negotiations.
Each of us meets dozens of people every day, has the most
different, sometimes very difficult relationships. And sometimes find the right, reasonable
and ethical in relation to another person solutions to emerging conflicts - not
so easy.
Ethics, on the other hand, helps to study the moral meaning of actions, motives,
characters. Ethics, while remaining a serious philosophical science, becomes
at the same time the life position of both society as a whole and its individual
members.
Currently, much attention is paid to the study of the ethics of business
relations, business and management in order to raise the level of culture of these
relationships. She analyzes the relationship of business partners with
positions of interpretation of moral assessments of the reasons for success or failure in any
activities, in particular, in commercial and management.
There are a number of reasons behind the emergence of interest in business ethics and ethics.
management in particular. Chief among them is the total harm of the unethical,
dishonest business behavior, felt not only by consumers, but also
manufacturers, business partners, employees, society in general,
excess of this social harm over individual or group
benefit.
Russian and foreign researchers agree that
modern Russia is a system in which at the same time
the formation of the most important social subsystems occurs: social
economic, political, sociocultural. Together they form a special
transitional model. Accordingly, those ethical norms and principles
which take place in the modern Russian business environment, also
are in the process of formation and can be considered as transitional. They
represent a kind of synthesis of behavioral stereotypes that have passed from
the era of totalitarian and authoritarian economics, borrowing from Western
business culture and not fully formed rules, still only
emerging in the process of transition to a market economy.
1. Ethical content, moral relations in management and
management.
While some business people hold strict moral values in
everyday life, the dynamics of business life requires them to have
additional strong moral principles.
Each profession has its own moral "temptations", moral "valor"
and "losses", certain contradictions arise, peculiar
ways to resolve them.
The need to improve the quality of ethical consciousness is especially evident in
in the light of changes in the organization of modern business:
1. growth of the level of corporation at the present time;
2. information revolution.
The need to introduce modern production technologies is often
tantamount to the need for significant economic innovation at work
large corporations.
One of the downsides to the incredible growth of modern corporations is
the inevitable growth of bureaucratic organizational structures within them. Wherein
there is a tendency typical of bureaucratic structures responsible for
decision-making, which consists in unquestioning obedience to the person,
standing higher on the hierarchical ladder. This trend leads to the fact that
the initiative is seriously suppressed. And this puts a lot of ethical
problems for decision-makers within such
organizational structures, which also leads to situations where
even good and honest people do bad and dishonorable deeds, although this
done for the good of the corporation.
The second change in the organization of modern business is information
the revolution. The computer concentrated the information and made it much more
affordable. On the one hand, significantly more people around the world are now
time have the widest access to sources of information. With another -
the use of a computer allows for mass concentration of a purely personal
information about people and their habits. Such collection and centralization of such
information can be used, for example, to better understand requests
and the needs of people, or usurped by narrow groups to use
this important information for personal use.
Ethical standards in the workplace differ significantly from generally accepted
standards in everyday life.
In the course of work, people are often forced to do things like
which would never have been done in ordinary, everyday conditions. For example,
most would never even consider stealing writing materials from someone's
either at home. However, very often they carry away various materials from their worker
places for their further use for personal purposes or give them to members
your family or friends.
But in an organization where petty theft is common, it becomes
it is difficult to draw the line between normal employee behavior and such
questionable behavior, such as personal phone calls,
intended for business contacts, private travel of employees at the expense of
budget of the organization, etc. Precisely because petty thefts seem to everyone
it seems so trivial, extremely inconvenient for everyone to fight with them. But how
only such an order turns out to be generally accepted, it turns out to be more difficult and
the fight against offenses, which, in terms of the degree of harm done, turn out to be much
more serious. Over time, workers find themselves in a position that already
cannot withstand the large waste of funds that could go to
profit to shareholders or returned to the people on whose money it functions
organization. Hiding the truth is another example of behavior that
considered wrong, but not in the workplace.
Some wrong things are done by people as a result of working in
business competitive environment. Often, working in an organization can force
of themselves in such a way that, under normal circumstances, they would consider such behavior
wrong. For example, criticism of the results of someone else's labor leads to
numerous grievances that they usually try to avoid. On
work, however, this may be part of the job - to criticize,
disassemble the flaws. People are forced to hide any facts
