In modern society, talking seriously about morality is, to put it mildly, bad manners. Modern culture and the media in various ways try to create an ironic and disdainful attitude towards moral disciplines - they say that this is a rudiment of the past, unmodern and, in general, the lot of religious fanatics. When someone starts a conversation about morality, people most often react as they have been taught: either they perceive it with caustic irony, or they persistently try to find out which “sect” the one who raises the topic of morality has fallen into. However, even those who consider themselves moral people and adhere to some rules can exhibit very peculiar forms of supposedly moral behavior.
The thing is that morality is a very, very flexible concept. Take, for example, various religious movements, in which today they talk a lot about issues of morality. For example, in some religions, only causing harm to people is considered immoral, and, say, eating animals and cruelly treating them in a number of religions is not only not condemned, but is even sometimes cultivated and extolled as behavior worthy and pleasing to God. Generally accepted religious rituals are sometimes even associated with cruelty to animals. At the same time, adherents of such religions are in the complete illusion that they are highly moral people. And if we go even further, let us remember the times of the “Holy” Inquisition and the Crusades, when a very, to put it mildly, specific moral paradigm was imposed on people and not only the killing of animals, but even the killing of people was not considered immoral. Moreover, it was considered a “godly” deed. Therefore, a particular group of people may have their own concept of morality and vary depending on religion, country, culture, traditions, and so on.
History of the problem
The first source of morality for humanity was the Divine Commandments, which called people to purity of actions and thoughts.
In different eras there were different spiritual guidelines. If we turn to history and consider some of the moral guidelines of ancient times, they may shock a modern person. For example, fearing the loss of his kingdom, the Egyptian pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn boys.
Are you an expert in this subject area? We invite you to become the author of the Directory Working Conditions
Over time, the Divine Laws were supplanted by such moral standards as honor, dignity, loyalty, duty, love for the Motherland, etc. The religious norms that have reached us have been somewhat transformed. This is due to the modern view of religion and attitude towards it.
Some moral norms have reached our time, having changed somewhat, but at the same time maintaining their relevance. For example, in Ancient Rus', an honest word given by a merchant symbolized directness and sincerity; it was inviolable. In the modern world, the attitude towards the “word of honor” is somewhat different, but respected people strive to keep it.
Some moral norms have not reached our days and have lost their meaning. For example, until recently, all women were required to cover their heads. Harlots and commoners threw off their scarves and veils. Modern women do not comply with this norm, as it has lost its significance. However, the norm of walking with your head covered remains in a number of countries. This is primarily due to religion. In many Muslim countries, women still wear the hijab.
Finished works on a similar topic
Course work Moral problems in the modern world 420 ₽ Essay Moral problems in the modern world 220 ₽ Examination Moral problems in the modern world 190 ₽
Receive completed work or specialist advice on your educational project Find out the cost
If we turn to historical works of art, one of the most popular paintings is the Mona Lisa, which symbolizes modesty and humility. However, by the standards of the time when the picture was painted, the woman who posed for Leonardo da Vinci is a girl of easy virtue. This is evidenced by her appearance - open shoulders and head.
There are moral standards that have reached our time practically unchanged. For example, a negative attitude towards alcoholism. Back in the time of Plutarch, a law was passed banning drinking alcohol, as it had a negative effect on the human body and its behavior. The same negative attitude towards alcoholism and alcohol has survived to this day.
Note 1
Thus, moral norms and rules are subject to change and transformation over time. This is due to changes in people’s thinking, in their attitude towards phenomena and situations.
Morality of Modern Society
Bibliographic description:
Baranova, L.V. Morality of Modern Society / L.V. Baranova.
— Text: immediate // Questions of historical science: materials of the I International. scientific conf. (Moscow, January 2012). - Moscow: Your printing partner, 2012. - P. 40-43. — URL: https://moluch.ru/conf/hist/archive/53/1556/ (access date: 12/10/2021). Morality... never falls or crumbles,
she just changes
.
