Etymology and genesis of the terms “ethics”, “morality”, “morality”

Morality is a conditional concept of rules, principles, assessments, norms based on the paradigm of assessments of evil and good, which was formed in a certain period of time. This is a model of social consciousness, a method of regulating the behavior of a subject in society. It develops both in individual and social forms of subjective relations.

The concept of morality from the point of view considered by psychologists is a fragment of the human psyche, formed at a deep level, responsible for assessing events occurring in various planes with the meaning of good and bad. The word morality is often used as a synonym for the word morality.

Morality in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:

Morality - (from Latin moralis - moral) -1) morality, a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations (moral relations). One of the main ways of regulating human actions in society with the help of norms. In contrast to simple custom or tradition, moral norms receive ideological justification in the form of the ideals of good and evil, due, justice, etc. Unlike law, the fulfillment of moral requirements is sanctioned only by forms of spiritual influence (public assessment, approval or condemnation). Along with universal human elements, morality includes historically transitory norms, principles, and ideals. Morality is studied by a special philosophical discipline - ethics. 2) Separate practical moral instruction, moral teaching (moral of a fable, etc.).

[edit] History

[edit] Origin of the term

The term moralitas

(morality) arose in the 4th century AD from the adjective
moralis
(relating to character, customs), which the Romans (Cicero), focusing on Greek experience and directly referring to Aristotle, formed from the word
mos
, which is an approximate Latin analogue of the word
ethos
(ethics) .[4]

[edit] History of the emergence and development of morality

This section is not completed.
You will help the project by correcting and expanding it.

Among primitive people

actions and actions, being a relic of animal adaptation to the environment, did not yet fall under moral regulation. With the development and complexity of social relations, the need to regulate social contradictions predetermined the origin of morality.

The morality of the primitive communal tribal

system was local in nature, extending only to members of the clan and tribe.

With the emergence of slave society

and by the division into privileged and unprivileged, the morality of slave owners and the morality of slaves arose as two sides of the first major contradiction in spiritual culture. Compared to the local nature of the requirements of tribal morality, in a slave society, ideas about values ​​began to spread to all people. The new social force that emerged—the state—with the help of its organizations tried to transform the morality of slave owners into a universal one.

In feudal society

ideas about morality were class-limited in nature and assumed an unequal degree of moral responsibility (depending on class status), prescribed a person a way of life and action that did not degrade the dignity of the class to which he belonged.[4]

The meaning of the word Moral according to Ushakov’s dictionary:

MORAL morality, plural. no, w. (from Latin moralis - moral). 1. Moral teaching, a set of rules of morality and ethics (book). It is necessary that the whole task of upbringing, educating and teaching modern youth should be the inculcation of communist morality in them. Lenin. Bourgeois morality. Principles of morality. ? Morality, behavior from the point of view of moral rules. A person of low morals. 2. a moral conclusion from something, a moral lesson. The moral of this story is this. Krylov. Hence the moral: no mercy to the enemy! Capital morality (see capital).

How was the concept of morality formed?

It is impossible to say for sure when people first thought about what morality was. The most ancient source describing this concept is the parables of Solomon (mid-10th century BC). Confucius (VI-V centuries BC) wrote a lot about issues of morality and ethics, who considered mercy, philanthropy and integrity to be the most important universal values. He claimed that he did not create a new teaching, but collected together the knowledge received from the ancient sages.

The modern word “morality” comes from the Latin word mores (traditions, mores). It was used by ancient Roman authors to show the conformity of a certain act with good morals. Also, ancient Greek authors discussed a lot about the concepts of conscience, honor and virtue, starting from the 8th century BC. It is interesting that the word “morality” came into the Russian language through French (la morale) in the 18th century.

Cicero made a great contribution to the formation of the concept of morality. The thinker talked a lot about how ethics, morality and law relate to each other. He sought to show that it is impossible to separate the concepts of law and morality, since together they make it possible to rid society of chaos and create order. Of course, Cicero, who lived in the 1st century BC, was far from a pioneer on this topic. But it was he who introduced the definition of morality , which we still rely on today.