get out, seek benefits, harm or ignore harm,
inflicted on others, or be silent when they see various unjust
actions towards other people.
Doing business basically means buying and selling goods from a one-way
benefit. When it becomes possible to give false information about an object
sale, the seller will not necessarily take this opportunity for fear
the sanctions laid down in the legislation. However, hiding the whole truth, in
features of the information about the product being sold that can cause
the buyer to look for the same product elsewhere, just not counted in
such a "game" as trading. It follows from the above that the work of a person
creates situations with unusual rules of behavior that are essential
differ from the rules that apply to any other person's contacts in
society. People can hide any facts outside their workplace,
considering it correct, for example, to hide any facts from acquaintances for their
well-being - so as not to put them in an awkward situation. But at the same time there will be
feel embarrassed in this situation if they do it to achieve
some benefit for yourself.
In contrast, any salesperson will feel satisfied.
seeing your customer leaving in a used car,
but sold as new.
Business is often indifferent to harming others.
people, which is atypical under normal conditions. Products manufactured and
sold by entrepreneurs in a market economy, often
turns out to be simply dangerous for the life and health of people. It has often been noted that
due to various circumstances, the public seeks to purchase such products,
even when he realizes the risk. But manufacturers and sellers are by no means
strive to warn potential buyers of impending danger if
they are not forced to do so by law.
Indifference to harming others is often shown when addressing
with employees of the organization. In relation to a person who is fired with
work, demoted or reduced wages,
empathy on the part of the executive is simply impermissible
luxury. In some cases, such actions are performed with feeling
undeniable confidence and superiority, without providing any
explanations, with the knowledge that the authority of the boss alone is enough
for the consent of the subordinate with any action of the boss. Perhaps, according to the law of this and
actually enough, but for other reasons, the law in this case does not
is absolutely perfect. Morally disregard for
harm done to other people is the type of behavior that we are in
normal conditions is called incorrect.
In a working environment, flattering and intrigue can be considered a “skill
work with people. " Under normal circumstances, to a person who is flattering
disposes of other people, so that you can then use them to achieve
their goals, will be treated as an insincere person. On the working day
place it will be called "able to maneuver."
No one will dispute the existence of such phenomena in the business world.
2. Managerial, managerial ethics: concept, meaning and function.
The current level of development of science and technology makes high demands on
the level of professional preparedness of a manager specializing in that
or another area. In addition, any manager, regardless of the area
activities, be it manufacturing, commerce, finance or show
business, you need to have the skills of working with personnel, constantly take into account
the human factor in solving managerial problems:
- to anticipate, predict further development, define goals and
develop a strategy and tactics to achieve them;
- organize the activities of the enterprise (department, division) in
in accordance with its goals and purpose, taking into account (agreeing)
material and social aspects;
- to dispose of personnel; - harmonize (link, combine, combine)
all actions and efforts; - monitor the implementation of management decisions and
orders.
These are the functional tasks of management as a whole. And in particular, each
a self-respecting manager is obliged to strictly adhere to the ethical standards adopted at
the company in which he works. Here are some of them:
upon hiring, the manager assumes ethical and
legal obligation not to disclose confidential or confidential
trade secret information, even if in the future he decides to leave
from the firm. Similarly, if he previously worked in another organization, then
must be aware that he has no right to disclose confidential information
previous employer.
the manager of the company must work with full dedication for its benefit.
It is unethical to have extraneous business interests that would distract
a significant part of the time or attention from the performance of official
responsibilities in the firm or in any other way adversely affect
activities of the company.
every manager is obliged to avoid external financial or other
connections that could adversely affect the interests of the firm, create
duality in his attitude towards the company or its interests and discourage
effective performance of their duties, as well as cause
a conflict of interest arises.
under no circumstances is it allowed to be taken in connection with
work any invitations to entertainment, travel, sports
events, as well as accept gifts, tickets, paid vacations, personal
cash offerings, etc. Actions of this kind can be regarded as
by other persons as acceptance of a certain obligation on the part of the company and
involve you in a conflict of interest.
managers need to know the laws that govern them
activities, and carry them out using all appropriate means available in
the disposal of the company.
The main ethical issues that arise are as follows:
concealment of facts and incorrect information in reports and during
checks;
unreasonable overpricing and outright deception when conducting business
negotiations;
unconditional obedience to management, no matter how unethical and
it did not turn out to be unjust;
