Good and evil as key categories of ethics. People's ideas about good and evil in different historical eras My idea of good and evil

Ideas about good and evil have changed among different peoples from century to century, while remaining the cornerstone of any ethical system.

Depending on the accepted standard, goodness in the history of philosophy and culture was interpreted as:

pleasure (hedonism)

benefit (utilitarianism)

· happiness (eudaimonism)

· appropriate to the circumstances (pragmatism)

· generally accepted, expedient.

Ancient Greek philosophers tried to give definitions to the concepts under consideration. Socrates, for example, argued that only a clear awareness of what is good and evil contributes to a correct (virtuous) life and knowledge of oneself. He considered the difference between good and evil to be absolute and saw it in the degree of virtue and awareness of a person. According to Socrates, no one does evil intentionally, of his own free will, but only out of ignorance and lack of knowledge. Evil is the result of ignorance of truth and, therefore, good. Even knowledge of one’s own ignorance is already a step on the path to goodness. Therefore, the greatest evil is ignorance, which Socrates saw in the fact that a person is not aware of his ignorance and does not need knowledge.

Other ancient philosophers saw virtue in human social relations (Aristotle), in his connection with the world of ideas (Plato). Still others believed that goodness is inherent in the very nature of man and its manifestation/non-manifestation depends on the individual himself: “To be a good person means not only not to do injustice, but also not to desire it” (Epicurus).

With the development of the category of moral consciousness and ethics, a more rigorous concept of moral good itself is developed. Good is perceived as a special kind of value that does not relate to natural or spontaneous events and phenomena. This substance marks not only free, but also actions consciously correlated with the highest values, and ultimately with the ideal.

The positive value content of goodness lies in overcoming isolation, disunity and alienation between people, establishing mutual understanding, moral equality and humanity in relations between them.

Good is directly connected with the spiritual world of man himself: no matter how the source of good is determined, it is created by man as an individual, i.e., responsibly.

Immanuel Kant considered the concept of good associated with goods to be “empirical”, and unconditional good as a “concept of reason”. He emphasized that the main component of goodness is its rationality.

Reducing the concept of good to individual positive qualities that accompany events and phenomena that are perceived by society as good was considered by J. Moore to be a naturalistic error. The latter, as shown by R. Hare, lies in the fact that in defining specific events, phenomena, characters as “good” and “kind,” their normative characteristics are mixed up.

The difference between the naturalistic (in Moore's sense of the word) and ethical understanding of goodness corresponds to the difference between goodness in the relative and absolute sense.

So, Socrates spoke about the relativity of the concept of “good”: “... it is impossible to say which specific objects are definitely good, but we can say what “good” as such means.”

Sophists directly express their views on the relativity, artificiality, and far-fetchedness of ideas with which the concept of good and evil is usually associated. A similar understanding of the category of good is expressed by F. Nietzsche: “...good is respectable only because of the vital weakness of its bearers, while evil is energetic and purposeful.”

In addition to the above points of view, special attention should be paid to the religious ethical system (in particular, Christian). The Christian religion embodied the idea of the highest good in God. He is the creator of everything good, eternal, and reasonable. The Almighty did not create evil. Evil comes from the innate sinfulness of the human race, which inherited this trait from our first parents (Adam and Eve), who were seduced by the devil in the Garden of Eden. So, evil is the machinations of the devil, but evil is not an independent something, but the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. Since original sin, man has been accompanied by a free but inevitable choice between good and evil. Christianity has established the right to this voluntary and natural choice, for which a person pays with an eternal otherworldly existence in Paradise (absolute good) or in Hell (absolute evil). In order for a person not to remain defenseless before this choice, the Christian religion armed him with a moral code, following which a believer can follow the path of good, avoiding evil. This code formed the content of the famous Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ (Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5), in which Jesus not only teaches the people the Ten Commandments formulated by Moses in the Old Testament, such as “Love your neighbor,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not kill.” steal”, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” but also gives them his own interpretation. Thus, the Old Testament “...love your neighbor and hate your enemy Jesus adds: “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who use you and persecute you... for if you love those who love you , what is your reward? And if you greet only your brothers, what special thing are you doing?”

By specifying, permitting or prohibiting certain forms of behavior, the Christian commandments were, in essence, an expression of the basic principles of morality on which the relationship of man to man should be based.

So, if religious ethics considers good and evil, first of all, as the foundations of an individual’s moral behavior, then philosophical analysis of these categories is rather aimed at identifying their essence, origins and dialectics. The desire to understand the nature of good and evil, combining the efforts of various thinkers, gave rise to a rich classical philosophical and ethical heritage, in which we highlight the consideration of these concepts by G.V.F. Hegel. From his point of view, the interrelated and mutually positive concepts of good and evil are inseparable from the concept of individual will, independent individual choice, freedom and sanity. In “Phenomenology of Spirit” Hegel wrote: “Since good and evil stand before me, I can make a choice between them, I can decide on both, I can accept into my subjectivity both one and the other. The nature of evil, therefore, is such that a person can will it, but does not necessarily have to will it.”

