Are there different moralities? Is morality a regulator...

Are there different morals?

Earlier we already had to talk about the dialectic of absolute and relative with reference to the idea of ​​good. The same can be said about morality. On the one hand, the moral experience is beautiful with its diversity, but on the other - there was no such culture or such a moment of time where people had no idea of ​​the ideal relationship. And if you look closely at them, we will see that in this content it is possible to isolate something common for all representations, which is the absolute content of morality. About him we still have an excuse to talk. But is it permissible to mention here different morals? For example, Nietzsche spoke of opposing morals of slaves and gentlemen in their content, while Marx spoke of bourgeois and proletarian morality. But here again we should not confuse morality as an image of perfect relationships, with morals, expressing the actual practice of relations. As for the declared higher principles, it will be more literate to speak not about their cardinal contradiction, but about the different ways of their perception and realization.

Various moral practices within the framework of a single morality have received in the ethics the name etos. They represent dissimilar moral cultures that have formed significant currents within the framework of a single human morality. Athos is a special style of moral life, which forms an original relation to moral values. For example, knight ethos prescribed to uphold the highest values ​​with weapons in hand, and monastic - in internal, prayer practice. But he and the other ethos considered the reverence of the Lord and philanthropy to be the highest values. We can say that ethos not only do not indicate the relativity of morality, but even more emphasize the multifaceted nature and depth of this phenomenon. More often in the literature devoted to ethics, differ knightly-aristocratic, philistine (bourgeois), heroic, monastic, military ethoses. It should be noted once again that they are not isolated in order to prove the existence of different morals, but for the sake of demonstrating various perceptions of morality.

Is morality a regulator of social relations?

Morality exists for the sake of establishing interpersonal, unselfish connections between people. Is it possible in this sense to say that it is the regulator of social relations? Marxist philosophy insisted on this interpretation, as well as practically all sociological theories. But in order to regulate, it is necessary to have a certain force, which allows to exert a decisive influence on the ongoing processes. Let's see if there is such a force in morality.

The real regulator of public relations is right. It is intended to indicate the measure of what is permissible and unacceptable from the point of view of the law and to impose sanctions for violation. The right is the strength of the state, whose will it realizes. It would seem that the requirements of morality and law in many respects coincide: what the moral calls immoral, the law considers criminal. However, their points of contact are not so significant. The right does not punish for selfishness, indifference, ruthlessness, unless they, of course, caused significant harm to another person. In addition, for the law it is not essential why a person does not violate the law, but for morality it is important that the demand is not executed out of fear or benefit, but voluntarily. Therefore, morality does not have a reliable institutional support, which would help it regulate relations in society.

On the other hand, it is fair to say that morality is based on the power of public opinion. At certain times it can seriously influence the leading social practices (politics, business), and the behavior of specific people. But public opinion is a very wide and rapidly changing institution. It is difficult to say what place moral values ​​occupy in it and whether they are sacrificed to an ideology adapted to the interests of the currently dominant groups. Of course, morality can try to use public opinion for the sake of combating injustice, but still it acts on behalf of higher values, and the opinion of the majority is always focused on momentary benefits.

It turns out that in terms of social morality can not be a regulator. If we are to search for what can act in this role, we must admit that pragmatic interest, the pursuit of profit, profit regulate relations between people much more effectively than law, not to mention morality. Modern business looks like a unique, multi-level system of regulation of relations, achieving grandiose success. But all this is far from the sphere of morality, which is rooted in free interpersonal, and not in socio-pragmatic relations. Moreover, we must admit that immorality will also achieve its goals more effectively than morality, for it does not burden itself with reflections on the means of achieving them. Obviously, to regulate relations, one must proceed not only from strength and fear, but also to promise an unavoidable reward. But the benefits that morality gives do not come to a person instantly and do not have an obvious material expression.

If we continue to insist on understanding morality as a regulator of our actions, then the only possible meaning of this word concerns decisive influence on the behavior of the person himself. In this case, morality is seen as a set of principles for which the person can sacrifice the above motives of behavior. But here you can not be so categorical. As in the social sphere, human behavior is also regulated by pragmatic considerations. The essence of morality is precisely to be able to limit them for the sake of truly human relations with other people. In this sense, morality will correctly be understood not as a regulator, but as an internal reference point, which requires a person to strive for a better life. How far this requirement will be implemented and the behavior is "adjusted" in accordance with it, no longer depends on morality itself, but on the will and mind of its bearer.

Does all this mean above that morality has no social significance, but exists only for the sake of the individual's good? By no means. First, it should be noted that an individual can not be viewed outside society, so his benefit directly relates to the welfare of the surrounding society. Secondly, morality should also be understood as the highest landmark existing in society and reminding him of the ideal of perfection. Finally, it is necessary to note the phenomenon of social morality, when its subject-bearer is not an individual, but a collective of people. In this case, they, perceiving themselves as a single community, voluntarily impose obligations on the basis of the goals and values ​​pursued by them. On this basis, various projects of modern corporate ethics are being built. Is it possible to consider this practice in its pure form as regulation? Most likely, here again we are dealing with a guide that allows us to organize the life of the collective in accordance with moral representations.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)