deliberately exaggerating the benefits of your work plan for
getting support;
deceiving customers in order to obtain benefits for the company;
moving up the career ladder over the heads of colleagues;
sacrificing the interests of other employees of the firm for the sake of
performance of this or that work;
production of products with questionable characteristics
security;
forging alliances with questionable partners in the hope of a happy
accident.
In order to meet these requirements, the manager needs
develop a number of abilities and personality traits of the leader, including
the most important are intelligence, self-confidence, honesty,
responsibility and common sense.
The sum of these qualities makes it possible to rely in work not only on imperious
powers assigned to the head by position, but also to informal
an authority who can play a more important role in working with people, especially in
the establishment of an atmosphere of cooperation and the formation of a healthy moral
psychological climate in the team.
As noted by the renowned specialist John Chestara, any human activity
requires the use of his professional, special knowledge (know-how) and
the ability to communicate with people, however, "for the activities of an ordinary worker
it is necessary that ninety percent accounted for his know-how and ten
percent on the ability to get along with people. For the middle manager know-how
makes seventy-five percent of the activity, and the ability to get along with people
twenty five percent.
The bosses, standing even higher, use the know-how in their activities.
only twenty percent, but the ability to get along with people here has
already eighty percent. This means that the higher we climb
career ladder, the more we must take into account the orientation towards
people and the higher our ability to communicate with them should be. "
Any manager is often faced with the need to make such decisions,
who pose difficult ethical problems for him, and in such situations
the manager has no power to change anything: he is forced to make decisions, in
as a result of which people will inevitably suffer; he has to go
for transactions in which you have to choose between equally necessary
material values and adherence to well-established moral principles; he
finds himself in such a position that the interests of his organization and goals of work
conflict with the personal needs of specific employees or consumers.
An example of this is the abuse of investments using income and
resources for personal enrichment. Managers apply in many ways
indirect receipt of money that rightfully belongs to shareholders. Most
a frequently used method is fraudulent transactions with expense items.
Another generally accepted move is to overstate the score followed by carving up the difference.
between the inflated and the actual amount of the invoice with the supplier. Finally, there is
the practice of selling firm secrets to a competitor or using an intercompany
information for playing on the stock exchange.
The manager must remember that he is personally responsible to colleagues and
company for assistance in eliminating the causes and circumstances that undermine
such conditions and negatively affecting the situation in the team.
Some norms of ethical behavior of a manager can be cited:
do not give a shadow of doubt about their decency, honesty and
integrity, especially when it comes to promotion,
awards, achievement of their career goals;
treats his leadership with respect by following
the social values that it serves;
make it a rule to treat people the way you would like them to
treated you;
do not brag about your talents, let your work reveal them itself;
to protect public money as well as your own;
be clear about your views on the rights of others. Recognizing data
right, not to go beyond their boundaries;
openly apologize to everyone if you made a mistake;
try that personal insignificant goals do not take precedence over
professional.
A sufficient number of people who find themselves in an ambiguous business situation,
conclude that what is not prohibited is considered correct - especially if
they are rewarded for certain actions. Top managers tend to
rarely ask their subordinates to do what both parties know is
illegal or careless. However, company leaders make it clear that
something they would rather not know about.
In other words, it may appear that they are accidentally or intentionally
distance themselves from tactical decisions made by their subordinates,
to keep your hands clean in case something goes down the drain. Often
they seduce ambitious managers with hints of those who will achieve
the desired results, good rewards await, and the ways in which they
will succeed in achieving the desired goal, will not be considered too strictly.
Employees should not take steps that are contrary to or might
viewed as a contradiction to professional responsibilities.
3. Moral principles of management. Manager's values and ethics.
In business communication "from top to bottom", that is, in relation to the manager to
subordinate, the golden rule of ethics can be formulated as follows:
“Treat your subordinate the way you would like them to
the leader was concerned. " The art and success of business communication in many ways
are determined by the ethical standards and principles that the
leader in relation to his subordinates. Under the norms and principles
refers to what behavior in the service is ethically acceptable, and what -
no. These norms relate primarily to how and on the basis of which they are given
orders in the management process, in which official discipline is expressed,
defining business communication.
Without adherence to ethics of business communication between a manager and a subordinate
most people feel uncomfortable in a team, morally
unprotected. The attitude of the manager to subordinates affects the whole character
etc.................