Good is also realized in Hegel through individual will: “...good is a substantial being for the subjective will - it must make it its goal and accomplish it...Good without subjective will is only a reality devoid of abstraction, and it must receive this reality only through the will of the subject, who must have an understanding of the good, make it his intention and implement it in his activities.” Hegel extends the concept of will not only to the area of external realization, the area of actions, but also to the internal area, the area of thinking and intentions. Therefore, he assigns a fundamental role to self-consciousness, which acts as the source of self-creation of the human personality through a free choice between good and evil. For Hegel, “self-consciousness is the ability to put one’s own particularity above the universal and realize it through actions - the ability to be evil. Thus, it is self-consciousness that plays the most important role in the formation of evil will, as well as good will.

Moral consciousness is always faced with a difficult and hopeless dilemma: “With any action that is preceded by a beautiful intention, it inevitably commits evil,” Hegel believes, “refusing actions, trying to preserve its purity, without tainting it with any action, it inevitably falls into emptiness and the worthlessness of existence, which is also evil, but directed against oneself.

Hegel views evil through the phenomenon of the fanatical crowd - “negative freedom”, or “freedom of the void”, which, according to his definition, “represents, both in the field of politics and in the field of religion, the fanaticism for the destruction of any existing social order and the elimination of individuals suspected of adherence to order...Only by destroying something does this negative will feel itself to exist. True, it seems to her that she is striving for some kind of positive state, but in fact, she does not want the positive implementation of this state...” The fanatical crowd described by Hegel turns all its “madness of destruction” on the civilization it hates (“every existing social order", including on cultural monuments. The crowd wants to return to the original, pre-civilized existence, to restore the past, which seems so rosy and alien to evil, a state of "universal equality", a real kingdom of good.

Another phenomenon of evil, according to Hegel, is hypocrisy, which contributes to the moral justification of many unacceptable actions, even crimes.

Indeed, there are many examples in history when theft, mass murder, terrorism, violence, and genocide often find hypocritical justification with the help of moral sophistry, presenting the interests of a limited social group, a separate nation, or even an individual as universal.

Hegel believes that a true way out of the dominance of universal and many-sided evil is possible only if you want to listen not only to yourself, but also to your neighbor, to understand, and not to condemn him. Only then “evil renounces itself, recognizes the existence of the other... begins to believe in his ability for moral rebirth.” Thus, Hegel directly connected the possibility of good with the dialogue of self-consciousnesses. Moreover, the dialogue of unfree, insecure self-consciousness should, through dramatic collisions of mutual denial, distrust, loneliness, mutual contempt and general evil, revive hope for the possibility of a new dialogue between free people who know how to respect the freedom of others.

So, if the attention of the German philosopher is more attracted to the analysis of evil, then in Russian philosophy the main emphasis is on the problem of good.

Vl. Soloviev, in his work “Justification of Good,” analyzes the main attributes of the concept under consideration and notes that this is, firstly, the purity or autonomy of good. Pure goodness is not conditioned by anything; it requires that it be chosen only for its own sake, without any other motivation.

Secondly, it is the fullness of goodness.

And thirdly, his strength.

Vl. Solovyov believed that the idea of good is inherent in human nature, and the moral law is written in the human heart. Reason only develops, on the basis of experience, the idea of good originally inherent in man. V. Solovyov’s thought in “The Justification of Good” comes down to completely consciously and freely subordinating our will to the idea of good inherent in us by nature, an idea personally thought out, “reasonable.”

Goodness, according to V. Solovyov, is rooted in three properties of human nature: a feeling of shame, pity and reverence.

· The feeling of shame should remind a person of his high dignity. It expresses the attitude of the individual towards the creation that is inferior in comparison with him. This feeling is specifically human; the most highly organized animals are completely deprived of it.

· The feeling of pity is the second moral principle of human nature; it contains the source of relationships towards one’s own kind. Animals also have the beginnings of this feeling. Therefore, V. Solovyov says: “If a shameless person represents a return to a bestial state, then a ruthless person is below the animal level.”

· The feeling of reverence expresses a person’s attitude towards a higher principle. This feeling of admiration for the highest forms the basis of any religion.

Developing the provisions of his moral philosophy, V. Solovyov points to three basic principles based on the considered primary elements of goodness and morality:

1.principle of asceticism

2.principle of altruism

3.religious principle.

Soloviev argued: “... asceticism elevates into a principle everything that contributes to the victory of the spiritual over the sensual. The main requirement of asceticism boils down to the following: subordinate the flesh to the spirit, to the extent necessary for its dignity and independence. On the contrary, it is unworthy of a person to be enslaved by the servant of matter...” However, asceticism cannot be an end in itself; self-sufficient asceticism ultimately leads to pride and hypocrisy.

The principle of asceticism has moral significance only when it is combined with the principle of altruism. Its basis is a feeling of pity that connects humanity with the entire living world. According to Solovyov, when a person feels sorry for another being, he does not identify himself with him, but sees in him a being similar to himself, wanting to live, and recognizes this right for him, just as for himself. This leads to the requirement known as the golden rule of morality: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Soloviev divides this general rule of altruism into two particular rules:

1. do not do anything to others that you do not want from others;

2. Do to others everything that you yourself would like from others.

Soloviev calls the first rule the rule of justice, the second the rule of mercy, and they are inseparable.

At the same time, the moral rules of justice and mercy do not cover the entire diversity of relationships between people. Therefore, according to V. Soloviev, a religious principle based on reverence and faith is necessary.

The ethical system of V. Solovyov is the only complete concept of Christian morality in Russian philosophy, imbued with faith in the indestructibility of the goodness that resides in man.

New Testament. Matthew 7:12

The most important rule

“Do unto other people as you would have them do unto you. This is the law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets.”

The “golden rule” of morality is the basis of an individual’s moral behavior, a concentrated expression of the principle of humanism, recognized by humanity since ancient times. The history of the formation of this principle as; the foundations of moral behavior is at the same time the history of the formation of morality. In its modern meaning, the “golden rule” of morality begins to be used in the 18th century.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the “golden rule” of morality sounds like this: “So, in everything, as you want people to do to you, do so to them...” In contrast to the above “positive”, there is also a “negative” one. formulation of the “golden rule” of morality: do not wish for others what you do not wish for yourself.

The “other” in the “golden rule” of morality is any person, near and far, familiar and unfamiliar. The “golden rule” of morality in a hidden form contains ideas about the equality of all people. But equality does not degrade people, does not make them the same. This is equality in freedom, equality of opportunities for endless improvement, then equality in those human qualities that the individual considers best; equality before those standards of behavior that are optimal for each person.

The “golden rule” of morality presupposes the possibility for each of us to take the place of another person: I can treat myself as another, and another as myself. This attitude is the basis of the connection between people, which is called love. Hence the other formulation of the “golden rule” of morality: “love your neighbor as yourself.” The “golden rule” of morality requires treating another person as oneself in the perspective of perfection, that is, as an end, but never as a means.

Introduction

1. Concepts of good and evil

3. The problem of the struggle between good and evil

4. Justice: victory of good and evil

Conclusion

Glossary of terms

Bibliography

Introduction

In a broad sense, the words good and evil denote positive and negative values in general. We use these words to mean a variety of things: “kind” simply means good, “evil” means bad. In V. Dahl’s dictionary, for example (remember, what he called the “Dictionary of the Living Russian Language”), “good” is defined first as material wealth, property, acquisitions, then as necessary, suitable, and only “in a spiritual sense” - as honest and useful , corresponding to the duty of a person, citizen, family man. As a property, “good” also applies to Dahlem, first of all, to a thing, livestock, and then only to a person. As a characteristic of a person, “kind” is first identified by Dahl with “efficient”, “knowledgeable”, “skillful”, and only then with “loving”, “doing good”, “kind-hearted”. In most modern European languages, the same word is used to denote material goods and moral goods, which provides extensive food for moral and philosophical discussions about good in general and what is good in itself.

Concepts of good and evil

Good and Evil are among the most general concepts of moral consciousness, distinguishing between moral and immoral. Traditionally, Good is associated with the concept of Good, which includes what is useful to people. Accordingly, something that is useless, unnecessary or harmful is not good. However, just as good is not the benefit itself, but only that which brings benefit, so evil is not the harm itself, but that which causes harm, leads to it.

Good exists in the form of a variety of things. Books and food, friendship and electricity, technological progress and justice are called blessings. What unites these different things into one class, in what respect are they similar? They have one common feature: they have a positive meaning in people’s lives, they are useful for meeting their needs - vital, social, spiritual. Good is relative: there is nothing that would be only harmful, as well as nothing that would be only beneficial. Therefore, good in one respect can be evil in another. What is good for people of one historical period may not be good for people of another period. Benefits have unequal value at different periods of an individual’s life (for example, in youth and old age). Not everything that is useful to one person is useful to another.

Thus, social progress, while bringing certain and considerable benefits to people (improvement of living conditions, mastery of the forces of nature, victory over incurable diseases, democratization of social relations, etc.), often turns into equally considerable disasters (invention of means of mass destruction, wars for the possession of material wealth , Chernobyl) and is accompanied by the manifestation of disgusting human qualities (malice, vindictiveness, envy, greed, meanness, betrayal).

Ethics is not interested in any, but only in spiritual goods, which include such highest moral values as freedom, justice, happiness, and love. In this series, Good is a special type of good in the sphere of human behavior. In other words, the meaning of goodness as a quality of actions is what relation these actions have to good.

Good, like evil, is an ethical characteristic of human activity, people’s behavior, and their relationships. Therefore, everything that is aimed at creating, preserving and strengthening the good is good. Evil is destruction, the destruction of that which is good. And since the highest good is the improvement of relations in society and the improvement of the individual himself, that is, the development of man and humanity, then everything that in the actions of an individual contributes to this is good; everything that hinders is evil.

And then good is love, wisdom, talent, activity, citizenship, a sense of involvement in the problems of one’s people and humanity as a whole. This is faith and hope, truth and beauty. In other words, everything that gives meaning to human existence.

But in this case, another criterion of goodness and, at the same time, a condition ensuring human self-realization is humanism as the “absolute goal of being” (Hegel).

And then good is everything that is connected with the humanization of human relations: it is peace, love, respect and attention from person to person; this is scientific, technical, social, cultural progress - but only in those aspects that are aimed at establishing humanism.

Thus, the category of Good embodies people’s ideas about the most positive in the sphere of morality, about what corresponds to the moral ideal; and in the concept of Evil - ideas about what opposes the moral ideal and prevents the achievement of happiness and humanity in relations between people.

Goodness has its own “secrets” that should be remembered. Firstly, like all moral phenomena, goodness is the unity of motivation (motive) and result (action). Good motives, intentions that are not manifested in actions are not yet real good: this is, so to speak, potential good. A good deed that is the accidental result of malicious motives is not fully good. However, these statements are far from certain, and therefore we invite readers to discuss them. Secondly, both the goal and the means to achieve it must be good. Even the most good, good goal cannot justify any, especially immoral, means. Thus, the good goal of ensuring order and safety of citizens does not justify, from a moral point of view, the use of the death penalty in society.

As personality traits, good and evil appear in the form of virtues and vices. As properties of behavior - in the form of kindness and anger. What does kindness consist of and how is it manifested? Kindness is, on the one hand, a line of behavior - a friendly smile or a timely courtesy. On the other hand, kindness is a point of view, a consciously or unconsciously professed philosophy, and not a natural inclination. Moreover, kindness does not end with what is said or done. It contains the whole human being.

When we say about someone that he is a kind person, we mean that he is a sympathetic, warm-hearted, attentive person, capable of sharing our joy, even when he is preoccupied with his own problems, grief or is very tired, when he has an excuse for harsh word or gesture. Usually this is a sociable person, he is a good conversationalist. When a person has kindness, he radiates warmth, generosity and generosity. He is natural, approachable and responsive. At the same time, he does not humiliate us with his kindness and does not set any conditions. Of course, he is not an angel, not a hero from a fairy tale, and not a magician with a magic wand. He cannot always resist an inveterate scoundrel who does evil for the sake of evil itself - simply “for the love of art.”

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of such not just evil, but evil people. With their evil, they seem to take revenge on others for their inability to satisfy their unjustified ambitions - in the profession, in public life, in the personal sphere. Some of them cover up base feelings with beautiful manners and pleasant words. Others do not hesitate to use harsh words, be rude and arrogant.

Evil includes such qualities as envy, pride, revenge, arrogance, and crime. Envy is one of the best “friends” of evil. The feeling of envy disfigures the personality and relationships of people; it arouses in a person the desire for another to fail, misfortune, and discredit himself in the eyes of others. Envy often pushes people to commit immoral acts. It is no coincidence that it is considered one of the most serious sins, for all other sins can be considered as a consequence or manifestation of envy. Arrogance, characterized by a disrespectful, contemptuous, arrogant attitude towards people, is also evil. The opposite of arrogance is modesty and respect for people. One of the most terrible manifestations of evil is revenge. Sometimes it can be directed not only against the one who caused the original evil, but also against his relatives and friends - blood feud. Christian morality condemns revenge, contrasting it with non-resistance to evil with violence.

Ideas about good and evil have changed among different peoples from century to century, while remaining the cornerstone of any ethics. Already ancient Greek philosophers tried to define these concepts. Socrates, for example, argued that only a clear awareness of what is good and evil contributes to a correct (virtuous) life and knowledge of oneself. He considered the difference between good and evil to be absolute and saw it in the degree of virtue and awareness of a person. No one does evil on purpose, of his own free will, he said, but only out of ignorance. Evil is the result of ignorance of truth and, therefore, good. Even knowledge of one’s own ignorance is already a Step on the path to goodness. Therefore, the greatest evil is ignorance, which Socrates saw not in the fact that we do not know something, but in the fact that we do not realize it and do not need (or believe that we do not need) knowledge.

Let's see what the idea of good and evil was like among people who lived in different historical eras

Prehistoric period (before 3000 BC)

The prehistoric period appears to most people as a time in which people were like wild animals, and their daily goal was to survive. In those distant times, people were in small tribal groups and were guided by instincts. And the concept of good and evil in those days was not divided by anything other than intuition assigned to one or another group of people. Good manifested itself in the form of positive emotions, and evil in the form of negative ones, intuitively.

Ancient period (from 3000 BC to 476 AD)

The ancient period gains influence on good and evil as a result of the development and first geopolitical wars of states (Rome, Greece, Carthage), as well as unification under one religion and doctrine. At this time, the attitude towards good and evil was more clearly manifested, and features can be identified based on historical facts from various sources of that time.

The difference appears:

on a religious level (sacrifice to please the Gods, for example)
on a state level (wars with other countries, the enemy is evil, for example)
on the everyday level (interpersonal conflicts, theft, for example)

Modern period (1789 AD to today)

The modern period is our time and the concept of good and evil has received more advanced definitions. In other words, in our time, the concept of good and evil, on the one hand, is determined by generally accepted norms, state and religion, and on the other hand, we have many views, approaches and philosophies.

It can be said that the current progress, education and democratization of society gives every person the opportunity for a range of measurements. I mean, now the tones stand out, not just white and black. Some things depend on the situation, and if at first glance they seem obvious, then with deep consideration and taking into account the nuances and stakeholders, some situations acquire nuances.

Nowadays, more factors are taken into account that determine the percentage of good and evil.

Good and evil are the most general forms of moral assessment, distinguishing between moral and immoral. Good is a category of ethics that unites everything that has a positive moral meaning, meets the requirements of morality, serves to distinguish the moral from the immoral, opposing evil.

Since ancient times, good and evil have been interpreted as two forces dominating the world, supernatural, impersonal. F. Engels wrote: “Ideas about good and evil changed so much from people to people, from century to century, that they often directly contradicted one another.”

Religious ethics sees goodness as an expression of the mind or will of God. In various teachings, it is customary to derive good from human nature, from social benefit, from cosmic law or a world idea, etc. The very definition of good is quite complex. Some scholars refuse to attempt to define goodness, pointing out that it is the supreme, original and final category that cannot be covered by any definition.

Evil – category of ethics, in its content opposite to good, generally expressing the idea of immorality, contrary to the requirements of morality, deserving of condemnation. This is a general abstract characteristic of a person’s negative moral qualities.

Moral evil must be distinguished from social evil (the opposite of good). Moral evil occurs when it is a manifestation of the will of a certain person, group of persons, or social stratum. People's negative actions are usually assessed as moral evil.

The origin of evil is explained in different ways. In religious teachings, evil is the fatal inevitability of human existence. I. Kant considered evil a necessary consequence of the sensual nature of man. French educators explained evil as a result of man's misunderstanding of his true nature.

The category of good is also associated with such a concept as virtue – stable positive qualities of a person, indicating his moral value, for example: honesty, humanity, courage, selflessness, loyalty. Virtues are opposed to human vices. A virtuous person not only recognizes positive moral principles and requirements, but also does good by acting in accordance with them. Ideas about virtue have changed historically. Thus, in Ancient Greece, in accordance with the teachings of Plato, virtue was associated with such moral qualities as courage, moderation, wisdom, and justice. The Christian faith in the Middle Ages put forward three main virtues: faith, hope, love (as faith in God, hope in his mercy and love for him). Medieval knights had a whole cult of “difficult virtues”, among which in the first place were courage and courage necessary to defend honor and dignity. The knight preferred death rather than humiliation.

Along with the concept of good in ethics, the term is used good. In everyday life, good is everything that contributes to human life, serves to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of people, and is a means to achieve certain goals. These are both natural and spiritual benefits (knowledge, education, cultural goods). Utility does not always coincide with good. For example, art has no utilitarian utility; The development of industry and material production is bringing humanity to the brink of environmental disaster.

Good is a type of spiritual good. In an ethical sense, the concept of good is often used as a synonym for good.

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.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

GoodAndevil

Good and evil are among the most general concepts of moral consciousness, distinguishing between moral and immoral.

Good is associated with the concept of good, which includes what is useful to people. From this follows the judgment that what is useless, unnecessary or harmful is not good. However, it is necessary to clarify that good is not the benefit itself, but only that which brings benefit; so evil is not harm itself, but what causes harm leads to it.

Good can exist in the form of a variety of things and states: it can be a book, food, attitude towards a person, technical progress and justice. All the above concepts have one feature that unites them: they have a positive meaning in a person’s life, they are useful for meeting his needs - everyday, social, spiritual.

Good is relative: there is nothing that would be only harmful, just as there is nothing that would be only beneficial. Good in one respect may be evil in another. What is good for people of one historical period may not be good for people of another period. Benefits have unequal value at different periods of an individual’s life (for example, in youth and old age). Moreover, not everything that is useful to one person is useful to another. Thus, social progress, while bringing certain and considerable benefits to society (improvement of living conditions, mastery of the forces of nature, victory over incurable diseases, democratization of social relations, etc.), often turns into equally considerable disasters (invention of means of mass destruction, wars for the possession of material wealth, technical disasters) and is accompanied by the manifestation of the basest human qualities (malice, vindictiveness, envy, greed, meanness, betrayal).

Ethics is not interested in any, but only in spiritual goods, which include such highest moral values as freedom, justice, love, and happiness. In this series, Good is a special type of good in the sphere of human behavior. In other words, the meaning of goodness as a quality of actions is what relation these actions have to good.

Good, like evil, is an ethical characteristic of human activity, people’s behavior, and their relationships. Therefore, everything that is aimed at creating, preserving and strengthening the good is good. Evil is destruction, the destruction of that which is good. And since the highest good is the improvement of relationships in society and the improvement of the individual himself, that is, the development of man and humanity, then everything that in the actions of an individual contributes to this is good; everything that hinders is evil.

Based on the fact that humanistic ethics puts Man, his uniqueness and originality, his happiness, needs and interests at the forefront, we can determine the criteria of goodness. This is, first of all, what contributes to the manifestation of the true human essence - self-disclosure, self-realization of the individual. In this case, another criterion of goodness and at the same time a condition ensuring human self-realization is humanism as the “absolute goal of existence” (Hegel). And then goodness is everything that is associated with the humanization of human relations: it is peace, love, respect and attention person to person; This is scientific, technical, social, cultural progress - not only in those aspects that are aimed at establishing humanism.

Thus, the category of Good embodies society’s ideas about the most positive in the sphere of morality, about what corresponds to the moral ideal; and in the concept of Evil - the idea of what opposes the moral ideal, prevents the achievement of happiness and humanity in relations between people.

Like all moral phenomena, goodness is the unity of motivation (motive) and result (action). Good motives and intentions that are not manifested in actions are not yet real good: they are potential good. A good deed that is the accidental result of malicious motives is not good.

Both the goal and the means to achieve it must be good. Even the most good, good goal cannot justify any, especially immoral, means. Thus, the good goal of ensuring order and safety of citizens does not justify, from a moral point of view, the use of the death penalty in society.

As personality traits, good and evil appear in the form of virtues and vices. As properties of behavior - in the form of kindness and anger. Kindness, on the one hand, is a line of behavior (a friendly smile or a timely courtesy). On the other hand, kindness is a point of view, a consciously or unconsciously professed philosophy, and not a natural inclination. Moreover, kindness does not end with what is said or done. It contains the whole human being. A kind person is always responsive, attentive, cordial, able to share someone else’s joy, even when he is preoccupied with his own problems, fatigue, or when he has an excuse for a harsh word or gesture. A kind person exudes warmth, generosity and generosity. He is natural, accessible and responsive, but he does not humiliate with his kindness and does not set any conditions.

So, Good, in the broad sense of the word, as good, means a value concept that expresses the positive value of something in its relation to a certain standard, or this standard itself. In everyday speech, the word “good” is used to designate a wide variety of goods.

Evil includes such qualities as envy, pride, hatred, arrogance, and crime. The feeling of envy disfigures the personality and relationships of people; it arouses in a person the desire for the other to fail, misfortune, and discredit himself in the eyes of others. Envy encourages a person to commit immoral acts. It is no coincidence that envy is considered one of the most serious sins in the Christian religion, for all other sins can be considered as a consequence or manifestation of envy.

Arrogance, no matter what achievements or merits it is based on, is also considered one of the manifestations of evil. It is characterized by a disrespectful, contemptuous, arrogant attitude towards others (to everyone or to an individual, in particular). The opposite of arrogance is modesty and respect for people.

One of the most acute manifestations of evil is revenge (a type of it is blood feud, rooted in the traditions of some peoples).

Differentiation of culture highlights different plans in the general concept of Evil:

· Cosmic plan (evil as impersonal chaos threatening world order).

· Social (evil, acting in the guise of a social force - a layer, a group, an individual - opposes itself to the whole and decomposes it).

· Human (evil as disharmony of the bodily and spiritual qualities of a person).

So, although in terms of imperative value content, good seems to be commensurate with evil, their ontological status can be interpreted differently.

According to one point of view, good and evil are the same-order principles of the world, in constant combat.

According to another point of view, the real absolute world principle is divine good, and evil is the result of erroneous or vicious decisions of a person who is free in his choice.

In relation to Being, evil is nothing. Thus, good, being relative in opposition to evil, is absolute in the fullness of perfection; evil is always relative. This explains the fact that in a number of philosophical and ethical concepts (Augustine, V. Solovyov, D. Moore) Good was considered as the highest and unconditional moral concept.

To the extent that good is understood as an absolute, unity, the source of evil is seen in man himself, in his original sinfulness, in natural primordial egoism (Hobbes, Simmel).

According to the third point of view, the opposition between Good and evil is mediated by God (L. Shestov), “the highest value” (N. Berdyaev), and ontologically and axiologically Good is not the final concept

Ideas about good and evil

Ideas about good and evil have changed among different peoples from century to century, while remaining the cornerstone of any ethical system.

Depending on the accepted standard, goodness in the history of philosophy and culture was interpreted as:

pleasure (hedonism)

benefit (utilitarianism)

· happiness (eudaimonism)

· appropriate to the circumstances (pragmatism)

· generally accepted, expedient.

The positive value content of goodness lies in overcoming isolation, disunity and alienation between people, establishing mutual understanding, moral equality and humanity in relations between them.

Good is directly connected with the spiritual world of man himself: no matter how the source of good is determined, it is created by man as an individual, i.e., responsibly.

The difference between the naturalistic (in Moore's sense of the word) and ethical understanding of goodness corresponds to the difference between goodness in the relative and absolute sense.

So, Socrates spoke about the relativity of the concept of “good”: “... it is impossible to say which specific objects are definitely good, but we can say what “good” as such means.”

Another phenomenon of evil, according to Hegel, is hypocrisy, which contributes to the moral justification of many unacceptable actions, even crimes.

So, if the attention of the German philosopher is more attracted to the analysis of evil, then in Russian philosophy the main emphasis is on the problem of good.

Secondly, it is the fullness of goodness.

And thirdly, his strength.

Goodness, according to V. Solovyov, is rooted in three properties of human nature: a feeling of shame, pity and reverence.

· The feeling of reverence expresses a person’s attitude towards a higher principle. This feeling of admiration for the highest forms the basis of any religion.

Developing the provisions of his moral philosophy, V. Solovyov points to three basic principles based on the considered primary elements of goodness and morality:

1.principle of asceticism

2.principle of altruism

3.religious principle.

1. do not do anything to others that you do not want from others;

2. Do to others everything that you yourself would like from others.

Soloviev calls the first rule the rule of justice, the second the rule of mercy, and they are inseparable.

The ethical system of V. Solovyov is the only complete concept of Christian morality in Russian philosophy, imbued with faith in the indestructibility of the goodness that resides in man.

Good and evil: features and paradoxes

Difficulties in defining the concepts of good and evil are rooted in their characteristics. The first of them is the general, universal nature of good and evil. At the same time, the categories under consideration are distinguished by their specificity and immediacy. They are historical concepts, depending on real social relations. The third most important feature of good and evil is their subjectivity; they do not belong to the objective world, but relate to the activity of human consciousness.

Good and evil are not only value concepts, but also evaluative ones; with their help, humanity evaluates phenomena, events, moral qualities, actions, etc. But like any evaluative concepts, they carry within themselves an element of human subjectivity, personal bias, and emotionality. For one reason or another, what objectively appears as good for one person is (or seems) evil for another.

Subjectivity, therefore, presupposes the absence of absolute good and evil in the real world (they are possible only in abstraction or in the other world). Thus, the fourth feature of the analyzed categories stems from subjectivity - their relativity, which also manifests itself in a number of moments.

Russian philosopher N.O. Lossky illustrated this thesis using the example of death. Death is an undoubted evil; moreover, it symbolizes the ultimate evil of the world. But if we abstract from personal experiences and consider death from the point of view of its role in the process of life, its necessity becomes obvious, not only biological, but also ethical. A person’s awareness of his mortality prompts him to moral quest. Without death there is no life, but without death there is no meaning to life. Through death, life acquires the quality of lasting value. Only that which is finite is valuable. A person’s awareness of his finitude prompts him to look for ways to overcome spiritual or even physical death. It becomes an impulse for creativity.

Perhaps it was precisely the relativity of good and evil, the observation that “everything good is bad” and vice versa, that led F. Nietzsche to the conclusion: “No man pays so dearly for anything as for his virtues.”

The Russian philosopher S. L. Frank wrote in his work “The Collapse of Worlds” that “all the grief and evil that reigns on earth, all disasters, humiliation, suffering, at least ninety-nine percent are the result of the will to realize goodness, fanatical faith into some sacred principles that should immediately be implanted on earth, and the will to the merciless extermination of evil; whereas almost one hundredth of evil and disaster is due to the action of a frankly evil, criminal and selfish will.”

The considered manifestations of the relativity of good and evil highlight and confirm their fifth feature: unity and inextricable connection with each other. They are meaningless individually and cannot exist independently.

According to F. Nietzsche, evil is necessary just as well as good, even more than good: both are necessary conditions for human existence and development.

Modern civilization is characterized by a situation where a person is placed in inhuman conditions in which he has no choice but to do evil (modern cinema). Such “experiments” were started by F.M. Dostoevsky, who as a result came to the conclusion that “you cannot test a person like that.”

The unity of good and evil is the unity of opposites. This means that they are not only mutually exclusive, but also mutually exclusive. And this mutual exclusion determines the constant struggle between good and evil, which is another, sixth, distinctive feature of them.

The fight between good and evil

The mutual invincibility of good and evil does not mean at all that their struggle is meaningless and unnecessary. If you do not fight evil, it will dominate good and cause suffering to people on a huge scale.

True, the paradox is that in the process of this struggle one can become “infected” with evil and instill even greater evil; for “during the struggle with evil and the evil, the good ones become evil and do not believe in other ways of fighting it, except for the evil ones.” It is difficult to disagree with this statement of Nikolai Berdyaev; the centuries-old experience of humanity’s struggle against evil convinces us of this. Therefore, the meaning of this struggle is to reduce by all possible means the “amount” of evil and increase the “amount” of good in the world, and the main question is what ways and means to achieve this. In fact, the entire history of culture and the development of ethical thought in one form or another contains attempts to provide answers to this question. In the modern ethical system, there is a significant “scatter” in the answers: from the famous “Good must be with fists” to the ethics of non-violence, based on the idea of non-resistance to evil with violence.

The ideal of non-violence, formulated at the dawn of Christianity in the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ, has always been the focus of European culture (“... but I say to you: do not resist evil. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other too”). The commandments of non-resistance to evil by violence and love for enemies are both understandable and paradoxical: they contradict the natural instincts and social motives of man - therefore they are perceived very skeptically by modern society.

In the days of the first Christians, this non-resistance was not yet considered as a way to overcome evil, but was only evidence of moral perfection, individual victory over sin. In the twentieth century, the century of violence and cruelty, wars and crime, the concept of nonviolence, developed by such outstanding thinkers as G. Thoreau, L. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi, M. L. King, becomes especially relevant, because it considers nonviolence as the most an effective and adequate means of confronting evil, as the only possible real path to justice, because all others turned out to be ineffective.

In this regard, it is necessary to present a number of arguments to justify the ethics of nonviolence:

· retaliatory violence does not cause the victory of good, but, on the contrary, inevitably increases the amount of evil in the world;

· non-violence breaks the “reverse logic” of violence, which generates the effect of the “boomerang of evil” (L. Tolstoy), according to which the evil committed necessarily returns to the one who created it in a larger amount;

· The requirement of non-violence leads to the triumph of goodness, since it contributes to the improvement of man;

· Without responding to evil with violence, the personality, oddly enough, opposes force to evil, for the ability to “turn the cheek” requires much greater fortitude.

Thus, non-violence is not the encouragement of evil and not cowardice, but the ability to worthily resist evil and fight it without losing dignity and without stooping to the level of evil.

The ethics of nonviolence, paradoxically, in the twentieth century acquired a huge number of supporters who accept, implement and develop the ideas of nonviolence. These are ideological and practical supporters within the framework of various movements (“hippies”, “pacifists”, “greens” and others).

Nonviolence can change not only personality and interpersonal relationships, but also social institutions, relationships between masses of people, classes, and states. Even politics, that legalized and organized violence, can be transformed on fundamentally nonviolent grounds.

Thus, nonviolence in the form that it acquired in the theory and practice of the twentieth century becomes an effective means of resolving social conflicts that were previously resolved with the use of violence.

At the same time, it is necessary to consider the arguments of supporters of the opposite point of view, supporters of a violent form of struggle against evil. Of course, those social movements and institutions that practice violence or call for it do not consider it a positive phenomenon and evaluate violence more as a forced necessity than as a desired state. Let us note the main arguments of opponents of nonviolence:

· Impunity for evil in conditions of non-violence;

· the ethics of non-violence is utopian and idealizes ideas about man, focusing on the inherent desire for good in the individual and considering this tendency as a kind of lever that can turn the world upside down.