Alexander Nikonov
The morality of Modern society is based on simple principles: everything is permitted that does not directly violate the rights of other people; the rights of all people are equal. Since the main slogan of Modern society is “maximum happiness for the maximum number of people,” moral standards should not be an obstacle to the realization of the desires of a particular person - even if someone does not like these desires. But only as long as they do not harm other people.
It should be noted that from these two principles comes the third: “Be energetic, achieve success on your own.” After all, every person strives for personal success, and the greatest freedom provides the maximum opportunity for this. Obviously, the need for decency follows from these principles. For example, deceiving another person is, as a rule, causing him harm, and therefore is condemned by Modern morality.
You cannot directly encroach on someone else’s property: life, health, property, freedom - these are the minimum requirements. Live as you know, and don’t meddle in someone else’s life if they don’t ask - this is the main rule of morality for tomorrow. It can also be formulated as follows: “You cannot decide for others. Decide for yourself." This largely works in the most progressive countries now. Somewhere this rule of extreme individualism works more (Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden), somewhere less. In advanced countries, “immoral” marriages between homosexuals are allowed, prostitution, smoking marijuana, etc. are legalized. There, a person has the right to manage his own life as he pleases. Jurisprudence is also developing in the same direction. Laws are drifting in the direction indicated by the thesis “no victims - no crime” [1, p. 17].
If we open the “Big Encyclopedic Dictionary” and look at the article “Morality”, we will see the following description: “Morality - see morality.” The time has come to separate these concepts.
Morality is the sum of unwritten standards of behavior established in society, a collection of social prejudices. Morality is closer to the word "decency". Morality is more difficult to define. It is closer to the biological concept of empathy; to such a concept of religion as forgiveness; to such a concept of social life as conformism; to such a concept of psychology as non-conflict. Simply put, if a person internally sympathizes, empathizes with another person and, in connection with this, tries not to do to another what he would not like for himself, if a person is internally non-aggressive, wise and therefore understanding, we can say that he is a moral person.
The main difference between morality and ethics is that morality always presupposes an external evaluative object: social morality - society, the crowd, neighbors; religious morality - God. And morality is internal self-control. A moral person is deeper and more complex than a moral person. Just as an automatically operating unit is more complex than a manual machine, which is activated by someone else’s will [2, p. 214].
Walking naked on the streets is immoral. Splashing with saliva, yelling at a naked person that he is a scoundrel is immoral. Feel the difference. The world is moving towards immorality, it is true. But he goes towards morality. Morality is a subtle, situational thing. Morality is more formal. It can be reduced to certain rules and prohibitions.
All of the above arguments are actually aimed at expanding the individual choice of people, but do not take into account the possible negative social consequences of such a choice. For example, if society recognizes a homosexual family as normal, then some people who currently hide their sexual orientation and have heterosexual families will stop doing so, which may negatively affect the birth rate. If we stop condemning drug use, the number of drug addicts may increase at the expense of those who currently avoid drugs for fear of punishment.
The concept of Modern Society is based on the fact that in such matters it is necessary to prevent injustice and discrimination. For example, if we want to fight low birth rates, then all childless people should be blamed and punished, not just homosexuals.
Freedom of speech leads to the publication of pornography and scenes of cruelty. Many people believe that this, in turn, negatively affects family values and encourages violence. On the other hand, according to Internet Freedom founder Chris Evans, “60 years of research into the impact of media on society has found no link between violent images and violent actions.” In 1969, Denmark abolished all restrictions on pornography, and the number of sex crimes immediately went down [3, p. 141]. There is reason to believe that hazing in the army instills in a person a habit of violence to a much greater extent than the bloodiest action movies.
The change in moral standards is interpreted by some people as “decay” and “decay”, which will lead to the “collapse of our civilization.” Historical experience shows that collapse awaits precisely those who are frozen in place and do not change.
Should negative phenomena be combated by introducing prohibitions and using violence if they are violated? As historical experience shows, it is pointless to fight the objective laws of social development. As a rule, negative and positive development results are interconnected and it is impossible to fight the negative without destroying the positive. Therefore, in cases where such a struggle is successful, society pays for it with a lag in development - and negative trends are simply transferred to the future [4, p. 58].