Ethics and morality in the modern world

The subject of these notes is formulated as if we know what "ethics and morality" are, and we know what the "modern world" is. And the task is only to establish a correlation between them, to determine what changes are undergone by ethics and morality in the modern world and how the modern world itself looks in the light of the requirements of ethics and morality. In fact, not everything is so simple. And not only because of the polysemy of the concepts of ethics and morality - the polysemy, which is familiar and even to some extent characterizes the essence of these phenomena themselves, their special role in culture. The concept of the modern world, contemporaneity, has also become uncertain. For example, if earlier (say, 500 or more years ago), the changes that overturn the everyday life of people took place at a time much longer than the life time of individual individuals and human generations, and therefore people were not very worried about the question of what modernity is and where it begins , then today such changes are taking place in terms that are much shorter than the lifetimes of individual individuals and generations, and the latter do not have time to keep up with modernity. Having barely got used to modernity, they discover that postmodernity has begun, followed by post-postmodernity ... The issue of modernity has recently become the subject of discussions in the sciences for which this concept is of paramount importance - primarily in history, political science. Yes, and within the framework of other sciences, the need to formulate their own understanding of modernity is maturing. I would like to remind you of one passage from Nicomachean Ethics, where Aristotle says that the good, considered from the point of view of timeliness, will be different in different spheres of life and sciences - in military affairs, medicine, gymnastics, etc.

Ethics and morality have their own chronotope, their own modernity, which does not coincide with what is modernity, for example, for art, urban planning, transport, etc. Within the framework of ethics, the chronotope also differs depending on whether it is a question of specific social mores or general moral principles. Morals are associated with external life forms and can change rapidly over decades. So, before our eyes, the nature of the relationship between generations has changed. Moral foundations remain stable for centuries and millennia. For L.N. Tolstoy, for example, ethical and religious modernity encompassed the entire vast period of time from the moment when through the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth mankind proclaimed the truth of non-resistance to evil, to that indefinite future when this truth will become an everyday habit.

By the modern world, I will mean that stage (type, formation) of the development of society, which is characterized by the transition from relations of personal dependence to relations of material dependence. This roughly corresponds to what Spengler called civilization (as opposed to culture), Western sociologists (W. Rostow and others) - industrial society (as opposed to traditional), Marxists - capitalism (as opposed to feudalism and other pre-capitalist forms of society) ... The question that interests me is the following: do ethics and morals retain their validity at a new stage (in the modern world) in the form in which they formed in the depths of ancient culture and the Judeo-Christian religion, were theoretically comprehended and sanctioned in classical philosophy from Aristotle to Kant?

Can ethics be trusted?

Public opinion, both at the level of everyday consciousness and at the level of persons who have explicit or implicit powers to speak on behalf of society, recognizes the high (one might even say paramount) importance of morality. And at the same time, it is indifferent or even ignores ethics as a science. For example, in recent years we have seen many cases when bankers, journalists, parliamentarians, and other professional groups tried to comprehend the moral canons of their business conduct, draw up appropriate codes of ethics, and it seems that every time they did without certified specialists in the field of ethics. It turns out that no one needs ethics, except those who want to study the same ethics. At least this is true of theoretical ethics. Why it happens? The question is all the more pertinent and dramatic in that it does not arise in such a setting for representatives of other fields of knowledge studying human behavior (psychologists, political scientists, etc.), which are in demand by society and have practical spheres of professional activity.