However, adherents of the ethics of nonviolence themselves at the same time recognize that human behavior can also be a source of evil. But to consider a person a completely evil being is to slander him, just as to consider him only good is to flatter him.

Only recognition of moral ambivalence and the duality of human nature expresses a fair and objective attitude towards him. It is precisely this purely sober, realistic concept of man that serves as a guarantee of effectiveness and, moreover, as a practical methodology of nonviolent struggle, which offers a path, strategy and tactics for strengthening and increasing good.

Adherents of nonviolence believe that for this the parties, first of all, need to:

1. give up the monopoly on truth;

2.realize that anyone can find themselves in the opponent’s place, and from this angle critically analyze behavior;

3. based on the belief that a person is always better than what he does, and that the possibility of change always remains in him, look for a way out that would allow the opponent to maintain his dignity;

4.do not insist on your own, do not immediately refute your opponent’s point of view, but look for acceptable solutions;

5.try to turn enemies into friends, hate evil and love the people behind it.

Thus, if violence is aimed at suppressing or destroying the enemy and only temporarily silences the conflict, but does not eliminate its causes, then nonviolent action is aimed at eliminating the very basis of the conflict and offers the prospect of developing relationships, especially when previous evil is not an obstacle to subsequent good relations. The uniqueness of the moral position of supporters of non-violence is that they accept responsibility for the evil against which they are fighting, and introduce the “enemies” to the good in the name of which they are fighting. Interesting ideas on this matter can be found in “Agni Yoga”, which advises: “... know your enemies, beware of them, but do not have malice. Anger and hatred chain us to the enemy, and the fight against him leads to an unproductive expenditure of vital energy. The enemy must be overcome by the strength of one’s striving for a positive goal. One must draw strength from enemies to increase creative activity..."

Justice

No matter in what form the struggle between good and evil takes place, the victory of good is always and by everyone regarded as the triumph of justice, because the category “justice” most closely meets the criteria of good. Associated with it is the idea of a set of morally acceptable norms, which act as the correct adequate measure of retribution for an individual for his actions. This concept evaluates the relationship between:

· “roles” of individual people or social groups (everyone must find their place in life, their “niche” corresponding to their abilities and capabilities;

· action and reward;

· crime and punishment;

· rights and obligations;

· dignity and honor.

Their correspondence, harmony, fair relationship is regarded as good.

The consciousness of justice and attitude towards it initially were and remain the stimulus for moral and social activity of people. Nothing significant in the history of mankind has been accomplished without the awareness and demand for justice. But the objective measure of justice is historically determined and relative; there is no single justice for all times and for all peoples. The concept and requirements of justice change as society develops. The only absolute criterion of justice remains, which is the degree of compliance of human actions and relationships with the social and moral requirements achieved at a given level of development of society.

The concept of justice embodies those properties of good and evil discussed above (relativity and subjectivity). After all, what seems fair to one may be perceived by another as blatant injustice, which is manifested in the system of assessments, rewards and punishments.

Justice is a measure of natural human rights; the concept is based on the principle of equality, equalizing the rights of each person to the same starting opportunities and giving equal chances to realize oneself. But equality is by no means the same thing as equality. People are equal in their rights, but not equal in their opportunities, abilities, interests, needs, and responsibilities. On the one hand, in this inequality and non-identity lie the origins of individuality, uniqueness and uniqueness. On the other hand, confusion of concepts gives rise to a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions.

Intentional or accidental confusion of the concepts of “equality” and “equality” indicates either linguistic negligence and the level of culture, or - what is much more serious - exposes socio-political and moral speculation and attempts to manipulate people through the desire for justice, which always motivates a person.

At the end of the review of problems associated with the concepts of good and evil, justice and injustice, equality and inequality, it is necessary to once again focus on the mutual connection of the above concepts. Already in ancient times, the idea of the irresistible connection between good and evil was deeply understood; it runs through the entire history of philosophy and is concretized in a number of ethical provisions:

· good and evil are meaningful;

· good and evil are known in opposing unity

· the formal transfer of the dialectic of good and evil to individual moral practice is fraught with human temptation. “Trying” evil (even mentally) without a strict concept of good can turn into vice much more likely than knowledge.

· the experience of evil can be fruitful only as a condition for the awakening of the spiritual power of resistance to evil.

· Understanding of evil is not enough without a willingness to resist evil.

However, being “balanced” at the conceptual level, good and evil represent unequal grounds for assessing existing reality. It is one thing to do good or evil, and another to allow evil to happen. The harm of evil is greater than the benefit of good. Avoiding injustice is, from a moral point of view, more important than doing mercy.

For society, evil and injustice are more destructive than goodness and mercy - constructive.

A peculiar result of the historical development of ethics is the conviction that the main means of combating evil is the moral improvement of the individual, in particular, and society in general.

good evil dialectics moral moral

References:

1. Likhachev D.S. about good and evil

2. Men A. About good and evil

3. Solovyov V. Justification of good.// V. Solovyov Works in two volumes, vol.1.

4. Fromm E. Psychoanalysis and ethics. M., 1992.

Posted on Allbest.ru