A different approach seems more constructive. It is necessary to study the patterns of social changes without emotion and understand what positive and negative consequences they lead to. After which society must take actions aimed at strengthening the positive aspects of existing trends and weakening the negative ones.
An increase in freedom always leads to some people using it to their detriment. For example, the ability to purchase vodka leads to the emergence of alcoholics, the freedom to choose a lifestyle leads to the emergence of homeless people, sexual freedom increases the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases. Therefore, freer societies are always accused of “decay,” “moral decay,” etc. However, most people are quite rational and use freedom to their advantage. As a result, society becomes more efficient and develops faster.
When they talk about “health” and “unhealthy” society, they forget that the state of society cannot be described in terms of healthy/unhealthy/no third choice. Unfree societies are much more “healthy” in the sense of the absence of marginalized people (for example, in Nazi Germany even the mentally ill were destroyed). But they are much less healthy in the sense of the lack of people focused on development. Therefore, unfree, overly regulated societies (including those regulated by too strict moral standards) inevitably lose. And prohibitions, as a rule, are not very effective - prohibition, for example, does not so much fight alcoholism as create a mafia. The best choice is maximum freedom while strictly suppressing aggressive outcasts (including the destruction of criminals).
Modern morality is making its way into Russia. The new generation is much more individualistic and freer. Most Russian entrepreneurs say that hiring young people is profitable - young people are more honest, more energetic and steal less often. At the same time, during the transition period, crisis phenomena are observed, incl. and in the field of morality. This was the case, for example, during the transition from an agricultural to an industrial society; in particular, England in the early to mid-19th century experienced a serious crisis, accompanied by an increase in alcoholism, family breakdown, homelessness, etc. [5, p. 311]
Here, by the way, one common myth should be mentioned. Ancient Rome collapsed not as a result of “moral decay”, but because it stopped developing. Rome's main advantage was the presence of a rule of law and an effective civil society. With the transition from republic to imperial dictatorship, these social institutions were gradually undermined, development ceased, and as a result, Rome became a typical unstable empire, lacking fundamental social advantages compared to its barbarian surroundings. From that moment on, his death was only a matter of time.
But society also faces destruction if freedom exceeds certain limits and some people have the unpunished freedom to cause harm to others. In fact, this means that the freedom of some is curtailed by increasing the rights of others, i.e. freedom is destroyed. That is why the morality of Modern society is complete freedom, with the exception of the right to cause direct harm to another person. Moreover, Modern society should be intolerant of any attempts to cause such damage, i.e. restrict someone's freedom. In this, Modern society must be uncompromising and even cruel: as experience shows, the main problems of the most Modern countries lie precisely in excessive humanism in relation to intolerant and aggressive people.
One might argue that “permissiveness cannot be allowed!” And this thesis is absolutely true. Permissiveness is allowing one person to harm another. For example, safe premarital sex is not permissive, because... Each of the participants does not see any damage to themselves in this. But “highly moral” Iran is a permissive state: the country’s criminal code, based on Sharia law, provides for the execution of women by stoning for some “sexual crimes.” Moreover, it is specially stipulated that the stones should not be too large so that the victim does not die immediately. Such sadistic murder is undoubtedly permissive.
The morality of Modern society (as opposed to religious morality) is a morality based on reason. Such morality is more effective than morality based on emotions: emotions work automatically, while reason allows you to act more subtly depending on the situation (provided, of course, that reason is present). Just like human behavior based on emotional morality is more effective than animal behavior based on innate instincts.
A person in a transitional period (the transition from an industrial society to a post-industrial, Modern one) unconsciously experiences a feeling of guilt due to the continued effect of traditional moral attitudes. Religious figures still have high moral authority and they condemn Modern society.
Hence all the talk about the supposed “rottenness” and “decay”, although in reality there is much less immorality (moreover, the carriers of the highest form of immorality - violence and aggressiveness - are precisely people of traditional cultures, especially fundamentalists).
Religious figures, condemning the morality of Modern society, usually reason like this: a departure from religious morality leads to the abolition of moral principles in general, as a result of which people will begin to steal, kill, etc. They do not want to notice that the morality of Modern people is moving in the exact opposite direction: towards condemning violence and aggression in any form (and, for example, towards condemning theft, because Modern people are, as a rule, a wealthy middle class).
Research shows that the lowest degree of both religiosity and crime is observed among highly educated people. Those. a departure from traditional morality does not at all lead to a decline in morality in general. But for a traditional, poorly educated person, the reasoning of religious leaders is completely justified. These people need a “punishing baton” in the form of hell; however, they easily resort to violence “in the name of God.”
The prevailing morality in a transitional society is uncomfortable for a person, because it is contradictory, and therefore does not give him strength. She is trying to combine the incompatible: the liberal human right to choose and the traditional roots that denied such a right. Solving this contradiction, some go into fundamentalism, others rush into an egoistic “life for entertainment.” Both do not contribute to development and, therefore, have no prospects. Therefore, we need a consistent morality, the adherence to which ensures success for both the individual and the entire society.
The moral values of modern society differ markedly from traditional ones. For example, out of the 10 biblical commandments, five do not work: three dedicated to God (because they conflict with freedom of conscience), about the Sabbath (a contradiction with freedom to manage one’s time), and “thou shalt not commit adultery” (a contradiction with freedom of personal life) . Conversely, some necessary commandments are missing in religion. The picture is similar not only with the Bible, but also with the attitudes of other religions.
Modern society has its own most important values, which in traditional societies were far from in first place (and were even considered negative):
- “don’t be lazy, be energetic, always strive for more”;
- “develop yourself, learn, become smarter - thereby you contribute to the progress of humanity”;
- “achieve personal success, achieve wealth, live in abundance - thereby you contribute to the prosperity and development of society”;
- “do not cause inconvenience to others, do not interfere in other people’s lives, respect the personality of another and private property” [6, p. 35].
The main emphasis is on self-development, which leads, on the one hand, to the achievement of personal goals (for example, career growth), and on the other hand, to a “non-consumer” attitude towards other people (since the main resource - one’s abilities - is it is impossible to increase the score of others). Of course, all the classic moral imperatives are preserved (or rather, strengthened): “don’t kill,” “don’t steal,” “don’t lie,” “sympathize and help other people.” And these basic guidelines will no longer be violated in the name of God, which is the sin of most religions (especially in relation to “non-believers”). Moreover, the most problematic commandment - “don’t lie” - will be strengthened to the greatest extent, which will radically increase the level of trust in society, and therefore the effectiveness of social mechanisms, including the elimination of corruption. After all, a person who constantly develops himself is always confident in his own abilities and has no need to lie. Lying is not beneficial to him - it can undermine his reputation as a professional. Moreover, lying is not necessary, because many things cease to be “shameful” and do not need to be hidden. In addition, a focus on self-development means that a person sees his main resource within himself and there is no need to exploit others.
If we talk about the priority of values, then the main thing for Modern society is human freedom and condemnation of violence and intolerance. Unlike religion, where it is possible to justify violence in the name of God, modern morality rejects any violence and intolerance (although it can use state violence in response to violence). From the point of view of Modern morality, traditional society is simply filled with immorality and lack of spirituality, including severe violence towards women and children (when they refuse to obey), towards all dissidents and “violators of traditions” (often ridiculous), a high degree of intolerance towards people of other faiths and so on.
An important moral imperative of Modern society is respect for law and justice, because only the law can protect human freedom, ensure equality and security of people. And, on the contrary, the desire to subjugate another, to humiliate someone’s dignity are the most shameful things.
A society where all these values were fully operational would perhaps be the most efficient, complex, fast-growing and richest in history. It would also be the happiest, because... would provide a person with maximum opportunities for self-realization.
It should be noted that all of the above is not an invented, artificial construction. This is just a description of what millions of people are already following - Modern people, who are becoming more and more numerous. This is the morality of a person who has studied hard, who has become a professional through his own efforts, who values his freedom and is tolerant of other people. We are the majority in developed countries, and soon we will be the majority in Russia.
Modern morality is not about indulging selfishness and “base instincts.” Modern morality makes more demands on people than ever before in human history. Traditional morality gave a person clear rules of life, but did not require anything more from him. A person’s life in a traditional society was regulated; it was enough to simply live according to the order established for centuries. It did not require any mental effort, it was simple and primitive.
Modern morality requires a person to develop and achieve success through his own efforts. But she does not say how to do this, only stimulating a person to constantly search, overcome himself and strain his strength. In return, modern morality gives a person the feeling that he is not a cog in a meaningless machine invented for no reason, but the creator of the future and one of the builders of himself and this entire world. In addition, self-development and increased professionalism also lead to the acquisition of material wealth, providing wealth and prosperity “in this life.” Without a doubt, Modern morality destroys many meaningless rules and prohibitions and in this sense makes life easier and more enjoyable. But at the same time, modern morality strictly demands that a person be a human being, and not follow his own animal instincts or herd feelings. This morality requires manifestations of reason, and not primitive emotions such as aggression, revenge, the desire to subjugate other people or submit to authority, which “will arrange and decide everything for us.” And it is far from easy to become tolerant, to overcome personal and social complexes [6, p. 31].
But the main thing is that Modern morality places the emphasis not on “pleasing oneself beloved” and not on the selfless (or rather self-deprecating) achievement of “great goals”, but on self-improvement and the improvement of everything that surrounds Modern man. As a result, people have nothing to share—no one needs to take anything away from others in order to focus more resources on themselves. After all, it is impossible to develop yourself at the expense of others - this can only be done as a result of your own efforts.
Literature: 1.Ananyev B.G. Man as a subject of education. - St. Petersburg, 2008. 2. Berdyaev N.A. About the purpose of a person. - M., 1993. 3. A. Peccei. Human qualities. // World of philosophy, part 2. - M., 1991. 4. Sorokin P.A. Man, civilization, society. - M., 1992. 5. Teilhard de Chardin. Human phenomenon. - M., 1987. 6. Karl Jaspers. Spiritual situation of the time. // Man and his values. - M., 1998.
Key terms
(generated automatically)
: Modern society, Modern morality, society, morality, freedom, the name of God, morality, industrial society, historical experience, personal success.
Current state of the problem
The current state of moral problems is caused by anxiety about the weakening of the leading functions of the family - the birth and socialization of children. This problem negatively affects the demographic situation in the country. From a moral point of view, the situation is aggravated by the fact that moral norms that were previously strictly observed are now being violated.
What was previously simply unacceptable in society, what was condemned, in the modern world no longer seems so monstrous and condemned. For example, divorce and the birth of children out of wedlock were previously condemned. In modern society, views on these situations have changed dramatically. Accordingly, views on the family and its role in society have changed.
In addition to moral problems associated with the decline in the importance of the family function, problems associated with corruption, which has penetrated almost all spheres of life, are becoming increasingly important.
Corruption negatively affects the quality of products and services produced. Counterfeit products and medicines have practically flooded the entire domestic market. The development of corruption has led to the fact that in the modern world everything is bought and sold, for example, for money you can buy a diploma without even studying, or buy victory in competitions or Olympiads.
Corruption is a rather complex phenomenon that negatively affects ethical standards, causing a moral crisis in modern society.
Note 2
Thus, given the current state of affairs in the field of morality, humanity must think about what consequences it faces for humanity and what needs to be done to improve the situation.
How did we get here
When any political system collapses, ideals, goals, and social guidelines fall down the chain behind it. This has already happened in our country. Suffice it to remember the first time after the 1917 revolution. Everything they believed in collapsed overnight. The country did not need spirituality - it needed workers, strength, teamwork. The country experienced a severe spiritual crisis until it became stronger, old guidelines were replaced by new ones. Society began to see a new person - as an honest, hard-working, kind, selfless - patriot of his Motherland.
The fall of the USSR and the events of the 90s led the people along a similar scenario. But unlike the post-revolutionary times, people were not given anything to replace the fallen ideology. Nothing but rivers of information garbage pouring towards us from under the raised “Iron Curtain”. Our country has never experienced anything like this before - young people were ashamed of their roots, their folk culture. Children's folklore groups were empty. Propaganda of American culture and the Western way of life rained down from televisions. “American fight, I’ll go with you,” the then popular group “Combination” sang, they also sang “Once, I went for a walk with a foreigner.” They sang and we sang along. “Mom, don’t cry, I love a Russian,” is the text of the singer Carolina. This is only a small fraction of the enormous misfortune that befell our society. Survival, race for profit, mafia clashes. Gang leaders instead of Robin Hood, jeans instead of a dress, pumped up breasts instead of a modest blush. Children grew up with this. It’s not their fault, but the imprint of the era in the soul is like a brand. Today these children are the parents of those whom we see in kindergartens and schools . Are you still asking where is morality?
The meaning of morality
Some people believe that morality is only a necessary condition for going to heaven after death. During life, it has absolutely no effect on a person’s success and does not bring any benefit. Thus, the meaning of morality lies in cleansing our soul from sin.
In fact, such an opinion is erroneous. Morality is necessary in our lives not only for a specific person, but also for society as a whole. Without it, there will be arbitrariness in the world, and people will destroy themselves. As soon as eternal values disappear in a society and habitual norms of behavior are forgotten, its gradual degradation begins. Theft, debauchery, and impunity flourish. And if immoral people come to power, the situation worsens even more.
Thus, the quality of life of humanity directly depends on how moral it is. Only in a society where basic moral principles are respected and observed can people feel secure and happy.
Problems of spiritual and moral education of children
The moral education of children begins with the family , from birth. No matter how great the role of educational institutions is, the foundation of morality and spirituality is laid by parents from the very moment of birth. Family mentality, cultural level, religious affiliation and the depth of its beliefs are what a small citizen of his country will carry with him throughout life.
The desire for everything beautiful is inherent in us by nature. No one is born evil - that's a fact . Every baby is initially kind, open and ready to embrace the whole world. He does not know what money is, he is not interested in expensive clothes along with the wonders of technology. All a child needs is food, warmth, drink, a soft bed, a mother, and loving people around. You cannot find a more moral and spiritual creature than a 3-year-old child. He already has everything: love of humanity, desire for beauty, healthy modesty and a desire to care. All that is needed is not to let the child “go bad” , to show the correct guidelines by example. But what do children see at home:
- Embittered at life and at each other, parents;
- Holidays, the crown of which is alcohol in the company of an abundance of food;
- Obscene language;
- Television promoting violence, consumerism, illiteracy;
- Priority of the material over the spiritual.
Spiritual and moral education of preschool children
Moral education is an external process. Spirituality is born and develops within. The core of human qualities, already laid down from birth, is wrapped like a ball of experience, experiences from what is seen and heard. Despite the fact that the spiritual and moral education of preschoolers and primary schoolchildren is the basis of educational work, not all teachers fully understand what “morality and spirituality” are. Not all teachers (to be honest) are the best examples of morality.
?
If we talk about example, it can become both a powerful tool in moral education and its first main enemy. Who sets an example for the child? Parents, teachers, relatives, high school students, popular personalities, movie and cartoon characters. You don't need to be a psychologist to analyze what our children see and hear.
What does the concept of “morality” mean?
Very often morality is identified with morality and ethics. However, these concepts are not entirely similar. Morality is a set of norms and values of a particular person. It includes an individual’s ideas about good and evil, about how one should and should not behave in various situations.
Each person has his own criteria of morality. What seems completely normal to one is completely unacceptable to another. So, for example, some people have a positive attitude towards civil marriage and do not see anything bad in it. Others consider such cohabitation immoral and sharply condemn premarital relationships.
Morals and ethics
Traditionally, the concept of “morality” is identified with morality. In many cases, these words are used interchangeably, and most people do not see a fundamental difference between them.
Morality represents certain principles and standards of behavior of people in various situations, developed by society. In other words, it is a public point of view. If a person follows established rules, he can be called moral, but if he ignores them, his behavior is immoral.
What is morality? The definition of this word differs from morality in that it does not apply to society as a whole, but to each individual person. Morality is a rather subjective concept. What is the norm for some is unacceptable for others. A person can be called moral or immoral based only on his personal opinion.