Thinking about why in our scientific time, real moral life proceeds without the direct participation of the science of ethics, one should bear in mind a number of general considerations associated with the special role of philosophy in culture, in particular with the completely unique circumstance that the practicality of philosophy is rooted in its accentuated impracticality, self-sufficiency. This especially applies to moral philosophy, since the highest institution of morality is the individual and therefore ethics directly appeals to his self-consciousness, rational will. Morality is the instance of the sovereignty of the individual as a socially active being. Even Socrates drew attention to the fact that there are teachers of various sciences and arts, but there are no teachers of virtue. This fact is not accidental, it expresses the essence of the matter. Philosophical ethics has always participated in real moral life, including in the educational process, so indirectly that such participation was always assumed, but it was difficult to trace it even in hindsight. And yet there was a subjective trust in her. We know from history the story of a young man who walked from one sage to another, wanting to learn the most important truth, which could be guided all his life and which would be so short that it could be learned, standing on one leg, until he heard from Hilela rule, which later received the name of the golden rule. We know that Aristophanes ridiculed the ethical lessons of Socrates, and Schiller - Kant, even J. Moore became the hero of satirical plays. All of this was an expression of interest and a form of assimilating what the moral philosophers said. There is nothing like it today. Why? There are at least two additional circumstances that explain the distancing from ethics of those who practically reflect on moral issues. These are changes in a) the subject of ethics and b) the real mechanisms of the functioning of morality in society.

Can you trust morality?

After Kant, the disposition of ethics in relation to morality as its subject changed. From a theory of morality, it turned into a criticism of morality.

Classical ethics took the evidence of moral consciousness, as they say, at face value and saw its task in substantiating the morality preset to it and finding a more perfect formulation of its requirements. Aristotle's definition of virtue as the middle was a continuation and completion of the demand for measure, rooted in the ancient Greek consciousness. Medieval Christian ethics, both in essence and in subjective attitudes, was a commentary on evangelical morality. The starting point and essential basis of Kant's ethics is the conviction of the moral consciousness that his law is absolutely necessary. The situation has changed significantly since the middle of the 19th century. Marx and Nietzsche, independently of each other, from different theoretical positions and from different historical perspectives, come to the same conclusion, according to which morality in the form in which it manifests itself is sheer deception, hypocrisy, tartuffeism. According to Marx, morality is an illusory, transformed form of social consciousness, designed to cover up the amoralism of real life, to give a false outlet to the social indignation of the masses. It serves the interests of the ruling exploiting classes. Therefore, the working people need not a theory of morality, but in order to free themselves from its sweet intoxication. And the only position worthy of the theoretician in relation to morality is its criticism and exposure. Just as the task of the physician is to eliminate disease, so the task of the philosopher is to overcome morality as a kind of social ailment. Communists, as Marx and Engels said, do not preach any morality, they reduce it to interests, overcome it, deny it. Nietzsche saw in morality an expression of slave psychology - a way thanks to which the lower classes manage to make a face in a bad game and pass off their defeat as a victory. She is the embodiment of a weak will, the self-aggrandizement of this weakness, the product of resentment, the self-poisoning of the soul. Morality humiliates a person, and the task of a philosopher is to break through on the other side of good and evil, to become in this sense a superman. I am not going to analyze or compare the ethical views of Marx and Nietzsche. I want to say only one thing: both of them stood on the position of a radical denial of morality (although for Marx such denial was only one of the secondary fragments of his philosophical theory, and for Nietzsche it was the central point of philosophizing). Although Kant wrote the Critique of Practical Reason, the real scientific criticism of practical reason, if we understand by criticism the penetration of the deceptive visibility of consciousness, the revelation of its hidden and hidden meaning, was first given by Marx and Nietzsche. Now the theory of morality could not but be at the same time its critical exposure. This is how ethics began to understand its tasks, although their formulation was never so harsh and passionate as that of Marx and Nietzsche. Even academically respectable analytical ethics is nothing more than a criticism of the language of morality, its unfounded ambitions and claims.