Morality is not just a philosophical concept. It traditionally serves as the basis for many religions. Key principles of morality are found in the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Buddha. Since the level of education in those days was different, many moral norms were incomprehensible and not obvious to ordinary people. But believing that “God wants it this way,” they accepted and observed these norms.

Definition of the word “Morality” according to TSB:

Morality (lat. moralis - moral, from mos, plural mores - customs, mores, behavior) morality, one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions in society. a special form of social consciousness and type of social relations (moral relations). subject of special study of ethics. The content and nature of people's activities in society are ultimately determined by the objective socio-historical conditions of their existence and the laws of social development (see Historical materialism). But the methods of direct determination of human actions, in which these conditions and laws are refracted, can be very different. One of these methods is normative regulation, in which the needs of people living together in society and the need to coordinate their mass actions are fixed in general rules (norms) of behavior, regulations and assessments. M. belongs to the main types of normative regulation, such as law, customs, traditions, etc., intersects with them and at the same time differs significantly from them. M. stands out from the initially undifferentiated normative regulation into a special sphere of relations already in tribal society; it goes through a long history of formation and development in pre-class and class society, where its requirements, principles, ideals and assessments acquire a largely class character and meaning, although along with This also preserves universal human moral norms associated with the conditions of human life common to all eras. M. reaches its highest development in socialist and communist society, where it becomes united within the framework of this society and subsequently becomes a completely universal morality. M regulates human behavior and consciousness to one degree or another in all spheres of social life without exception—in work, in everyday life, in politics and science, in family, personal, intra-group, inter-class, and international relations. In contrast to the special requirements imposed on a person in each of these areas, the principles of mathematics have socially universal significance and apply to all people, capturing in themselves that common and fundamental thing that makes up the culture of interhuman relationships and is deposited in the centuries-old experience of the development of society. They support and sanction certain social foundations, a structure of life and forms of communication (or, on the contrary, require their change) in the most general form, in contrast to more detailed, traditionally customary, ritual etiquette, organizational, administrative and technical norms. Due to the generality of moral principles, morality reflects the deeper layers of the socio-historical conditions of human existence and expresses his essential needs. If in law and organizational regulations regulations are formulated, approved and implemented by special institutions, then the requirements of morality (as well as custom) are formed in the very practice of mass behavior, in the process of mutual communication of people and are a reflection of life-practical and historical experience directly in collective and individual ideas, feelings and will. Moral norms are implemented practically and reproduced on a daily basis by the force of mass habits, dictates and assessments of public opinion, beliefs and motivations cultivated in the individual. Fulfillment of M.'s requirements can be controlled by all people without exception and by each individual. The authority of a person in morality is not associated with any official authority, real power, or social position, but is spiritual authority, that is, conditioned by his moral qualities (the power of example) and the ability to adequately express the meaning of the moral requirement in that or otherwise. In general, in M. there is no separation of subject and object of regulation characteristic of institutional norms. In contrast to simple customs, the norms of M. are not only supported by the force of an established and generally accepted order, the power of habit and the cumulative pressure of others and their opinions on the individual, but receive ideological expression and justification in general fixed ideas (commandments, principles) about how should do. The latter, reflected in public opinion, at the same time represent something more stable, historically stable and systematic. M. reflects a holistic system of views on social life, containing one or another understanding of the essence (“purpose,” “meaning,” “goal”) of society, history, man and his existence. Therefore, the prevailing morals and customs at a given moment can be assessed by morality from the point of view of its general principles, ideals, criteria of good and evil, and moral views can be critical of the actually accepted way of life (which is expressed in the views of the progressive class or , on the contrary, conservative social groups). In general, in M., unlike custom, what should and what is actually accepted do not always and not completely coincide. In a class antagonistic society, the norms of universal morality were never fulfilled entirely, unconditionally, in all cases without exception. Demands for their full and consistent implementation (for example, the inviolability of human life, honesty, respect for the rights of others, humanity) were usually supported by those who experienced the burden of oppression, social injustice, or sympathized with the situation of the exploited and unequal sections of society. The moral-critical attitude towards the ruling system developed on this basis is one of the important aspects of the oppositional and then revolutionary consciousness of the working classes. The role of consciousness in the sphere of moral regulation is also expressed in the fact that moral sanction (approval or condemnation of actions) has an ideal-spiritual character. it does not appear in the form of effective and material measures of social retribution (rewards or punishments), but an assessment that a person must himself realize, accept internally and accordingly direct his actions in the future. In this case, what matters is not just the fact of someone’s emotional-volitional reaction (indignation or praise), but the compliance of the assessment with general principles, norms and concepts of good and evil. For the same reason, individual consciousness (personal beliefs, motives, and self-esteem) plays a huge role in mathematics, which allows a person to control, internally motivate his actions, independently justify them, and develop his own line of behavior within a team or group. In this sense, K. Marx said that “...morality is based on the autonomy of the human spirit...” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 1, p. 13). In M., not only the practical actions of people are assessed, but also their motives, motivations and intentions. In this regard, in moral regulation, personal education takes on a special role, that is, the formation in each individual of the ability to relatively independently determine and direct his own line of behavior in society and without everyday external control (hence such concepts of morality as conscience, a sense of personal dignity and honor). Moral requirements for a person do not mean achieving some particular and immediate results in a certain situation, but following general norms and principles of behavior. In a particular case, the practical result of an action may be different, depending on random circumstances. on a general social scale, in the aggregate, the fulfillment of a moral norm meets one or another social need, reflected in a generalized form by this norm. Therefore, the form of expression of a moral norm is not a rule of external expediency (in order to achieve such and such a result, one must act in such and such a way), but an imperative requirement, an obligation that a person must follow when implementing his various goals. Moral norms reflect the needs of man and society not within the boundaries of certain particular circumstances and situations, but on the basis of the vast historical experience of many generations. Therefore, from the point of view of these norms, both the special goals pursued by people and the means of achieving them can be assessed. Morality has several basic historical forms, corresponding to the main social formations. Pre-class mathematics is characterized by relative simplicity, incomplete abstraction from archaic customs, underdevelopment of general principles, and is associated with the not yet completely independent position of the individual in a communal-tribal society. “The tribe remained a border for a person both in relation to a foreigner and in relation to himself... People of this era... have not yet broken away... from the umbilical cord of the primitive community” (Engels F., ibid., vol. 21, p. 99). The equality of individuals is assumed by itself, but that is why it does not yet act as a special requirement for respect for the equal rights of each individual. The requirement of justice applied to all members of the collective and provided for various rights and responsibilities of the individual to the generic whole. During this period, the simplest moral requirements for a person as a member of the clan, producer and warrior were formed (respect for the customs of the clan, endurance, courage, veneration of elders, a sense of equality in the division of spoils), while many forms of personal relationships in marriage, family and other spheres were regulated mainly in other ways (customs, rituals and ceremonies, religious and mythical ideas). In pre-class and early-class society, for the first time, the incomplete correspondence and even the opposition of the requirements of M. to the generally accepted practice of ordinary behavior is realized. The coming era of social inequality, private property interests and competition of individuals, class oppression and the unequal position of workers contributes to the formation in the broad masses of consciousness of the injustice of the existing order, the degradation of morals in comparison with the past, “... which directly appears to us as a decline, a fall in comparison with a high moral level, old tribal society" (ibid.). These motives of moral condemnation of the vices of existing society and the desire for the full implementation of the basic demands of morality run like a red thread through the entire history of the class struggle and are one of the sides in the formation of revolutionary morality of the oppressed classes, each time taking a special form. Each of the dominant moral systems also has its own characteristics. In ancient society, productive labor did not appear as a task worthy of a free person. The slave was usually excluded from the sphere of action of M. and was considered, on the one hand, a being to whom no demands of virtue could be made, and on the other, an object of relationship that did not fall under the criteria of morality. In feudal society, on the contrary, labor appears as a duty of a person (serf, free peasant or artisan), simultaneously receiving religious sanction. In the knightly-feudal class, only military valor and a sense of noble honor were considered virtues. In European-feudal society, Christian morality, the most general synthesis and sanction of this system, according to Engels’s characterization (see ibid., vol. 7, p. 361), placed special emphasis on humility, taming the flesh and “pride” as opposed to the cult of reason , will or human sensuality in antiquity. The early Christian commandment of “love for one’s neighbor” in the Middle Ages of the early and middle periods almost did not affect ordinary human relations (the mass consciousness of the knightly and peasant classes largely remains pagan). in the later Middle Ages, this commandment acquired an abstract religious meaning of serving people (mercy, compassion) as “sons of God,” which did not concern the essence of the prevailing relations between classes. The strengthening of the existing order is served by the distinction characteristic of feudalism between the responsibilities and virtues of the privileged and oppressed sections of the population. The emerging bourgeois capitalism came out with recognition of the equality of all people (see F. Engels, ibid., vol. 20, pp. 106-07), but only as “equality of opportunity” for individuals as potential free entrepreneurs. In essence, this meant equality only for private owners. In the fight against feudal-Christian M., bourgeois M. initially acted under the sign of “reasonable egoism” and “mutual use,” that is, it was based on the illusion that any person, achieving only his own “reasonable” goals, thereby contributes to the good others and society as a whole. In the classical bourgeois view, money was generally reduced to a way for an individual to achieve success and happiness in life. This is especially characteristic of the era of primitive accumulation, where the principle of virtue was the asceticism of diligence and hoarding and the postponement of pleasures and rewards for the future. Subsequently, this principle of abstinence was preached to the working class as a way to achieve well-being in life. However, for the worker, according to F. Engels, “...honesty, hard work, frugality and all other virtues recommended to him by the wise bourgeoisie...” are not at all a guarantee that they “... will really lead him to happiness” (ibid., t 2, p. 265). Within the framework of bourgeois morality, certain universal moral norms, of course, find expression, but they are interpreted, as a rule, in a limited way, in relation to the conditions of the dominance of capitalist relations, and are practiced only until they come into conflict with the class interests of the bourgeoisie. The actual state of the morals of the bourgeoisie, and especially those of its groups that are associated with big business and state policy, has always been very far from the requirements of universal morality and contradicted even those principles professed by bourgeois moral consciousness. This contradiction is especially characteristic of the era of monopoly capitalism and the policy of imperialism, when crimes against other peoples are committed on a state scale, corruption and mutual connivance within economic and political corporations flourish. Irreconcilable conflicts between the demands of morality and politics, the rules of practical prudence, success in life and considerations of honesty, humanity and justice are typical of bourgeois consciousness. In contrast to the bourgeoisie, the working class is already developing its own philosophy in a capitalist society, since it is aware of its special historical mission and the opposition to the ruling system. This is how revolutionary proletarian democracy arose, the main demands of which are the abolition of exploitation and social inequality, universal compulsory labor, and the solidarity of workers in the fight against capital. This M. “...is completely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat...”, according to V.I. Lenin (Complete collection of works, 5th ed., vol. 41, p. 309). in the struggle for their rights “... the working class rises at the same time morally...” (ibid., vol. 21, p. 319), shows, in the words of F. Engels, “... its most attractive, most noble, most humane features "(Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 438). This M. then becomes the cornerstone of socialist and communist morality, which concentrate in themselves in the fullest expression all the norms of universal human M. As socialist relations are established, the new M. becomes a regulator of everyday relationships between people, gradually penetrating into all spheres of public life and forming consciousness, life and morals of millions of people. Communist morality is characterized by the consistent implementation of the principle of equality and cooperation between people and nations, collectivism, respect for man in all spheres of his social and personal manifestations based on the principle that “... the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all” (K. Marx and Engels F., ibid., vol. 4, p. 447). Since communist morality is alien to the consideration of society and individual life as external means of one in relation to the other, and both appear in an indissoluble unity, the sacrifices of one moral principle for the sake of another, characteristic of bourgeois morality, are unacceptable to it (for example, the sacrifice of honesty for the sake of profit , achieving the goals of some at the cost of infringing the interests of others, compromises of politics and conscience). It is the highest form of Humanism. In a socialist society, the problem of moral education of the masses and individuals, the fight against Immorality, and the construction of social relations in all spheres on the basis of moral principles has become one of the most important. The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism, contained in the CPSU Program, formulates the most important general principles of communist morality. Responding to the fundamental interests of man, communist morality in its actual implementation is based on people’s own consciousness, is hostile to any formalism and dogmatism, and presupposes the deep conviction of everyone in the justice and humanity of the principles they profess. Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., Manifesto of the Communist Party, Op., 2nd ed., Vol. 4. Engels F., The origin of the family, private property and the state, ibid., Vol. 21. His own, anti- Dühring, ibid., Vol. 20. Lenin V.I., On communist morality. [Sat.], 3rd ed., M., 1965. Aristotle, ethics, St. Petersburg, 1908. Hegel G. V.F., Philosophy of Law, Soch., Vol. 7, M. - L., 1934. Spinoza B. ., Ethics, hi. Prov., Vol. 1, M., 1957. Locke J., Thoughts of Education. On the education of the mind, in his book: Pedagogical Works, M., 1939. Golbakh P.A., Fundamentals of universal morality, or catechism of nature, hi. Prov., Vol. 2, M., 1963. Kant I., Fundamentals of Metaphysics of Morality. Criticism of the practical mind, op., Vol. 4, part 1, M., 1965. Solovyov V. S., Execution of goodness, M., 1899. Kon I.S., Communist moral and bourgeois morality, M., 1960 . Shishkin A.F., Fundamentals of Marxist Ethics, M., 1961. Bek G., On Marxist Ethics and Socialist Morality, per. with him., M., 1962. Ivanov V. G., Rybakova N.V., Essays on the Marxist-Leninist ethics, L., 1963. Schwarzman K.A., Ethics ... without morality, M., 1964. Frobnitsky about ., The nature of moral consciousness, “Questions of philosophy”, 1968, No. 2. His own, the structure of moral consciousness, ibidable, 1972, No. 2, 6. Frobnitsky O. G., Kuzmina T.A., criticism of modern bourgeois ethical concepts, M., 1967. Hell G., Marxism and morality, per. from English, M., 1962. Arkhangelsky L.M., lectures on Marxist ethics, h, 1, Sverdlovsk, 1969. Titarenko A.I., moral progress, [M.], 1969. His own, morality and politics and politics and politics and politics M., 1969. Khaikin Ya. Z., structure and interaction of the moral and legal systems, M., 1972. Banzeladze G., Ethics, 2nd ed., Tb., 1970. Moral regulation and personality. Sat. Art., M., 1972. The Definition of Morality, Ed. G. Wallace and ad M. Walker, L., [1970]. See also lit. at Art. Ethics. O. G. Drobnitsky.

What are moral standards

Fulfillment of moral norms is the moral duty of the subject; violation of these measures of behavior represents a feeling of moral guilt.

Moral norms in society are generally accepted measures of subject behavior that arise from formed morality. The totality of these norms forms a certain system of rules, which in all respects differ from the normative systems of society such as customs, rights and ethics.

In the early stages of formation, moral norms were directly associated with religion, which prescribes the meaning of divine revelation to moral norms. Each religion has a set of certain moral norms (commandments) that are mandatory for all believers. Failure to comply with prescribed moral standards in religion is considered a sin. In various world religions, there is a certain pattern in accordance with moral standards: theft, murder, adultery, and lies are undeniable rules of behavior for believers.

Researchers studying the formation of moral norms put forward several directions in understanding the meaning of these norms in society. Some believe that compliance with the rules prescribed in morality is a priority in the guise of other norms. Followers of this trend attribute certain properties to these moral norms: universality, categoricalness, immutability, cruelty. The second direction, which is being studied by scientists, suggests that the attribution of absolutism, generally accepted and binding moral norms acts as a kind of fanaticism.

In terms of the form of manifestation, some moral norms in society are similar to legal norms. So the principle “thou shalt not steal” is common to both systems, but by asking the question why a subject follows this principle, one can determine the direction of his thinking. If a subject follows a principle because he is afraid of legal liability, then his act is legal. If the subject confidently follows this principle, because theft is a bad (evil) act, the vector of direction of his behavior follows the moral system. There are precedents in which compliance with moral standards is contrary to the law. A subject, considering it his duty, for example, to steal medicine in order to save his loved one from death, acts morally correctly, while absolutely breaking the law.

Studying the formation of moral norms, scientists came to a certain classification:

– norms affecting questions about the existence of an individual as a biological being (murder);

– norms on the independence of the subject;

– norms of social conflicts;

– norms of trust (loyalty, truthfulness);

– norms relating to the dignity of the subject (honesty, justice);

– confidentiality standards;

– norms about other moral norms.

Ethics is one of the popular sciences of the early 21st century

Even those who study it or face ethical problems in their activities are not sure that ethics is a science.
The contribution of science to people's lives is equated with their importance: the increasing speed of technological change increases the sense of importance of the natural and applied sciences behind them, while the effect of the discoveries of the humanities is less noticeable, some of them have not brought news for so long that they become synonymous with uselessness.

And ethics in a scientific context is also an irritant for many. If ethics were officially among the sciences, a crowd with torches would definitely come for it, demanding sacrifice as payment for Pluto.

The image of a crowd with torches, although metaphorical, is just as relevant in an era when people are busily discussing how best to organize a visit to Mars, as in the days when they were afraid to sail ships too far into the ocean, lest they be accidentally thrown over the edge of the Earth. washed away. Because the crowd has not gone away: instead of torches there are flashlights on smartphones, from which the crowd now gathers online.

And this is no less important an indicator of the dynamics of scientific development than Martian plans.

Accelerating technological progress shows the potential of the natural sciences, and stalling social and cultural development is the price of stagnation in the social and human sciences.

Ethical problems have always been part of objective reality, influencing it, leaving consequences and even economically expressible ones - money does not combine well with morality, and calculating the cost of ethical costs, for example, is quite realistic.

One of the most pressing examples right now is the policies that guide online mass communication platforms (primarily social networks and social media) in regulating the relationships among their users, with their users—and even the internal relationships within their teams.

The general state of affairs can be described as a deep split under the ideological monopoly of political correctness. The situation is like being stuck in quicksand, where every movement makes the situation worse - and begins to look hopeless; although she never was.

The problem of political correctness arose entirely due to the approach to the phenomenon of ethics as a political phenomenon. This is a problem of the erroneous language of description, and not the indescribability of the phenomenon itself.

What is political correctness

Political correctness is a secular system of ethics based on the protection of the weakest, the oppressed in the fight against inequality, which arose in the political movement of the New Left.
The New Left is a Western political movement for social justice that began in the late 1950s.

The New Left became an attempt to rebrand socialism, a term whose desired meaning had long been replaced by Stalinism, which had nothing in common with socialism, Marscoism, or the left idea in general.

At the end of the 50s, the first generation that did not experience the World War, at least at a conscious age, grew up among a huge number of other mothballed problems of society, the fight against which was destined to become the war of the post-war generation.

On the other hand, the consequences of Stalinism—including both the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and the condemnation of Stalin's personality cult at the 20th Congress of the CPSU that same year—pushed the New Left to return to the ethical roots of Marxism—the humanistic ideals of the 18th century. -19th centuries - and the relaunch of the leftist idea from a preserved version that preceded how “something went wrong” with the “old left”.

The New Left turned out to be an eclectic movement: it united activists who fought for civil and political rights, women's rights, against racial discrimination, against persecution for sexual orientation, police brutality, colonial wars, the beginning of the war on drugs, etc. These were the original Social Justice Warriors.

There was no unity among them either regarding the idea of ​​class struggle or regarding Soviet symbols, although the hammer and sickle were, de facto, a symbol of Stalinism - that is, precisely a symbol of the replacement of socialism with its complete opposite.

It was a struggle against the dominance of the ethic of moral inequality, perpetuated by the hierarchical structure of society, the response to which was the mirror interpretation of the manifestation of any inequality as a form of oppression - the cornerstone of the ethic of political correctness.

Political correctness is the ethics of social struggle, the ethics of the New Left movement, developed in the course of a clash with the ethical system of their fathers and grandfathers.

This is ethics based on the moral values ​​of the movement that carried out the sexual revolution in the 60s, defeating racism, homophobia, militarism, etc. in battle. This does not mean that in the 70s none of this already existed - it means that ethics, which was dominant in the 50s, had enough defenders on its side who were convinced of their moral correctness, in the 70s already have been marginalized - for example, the ideas of white supremacy continue to exist to this day - but their bearers do not risk openly claiming moral superiority or equivalence to the ideas of equality of people of all bloods and colors.

It's the difference between two positions fighting and closing the distance between them. Even when the front line that separated people disappears, the distance between them does not disappear on its own. But this is a post-war concern, requiring a value system that encourages cooperation and tolerance.

In these circumstances, the ethics of struggle—even for a just cause, for social justice—becomes destructive, because when viewed through the prism of political correctness, here it is, the front line, in place, and has not disappeared anywhere. As a result, the ethics of the side that wins in the struggle of value systems turns from an instrument of victory into an instrument of split.

In the absence of a real struggle for real ideals, scenarios in which the scenario of social conflict is reproduced become more and more absurd: political correctness already functions like a cancerous tumor, metastasizing in the form of new self-destructive conflicts.

In a movement that began with Stonewall, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, the very concept of a Social Justice Warrior is now self-parody, a derisive shorthand for SJW, and their front is tweets from the 2000s and photographs from the 1980s.

Political correctness in the 21st century

By all indications, by the turn of the millennium, political correctness was already beginning to fade away, but then a revolution happened - the best gift for every leftist - Web 2.0, the revolution of social networks, which unexpectedly turned out to be fertile ground for the renaissance of the ideology of political correctness, with new energy tearing the communication fabric with contradictions already in XXI century.
The dismissal of James Damore, an engineer and biologist by training, in 2021 by Google turned out to be a big scandal because in an analytical note compiled at the request of his colleagues, he mentioned the biologically determined difference in the psychological predisposition of people of different sexes to different types of activities - in other words , that women are a minority in software development, so the majority have found something more interesting to do.

In a similar situation, Twitter, and with it YouTube: bloggers are banned, videos are demonetized - and all this happens in a very nervous atmosphere, because for every user who agrees with what is happening, there are users who, not unreasonably, reproach the policies pursued by the services for various sins against common sense.

The Internet, which until recently was a space left to its own devices, largely organized by self-organization, suddenly turned into a battlefield between the Holy Inquisition and heretics, whom Google is almost literally trying to ban.

This reversal would be extremely dramatic if it weren’t so ironic: the creators of most social networks are rather antisocial people.

And Jack Dorsey, who invented Twitter, suddenly found himself in the situation of an acoustic engineer who designed the new stage of the Mariinsky Theater, who was suddenly announced that from now on he was giving two concerts a week, replacing Gergiev as a conductor.

How did he get into this situation? After all, for a long time, Twitter, like Facebook, like YouTube, and many other platforms felt great in the role of a platform, and interventions in the life of the community were, for the most part, limited to settling copyright claims.

In a sense, these were carefree pagan times, akin to the life of the inhabitants of the Caribbean islands before Columbus landed on their shores. In the face of political correctness, the anarchic space of eclectic pagan beliefs for the first time encountered the power of an organized ethical system.

The golden rule of morality.

To make it clearer what morality is, let us turn to a rule that, as we reliably know from historical, religious and literary sources, has become widespread in all relatively developed cultures and among all peoples. We are talking about the so-called golden rule of morality. In its most famous form, it reads: “And whatever you want people to do to you, do so to them” (Gospel of Luke 6:31). In a broader ethical perspective of developed morality, the golden rule of morality has a double projection, expanding its potential ethical content. One projection is towards a historically and normatively undeveloped (“inverse”) form. And she points to the talion rule.

Rating
( 2 ratings, average 5 out of 5 )
Did you like the article? Share with friends:
For any suggestions regarding the site: [email protected]
Для любых предложений по сайту: [email protected]