Although ethics convincingly showed that morality does not speak about what it says, that the unconditional categoricalness of its requirements cannot be justified in any way, it hangs in the air, although it cultivated a suspicious-wary attitude to moral statements, especially to moral self-certification, so no less morality in all its illusory and unreasonable categoricality has not gone anywhere. Ethical criticism of morality does not cancel morality itself, just as heliocentric astronomy has not canceled the appearance that the sun revolves around the earth. Morality continues to function in all its "falsehood", "alienation", "hypocrisy", etc., just as it functioned before ethical exposure. In one of the interviews, the correspondent, embarrassed by the ethical skepticism of B. Russell, asks the latter: "Do you at least agree that some actions are immoral?" Russell replies, "I would hate to use that word." Despite what Lord Russell thinks, people nevertheless continue to use the word "immoral" and some other, much more powerful and dangerous words. As on desk calendars, as if to spite Copernicus, every day indicates the hours of sunrise and sunset, so people in everyday life (especially parents, teachers, rulers and other dignitaries), in spite of Marx, Nietzsche, Russell, continue to preach morality.

Society, if we assume that ethics speaks on its behalf, in its relations with morality finds itself in the position of a husband who is forced to live with his wife, whom he had previously convicted of treason. Both of them have no choice but to forget, or pretend to have forgotten about the previous revelations and betrayals. Thus, to the extent that society appeals to morality, it seems to forget about philosophical ethics, which considers morality unworthy to appeal to it. This way of behavior is quite natural, as the actions of an ostrich are natural and understandable, which in moments of danger hides its head in the sand, leaving its body on the surface in the hope that it will be mistaken for something else. It can be assumed that the above-mentioned disregard for ethics is an unfortunate way to get rid of the contradiction between the ethical "head" of morality and its social body.

Where is the place of morality in the modern world?

The transition from a predominant apology for morality to its predominant criticism was caused not simply by the progress of ethics, but at the same time it was associated with a change in the place and role of morality in society, in the course of which its ambiguity was revealed. We are talking about a fundamental historical shift that led to what can be called a new European civilization with its unprecedented scientific, technical, industrial and economic progress. This shift, which radically changed the whole picture of historical life, not only marked the new place of morality in society, but itself to a large extent was the result of moral changes.

Morality has traditionally acted and understood as a set of virtues that were summed up in the image of a perfect person, or a set of norms of behavior that set the perfect organization of social life. These were two interconnected aspects of morality passing into each other - subjective, personal and objectified, objectively developed. It was believed that the benefit for the individual and the benefit for the state (society) are one and the same. In both cases, morality was understood as the concreteness of individually responsible behavior, the path to happiness. This, in fact, constitutes the specific objectivity of European ethics. If it is possible to single out the main theoretical question, which at the same time constituted the main pathos of ethics, then it consists in the following: what are the boundaries and the content of free, individually responsible human activity, which he can give a perfect virtuous appearance, direct him to achieve his own good. It was this kind of activity in which a person, remaining an absolute master, combined perfection with happiness, was called morality. She was considered the most worthy, considered as the focus of all other human efforts. This is true to such an extent that philosophers from the very beginning, much earlier than Moore methodically worked out this question, already, at least since Aristotle, came to the idea that good cannot be defined otherwise than through identity with oneself. Society and social (cultural) life in all the richness of its manifestations was considered the arena of morality (and this is essential!); it was assumed that, in contrast to nature and in contrast to it, the entire area of common life mediated by consciousness (knowledge, reason), including politics, economics, decisively depends on the decision, the choice of people, the measure of their virtue. Therefore, it is not surprising that ethics was understood broadly and included everything that related to the second nature, self-created by man, and social philosophy was called moral philosophy, according to tradition it sometimes retains this name to this day. The demarcation of nature and culture carried out by the sophists was of fundamental importance for the formation and development of ethics. Culture was distinguished according to the ethical (moral) criterion (culture, according to the sophists, is the sphere of the arbitrary, it includes those laws and customs that people, at their discretion, are guided in their relationships, and what they do with things for their own benefit, but does not follow from the physical nature of these things). In this sense, culture was initially, by definition, included in the subject of ethics (it was this understanding of ethics that was embodied in the well-known three-part division of philosophy into logic, physics and ethics, which was formed in the Platonic Academy, according to which everything in the objective world that did not belong to to nature).

Such a broad understanding of the subject of ethics was a fairly adequate understanding of the historical experience of the era when social relations took the form of personal connections and dependencies, when, therefore, the personal qualities of individuals, the measure of their morality, virtue were the main supporting structure that held the entire building of civilization. In this regard, it is possible to point to two well-known and documented moments: a) outstanding events, the state of affairs in society had a pronounced personal character, (for example, the fate of a war was decisively dependent on the courage of soldiers and commanders, a comfortable peaceful life in the state - from a good ruler, etc.); b) the behavior of people (including in the business sphere) was entangled in morally sanctioned norms and conventions (typical examples of this kind are medieval workshops or codes of knightly duels). Marx has a wonderful saying that a windmill gives a society headed by a suzerain, and a steam mill gives a society headed by an industrial capitalist. Designating with the help of this image the originality of the historical epoch of interest to us, I want to say not simply that the miller at the windmill is a completely different human type than the miller at the steam mill. This is quite obvious and trivial. My thought is different - the work of a miller as a miller at a windmill was much more dependent on the moral qualities of a miller's personality than the work of a miller as a miller at a steam mill. In the first case, the moral qualities of the miller (well, for example, such a fact as whether he was a good Christian) were no less important than his professional skills, while in the second case they are of secondary importance or may not be taken into account at all.

The situation changed dramatically when the development of society took on the character of a natural-historical process and the sciences of society began to acquire the status of private (non-philosophical) sciences, in which the axiological component is insignificant and even in this insignificance it turns out to be undesirable, when it turned out that the life of society is regulated by such laws. as necessary and inevitable as the course of natural processes. Just as physics, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences were gradually isolated from the bosom of natural philosophy, so jurisprudence, political economy, social and other social sciences began to be isolated from the bosom of moral philosophy. Behind this was the transition of society from local, traditionally organized forms of life to large and complex systems (in industry - from a guild organization to factory production, in politics - from feudal principalities to national states, in the economy - from a subsistence economy to market relations; in transport - from traction power to mechanical means of transportation; in public communication - from salon conversations to the media; etc.).

The fundamental change was as follows. Various spheres of society began to be structured according to the laws of effective functioning, in accordance with their objective parameters, taking into account large masses of people, but (precisely because these are large masses) regardless of their will. Social relations inevitably began to acquire a material character - they were regulated not according to the logic of personal relations and traditions, but according to the logic of the objective environment, the effective functioning of the corresponding area of joint activity. The behavior of people as workers was now set not taking into account the totality of mental qualities and through a complex network of morally sanctioned norms, but by functional expediency, and it turned out to be all the more effective the closer it came to automated, emancipated from individual motives, psychological layers, the more a person became a worker. Moreover, human activity as a subjective element of the social system (worker, functionary, agent) not only took moral differences in the traditional meaning out of the brackets, but often required the ability to act immorally. Machiavelli was the first to investigate and theoretically sanction this shocking aspect in relation to state activity, showing that one cannot be a good sovereign without being at the same time a moral criminal. A. Smith made a similar discovery in economics. He established that the market leads to the wealth of peoples, but not through the altruism of business entities, but, on the contrary, through their selfish striving for their own benefit (the same idea, expressed in the form of a communist sentence, is contained in the famous words of K. Marx and F. Engels that the bourgeoisie in the icy water of selfish calculation drowned the sacred thrill of religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, philistine sentimentality). And, finally, sociology, which has proved that free, morally motivated actions of individuals (suicide, theft, etc.), considered according to the laws of large numbers as moments of society as a whole, line up in regular series that turn out to be more strict and stable than , for example, the seasonal change of climate (how can we not recall Spinoza, who said that if a stone thrown by us had consciousness, he would think that he was flying freely).

In a word, a modern, complex-organized, depersonalized society is characterized by the fact that the totality of professional and business qualities of individuals that determine their behavior as social units depends little on their personal moral virtues. In his social behavior, a person acts as a bearer of functions and roles that are assigned to him from the outside, by the very logic of the systems in which he is included. Zones of personal presence, where what may be called moral education and determination are critical, are becoming less and less significant. Public mores depend not so much on the ethos of individuals as on the systemic (scientific, rationally ordered) organization of society in certain aspects of its functioning. The social value of a person is determined not only and not so much by his personal moral qualities, but by the moral significance of the aggregate big business in which he participates. Morality becomes predominantly institutional, transforms into applied spheres, where ethical competence, if at all we can talk about ethics here, is determined to a decisive extent by professional competence in special fields of activity (business, medicine, etc.). The philosopher-ethicist in the classical sense becomes superfluous.

Has ethics lost its subject matter?

Ethics as a traditionally established area of philosophical knowledge continues to exist in the usual theoretical space, enclosed between two opposite poles - absolutism and anti-normativism. Ethical absolutism proceeds from the idea of morality as an absolute and in its absoluteness incomprehensible precondition of the space of intelligent life, one of its typical extreme cases is moral religion (L.N. Tolstoy, A. Schweitzer). Ethical anti-normativism sees in morality an expression (as a rule, transformed) of certain interests and relativates it, its ultimate expression can be considered philosophical and intellectual experiences, which are called postmodern ones. These extremes, like any extremes in general, feed each other, converge: if morality is absolute, then it inevitably follows that any moral statement, since it is of human origin, is filled with concrete, definite and, in its definiteness, limited content, will be relative. , situational and in this sense false; if, on the other hand, there are no absolute (unconditionally binding and universally valid) definitions of morality, then any moral decision will have an absolute meaning for the one who makes it. Within this framework, modern ethical ideas are found both in Russia (an alternative to the religious-philosophical and socio-historical understandings of morality) and in the West (an alternative to Kantianism and utilitarianism).

Absolutism and anti-normativism in their modern versions, of course, differ from their classical counterparts - first of all, by their excessiveness and exaggeration. Modern absolutism (unlike even Stoic or Kantian) has lost touch with public mores and does not recognize anything other than the selfless determination of the moral personality. Only the absoluteness of moral choice and no legality! It is significant in this respect that L.N. Tolstoy and A. Schweitzer oppose morality to civilization, generally refuse to give civilization a moral sanction. The adherents of anti-normativity, genetically related and essentially continuing the eudemonistic-utilitarian tradition in ethics, were strongly influenced by the great immoralists of the 19th century, but unlike the latter, who denied morality in the context of a supermoral perspective, they do not set the task of overcoming morality, they simply reject it. They do not have their own "free individuality" like Karl Marx or "superman" like Nietzsche. Not only do they not have their own supermorality, they don’t even have postmorality. In fact, such a philosophical and ethical super-dissidence turns into a complete intellectual surrender to the circumstances, as happened, for example, with R. Rorty, who justified the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999 by referring to the fact that there the "good guys" fought the "bad guys." Despite all the features of absolutism and anti-normativism in modern ethics, we are nevertheless talking about traditional thought patterns. They represent a reflection on a certain type of social relations, which is characterized by an internal contradiction (alienation) between the private and the general, personality and genus, individuality and society.

Whether this contradiction retains its fundamental nature today is the question that we must answer, reflecting on what is happening with ethics and morality in the modern world. Is that social (human) reality preserved today, the comprehension of which was the classical image of morality, or, to put it another way, is not the classical ethics presented in our works, textbooks, the ethics of yesterday? Where in modern society, which in its immediate cultural design has become massive, and in terms of its driving forces is institutionalized and deeply organized, where in this ordered sociological space are niches of individual freedom, zones of morally responsible behavior? To be more specific and professionally accurate, the question can be reformulated as follows: isn't it time to take a more critical look at the legacy of classical philosophy and question the definition of morality as disinterestedness, unconditional obligation, universally significant requirements, etc.? And can this be done without giving up the idea of morality and not replacing the game of life with its bubbly imitation?

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Ethical Theories in Contemporary Western Philosophy. Contemporary ethical theory

Read also

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents