Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications

Federal Communications Agency

Siberian State University of Telecommunications and Informatics

Department of Sociology, Political Science and Psychology

home writing

Topic: "Values ​​in modern Russian society"

Is done by a student

checked

Introduction 3

Values ​​in modern Russia: results of an expert study 4

Dominant values ​​6

Material well-being 6

The value of "I" (individualism) 7

Career (self-realization) 7

Stability 8

Freedom 9

Respect for elders 9

God (faith in God) 10

Patriotism 10

Duty and honor 11

Antivalues ​​12

“Ideal” consolidating values ​​13

Conclusions: key trends in the development of the Russian value doctrine 14

Conclusion 15

References 16

Introduction

Value is a characteristic feature of human life. For many centuries, people have developed the ability to identify objects and phenomena in the world around them that meet their needs and to which they treat in a special way: they value and protect them, focus on them in their life. In ordinary word usage, “value” is understood to mean one or another meaning of some object (thing, state, act), its dignity with a “plus” or “minus” sign, something desirable or harmful, in other words, good or bad.

No society can do without values, as for individuals, they have a choice - to share these values ​​or not. Some are committed to the values ​​of collectivism, while others are committed to the values ​​of individualism. For some, the highest value is money, for others - moral impeccability, for others - a political career.

At the present time, the problem of value is of great importance. This is explained by the fact that the process of renewal of all spheres of public life has brought to life many new, both positive and negative phenomena. Developing scientific and technological progress, industrialization and informatization of all spheres of modern society - all this gives rise to the growth of a negative attitude towards history, culture, traditions and leads to the devaluation of values ​​in the modern world.

The lack of spiritual values ​​is felt today in all spheres. Many of our ideals have changed drastically in the course of change. The spiritual balance was disturbed, and a destructive stream of indifference, cynicism, disbelief, envy, and hypocrisy rushed into the resulting void.

The purpose of my work is to study these changes and identify new, modern values ​​of Russian society.

Values ​​in modern Russia: results of an expert study

In the period from July 15 to September 10, 2007, specialists from the Pitirim Sorokin Foundation conducted a study entitled "Values ​​in Modern Russia". It became the first stage of a large-scale project of the same name aimed at helping to develop a value base capable of consolidating various groups of Russian society.

The relevance of the study is due to the obvious demand of society for a new understanding of the value foundation. Various state and social institutions respond to such a request by intensifying the discussion of this topic, but it is not accompanied by a study of the fundamental foundations on which the expected correction of the value doctrine of society should take place. How do Russians understand the concept of “value”? What moral standards are capable of consolidating society? What ideology should these values ​​serve to form? The initiators of the research project will try to find answers to these and other questions.

The purpose of the first - this - stage of work was to study the value trends of Russian society. In particular, the following tasks were proposed for solution:

To study opinions about the key values ​​that dominate Russian society at the present stage.

Determine the vector of correction of axiological preferences of various religious, ethnic and age groups Russians.

Record the understanding of the concept of "national ideology" by various audiences, as well as experts' forecasts regarding the development of the national idea of ​​Russia.

Determine the value priorities of the Russian youth, associated political preferences and electoral plans.

The study was conducted through an expert survey and focus groups with various youth audiences.

According to the opinion of social scientists surveyed, the Russian value system is still chaotic, undergoing transformation, and in its new quality has not yet fully formed.

The reasons for such a long process of registration are " numerous cataclysms that befell Russia in the past century and reflected in the collective consciousness of the population. Experts believe that " people still have not recovered from the feeling of the ground knocked out from under their feet“According to the estimates of social scientists, today in Russia there is no single value system.

However, many value subsystems coexist in the country, spontaneously formed in accordance with the interests and needs of certain social groups.

Some experts called the modern value picture of Russia " a situation of valuable fragments", when " various parts of society use their wreckage».

Dominant values

Among the axiological attitudes characteristic of modern Russian society, the participants in the study - experts and actors of youth focus groups - indicated the following values ​​(ranked according to the principle of descent of the noted significance):

Material well-being.

The value of "I" (individualism).

Career (self-realization).

1. Stability.

2. Respect for elders.

   God (faith in God).

   Patriotism.

   Duty and honor.

Material well-being

The priority of the values ​​of material well-being and consumer prosperity (colloquially - mercantilism) for most of the modern Russian society is noted by many experts. First of all, these values ​​are highlighted by the social scientists surveyed, who have the opportunity in the course of their professional activities to follow the dynamics of social demands. They note that the consumer orientation for Russia is unconventional, since it began to take shape only in the period of the 90s, when “idealist” generations left the socially active life.

Analyzing the reasons for the dominance of consumer orientation as a value, the experts pointed out the massive propaganda of the consumer lifestyle and the urbanization of the country as such.

The value of "I" (individualism)

The respondents believe that it is precisely in the concentration of an individual on his own needs and, accordingly, “ in the perception of the surrounding world through an egocentric prism is the essence of individualism as a value.

Such a situation, according to experts, is a consequence of the introduction of the idea of ​​a consumer society, when a hypertrophied orientation towards prosperity focuses a person only on personal interests. Individualism is a response to the empty niche of "common" values, the Soviet system of which was destroyed, and a new one was not created.

The dominance of individualist values, according to a number of respondents, limits the socio-psychological wealth and cultural prospects of the country.

Career (self-realization)

A kind of conversion of the individualistic priorities of modern Russian society is the presentation by experts as an important value of self-realization, which primarily means a successful career. According to a large part of the respondents, it is she who gives Russians, especially young people, “ feeling of worth in the eyes of others", testifies to" social standards" gives the feeling that " you have achieved something in life". Self-realization as the dominant value at the current stage was identified by both experts and young people who participated in focus groups.

Family

The basic nature of the value of the family was noted by all participants in the study without exception.

However, the nature of loyalty to family values ​​differed in a number of expert groups. A significant part of the respondents confidently insist that the family in Russia has been and remains a key element of the social system.

Supporters of this position note that in the new Russia the trend of growing importance of the family is increasing and insist on the need for systematic work to introduce family values ​​into the public consciousness.

For another number of experts, the appeal to the family as a value is external - inertial - in nature: this value is indicated as fundamental, but subsequent discussions about it demonstrate a peripheral attitude to the institution of the family in reality.

Separately, it is worth highlighting the position of young people regarding the family: an unexpected result of the study was the fact that, despite the erosion of the institution of the family in a modern globalized society, the vast majority of the young audience states the importance of the family, points to the importance of preserving and protecting the family institution.

Stability

The vast majority of respondents - experts and participants in youth focus groups - noted stability, which means the absence of socio-political and economic cataclysms, as a value that is basic for them.

Young people associate the likelihood of their success in life with stability. Experts of middle and older age explain the desire for stability by fatigue from the “epoch of change”.

Society's desire for stability, experts say, has socio-psychological and pragmatic aspects. Firstly, the correction of the circumstances of existence from extreme to comfortable requires the instinct of psychological self-preservation of society. Secondly, Russians associate the prospects for a personal and national economic breakthrough with stability.

Liberty

Freedom as a basic socially significant value in the course of the study was noted mainly by representatives of the youth audience. At the same time, it is worth pointing out the semantic dichotomy of the value of freedom, which manifested itself in connection with which youth groups spoke out on this issue.

>> Ideal and values

23. Ideal and values

What's happened ideal?

In our behavior, we consciously or unconsciously follow some ideals, most often without even knowing it.

Ideal (from French ideal)- an example, something perfect, the highest goal of aspirations. It denotes what seems worthy of emulation. People have different ideals. One person considers the ideal of a respectable businessman driving a Mercedes (he is strict, efficient, secured). And the other is attracted by the romance of distant roads. He wants to know the world, visit different countries, cross the Arctic Ocean or the desert.

We advise you to remember

Ideal- something perfect, corresponding to the ideal.

Idealist- a selfless person striving for lofty goals.

Idealization- representation of someone or something better than he (it) is in reality; endowment with qualities corresponding to the ideal.

People who put them first material values, such as a luxurious mansion or a car, are called materialists.

And the other person is called an idealist. It is customary to refer to idealists as people who put spiritual values ​​and ideals (kindness, justice, honesty) in the first place. At the same time, in each person there are both
beginnings: material and ideal.

From the word "ideal" come concepts that you probably met more than once.

Heroes have always been the bearers and embodiment of the ideal. That is why they served as a role model, inspiring people to lofty moral deeds. The images of the heroes embody vivid, memorable manifestations of moral stamina, courage, and the greatness of the human spirit. Heroes
poets sing, their image is imprinted in immortal works by great artists and sculptors.

People strive for the ideal all their lives. With him we compare our actions and deeds.

Perhaps the most surprising thing lies in the fact that we want to see ideal not only ourselves, but also others, especially those close to us.

Let's try to think about who and why can become an ideal for others.

Probably, you have heard the phrase of young fans about some popular singer: “She is my ideal!” But what does this mean? Girls like the appearance of the singer, her manner of holding, speaking, laughing. I like the success that the singer has achieved. But after all, fans do not know anything about the singer's views on life, how she communicates with her family and friends. It is only about external imitation.

Each generation has its own ideals. Often they are connected with the events that the whole society is going through at this time. The military generation admired feats during battles, persistent behavior in captivity by enemies.

The new time and modern youth already have other role models that are closer and more understandable to them.

What are values?

What are values? These are those objects, phenomena (material and spiritual) that are most important for a person in life.

There are values ​​that are important at all times. They can be called universal. Such values ​​include truth, freedom, justice, beauty, goodness, usefulness.

enduring values family life consider fidelity and constancy, love for children, combined with exactingness, respect for a person.

But sometimes a person has a conflict of values. Imagine such a situation. A friend asked me to come support him at sports competitions, and at school by tomorrow we need to prepare a serious message, for which there are no materials at home. And the student faces a difficult choice: go to the competition to support a friend or prepare a message in the library? Any decision is unpleasant, because you want to be both a good friend and a successful student. In life, you will have to learn to make choices in many
situations.

What values ​​are today's teenagers guided by?

When scientists found out what books teenagers aged 10-13 read, what heroes they imitate and admire, it turned out that fictional heroes, who are characterized by a sense of collectivism, community with other people, hold the primacy. Each of them acted out of a moral need to care for others. The characters of the works could not remain indifferent to the pain and suffering of other people, they felt responsible for them. But the students in the first place were not fairy-tale heroes and not movie heroes, like teenagers, but real people who have achieved success through hard work and outstanding abilities.

It is difficult to determine the values ​​of teenagers. Some data suggests that they are mainly focused on material gains, without tormenting themselves with questions about the meaning of life. However, on the other hand, teenagers are interested in the life of their family, religion, and are not indifferent to the pain and suffering of other people.

Science has established that there are three stages in the moral development of a person.

The first stage is when a person does not commit evil deeds because he is afraid of punishment. If a person thinks that he can be caught stealing, then he is unlikely to steal.

The second stage is when a person values ​​the opinion of the group in which he is. The person does not steal for fear of expulsion from the group.

In the third stage, behavior is determined by principles that apply regardless of group authority. They are based on justice, mutual assistance and equality of human rights, respect for his dignity as a person. A person does not steal because he respects other people. Correct behavior is considered to be consistent with such principles.

This scientific theory based on the belief that people are characterized by certain stages of moral development. But it turns out that most people rarely progress beyond the second level. The criminals stop at the first.

The principles of morality tell us what our relationships with people should be like, how we should treat people. The most simple form their expression is: treat people the way you want them to treat you. It is a form of relationship of equality between people.

Summing up

People's behavior is influenced by ideals and values. Ideals are role models, something perfect. The ideal can be real people or fictional characters, public ideas and values. Values ​​are all objects, phenomena (spiritual and material) that are important for a person in his life. There are universal human values ​​that have always been considered important.

Test your knowledge

1. What do the concepts mean: “ideal”, “idealist”, “idealization”?
2. List the character traits that you think an ideal person should have. Justify your choice.
3. How do you understand the expression "Every time has its heroes"?
4. Do you know works of art in which heroes are depicted, lofty ideals are shown? Name them.
5. Describe a situation that reflects a conflict of values.
6. Come up with sentences (phrases) with the words: “benefit”, “justice”, “beauty”, “freedom”, “honor”, ​​“responsibility”.

Workshop

1. The basis of the culture of Japan and China is the respect of children towards their parents.

It includes officially recognized duties, such as respect for parents, unquestioning obedience to them, care for father and mother.

The observance of this cultural value has so rebuilt relations in society that the Chinese and Japanese peoples today, perhaps, surpass all others in terms of respect for their elders.

And what about this cultural value in our country, in Russian society? Conduct your mini-research (use print, radio, television, your observations).

2. Complete the test task.

A. What would you be unable to forgive the person you are friends with?
1) Rudeness;
2) betrayal;
3) cowardice, greed;
4) weakness of character;
5) rudeness;
6) other.

B. What will you never allow yourself to communicate with your beloved and dear person?
1) look untidy;

2) to tell a lie;
3) to blunder or be embarrassed;
4) raise your voice;
5) other.

Conclude what is valuable to you in communicating with loved ones.

Kravchenko A.I., Pevtsova E.A., Social science: A textbook for the 6th grade of educational institutions. - 12th ed. - M .: LLC "TID "Russian Word - RS", 2009. - 184 p.

Lesson content lesson summary support frame lesson presentation accelerative methods interactive technologies Practice tasks and exercises self-examination workshops, trainings, cases, quests homework discussion questions rhetorical questions from students Illustrations audio, video clips and multimedia photographs, pictures graphics, tables, schemes humor, anecdotes, jokes, comics parables, sayings, crossword puzzles, quotes Add-ons abstracts articles chips for inquisitive cheat sheets textbooks basic and additional glossary of terms other Improving textbooks and lessonscorrecting errors in the textbook updating a fragment in the textbook elements of innovation in the lesson replacing obsolete knowledge with new ones Only for teachers perfect lessons calendar plan for the year guidelines discussion programs Integrated Lessons

The most important role not only in the life of each individual person, but also in the whole society as a whole is played by values ​​and value orientations, which primarily perform an integrative function. It is on the basis of values ​​(while focusing on their approval in society) that each person makes his own choice in life. Values, occupying a central position in the structure of personality, have a significant impact on the direction of a person and the content of his social activity, behavior and actions, his social position and his general attitude towards the world, towards himself and other people. Therefore, the loss of the meaning of life by a person is always the result of the destruction and rethinking of the old system of values, and in order to regain this meaning again, he needs to create new system based on common human experience and using socially accepted forms of behavior and activity.

Values ​​are a kind of internal integrator of a person, concentrating around themselves all his needs, interests, ideals, attitudes and beliefs. Thus, the system of values ​​in a person's life takes the form of the inner core of his entire personality, and the same system in society is the core of its culture. Value systems, functioning both at the level of the individual and at the level of society, create a kind of unity. This is due to the fact that the personal value system is always formed based on the values ​​that are dominant in a particular society, and they, in turn, influence the choice of the individual goal of each individual and determine the ways to achieve it.

Values ​​in a person's life are the basis for choosing the goals, methods and conditions of activity, and also help him answer the question, why does he perform this or that activity? In addition, values ​​are the system-forming core of the idea (or program), human activity and his inner spiritual life, because spiritual principles, intentions and humanity no longer relate to activity, but to values ​​and value orientations.

The role of values ​​in human life: theoretical approaches to the problem

Modern human values- the most urgent problem of both theoretical and applied psychology, since they influence the formation and are the integrative basis of the activity of not only a single individual, but also a social group (large or small), a team, an ethnic group, a nation and all of humanity. It is difficult to overestimate the role of values ​​in a person's life, because they illuminate his life, filling it with harmony and simplicity, which determines a person's desire for free will, for the will of creative possibilities.

The problem of human values ​​in life is studied by the science of axiology ( in lane from Greek axia / axio - value, logos / logos - a reasonable word, teaching, study), more precisely, a separate branch of scientific knowledge of philosophy, sociology, psychology and pedagogy. In psychology, values ​​are usually understood as something significant for the person himself, something that gives an answer to his actual, personal meanings. Values ​​are also seen as a concept that denotes objects, phenomena, their properties and abstract ideas that reflect social ideals and therefore are the standard of due.

It should be noted that the special importance and significance of values ​​in human life arises only in comparison with the opposite (this is how people strive for good, because evil exists on earth). Values ​​cover the whole life of both a person and the whole of humanity, while they affect absolutely all areas (cognitive, behavioral and emotional-sensory).

The problem of values ​​was of interest to many famous philosophers, sociologists, psychologists and educators, but the beginning of the study of this issue was laid back in ancient times. So, for example, Socrates was one of the first who tried to understand what goodness, virtue and beauty are, and these concepts were separated from things or actions. He believed that the knowledge achieved through the understanding of these concepts is the basis of a person's moral behavior. Here it is also worth referring to the ideas of Protagoras, who believed that each person is already a value as a measure of what exists and what does not exist.

Analyzing the category of “value”, one cannot ignore Aristotle, because it is to him that the term “thymia” (or valued) originated. He believed that values ​​in human life are both the source of things and phenomena and the cause of their diversity. Aristotle identified the following benefits:

• valued (or divine, to which the philosopher attributed the soul and mind);
• praised (impudent praise);
• opportunities (here the philosopher attributed strength, wealth, beauty, power, etc.).

Philosophers of modern times made a significant contribution to the development of questions about the nature of values. Among the most significant figures of that era, it is worth highlighting I. Kant, who called the will the central category that could help in solving the problems of the human value sphere. And the most detailed explanation of the process of formation of values ​​belongs to G. Hegel, who described the changes in values, their connections and structure in the three stages of the existence of activity (they are described in more detail below in the table).

Features of changing values ​​in the process of activity (according to G. Hegel)

Steps of activity	Features of the formation of values
first	the emergence of a subjective value (its definition occurs even before the start of actions), a decision is made, that is, the value-goal must be concretized and correlated with external changing conditions
second	Value is in the focus of the activity itself, there is an active, but at the same time contradictory interaction between value and possible ways its achievements, here the value becomes a way for the formation of new values
third	values ​​are woven directly into activity, where they manifest themselves as an objectified process

The problem of human values ​​in life has been deeply studied by foreign psychologists, among which it is worth noting the works of V. Frankl. He said that the meaning of human life as its basic education finds its manifestation in the system of values. Under the values ​​themselves, he understood the meanings (he called them “universals of meanings”), which are characteristic of a greater number of representatives not only of a particular society, but of humanity as a whole throughout the entire path of its development (historical). Viktor Frankl focused on the subjective significance of values, which is accompanied, first of all, by a person taking responsibility for its implementation.

In the second half of the last century, values ​​were often considered by scientists through the prism of the concepts of "value orientations" and "personal values". The greatest attention was paid to the study value orientations personalities, which were understood both as an ideological, political, moral and ethical basis for a person's assessment of the surrounding reality, and as a way of differentiating objects according to their significance for an individual. The main thing that almost all scientists paid attention to was that value orientations are formed only thanks to the assimilation of social experience by a person, and they find their manifestation in goals, ideals, and other manifestations of personality. In turn, the system of values ​​in human life is the basis of the content side of the orientation of the individual and reflects its internal attitude in the surrounding reality.

Thus, value orientations in psychology were considered as a complex socio-psychological phenomenon that characterized the orientation of the personality and the content side of its activity, which determined the general approach of a person to himself, other people and to the world as a whole, and also gave meaning and direction to his personality. behavior and activities.

Forms of existence of values, their signs and features

Throughout its history of development, humankind has developed universal or universal values ​​that have not changed their meaning or diminished their significance for many generations. These are such values ​​as truth, beauty, goodness, freedom, justice and many others. These and many other values ​​in a person's life are associated with the motivational-need sphere and are an important regulatory factor in his life.

Values ​​in psychological understanding can be represented in two meanings:

• in the form of objectively existing ideas, objects, phenomena, actions, properties of products (both material and spiritual);
• as their significance for a person (value system).

Among the forms of existence of values, there are: social, subject and personal (they are presented in more detail in the table).

Forms of existence of values ​​according to O.V. Sukhomlinsky

Of particular importance in the study of values ​​and value orientations were the studies of M. Rokeach. He understood by values ​​positive or negative ideas (and abstract ones), which are in no way connected with any particular object or situation, but are only an expression of human beliefs about types of behavior and prevailing goals. According to the researcher, all values ​​have the following features:

• the total number of values ​​(significant and motivated) is small;
• all values ​​in people are similar (only the steps of their significance are different);
• all values ​​are organized into systems;
• the sources of values ​​are culture, society and social institutions;
• values ​​have an impact on a large number of phenomena that are studied by a variety of sciences.

In addition, M. Rokeach established a direct dependence of a person's value orientations on many factors, such as his income level, gender, age, race, nationality, level of education and upbringing, religious orientation, political beliefs, etc.

Some signs of values ​​were also proposed by S. Schwartz and W. Bilisky, namely:

• values ​​are understood as either a concept or a belief;
• they refer to the desired end states of the individual or to his behavior;
• they have a supra-situational character;
• are guided by the choice, as well as the assessment of human behavior and actions;
• they are ordered by importance.

Classification of values

Today in psychology there is a huge number of very different classifications of values ​​and value orientations. Such diversity appeared due to the fact that values ​​are classified according to various criteria. So they can be combined into certain groups and classes, depending on what types of needs these values ​​satisfy, what role they play in a person's life and in what area they are applied. The table below shows the most generalized classification of values.

Classification of values

Criteria	Values ​​can be
assimilation object	material and moral
subject and object content	socio-political, economic and moral
subject of assimilation	social, class and values ​​of social groups
purpose of assimilation	selfish and altruistic
generalization level	concrete and abstract
mode of manifestation	persistent and situational
the role of human activity	terminal and instrumental
content of human activity	cognitive and object-transforming (creative, aesthetic, scientific, religious, etc.)
belonging	individual (or personal), group, collective, public, national, universal
group-society relationship	positive and negative

From the point of view of the psychological characteristics of human values, the classification proposed by K. Khabibulin is interesting. Their values ​​were divided as follows:

• depending on the subject of activity, values ​​can be individual or act as values ​​of a group, class, society;
• according to the object of activity, the scientist singled out material values ​​in human life (or vital) and sociogenic (or spiritual);
• depending on the type of human activity, values ​​can be cognitive, labor, educational and socio-political;
• the last group consists of values ​​according to the way of performing activities.

There is also a classification based on the allocation of vital (human ideas about good, evil, happiness and sorrow) and universal values. This classification was proposed at the end of the last century by T.V. Butkovskaya. Universal values, according to the scientist, are:

• vital (life, family, health);
• social recognition (values ​​such as social status and ability to work);
• interpersonal recognition (exhibition and honesty);
• democratic (freedom of expression or freedom of speech);
• particular (belonging to a family);
• transcendental (manifestation of faith in God).

It is also worth dwelling separately on the classification of values ​​according to M. Rokeach, the author of the most famous method in the world, the main purpose of which is to determine the hierarchy of a person's value orientations. M. Rokeach divided all human values ​​into two broad categories:

• terminal (or value-goals) - the person's conviction that the ultimate goal is worth all the effort to achieve it;
• instrumental (or value-methods) - a person's conviction that a certain way of behavior and actions is the most successful for achieving the goal.

There are still a huge number of different classifications of values, a summary of which is given in the table below.

Value classifications

Scientist	Values
V.P. Tugarinov	spiritual	education, art and science
	socio-political	justice, will, equality and brotherhood
	material	various types of material goods, technology
V.F. Sergeants	material	tools and methods of implementation
	spiritual	political, moral, ethical, religious, legal and philosophical
A. Maslow	being (B-values)	higher, characteristic of a person who is self-actualizing (values ​​of beauty, goodness, truth, simplicity, uniqueness, justice, etc.)
	scarce (D-values)	lower, aimed at satisfying a need that has been frustrated (values ​​such as sleep, security, dependence, peace of mind, etc.)

Analyzing the presented classification, the question arises, what are the main values ​​in human life? In fact, there are a lot of such values, but the most important are common (or universal) values, which, according to V. Frankl, are based on three main human existentials - spirituality, freedom and responsibility. The psychologist identified the following groups of values ​​("eternal values"):

• creativity that allows people to understand what they can give to a given society;
• experiences, thanks to which a person realizes what he receives from society and society;
• relationships that enable people to realize their place (position) in relation to those factors that somehow limit their lives.

It should also be noted that the most important place is occupied by moral values ​​in human life, because they play a leading role in people's decisions related to morality and moral standards, and this in turn indicates the level of development of their personality and humanistic orientation.

The system of values ​​in human life

The problem of human values ​​in life occupies a leading position in psychological research, because they are the core of the personality and determine its orientation. In solving this problem, a significant role belongs to the study of the value system, and here the research of S. Bubnova, who, based on the works of M. Rokeach, created her own model of the system of value orientations (it is hierarchical and consists of three levels), had a serious impact. The system of values ​​in human life, in her opinion, consists of:

• values-ideals, which are the most general and abstract (this includes spiritual and social values);
• values-properties that are fixed in the process of human life;
• values-modes of activity and behavior.

Any system of values ​​will always combine two categories of values: values-goals (or terminal) and values-methods (or instrumental). Terminal includes the ideals and goals of a person, group and society, and instrumental - ways to achieve goals that are accepted and approved in a given society. Values-goals are more stable than values-methods, therefore they act as a system-forming factor in various social and cultural systems.

To the specific system of values ​​that exists in society, each person shows his own attitude. In psychology, there are five types of human relations in the value system (according to J. Gudechek):

• active, which is expressed in a high degree of internalization of this system;
• comfortable, that is, externally accepted, but at the same time a person does not identify himself with this system of values;
• indifferent, which consists in the manifestation of indifference and complete lack of interest in this system;
• disagreement or rejection, manifested in a critical attitude and condemnation of the value system, with the intention of changing it;
• opposition, which manifests itself both in internal and external contradiction with this system.

It should be noted that the system of values ​​in human life is the most important component in the structure of the personality, while it occupies a borderline position - on the one hand, it is a system of personal meanings of a person, on the other, its motivational-need sphere. Values ​​and value orientations of a person act as the leading quality of a person, emphasizing its uniqueness and individuality.

Values ​​are the most powerful regulator of human life. They guide a person on the path of his development and determine his behavior and activities. In addition, the focus of a person on certain values ​​and value orientations will certainly have an impact on the process of formation of society as a whole.

It should be noted that in the psychological literature the concept of "ideal" is associated with the concept of "value": values ​​are formed as ideals, that is, as certain models of what should be.

In world psychology, there is a huge number of works devoted to value orientations and ideals. The socio-philosophical foundations for the development of the problem of values ​​and value orientations were covered in the works of Renaissance scientists, the teachings of I. Kant, M. Weber, and were also reflected in the philosophical concepts of V.I. Vernadsky, V.S. Solovieva, N.L. Berdyaev, revealing the spiritual and moral perfection of a person, in the works of O.G. Drobnitsky and V.P. Tugarinov, reflecting the fundamental problems of axiology related to issues of the theory of values. A number of important theoretical conclusions on the structure and content of systems of social and personal values, value orientations are contained in the works of P.M. Ershova, A.G. Zdravomyslova, E.V. Zolotukhina-Abolina, M. Rokeach, V. Frankl, V.A. Yadov. The problem of the formation of humanistic values ​​is reflected in the views of domestic (A.I. Adamsky, N.P. Anikeeva, A.A. Bodalev, P.P. Blonsky, Z.I. Vasilyeva, O.S. Gazman, V.A. Karakovsky , Z. A. Malkova, L. I. Novikova, R. M. Rogova, T. A. Stefanovskaya and others) and foreign (A. Maslow, K. Rogers) psychologists and teachers.

In scientific psychology, there are such concepts as personal values, and there is value as a social ideal, moral values, what V. Frankl called semantic universals formed as a result of social experience. What is value? There are many definitions of the concept of "value".

The concept of "value" is used to designate objects, phenomena, categories and ideas that serve as a standard of quality and an ideal according to the social priorities of a certain stage in the development of culture. The concepts of "value" and "value orientation" are found in such disciplines as philosophy, sociology, psychology, and pedagogy.

Values ​​and value orientations are studied by axiology (from the Greek axia - "value") - a branch of philosophical knowledge. Value orientations, as a structural element of the personality, the hierarchy of values ​​and the orientation of the personality in them are studied by psychology. The formation of a personal-value approach, i.e. Pedagogy is engaged in the management of the process of orientation of the individual in values, the study of the formation of value orientations.

Consider the etymology of the category "value". This concept comes from the term "valuable", meaning something positive.

The concept of "value" was introduced into scientific circulation by I. Kant in contrasting the sphere of morality (freedom) and the sphere of nature (necessity). In the Critique of Practical Reason, he showed the difference between ideas about what is due, about values ​​and norms, on the one hand, and ideas about what is, the world of things, what is, on the other hand. The world of the due, as it were, completes the world of the existent, and hence the reliable, to integrity and system, therefore, according to I. Kant, action is impossible without including it in the structure of the due.

In Russia, the philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, who claims that "value is not a property of any thing, but the essence and at the same time a condition for the full existence of an object. Value is a quality" .

Detailed characteristics is given in the "Philosophical Dictionary" edited by I.T. Frolova: "Values ​​are specifically social definitions objects of the surrounding world, revealing their positive or negative value for a person and society (good, good and evil, beautiful and ugly, contained in the phenomena of social life and nature). Outwardly, values ​​act as properties of an object or phenomenon, but they are inherent in it not by nature, not simply by virtue of internal structure object in itself, but because it is involved in the sphere of human social existence and has become the bearer of certain social relations.

In the works of V.P. Tugarinov contains the following definition of values: "Values ​​are an object, a phenomenon and their properties that people of a certain society or class and an individual need as a means of satisfying their needs and interests, as well as ideas and motivations as a norm, goal and ideal" .

Nowadays, in the domestic pedagogical science, V.A. Slastenin considers the value orientation of a person as follows: "the value of an object is determined in the process of its evaluation by a person who acts as a means of understanding the significance of an object to meet its needs."

Analyzing the philosophical and psychological-pedagogical literature, in which the concepts of interest to us are considered, we can conclude that S.F. Anisimov, O.V. Larmin, V. Momov, V.N. Sagatovsky, V.P. Tugarinov consider the specificity of values ​​in the form of reflecting their ability to meet the needs and interests that underlie the activity and orientation of the individual.

In psychological literature, values ​​are understood as some mental formations that are significant for an individual and that most fully meet his personal and social needs in a particular society. Adhering to the concepts of the interdisciplinary concept of "value" (D.A. Leontiev) and the mechanism of the birth of an objectified need (A.I. Leontiev), we can conclude that values ​​are spiritual and material phenomena that have a personal meaning and are the motive of human activity.

After analyzing the many different understandings and definitions of values ​​offered in philosophy, pedagogy and psychology, we came to the conclusion that it is inevitable to correlate this concept with three different groups of phenomena. We can talk about three forms of the existence of values ​​that pass one into another: 1) social ideals - developed by the public consciousness and present in it generalized ideas about perfection in various spheres of public life,

2) the substantive embodiment of these ideals in the deeds or works of specific people; and 3) the motivational structures of the personality ("models of what should be") that encourage it to substantive embodiment of social value ideals in its activities. These three forms of existence pass one into the other. Simplistically, these transitions can be imagined as follows: social ideals are assimilated by the individual and, as "models of what should be," begin to induce him to activity, in the process of which their objective embodiment takes place; objectively embodied values, in turn, become the basis for the formulation of social ideals, and so on and so forth. in an endless spiral. The psychological model of the structure and functioning of human motivation and its development in the process of sociogenesis concretizes the understanding of personal values ​​as sources of individual motivation that are functionally equivalent to needs. Personal values ​​are formed in the process of sociogenesis, interacting with needs in a rather complicated way.

V.P. Tugarinov notes that an individual has a range of his values, i.e. phenomena of interest to him, may be very narrow, limited. The limitation of the personality is expressed in the limited number and nature of its life values, vital interests.

V modern science There are several classifications of values. Let's consider some of them.

So, in the psychological dictionary we are talking about three forms of the existence of values:

Firstly, values ​​act as a social ideal, as an abstract idea, developed by social consciousness, contained in it, about the attributes of due in various spheres of social life. Such values ​​are both universal, "eternal" (truth, beauty, justice), and concrete historical (patriarch, equality, democracy).

secondly, value appears in an objectified form in the form of works of material and spiritual culture or human actions, which are a concrete substantive embodiment of social value ideals (aesthetic, ethical, political, legal, etc.), and makes values ​​cognizable.

thirdly, social values, being refracted through the prism of individual life activity, enter the psychological structure of the individual in the form of personal values, which are one of the sources of motivation for her behavior.

S.F. Anisimov highlights:

absolute values ​​that invariably retain significance for people (life, health, knowledge, progress, justice, humanity, spiritual perfection of a person);

anti-values ​​or pseudo-values ( ignorance, premature death, disease, hunger, human degradation, etc.);

relative (relative) values ​​that are inconstant, change depending on historical, class, worldview positions (political, ideological, religious, moral, class).

The Bulgarian researcher V. Momov believes that it is possible to typify values ​​as existing or actual, further target or mentally desired, possible, establishes the following hierarchy: values-goals, values-ideals, values-desires and values ​​due . This reflects the objective-subjective nature of values.

When defining the concept of "value", K. Rogers uses a distinction between "effective values" (manifested in behavior in the choice of real objects) and "known values" (manifested in the choice of symbolic objects).

Exploring the value orientations of older schoolchildren, E.F. Yashchenko defined the following real subordination of values, which she divides into two large groups: goals - the meaning of life and personality traits. The values ​​of the goal - the meaning of life include:

Family, love.

Interesting work, professional development.

Material security.

The activity of knowledge.

Creative activity.

Spiritual communication.

Health.

Personal status.

Patriotism.

Personal order values ​​(personal qualities) include:

Humanism, decency.

High demands, exactingness.

Purposefulness, efficiency.

Rationalism.

The desire for knowledge, professionalism.

Honesty.

Ability to earn money.

Sociability.

Cheerfulness.

Citizenship.

N.I. Lapin highlights the basic values ​​for empirical research, allowing to determine the values ​​of society in times of crisis:

Human life as the highest value, self-worth.

Freedom in the modern, liberal sense of the term as "freedom to realize the socially positive needs and abilities of the individual."

Morality as a quality of human behavior in accordance with universal moral and ethical standards.

Communication in the family, with friends and other people, mutual assistance.

Family, personal happiness, procreation.

Work as a valuable meaning of life and as a means to earn money.

Well-being - income, comfort, health.

Initiative, enterprise, the ability to express oneself, to stand out.

Tradition - respect for traditions, live like everyone else, dependence on surrounding circumstances.

Independence, the ability to be an individual, to live according to your own criteria.

Self-sacrifice as a willingness to help others, even to the detriment of oneself.

Legality as an established state order that ensures the safety of individuals, the equality of their relations with others.

Liberty as archaic "freedom from..." restrictions.

Classification of values ​​V.N. Sagatovsky combines values ​​for various types of activities, isolating the value-oriented aspect. On this basis, we define the following values:

utilitarian (use);

cognitive (truth);

managerial (order);

moral (good);

aesthetic (beauty);

consumer (pleasure);

creative (meaning).

Note that the moral values ​​(truth, goodness, beauty, knowledge) V.N. Sagatovsky singles out in a special group.

V. Frankl believes that, playing the role of the meanings of human life, values ​​act as semantic universals and make up three main classes that make it possible to make human life meaningful:

values ​​of creativity (including labor);

values ​​of experience (primarily love);

relationship values.

In the pedagogical literature, the value systems that need to be included in the content of education are widely presented. For instance:

land, Fatherland, family, labor, knowledge, culture, world, person (V.A. Karakovsky);

knowledge, health, truth and social justice, honor and dignity, freedom and the right to choose, nature and culture of the native land (I.Ya. Lerner, I.K. Zhuravlev);

world, man, homeland, father's house, surrounding nature, family, education, science, labor, culture (R.M. Rogova); and etc.

The source of values ​​is the world of "ten thousand situations" and the conscience of a person as a "semantic organ" capable of finding a unique meaning in each of the situations.

It should be noted that in the presence of such a significant number of values ​​that make up all the above classifications and are recognized by the whole society, each person has an individual specific hierarchy of values, which serves as a link between the spiritual culture of society and the spiritual world of the individual, between social and individual being.

Another concept related to the orientation of the individual - value orientations - is the system of aspirations of the individual, as well as the nature of this aspiration, highest level ideas about ideals, about the meanings of life and activity, which together underlie the activity of each person and constitute the internal source of his activity, behavior.

According to V.V. Vodzinskaya, "value orientation is, on the one hand, specific manifestations of the attitude of the individual to the facts of reality, and on the other hand, a system of fixed attitudes that regulate behavior in each given period of time."

Thus, in psychology, value orientations are considered as the basis for motivating an individual's behavior, his readiness to consciously respond in a given situation. Value orientations - a reflection in the mind of a person of the values ​​​​recognized by him as strategic life goals and general worldview guidelines. Value orientations that are part of the personality structure appear in the form of behavior, orientation, motives, principles, needs - the constituent elements of activity. At the same time, value orientations become the core of the personality, ensure its stability, and are a factor in its development. Value orientation is an indicator of a person's maturity.

Value orientations, being the most important component in the structure of personality, are a complex integral formation; it is a form and different levels of interaction between the social and the individual in the personality; a specific form of awareness by a person of the world around him, his past, present and future.

For teachers, it is important that the value orientations of the individual are its main structural component in which her various psychological characteristics converge. "It is the value orientations that determine the characteristics and nature of the relationship of the individual to the surrounding reality and, to a certain extent, determine the characteristics of her behavior." Therefore, when studying the features of personality formation, it is first of all necessary to take into account the moments that influence the process of forming his value orientations.

Thus, we can conclude that the value orientations of the individual are based on a certain system of values, including spiritual and moral values, which was formed in the course of education. Consequently, educating a person's personality traits means organizing the processes of awareness and acceptance by a person of the system of values ​​existing in society.

Value orientations are the most important characteristic of a person's personality, since they determine his attitude to the world around him and his behavior. The formation of a person's value orientations is a long and complex process. It is influenced by the social situation in the world, country, region, means mass media, values ​​of small groups (family, friends), etc. Wherein important role in the formation of value orientations of the individual belongs to education.

The system of value orientations determines the content side of the orientation of the individual and forms the basis of relations to the surrounding world, to other people, to oneself, the basis of the worldview and the core of motivation, the basis of the life concept and lifestyle of each social stratum, in turn, affects the socialization of those belonging to it. children, teenagers, youth. The values ​​and lifestyle of certain social strata become a kind of standards for people.

Whatever importance one attaches to needs and interests, it is obvious that they do not exhaust the motives of human behavior; the orientation of the individual is not limited to them. We do not only what we have an immediate need for, and we do not only what interests us. We have moral beliefs about duty, about our obligations, which also govern our behavior. The proper, on the one hand, opposes the individual, since it is perceived as independent of him - socially universally significant, not subject to his subjective arbitrariness; at the same time, if we experience something for granted, and not only abstractly know that it is considered as such, the due becomes the subject of our personal aspirations, socially significant becomes at the same time personally significant, a person’s own conviction, an idea that has taken possession of his feelings and will . Determined by their worldview, they find a generalized abstract expression in the norms of behavior; they receive their concrete expression in ideals. In its most general form, an ideal is what constitutes the highest goal of activity, aspirations, another meaning is the perfect embodiment of something, for example, the ideal of kindness, etc. . The ideal can act as a set of norms of behavior; sometimes it is an image that embodies the most valuable and in this sense attractive human traits - an image that serves as a model. The ideal of a person does not always represent his idealized reflection; the ideal can even be in a compensatory-antagonistic relation to the real appearance of a person; it can be emphasized that a person especially appreciates and what he just lacks. The ideal is not what a person really is, but what he would like to be, not what he really is, but what he would like to be. But it would be wrong, purely outwardly, to oppose the due and the existing, what a person is and what he desires: what a person desires is also indicative of what he is, his ideal - for himself. The ideal of man is thus both that and not that which he is. It's a foreshadowing of what he can become. These are the best trends, which, embodied in the image - a model, become a stimulus and regulator of its development.

Ideals are formed under direct social influence. They are largely determined by ideology, world outlook. Each historical era has its ideals - its ideal image of a person in which time and environment, the spirit of the era embody the most significant features. Such, for example, is the ideal of the sophist or philosopher in the "age of enlightenment" in Ancient Greece, a brave knight and a humble monk in the feudal era. Capitalism and the science it created have their own ideal: "its true ideal is the ascetic but usury miser and the ascetic but productive slave." Our epoch has created its own ideal, embodying in it the traits and properties forged in the struggle for a socialist society and in the creative work of building it. Sometimes the ideal is a generalized image, an image as a synthesis of the main, especially significant and valued features. Often the ideal is historical figure, in which these features are especially clearly embodied. The presence of a certain ideal brings clarity and unity to the orientation of the individual.

V early age the ideal is to a greater extent the people of the immediate environment - the father, mother, elder brother, someone close, then the teacher. Later, as an ideal, which a teenager, a young man would like to be like, is a historical figure, very often one of his contemporaries.

As another category, value ideals can be distinguished. The combination "value ideals" at first glance resembles a tautology, since in constructing the definition of value as such, we relied on the concept of "ideal". The meaning of the concept of a value ideal is that a person is not a passive object of his own value regulation, but a subject who is able to evaluate his own values ​​and project (extrapolate) in his imagination his own movement towards values ​​that differ from those of today. Value ideals, the hierarchy of which characterizes the value for a person of personal values ​​themselves in abstraction from the image of one's "I", act as ideal final guidelines for the development of the subject's values ​​(in his mind).

Introduction

A fundamental characteristic of the human environment in modern society are social changes. For an ordinary person - the subject of social cognition - the instability of society is perceived, first of all, as the uncertainty of the existing situation. Therefore, there is a twofold process in relations with the future. On the one hand, in a situation of instability and uncertainty about the future, which exists even among the wealthy segments of the population, a person tries to find something that will give him confidence, support in possible future changes. Some people try to secure their future through property, others try to build on higher ideals. For many, it is education that is perceived as a kind of guarantee that increases security in changing social circumstances and contributes to confidence in the future.

Morality is a way of regulating people's behavior. Other ways of regulation are custom and law. Morality includes moral feelings, norms, commandments, principles, ideas about good and evil, honor, dignity, justice, happiness, etc. Based on this, a person evaluates his goals, motives, feelings, actions, thoughts. Everything in the surrounding world can be subjected to moral evaluation. Including the world itself, its structure, as well as society or its individual institutions, actions, thoughts, feelings of other people, etc. A person can subject even God and his deeds to a moral assessment. This is discussed, for example, in the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "The Brothers Karamazov", in the section on the Grand Inquisitor.

Morality is, therefore, such a way of understanding and evaluating reality, which can judge everything and can pass judgment on any event, phenomenon of the outer world and the inner world. But in order to judge and pass a sentence, one must, firstly, have the right to do so, and, secondly, have criteria for evaluation, ideas about moral and immoral.

In modern Russian society, spiritual discomfort is felt, largely due to the moral conflict of generations. Modern youth cannot accept the way of life and style of thinking idealized by the older ones, while the older generation is convinced that it used to be better, about modern society - it is soulless and doomed to decay. What gives the right to such a moral assessment? Does it have a healthy grain? This work is devoted to the analysis of the problem of ideals in modern society and its applicability to the current situation in Russia.

Ideals and Values: A Historical Review

Moral assessment is based on the idea of ​​how "should be", i.e. an idea of ​​some proper world order, which does not yet exist, but which nevertheless should be, an ideal world order. From the point of view of moral consciousness, the world should be kind, honest, fair, humane. If he is not like that, so much the worse for the world, it means that he has not yet grown up, has not matured, has not fully realized the potentialities inherent in him. Moral consciousness "knows" what the world should be like and thus, as it were, pushes reality to move in this direction. Those. moral consciousness believes that the world can and should be made more perfect. The current state of the world does not suit him, it is basically immoral, there is still no morality in it and it must be introduced there.

In nature, everyone strives to survive and competes with others for the good things of life. Mutual assistance and cooperation are rare phenomena here. In society, on the contrary, life is impossible without mutual assistance and cooperation. In nature, the weak perish; in society, the weak are helped. This is the main difference between man and animal. And this is something new that a person brings into this world. But a person is not “ready” for this world, he grows out of the realm of nature and in it the natural and human principles compete all the time. Morality is the expression of the human in man.

A true person is one who is able to live for others, help others, even sacrifice himself for others. Self-sacrifice is the highest manifestation of morality, embodied in the image of the God-man, Christ, who for a long time remained an unattainable ideal for people, a role model. From biblical times, man began to realize his duality: a man-beast began to turn into a man-god. After all, God is not in heaven, he is in the soul of everyone and everyone is capable of being a god, i.e. to sacrifice something for the sake of others, to give others a particle of yourself.

The most important condition of morality is human freedom. Freedom means independence, autonomy of a person from the outside world. Of course, man is not God, he is a material being, he lives in the world, he must eat, drink, survive. And yet, thanks to consciousness, a person gains freedom, he is not determined by the outside world, although he depends on it. A person defines himself, creates himself, decides what he should be. If a person says: “What can I do? Nothing depends on me,” he himself chose unfreedom, his dependence.

Conscience is indisputable evidence that a person is free. If there is no freedom, then there is nothing to judge for: an animal that killed a person is not judged, a car is not judged. A person is judged and, above all, he is judged by his own conscience, unless he has already turned into an animal, although this is also not uncommon. Free, according to the Bible, a person is considered even by God, who endowed him with free will. Man has long understood that freedom is both happiness and a burden. Freedom, identical to reason, distinguishes man from animals and gives him the joy of knowledge and creativity. But, at the same time, freedom is a heavy responsibility for oneself and one's actions, for the world as a whole.

Man, as a creature capable of creativity, is similar to God or nature as a whole, to that creative force that creates the world. This means that he is able to either improve this world, make it better, or destroy, destroy. In any case, he is responsible for his actions, for his actions, big and small. Every action changes something in this world, and if a person does not think about it, does not track the consequences of his actions, then he has not yet become a man, a rational being, he is still on his way and it is not known where this path will lead.

Is there one moral or are there many? Maybe everyone has their own morality? It is not so easy to answer this question. It is obvious that in society there are always several codes of conduct practiced in various social groups.

The regulation of relationships in society is largely determined by moral traditions, which include a system moral values and ideals. A significant place in the emergence and evolution of these ideals belongs to philosophical and religious systems.

In ancient philosophy, a person realizes himself as a cosmic being, tries to comprehend his place in space. The search for truth is the search for an answer to the question of how the world works and how I myself work, what is good, goodness. The traditional notions of good and evil are rethought, the true good is singled out as opposed to the fact that it is not a true good, but is only considered as such. If ordinary consciousness considered wealth and power, as well as the pleasures they bring, to be good, philosophy singled out the true good - wisdom, courage, moderation, justice.

In the era of Christianity, there is a significant shift in moral consciousness. There were also general moral principles formulated by Christianity, which, however, were not particularly practiced in ordinary life even among the clergy. But this in no way devalues ​​the significance of Christian morality, in which important universal moral principles and commandments were formulated.

With its negative attitude towards property in any of its forms ("do not collect treasures on the ground"), Christian morality opposed itself to the type of moral consciousness that prevailed in the Roman Empire. The main idea in it is the idea of ​​spiritual equality - the equality of all before God.

Christian ethics readily accepted everything acceptable to it from earlier ethical systems. Thus, the well-known rule of morality “Do not do to a man what you do not wish for yourself”, the authorship of which is attributed to Confucius and the Jewish sages, entered the canon of Christian ethics along with the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount.

Early Christian ethics laid the foundations of humanism, preaching philanthropy, unselfishness, mercy, non-resistance to evil by violence. The latter presupposed resistance without causing harm to another, moral opposition. However, this in no way meant giving up their beliefs. In the same sense, the question of the moral right to be condemned was also raised: “Judge not, lest you be judged” should be understood as “Do not condemn, do not pass judgment, for you yourself are not sinless,” but stop the evildoer, stop the spread of evil.

Christian ethics proclaims the commandment of kindness and love for the enemy, the principle of universal love: "You heard what was said:" Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you... for if you love those who love you, what reward have you?”

In modern times, in the XVI-XVII centuries, there are significant changes in society, which could not but affect morality. Protestantism proclaimed that the main duty of a believer before God is hard work in his profession, and the evidence of God's chosenness is success in business. Thus, the Protestant Church gave its flock the go-ahead: “Get rich!”. If earlier Christianity claimed that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, now it is the other way around - the rich become God's chosen ones, and the poor - rejected by God.

With the development of capitalism, industry and science develop, and world outlook changes. The world is losing its halo of divinity. God generally became superfluous in this world, he prevented a person from feeling like a full-fledged master of the world, and soon Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God. “God is dead. Who killed him? You and I,” says Nietzsche. Man, liberated from God, decided to become God himself. Only this deity turned out to be rather ugly. It decided that the main goal was to consume as much and as varied as possible and created a consumer society for a certain part of humanity. True, for this it was necessary to destroy a significant part of the forests, pollute the water and atmosphere, and turn vast territories into landfills. They also had to create mountains of weapons to defend themselves against those who did not fall into the consumer society.

Modern morality has again become semi-pagan, reminiscent of pre-Christian. It is based on the conviction that we live once, so everything must be taken from life. As Callicles once argued in a conversation with Socrates that happiness lies in satisfying all one's desires, so now this is becoming the main principle of life. True, some intellectuals did not agree with this and began to create a new morality. Back in the 19th century an ethic of non-violence emerged.

It so happened that it was the 20th century, which cannot be called the century of humanism and mercy, that gave rise to ideas that are in direct conflict with the prevailing practice of solving all problems and conflicts from a position of strength. Quiet, staunch resistance turned out to be brought to life - disagreement, disobedience, non-retribution by evil for evil. A person placed in a hopeless situation, humiliated and powerless, finds a non-violent means of struggle and liberation (primarily internal). He, as it were, assumes responsibility for the evil done by others, takes upon himself the sin of others and atones for him by his non-giving back of evil.

Marxism defends the idea of ​​a gradual establishment of genuine social justice. The most important aspect of understanding justice is the equality of people in relation to the means of production. It is recognized that under socialism there are still differences in the qualifications of labor and in the distribution of consumer goods. Marxism adheres to the thesis that only under communism should there be a complete coincidence of justice and social equality of people.

Despite the fact that in Russia Marxism gave rise to a totalitarian regime that denied virtually all fundamental human values ​​(although proclaiming them to be its main goal), Soviet society was a society where culture, primarily spiritual, was given a high status.

The motives of human activity are of a social nature. Fixing his needs and interests, they, at the same time, correlate with the values ​​prevailing in society and are largely determined by them.

In the broad sense of the word values b - it is the positive or negative significance of objects (sensual or abstract) for a person, their dignity. Indeed, any object involved in the sphere of human life “turns to a person in one direction or another and can be evaluated in terms of benefit or harm, beauty or ugliness, permissible or forbidden, etc.

However, there is a narrower sense of the word, which we will adhere to in the future: values ​​are understood as abstract representations and ideas that act as standards of due, constituting the axial meaning of human existence. In accordance with this definition, sensual, material objects are not values, but they are closely related to the latter, since they act as means of their realization. Values ​​include, in particular, peace between people, the life of mankind (general human values), ideas about good and evil, social justice, freedom, equality, rights and obligations of people (social class values), friendship, love, trust ( values ​​of communication), creativity, knowledge of the truth (values ​​of activity), beauty and ugliness (aesthetic values), etc.

In various social systems, values ​​are manifested in customs, morality, public opinion, tastes, and so on. Their fixation in the minds of people is predominantly fuzzy and intuitive-emotional.

Unlike the goal, the value does not lose its aspiration to the future in the process of implementation, does not contain a more or less clear result, does not have any spatial characteristics. However, it gives meaning to all human life, forms the basis of his attitude to the surrounding reality and to himself. Thanks to values, a person develops a certain life position, the ability to choose goals and consciously guide one's own behavior, overcome immediate urges are formed. In other words, values ​​form the basis of a property of human consciousness called reflection .

Values ​​- necessary condition formation of the human personality. The destruction of value systems is fraught with negative consequences. A personality degrades, becomes abnormal if its life-sense core breaks down. Phenomena such as the growth of crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, which have become widespread in the life of our society in recent times, are to a large extent associated with the loss of accumulated values.

No less dangerous is the other extreme - the prevalence of values ​​in human life, attempts to unconditionally subordinate it to once learned behavioral cliches. "Don't compromise your principles!" - the main life attitude of people of this kind. Here, values ​​become fragments of an illusory, false consciousness, ideology, where ideas turn into a primary force in relation to the earthly sources of their origin, to the real interests of people. Any changes in reality turn out to be hostile to such values. Their carriers are, as a rule, people who are characterized by dogmatism, fanaticism and moral deafness.

Distinguishing values ​​and goals, it should be borne in mind that the boundary separating them is very conditional and relative. In the motley list of goals, in their hierarchy, there are such imaginary goals that the subject in his activity strives to approach, but never reaches them. Such goals are called ideals . The ideal, however, has all the attributes of value. It is the highest value that determines the direction and methods of social or individual development. Such are the ideals of beauty, human perfection, social organization, and so on. Social ideals act as the last foundations of goals and the force that organizes people for the sake of solving specific, historically urgent tasks.

Social norms are close to the ideals, although they differ from them in a more concrete, instrumental nature. social norm – this is a generally recognized tool in this community for assessing existing and emerging situations, as well as a rule for their reproduction and change. The most important function of the social norm is the regulation of the behavior of members of a given community, the nature of their relationships, interaction and communication.

The question of how values ​​relate to knowledge about the outside world has attracted the attention of many generations of philosophers. Particular importance was attached to it within the framework of superficial, in particular, contemplatively materialistic ideas about the purpose of philosophy and science. In accordance with them, any philosophy and science consider the world "as it is", stating only what is available and does not affect reality in the least. But then the values ​​completely fall out of scientific consideration. Good, for example, is not what "is", but what "should be". The ideal according to which we should act will by no means be found in scientific research external items. Therefore, along with the scientific way of thinking, one should admit the possibility of a different, value-based vision of the world.

Dialectical materialism establishes deep and close relationships between values ​​and knowledge. Of course, human activity is built in accordance with its value orientations. But if they contradict the laws of development of the external world, they very soon reveal their utopian essence. This is how values ​​are selected. Actual values ​​correspond to the laws of the external world and contain knowledge about it. For example, the ideals of the revolutionary-minded masses have always protested against the existing injustice and the aspirations for complete justice. At the same time, in an unconscious form, they displayed trends, laws historical development society. They were recognized in social theory. Therefore, the science of society always has a value character. In it, values ​​take the form of a scientific worldview.

Two types of civilizations - open societies and closed societies - have not only different, but, one might say, diametrically opposed value systems.

The universal values ​​that characterize not only the modern, but also any era, fall into two sets of opposite values: the values ​​of an open society and the values ​​of a closed society. The values ​​of the intermediate societies that lie between the individualistic and collectivist societies, as a rule, represent some combination of the values ​​of these polar societies. If, say, in an open society, freedom is the ability to do what the individual chooses and what does not interfere with the corresponding freedom of other people, then in a closed society, freedom is a conscious necessity, namely, the need to do what is necessary to realize the main goal of this society. .

Marx once remarked that human anatomy is the key to understanding ape anatomy. A higher stage in the development of a phenomenon allows a clearer understanding of the previous stages of its development. In this sense, the history of the last century is the key to understanding the whole human history.

The following discussion focuses primarily on modern post-capitalism and modern extreme, or totalitarian, socialism in its communist and national socialist variants. The analysis concerns both the material and spiritual aspects of the life of post-capitalist and socialist societies, since the dynamics of the development of individual societies is determined primarily by the interaction of these two sides. The societies lying between post-capitalism and socialism and gravitating towards one of these poles will not be specially considered.

Society of the 20th century - this is a society split into two opposing systems - post-capitalism and socialism, between which there are many countries, with one force or another gravitating towards one of these two poles.

It should be noted that the term "socialism" is used in two different senses. Firstly, socialism means a concept that sets the global goal of overthrowing capitalism, building in the foreseeable future a perfect society that completes the history of mankind, and requiring the mobilization of all resources at the disposal of society to achieve this goal. Secondly, socialism is a real society trying to realize socialist ideals. Socialism in the first sense is theoretical socialism. Socialism in the second sense is practical or real socialism. The divergence between socialist theory and socialist practice is, as the history of the last century has demonstrated, radical. If theoretical socialism depicts an almost heavenly life that is about to begin on earth thanks to the selfless efforts of society, then socialist practice is a real hell, in the fire of which tens of millions of innocent victims are burned.

Socialism existed in two main forms - in the form of left-wing socialism, or communism, and in the form of right-wing socialism, or national socialism. By the middle of the century, National Socialism, which unleashed a war for its world domination, was defeated. By the end of the century, communism, also striving to assert its power on a global scale, disintegrated under the weight of the insoluble problems it had generated.

Post-capitalist and socialist societies are fundamentally different. At the same time, there are certain similarities between these two extreme types of social structure. This is precisely the similarity about which they say: extremes converge.

The essence of the similarities between post-capitalism and socialism boils down to the following:

• - each of these societies tends to present itself as the only successfully developing civilization, and in the industrial age, when humanity begins to acquire more and more unity, as the vanguard of all mankind;
• - each of them considers scientific and technical domination over the world, the ever-increasing exploitation of the environment as its highest meaning;
• - these societies deny the idea of ​​equality of different cultures and their diversity that cannot be reduced to a common denominator;
• - these societies consider their task in relation to other cultures to be spurring their forward movement in the direction of goals that seem obvious to them;
• - the cult of analytical thought and utilitarian reason plays an exceptional role in these societies;
• - these societies disdain non-technical criteria for determining the level of development of a particular society or people;
• - a simplified concept of development makes these societies skeptical about the culture of the past, the uniqueness of the existence of other peoples, to all, except their own, customs and traditions;
• - these societies tend to neglect national differences, focusing their attention on activities that are, in essence, international;
• - these societies largely lose the ability to doubt themselves, they remain deaf to criticism from outside;
• - culture in the ethnic sense, which includes a mandatory adherence to an unshakable tradition, is sacrificed by them to culture, understood primarily as artistic and literary creativity;
• - these societies deny that different forms the organization of human life and different systems of symbolic comprehension of being are worthy of equal respect.

Summarizing general characteristics two poles of modern society, it can be said that the first entry of industrial collectivism onto the world stage was unsuccessful. National Socialism suffered a crushing military defeat, its leaders either committed suicide or were hanged by the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal. In most developed countries, the National Socialist ideology is now banned. Socialism of the communist type has achieved more: it has covered almost a third of humanity and occupied almost half of the earth's surface. But his success turned out to be temporary: already in the 1970s. it became clear that this form of socialism, too, was doomed.

The departure from the historical arena of the two leading forms of socialism inspired many with the conviction that socialism is a historically accidental phenomenon, some kind of unfortunate deviation from the main path of history, and that now one can safely forget about socialist collectivism, which has gone forever into the past.

Such a belief is only an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. Post-industrial collectivism is unlikely to return on a large scale in the form of old socialism (National Socialism or Communism). But it cannot be ruled out that post-industrial collectivism will return in some new, yet unknown form.

Collectivism is generated not by mythical universal historical laws, but by the changing circumstances of real human history. The source of collectivism is not theories invented by outstanding thinkers and then set in motion by the broad masses. Theories are secondary, and the main source of collectivism is, in the most general way, need. The extreme degree of exacerbation of social problems and the lack of other means to solve them, except for the consolidation of the whole society to overcome the current situation, make it necessary to introduce centralized management of the economy first, and then other spheres of life, to neglect the rights and freedoms of the individual, to use violence to achieve a global goal, etc. d.

A typical example of this kind of need is war, forcing even democratic states to impose restrictions on freedom, democracy, competition, partially nationalize property, etc. The communist and national socialist varieties of economy, government and lifestyle are the product of critical situations. These are powerful but dangerous means used to counteract a "disease" that seems hopeless. In conditions of "disease" they are sometimes useful and help restore normal "health". As soon as "health" improves, such medicine not only ceases to be necessary, but even becomes harmful to society. Usually it is gradually abolished and replaced by the normal rhythm of social, cultural and individual life, free from emergency regulation. But as the experience of the last century shows, this does not always happen.

Thus, the sharp weakening of post-industrial collectivism does not mean that in the event of the onset of new deep social crises, it will not return to the historical stage in some updated form. The discussion of the core values ​​of collectivism is not a subject of purely historical interest.

So, the "modern era" refers to the society of the late XIX - early XXI century. Modern society is not only the present, but also the recent past and the historically foreseeable future.

Let us first consider such values ​​of an open society as civil society, democracy, freedom, human rights, etc. We can say that these are the fundamental values ​​of such a society. However, it must be taken into account that the values ​​of each society form a complex system that, like a network, entangles the entire society and in which only in abstraction can higher and lower values ​​be distinguished.

Currently, Russia is in the process of transition from a closed, collectivist society to an open, individualistic one. It is therefore natural that the discussion of the values ​​of the modern era begins with the values ​​of an open society.

Civil society is a sphere of spontaneous self-manifestation of free individuals and their voluntary associations, protected by laws from direct interference and arbitrary regulation by state authorities.

Civil society includes the entire set of non-political relations in society, namely, economic, social, family, spiritual, moral, national, religious, etc. Being a counterbalance to the state, civil society, as a set of various and fairly strong non-governmental institutions, plays the role of a peacemaker and arbiter between the main groups of interests and restrains the desire of the state to dominate and atomize society.

The term "civil society" was first used in the 16th century. in the commentary on Aristotle's "Politics", where civil society was opposed to "political society", that is, the world of professional politics. In a tradition dating back to Marx, civil society is opposed to the state. Since the 1970s the term "civil society" becomes one of the most popular in disputes about the differences between capitalism and socialism.

In a capitalist society, the state does not interfere in the private life of people, does not impose on them a single ideology and a single system of values. The diverse interests of people are realized through their joint actions, for the organization of which people enter into voluntary associations and associations that are not accountable to the state. Non-governmental, non-governmental organizations that reflect the interests of people are not included in official statistics and are difficult to count. According to some reports, hundreds of thousands of such organizations in the US alone are financed from more than 25,000 charitable foundations. In Norway, there is one non-governmental organization for every 6 inhabitants.

Cicero also said that “a people is not just a group of people united in one way or another; people appear where people are united by agreement on rights and laws, as well as a desire to promote mutual benefit.

Civic associations contribute to the development of a spirit of cooperation, solidarity and devotion to the group among their members. Individuals who voluntarily join a group with a wide range of goals and preferences among its members not only acquire the skills of cooperation and a sense of civic responsibility for collective undertakings, but also involuntarily learn self-discipline, tolerance and respect for the opinions of others.

The state always seeks to subjugate citizens, to narrow the scope of their unregulated activities, to divide them. Civil society, being a counterbalance to the state, seeks to limit its activities to the political sphere, leaving all other areas of life to the free choice of individuals. Civil society does not allow the state to expand the scope of its activities and extend it to the moral, spiritual, religious, national and other relations of people. The absorption of civil society by the state is one of the characteristic features totalitarianism.

Marxism dreamed of liberating man from the duality between political and economic concerns, of erasing the line between a political, moral man and an economic, egoistic man. Since this line is an integral feature of civil society, Marxism regarded the latter as a fraud. The variety of civil society institutions that oppose the state, balancing it and at the same time being under the control and patronage of the state, is, from the position of Marxism, only a facade that hides oppression and violence. Worse than that, this facade contributes to the strengthening of oppression. The state protecting civil society and civil society acting as a counterbalance to the state are all superfluous.

The communist state, which carried out a radical restructuring of the economic, social and spiritual life of society, did not assume either the separation of economics and politics, or the autonomy and sovereignty of its individuals. This state has deprived civil society of all its functions and absorbed it. Civil society for many decades ceased to be a counterbalance to the state, which gained complete control over all aspects of the life of communist society. The formation of a civil society in modern Russia is the basis and guarantee of the irreversibility of democratic reforms. Only in civil society are there conditions that force people to accept the social order voluntarily, without fear.

Civil society and the state must be in constant dynamic balance. The sharp weakening, in fact, the destruction of civil society has led in the recent past to the hypertrophied growth of the state, which has become totalitarian. The weakening of the state in the current conditions leads to the growth of civil society, the appearance of elements of anarchy in it and the fall of its controllability.

To describe the interaction between civil society and the state, it is expedient to use the previously introduced distinction between communitarian and structural social relations. The first are relations of equal people in everything, the second are relations by positions, statuses and roles, openly suggesting the inequality of individuals.

Social life is a process that includes the consistent experience of the commune (community) and structure, equality and inequality. Structural relations can be interpreted as relations of power or coercion, if power is defined as the ability of one individual to exert pressure on another and change his behavior. Structurality, or power, is scattered throughout society, and not concentrated within the ruling elite, ruling class, etc. The relationship of coercion or pressure takes place not only between leaders and their subordinates, but also in all those cases when, in one or another In a different form, the inequality of individuals is revealed, starting with the inequality of their statuses and ending with the inequality of their opportunities to follow fashion.

Communitarian relations are especially clearly manifested in situations of transition: moving in space (passengers of transport), changing jobs (community of the unemployed), elections of authorities (community of voters), radical social reforms and revolutions (society as a whole), etc. Communitarian relations are characteristic for religious communities, whose members, preparing for the transition to another world, are equal and voluntarily submit to spiritual mentors. Communitarian relations exist in the cells of civil society (unions, associations, clubs), in political parties, etc. In the case of especially distinct communal relations, reminiscent of genuine friendship or love, individuals act as integral individuals, in everything or almost equal friend friend. “Only in love and through love can one understand another person” - this means that a prerequisite for deep understanding is purely communitarian relations between people who come into contact with each other.

Structurality is anti-community, inequality of individuals, the variety of their classifications and oppositions according to status, role, position, property, gender, clothing, etc.

Communitarian relationships are sometimes called ties horizontal character and structural relationships - connections vertical character. The fundamental contrast between horizontal and vertical links is quite obvious.

Communitarian relations only in rare cases appear in their pure form. They are usually intertwined with structural relationships. For example, in a family where all its members are generally equal, there are also children and parents.

Communitarian relations express the deep essence of a person - the unity of all people, their tribal community. In a certain sense, they are more fundamental than structural relationships: the president of the company, his wife and his driver are first of all people, beings belonging to the same biological species, and only then, on this basis - different people, differing in their positions, roles and statuses. Communitarian relations express the essential and generic connection between people, without which no society is conceivable.

Social life is always a complex dynamic of equality and inequality, communitarian and structural relations. If some of them get a clear advantage over others, it can be said about the society that it is unhealthy. The exaggeration of the structure leads to the fact that communitarian relations are manifested from the outside and against the "law". The exaggeration of the role of communitarian relations in egalitarian political movements, as a rule, is soon replaced by despotism, bureaucratization or other types of structural hardening. A typical example in this respect was the communist society. It sought to make communitarian relations dominant and gradually oust structural relations from all or almost all spheres of life (the withering away of the state, law, centralized economy and management, the transformation of society into a system of self-governing communities, or communes). In reality, the attempt to create a "community of equals" led to despotism, unambiguous hierarchies and structural rigidity.

Society is, as it were, two "models" of human interconnectedness, overlapping and alternating. The first is a model of society as a structural, differentiated and often hierarchical system of political, legal and economic regulations with many types of assessments that separate people on the basis of "more" or "less". The second model, especially clearly distinguishable in transitional periods (elections, revolutions, etc.), is society as a non-structural or rudimentary structural undifferentiated community of equal individuals who are subject to the supreme authority of ritual "leaders".

One of the main sources of structuring society is the state; the main source of communal social relations is civil society.

ESSAY

discipline: Culturology

Ideals in modern society

Introduction

1. Ideals and values: a historical overview

2. Cultural space of the 60s and modern Russia

Conclusion

List of used literature

The fundamental characteristic of the human environment in modern society is social change. For an ordinary person - the subject of social cognition - the instability of society is perceived, first of all, as the uncertainty of the existing situation. Therefore, there is a twofold process in relations with the future. On the one hand, in a situation of instability and uncertainty about the future, which exists even among the wealthy segments of the population, a person tries to find something that will give him confidence, support in possible future changes. Some people try to secure their future through property, others try to build on higher ideals. For many, it is education that is perceived as a kind of guarantee that increases security in changing social circumstances and contributes to confidence in the future.

Morality is a way of regulating people's behavior. Other ways of regulation are custom and law. Morality includes moral feelings, norms, commandments, principles, ideas about good and evil, honor, dignity, justice, happiness, etc. Based on this, a person evaluates his goals, motives, feelings, actions, thoughts. Everything in the surrounding world can be subjected to moral evaluation. Including the world itself, its structure, as well as society or its individual institutions, actions, thoughts, feelings of other people, etc. A person can subject even God and his deeds to a moral assessment. This is discussed, for example, in the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "The Brothers Karamazov", in the section on the Grand Inquisitor.

Morality is, therefore, such a way of understanding and evaluating reality, which can judge everything and can pass judgment on any event, phenomenon of the outer world and the inner world. But in order to judge and pass a sentence, one must, firstly, have the right to do so, and, secondly, have criteria for evaluation, ideas about moral and immoral.

In modern Russian society, spiritual discomfort is felt, largely due to the moral conflict of generations. Modern youth cannot accept the way of life and style of thinking idealized by the elders, while the older generation is convinced that it used to be better, about modern society - it is soulless and doomed to decay. What gives the right to such a moral assessment? Does it have a healthy grain? This work is devoted to the analysis of the problem of ideals in modern society and its applicability to the current situation in Russia.

Moral assessment is based on the idea of ​​how "should be", i.e. an idea of ​​some proper world order, which does not yet exist, but which nevertheless should be, an ideal world order. From the point of view of moral consciousness, the world should be kind, honest, fair, humane. If he is not like that, so much the worse for the world, it means that he has not yet grown up, has not matured, has not fully realized the potentialities inherent in him. Moral consciousness "knows" what the world should be like and thus, as it were, pushes reality to move in this direction. Those. moral consciousness believes that the world can and should be made more perfect. The current state of the world does not suit him, it is basically immoral, there is still no morality in it and it must be introduced there.

In nature, everyone strives to survive and competes with others for the good things of life. Mutual assistance and cooperation are rare phenomena here. In society, on the contrary, life is impossible without mutual assistance and cooperation. In nature, the weak perish; in society, the weak are helped. This is the main difference between man and animal. And this is something new that a person brings into this world. But a person is not “ready” for this world, he grows out of the realm of nature and in it the natural and human principles compete all the time. Morality is the expression of the human in man.

A true person is one who is able to live for others, help others, even sacrifice himself for others. Self-sacrifice is the highest manifestation of morality, embodied in the image of the God-man, Christ, who for a long time remained an unattainable ideal for people, a role model. From biblical times, man began to realize his duality: a man-beast began to turn into a man-god. After all, God is not in heaven, he is in the soul of everyone and everyone is capable of being a god, i.e. to sacrifice something for the sake of others, to give others a particle of yourself.

The most important condition of morality is human freedom. Freedom means independence, autonomy of a person from the outside world. Of course, man is not God, he is a material being, he lives in the world, he must eat, drink, survive. And yet, thanks to consciousness, a person gains freedom, he is not determined by the outside world, although he depends on it. A person defines himself, creates himself, decides what he should be. If a person says: “What can I do? Nothing depends on me,” he himself chose unfreedom, his dependence.

Conscience is indisputable evidence that a person is free. If there is no freedom, then there is nothing to judge for: an animal that killed a person is not judged, a car is not judged. A person is judged and, above all, he is judged by his own conscience, unless he has already turned into an animal, although this is also not uncommon. Free, according to the Bible, a person is considered even by God, who endowed him with free will. Man has long understood that freedom is both happiness and a burden. Freedom, identical to reason, distinguishes man from animals and gives him the joy of knowledge and creativity. But, at the same time, freedom is a heavy responsibility for oneself and one's actions, for the world as a whole.

Man, as a creature capable of creativity, is similar to God or nature as a whole, to that creative force that creates the world. This means that he is able to either improve this world, make it better, or destroy, destroy. In any case, he is responsible for his actions, for his actions, big and small. Every action changes something in this world, and if a person does not think about it, does not track the consequences of his actions, then he has not yet become a man, a rational being, he is still on his way and it is not known where this path will lead.

Is there one moral or are there many? Maybe everyone has their own morality? It is not so easy to answer this question. Obviously, in a society there are always several codes of conduct practiced in various social groups.

The regulation of relationships in society is largely determined by moral traditions, which include a system of moral values ​​and ideals. A significant place in the emergence and evolution of these ideals belongs to philosophical and religious systems.

In ancient philosophy, a person realizes himself as a cosmic being, tries to comprehend his place in space. The search for truth is the search for an answer to the question of how the world works and how I myself work, what is good, goodness. The traditional notions of good and evil are rethought, the true good is singled out as opposed to the fact that it is not a true good, but is only considered as such. If ordinary consciousness considered wealth and power, as well as the pleasures they bring, to be good, philosophy singled out the true good - wisdom, courage, moderation, justice.

In the era of Christianity, there is a significant shift in moral consciousness. There were also general moral principles formulated by Christianity, which, however, were not particularly practiced in ordinary life even among the clergy. But this in no way devalues ​​the significance of Christian morality, in which important universal moral principles and commandments were formulated.

With its negative attitude towards property in any of its forms ("do not collect treasures on the ground"), Christian morality opposed itself to the type of moral consciousness that prevailed in the Roman Empire. The main idea in it is the idea of ​​spiritual equality - the equality of all before God.

Christian ethics readily accepted everything acceptable to it from earlier ethical systems. Thus, the well-known rule of morality “Do not do to a man what you do not wish for yourself”, the authorship of which is attributed to Confucius and the Jewish sages, entered the canon of Christian ethics along with the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount.

Early Christian ethics laid the foundations of humanism, preaching philanthropy, unselfishness, mercy, non-resistance to evil by violence. The latter presupposed resistance without causing harm to another, moral opposition. However, this in no way meant giving up their beliefs. In the same sense, the question of the moral right to be condemned was also raised: “Judge not, lest you be judged” should be understood as “Do not condemn, do not pass judgment, for you yourself are not sinless,” but stop the evildoer, stop the spread of evil.

Christian ethics proclaims the commandment of kindness and love for the enemy, the principle of universal love: "You heard what was said:" Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you... for if you love those who love you, what reward have you?”

In modern times, in the XVI-XVII centuries, there are significant changes in society, which could not but affect morality. Protestantism proclaimed that the main duty of a believer before God is hard work in his profession, and the evidence of God's chosenness is success in business. Thus, the Protestant Church gave its flock the go-ahead: “Get rich!”. If earlier Christianity claimed that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, now it is the other way around - the rich become God's chosen ones, and the poor - rejected by God.

With the development of capitalism, industry and science develop, and world outlook changes. The world is losing its halo of divinity. God generally became superfluous in this world, he prevented a person from feeling like a full-fledged master of the world, and soon Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God. “God is dead. Who killed him? You and I,” says Nietzsche. Man, liberated from God, decided to become God himself. Only this deity turned out to be rather ugly. It decided that the main goal was to consume as much and as varied as possible and created a consumer society for a certain part of humanity. True, for this it was necessary to destroy a significant part of the forests, pollute the water and atmosphere, and turn vast territories into landfills. They also had to create mountains of weapons to defend themselves against those who did not fall into the consumer society.

Modern morality has again become semi-pagan, reminiscent of pre-Christian. It is based on the conviction that we live once, so we must take everything from life. As Callicles once argued in a conversation with Socrates that happiness lies in satisfying all one's desires, so now this is becoming the main principle of life. True, some intellectuals did not agree with this and began to create a new morality. Back in the 19th century an ethic of non-violence emerged.

It so happened that it was the 20th century, which cannot be called the century of humanism and mercy, that gave rise to ideas that are in direct conflict with the prevailing practice of solving all problems and conflicts from a position of strength. Quiet, staunch resistance turned out to be brought to life - disagreement, disobedience, non-retribution by evil for evil. A person placed in a hopeless situation, humiliated and powerless, finds a non-violent means of struggle and liberation (primarily internal). He, as it were, assumes responsibility for the evil done by others, takes upon himself the sin of others and atones for him by his non-giving back of evil.

Marxism defends the idea of ​​a gradual establishment of genuine social justice. The most important aspect of understanding justice is the equality of people in relation to the means of production. It is recognized that under socialism there are still differences in the qualifications of labor and in the distribution of consumer goods. Marxism adheres to the thesis that only under communism should there be a complete coincidence of justice and social equality of people.

Despite the fact that in Russia Marxism gave rise to a totalitarian regime that denied virtually all fundamental human values ​​(although proclaiming them to be its main goal), Soviet society was a society where culture, primarily spiritual, was given a high status.

The heyday of Russian Soviet culture was the 60s, in any case, these years are often idealized in the memories of people who now talk about the decline of culture. In order to reconstruct the spiritual picture of the era of the 60s, a competition of the "sixties" was held "I look at myself as in the mirror of the era." From people who lived and developed under the shadow of the “thaw”, one could expect detailed and detailed characteristics of the era, detailed and detailed characteristics of the era, descriptions of ideals and aspirations.

This is how the era of the 60s looks like in the descriptions of educated contestants: “for some time we believed that we were free and could live in good conscience, be ourselves”, “everyone breathed freely”, “they began to talk a lot about the new life, there have been many publications”; “The 60s are the most interesting and intense: they listened to our poets of the sixties, read (more often secretly) “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”; “The 60s is the time when everyone squinted from the sun, as Zhvanetsky said”; “I consider myself one of the sixties, those whose ideological formation on the basis of communist ideology took place after the death of Stalin, who experienced the cleansing influence of the 20th Congress”; “we felt the spiritual growth of society with our skin, despised the routine, rushed to interesting work”; “at this time, the exploration of space, virgin lands” took place; "a significant event - Khrushchev's report - comprehension began"; "moral code of the builder of communism", "nationwide state power", "worship of science".

For poorly educated contestants, direct assessments of the era of the 60s are very rare. It can be said that in fact they do not distinguish this time as a special era and do not explain their participation in the competition from this point of view. In those cases when characteristics of this time nevertheless appear in their descriptions, they are concrete and “material”, and the era of the 60s is defined primarily as the time of Khrushchev’s reforms (“breaks in bread”, “instead of the usual crops in the fields of corn” , "the mistresses parted with their cows" ...). In other words, they do not record the 1960s as a “thaw”, as the liberation of the country and the individual, as a softening of the regime and changes in ideology.

The concept of cultural capital as applied to the realities of life Soviet man can be viewed not only as the presence of the highest levels of education and the corresponding status of the narrator's parents, but also as the presence of a complete and loving family, as well as the talent, skill, diligence of his parents (what in Russian culture is denoted by the word "nuggets"). This was especially evident in the life histories of the "peasant" generation, which realized the potential for the democratization of social relations, accumulated long before the revolution.

For the educated participants of the "sixties" contest, it is essential in determining cultural capital that they belong to the educated strata of society in the second generation, that their parents had an education that gave the status of an employee in Soviet society. And if parents are educated people in this sense (there are also people of noble origin, who, of course, are very few, and “modest Soviet employees” of proletarian or peasant origin), then the cultural capital of the family, as the descriptions testify, necessarily affects the biography of children .

A generalized picture of the biographies of those who belong to the educated strata of society in the first generation, and those whose parents already possessed cultural capital to one degree or another, is as follows. The first is characterized by a turbulent (student) youth with poetry reading, theatres, scarce books and cultural enthusiasm (that is, with the myths of their youth), which with the beginning of family life as a whole fades and becomes a pleasant memory. Their commitment to the cultural codes of the Soviet ideology, as a rule, was supported by active participation in public work associated with party membership. And in those cases when they are disappointed in the past, they define themselves as "naive simpletons", "hard workers, gullible by nature, who worked hard in the 60s, and in the 70s, and in the 80s."

This shows that the ideals and culture of the sixties were still not a fairly common phenomenon, but rather the mindset of the elite. However, in the post-Soviet period, this mindset has changed dramatically, and so has the mindset of the elite. However, the value conflict in modern society is constantly present. This is - in general terms - a conflict between the Soviet spiritual culture and modern material.

Recently, among the post-Soviet intellectual elite, discussions about the “end of the Russian intelligentsia”, about the fact that “the intelligentsia is leaving” have become popular. This refers not only to the “brain drain” abroad, but mainly to the transformation of the Russian intellectual into a Western European intellectual. The tragedy of this transformation is that a unique ethical and cultural type is lost - “an educated person with a bad conscience” (M.S. Kagan). The place of a reverent, free-thinking and disinterested altruist who reveres Culture is occupied by prudent egoists-purchasers who neglect national and universal cultural values. In this regard, the revival of Russian culture, rooted in its Golden and Silver Ages becomes doubtful. How justified are these fears?

The cradle and abode of the Russian intelligentsia in the 19th and 20th centuries. was Russian literature. For Russia, unlike European countries, was characterized by literary centrism public consciousness, which is that fiction and journalism (and not religion, philosophy or science) served as the main source of socially recognized ideas, ideals, and poets, writers, writers and critics acted as rulers of thoughts, authoritative judges, apostles and prophets. Russian literature educated the Russian intelligentsia, and the Russian intelligentsia nurtured Russian literature. Since literature is one of the communication channels of book culture, we can conclude that there is a dialectical causal relationship "book communication - Russian intelligentsia".

In order to interrupt the reproduction of the Russian intelligentsia, it is necessary to deprive it of nutritious soil, i.e. it is necessary that Russian literature that educates moral sensibility "gone away". At present, the crisis of Russian literature is evident: the general reader prefers entertaining bestsellers (most often by foreign authors) or does not read at all; books are becoming more expensive and circulations are shrinking; among modern writers, there are practically no names attractive to young people. Polls of St. Petersburg students showed that less than 10% have a "thirst for reading", while the rest are indifferent to the classics and modern fiction. Hence the narrow cultural outlook, often - elementary ignorance: to the question "What did Pushkin die of?", You can hear "from cholera." Thus, the indispensable condition for the “leaving” of the Russian intelligentsia from the coming century is fulfilled: book communication is of little demand to the younger generation.

We are witnessing a natural change from book communication to electronic (television-computer) communication. Even in the middle of the XX century. they started talking about the "crisis of information" due to the contradiction between book flows and funds and the individual possibilities of their perception. The end result is the deadening of knowledge, we do not know what we know. The funds of Russian literature are constantly growing and becoming more and more boundless and inaccessible. It turns out a paradox: there are more and more books, and less and less readers.

The steady decline of interest in literature, fiction and journalistic, creates the impression that post-Soviet students have decided to “write off” burdensome and archaic book communication into the archives of history in the name of multimedia communication. There is no reason to hope that classical Russian literature will take the form of multimedia messages: it is not adapted for this. This means that the ethical potential inherent in it will be lost. Undoubtedly, electronic communication will develop its own ethics and its educational impact will be no less than Chekhov's stories or Dostoevsky's novels, but it will not be intellectual ethics.

Without affecting the social, economic, political arguments used by the authors of now very widespread publications about the end of the Russian intelligentsia, using only the communicative mechanism of its reproduction, we can come to the following conclusion: there is no reason to hope for the revival of "educated people with a bad conscience." The generation of educated Russian people of the XXI century. will be "educated" differently than their parents - the Soviet intelligentsia of the "disillusioned" generation, and the ideal of an altruist in awe of Culture will attract few.

O. Toffler, developing his theory of three waves in macrohistory, believes that the personality of the second wave was formed in accordance with Protestant ethics. However, Protestant ethics was not characteristic of Russia. We can say that in the Soviet period there was an ethic of the Soviet person and, accordingly, modern youth, denying the ideals and ethics of the previous generation, remains inextricably linked genetically with previous generations. Toffler himself hopes for a change in the Protestant ethics of a new, informational one. In the light of the new cultural dynamics in Russia, one can express the hope that this process will be more dynamic and easier in our country than in the West, and opinion polls confirm this.

Analyzing the data of sociological surveys, one can try to determine what personality traits are characteristic of today's youth in connection with the transition to the information society, which is based on information and communication. Based on the surveys conducted at MIREA in 2003-2005, the following can be noted. The very possibility of communication is a value for today's youth, so they try to be at the level of modern innovations and innovations. Higher education so far is of little help in this area, even in the field of information technologies Therefore, young people are actively engaged in self-education.

However, education is not a value in itself, as it was for the generation of the Soviet period. This is the means to achieve social status and material well-being. The ability to communicate using all modern means of communication is a value, while there is a tendency to unite in interest groups. Such a vivid individualization, which Toffler speaks of, is not observed. So far, it is difficult to talk about such a feature as an orientation towards consumption, since this feature was poorly expressed in Soviet society. In general, the presence of high interest in new computer technologies and selfless enthusiasm allow us to hope that the information society in Russia will still become a reality for the majority of the population when today's youth grows up a little.

The crisis in which Russia finds itself today is far more severe than a conventional financial crisis or a traditional industrial depression. The country is not just set back a few decades; all the efforts made over the past century to ensure Russia the status of a great power have been devalued. The country is copying the worst examples of Asian corrupt capitalism.

The society of modern Russia is going through hard times: old ideals have been overthrown and new ones have not been found. The resulting value-semantic vacuum is rapidly being filled with artifacts of Western culture, which have covered almost all spheres of social and spiritual life, ranging from forms of leisure activities, manners of communication to ethical and aesthetic values, worldview guidelines.

According to Toffler, an information civilization generates a new type of people who create a new information society. Toffler calls this human type the “third wave”, just as he considers the agrarian society the “first wave” and the industrial society the “second wave”. At the same time, each wave creates its own special type of personality, which has an appropriate character and ethics. Thus, the "second wave" according to Toffler is characterized by Protestant ethics, and such features as subjectivity and individualism, the ability to abstract thinking, empathy and imagination.

“The third wave does not create some ideal superman, some heroic species that lives among us, but fundamentally changes the character traits inherent in the whole of society. Created not new person and a new social character. Therefore, our task is not to look for a mythical "man", but for those character traits that are most likely to be valued by the civilization of tomorrow. Toffler believes that “education will also change. Many children will learn outside the classroom.” Toffler believes that "Third Wave civilization may favor very different character traits in the young, such as independence from peer opinions, less consumer orientation, and less hedonistic self-obsession."

Perhaps the changes that our country is going through now will lead to the formation of a new type of Russian intellectual - the information intelligentsia, who, without repeating the mistakes of the "disillusioned" generation, will overcome Western individualism, based on rich Russian cultural traditions.

1. Alekseeva L. History of dissent in the USSR: The latest period. Vilnius-Moscow: Vesti, 1992.

2. Akhiezer A.S. Russia as a large society // Questions of Philosophy. 1993. N 1. S.3-19.

3. Berto D., Malysheva M. The cultural model of the Russian masses and the forced transition to the market // Biographical method: History, methodology and practice. M.: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1994. P. 94-146.

4. Weil P., Genis A. Country of words // New world. 1991. N 4. S.239-251.

5. Gozman L., Etkind A. From the cult of power to the power of people. Psychology of political consciousness // Neva. 1989. No. 7.

6. Levada Yu.A. The problem of the intelligentsia in modern Russia // Where is Russia going?.. Alternatives community development. (International Symposium 17-19 December 1993). M., 1994. S.208-214.

7. Soviet common man. Experience of a social portrait at the turn of the 90s. M.: World Ocean, 1993

8. Toffler O. The Third Wave. - M., Nauka: 2001.

9. Tsvetaeva N.N. Biographical discourse of the Soviet era // Sociological journal. 1999. No. 1/2.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Morality and law. Morality and law are similar. And morality prescribes us to do one thing and forbids us to do another, and the law in the same way limits our behavior. However, there are differences between them.

Morality is a set of moral norms, a form of social consciousness that regulates people's behavior both in private and in public life.

Law is a form of social consciousness that regulates people's behavior in accordance with the totality of norms established by the state and secured by its coercive force.

Morality is a set of norms established by society and secured by the power of public opinion, a person's personal conviction, and law is a set of norms established or sanctioned by the state and secured by its coercive power.

Which one came first? Of course society - 40 thousand years ago. The state arose only 5-6 thousand years ago. Therefore, morality is older than law.

Another difference. Legal regulation, as a rule, is much tougher than moral regulation: in the first case, the violator faces punishment, in the second - censure.

Law enforcement requires courts, police, parliament. Were they in primitive society? Still too early. And who is needed in order to observe morality? The collective opinion of the people? It is not always able to call the violator to order. And what to do in this case - to gather the entire tribe on every occasion, to approach each culprit in turn and express their disapproval of each culprit, or, perhaps, conduct a sociological survey? None of the above methods work. They are ineffective in terms of punishment. We need other instruments of influence.

And they were invented. The first is the religious idea of ​​the afterlife. The second is the fear of expulsion from the community. They seem to be different, but they acted equally flawlessly. But who said they are different? They have a very important thing in common. In one case, the culprit was separated from the righteous in the other world, where he burned in the fire, and in the second he was separated from the righteous on earth - he was driven out into the desert or into a foreign country.

How does public opinion work? The methods are varied. Among them are such influences as exhortation and condemnation. A guilty person may oppose public condemnation if he believes that he has been unjustly slandered. Then the public should understand, and the punishment is removed. In other words, the falsely accused has the right to defend his honor and dignity. But, of course, not in court, but among their relatives and friends. After all, primitive tribes are not numerous. The punishment could be an internal moral experience associated with the fear of losing good fame, the fear of shame. Religion was a more powerful instrument of influence. It was she who contained and contains a moral code, which is designed to keep a person from bad deeds and direct them to righteous deeds. One of the provisions of ancient religions was the cult of ancestors.

The ancient cult of ancestors has become the modern ethic of filial piety. It lost its religious content, becoming the basis of not only secular, but also national education. Respect for parents and care for them is the basis of human morality.

Moral human relations can be called if they arise, are born from a sense of responsibility for the well-being and well-being of another person. Moral responsibility is distinguished by selflessness. It should not appear due to fear of punishment, by virtue of a business agreement or future benefit. If a person feels responsible to you only because, being afraid of you, he made an agreement with you and cannot break his word or, even worse, counts on the benefits of cooperation with you, then it is better to forget about morality.

This responsibility does not depend on what the other person does, as well as on what kind of person he is. You feel a responsibility to a loved one, a loved one, or just a person you like, but this is your own business. It has nothing to do with human morality. We enroll our son or nephew in a university, in a high position, or send him abroad at public expense. Such an act cannot be called moral. And there is nothing to be proud of.

Responsibility is moral as long as it is completely disinterested and unconditional: I am responsible for another person simply because he exists and thus can count on my responsibility.

Responsibility is moral insofar as I perceive it as my and only my responsibility. It cannot be discussed or transferred to another person. I cannot persuade myself to give up this responsibility. And no power on earth can free me from it.

Responsibility for another, and for any other, and not just for a loved one, does not require any justification or confirmation. It does not require awards, words of gratitude, salary increases or government orders. Although at every step we hear, see and know how society is in a hurry to thank us for a noble deed. Gratitude is our good deed. I am proud that I was able to do this. And a higher gratitude cannot be imagined.

Value and significance. This is how a person works: everything that falls into his field of vision, what he touches and what he involves in the circle of his activity, is endowed with meaning.

Meaning - the meaning that is endowed with concepts and pre-! the metas that make up the social environment of a person, their importance, significance, role.

Even when we say that a given thing does not matter to us, we implicitly place it on some scale and give it minimal importance.

What is significant for a person turns into a value.

Values ​​- as you know - are what a person needs. Very often, what we have in abundance, we do not appreciate, but what we lose or what we do not have, we appreciate. It is the achievement of certain values ​​that is the motive. Capital, land, minerals, labor are scarce in any society, and for the economy they are the main values. Economics is the doctrine of how to manage these values ​​rationally. The concepts of profit, privatization, property, and much more are just a technical designation of methods, techniques and methods for the most rational disposal of the scarce goods of society, i.e. economic values.

Values ​​and needs are closely related, they are two sides of one whole. If a need is a motivating force rooted within a person, then value denotes those objects that satisfy this need and are outside. For a hungry person, bread is the highest value, especially if he has been starving for a long time.

Values ​​are very different - material and spiritual, quite earthly and very detached. In the first half of the 1990s, when Russia suffered an economic crisis, a significant part of the population "wanted sausages." So they said. At that moment, she was valuable. Since the economic crisis was accompanied by a political one, political instability and crime increased in the country. Polls of the population clearly showed that law and order, peace on the streets and guarantees of life as the highest value came to the fore. But 10-15 years ago, when before that there was order in the country, no one spoke about the rule of law as a value. It was not a scarce good.

The role of values ​​in human society huge. And it is not surprising that they perform a variety of functions.

Having somehow ordered, having made up a kind of hierarchy or scale, values ​​become the core of the human personality. We characterize a person as a person (and not just an individual) depending on what values ​​he is guided by and whether the values ​​he has chosen coincide with those that society recognizes as among the most important.

First of all, these are ethical and religious values: patriotism, justice, humanism, citizenship, altruism, etc. They occupy upper part scales of social values.

A person who has the same values ​​at the top of the scale of individual values, we rightfully call a personality.

Animals have no values, and they are practically absent in a baby. Therefore, they are not biologically inherited. They are acquired in society - in the course of socialization. A person grows, his system of values ​​is formed. A developed system of values ​​is the result of proper socialization, and not its prerequisite.

The hierarchy of values ​​is based on the choice or preference of some values ​​over others.

I Preference - recognition of the advantage of something over I compared to another.

When men have a lot of money, they set priorities when planning spending: for example, sending children to a prestigious school, buying a washing machine for a wife, etc.

In a normal society with normal citizens, the scale of individual values ​​is not rigidly fixed.

This means that values ​​are constantly moving from one level to another, that there can be several alternative values ​​at the same level. This is the multidimensional scale of individual values ​​corresponding to the freedom of choice afforded by an open, democratic society.

In the event that the hierarchy of a person's value coincides with the social scale, there is confidence and self-respect, a feeling that he lives and does the right thing. Social values ​​- goodness, justice, honesty, heroism, patriotism - act in relation to a single person as some kind of ideals to which he aspires in his life, or standards of behavior.

Self-respect - awareness of oneself as a person, respect for oneself, for one's personality.

A person should always be sure that he has something for which he can and should be respected. On the social scale, the highest place is occupied, in particular, by professional values. Many demand from others to be respected as a professional, as a family man, as a true friend, as a patriot, or as a person. All these are elements or varieties of the social scale of values. Few people want to be respected, say, "as a rich man", "as a handsome man." "Rich man" and "handsome man" are varieties of appreciation, but not values.

Basic values ​​of the individual. We encounter values ​​at every step, although we rarely think about it. More often than not, we ask ourselves the following questions:

How do values ​​influence our behavior?

What value should be chosen if there are several?

What if there is a conflict between them?

If we generalize the whole variety of specific manifestations, types, types and forms of values, reduce them to a few main ones, then we will have to single out seven fundamental values ​​that are important for all people and for all spheres of society. These are: Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Benefit, Domination, Justice, Freedom.

The leading motive of the economic sphere is Benefit. It does not matter in what particular terms it is expressed: profit, benefit, etc. The social sphere of society is the daily struggle for the existence of millions of ordinary people. In it, the main motive is Justice. Equality, brotherhood, collectivism, friendship, exchange, cooperation are based on justice. She is their supreme leitmotif and meaning.

Politics is built around another fundamental value - Domination. Power struggle, leadership, domination, suppression, career, competition - they all have one leitmotif, domination. Forms of manifestation are different, but the essence is one.

The spiritual realm is the most heterogeneous of the four. This includes education, science, culture and religion. They rely on three great values ​​at once - Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Religion is built around goodness, science around truth, culture and art around beauty. Education is at the intersection of good and truth.

The ancient Greeks formed the classical triad of the spiritual culture of mankind: Truth - Goodness - Beauty. The union of Beauty and Good gives the fine arts, and the union of Beauty and Benefit gives the applied arts. Circus, sports, architecture, design combine Beauty and Use.

Liberty stands apart. Many are ready to give their lives for it. Sometimes people express themselves like this: it is better to die free than well-fed. Freedom is needed by all people and in all four areas. In the economic sphere, entrepreneurs cannot build a successful business without freedom from the state. Bind their hands with restrictive laws and regulations, and they will not see any benefit (benefit). We need freedom of worship and religion. No less freedom of creativity is valued in science, education and art. Politicians also need freedom. Freedom is needed in private matters by ordinary citizens. In this case, we must recognize that freedom is a common property for all, a value common to all.

Of course, what has been said represents a very schematic and one-sided picture of the world. In life, everything is much more complicated. For example, a scientist creates not only a true, but also a useful theory, and an artist seeks to bring good to people with his beauty. One person strives not for one, but for several values. One sphere of society cannot be built on a single value. This is clear. But there is something else to be understood.

The picture described above has the purpose that helps, by removing particulars, to highlight the main thing. The character of a person, as well as the character of the public sphere, is determined by one value that has become central to them. You can not strive for profit and good at the same time. There are mutually exclusive values.

But it is also correct that some seemingly different values ​​can coexist, get along with one another, give a good union. Thus, the desire for profit can get along well with domination.

Scientists express the opinion that fidelity and constancy are among the unshakable values ​​\u200b\u200bof family life; great love for children, combined with strict discipline; respect for every human being and an inner spiritual tension that gives meaning to life. All disagreements are resolved as if by themselves if people avoid boasting, irritability, envy, jealousy, selfishness, intolerance, rudeness, etc.

We choose some values ​​and reject others. Some people want to earn as much as possible. For them, the standard of behavior is Benefit (benefit). Others believe that happiness is not in money, the main thing is to maintain the harmony of the inner world and act honestly.

Conflict of values. But sometimes values ​​conflict. This happens when the achievement of one goal interferes with the fulfillment of another.

Let's say values ​​such as good friends and studying at a prestigious school are important to you. You value both equally. But in life there are situations when you have to sacrifice another for the sake of one. Suppose your family is well-organized, lives in a wonderful house, you have nice neighbors with whom you maintain the kindest relations. You have many true friends, but you cannot call yourself happy until the end, because the school does not suit you very much - the level of education is low.

And then the opportunity presented itself to move to another area or change schools. How to proceed? You will get the school you dream of, but you will lose old friends. How to choose and is it easy to do?

You must make a decision based on the conflict of two values ​​- true friends and a prestigious school. Your decision depends on the choice: which value is considered more important. But no matter what decision you make - stay or leave - it will have the most serious consequences. One excludes the other.

Adolescents constantly have to deal with a conflict of values ​​when they have to make a decision about their behavior or act. Parents expect one thing, and friends - quite another. Whose approval do they value more - parents or friends?

At the heart of the conflict of values ​​is a moral dilemma (premise) - a difficult choice between two equally unpleasant possibilities. Here is an example of such a dilemma.

Husband and wife live in the village. They are very poor. The wife is seriously ill, and the local doctors cannot help because they do not have the necessary medicines. The situation is critical. The husband goes to the city and finds a pharmacy that sells the right medicine. It is expensive, and he has no money. The pharmacist refuses to help. There are no other ways to get medicine. That same night, the man returns to the pharmacy and steals medicine for his dying wife. Did he do the right thing?

Life values ​​of teenagers. What values ​​are today's teenagers guided by? Many believe that teenagers are increasingly appreciating own interests. In particular, there is documented evidence that financial rather than philosophical issues are of greatest concern to students. Thus, it was found that since the 1990s. young men and women condemn selfishness and deceit less and less. It is possible that the manifestations of corruption in politics and business, as well as the material difficulties that young people have to face, served as the reason. Perhaps young people and teenagers get the impression that this is the norm of our life. Or do they think, if this is allowed to others and leads to success, then why can't it be allowed to me? In any case, there is a noticeable increase in tolerance towards deceit for the sake of money, towards selfish and irresponsible behavior.

Perhaps today's young people are becoming more materialistic and realists than their peers in former times? Or do boys and girls, in spite of everything, remain idealists?

There is scientific evidence to support both assumptions. The study showed: 1) young people want to be like themselves, and not like the ideal heroes of novels, movie heroes or great people; 2) she aspires to make a successful career in show business, entrepreneurship, industry or science (from singers to archaeologists). Someone dreamed of becoming just a rich person, and someone - physically attractive and popular.

At the same time, a significant part of the respondents would like to become friendly and polite people with a well-developed sense of humor, to be honest, reliable, hardworking, kind. Based on this, scientists came to the conclusion: all over the world and at all times, young people tend to be idealists.

So, young men and women remain both materialists and idealists. The ratio of materialistic and idealistic values, however, changes with age. The younger people are, the more idealistic and romantic they are. Conversely, the older a person becomes, the sooner he turns into a materialist.

A materialist is a person who exaggerates the influence of material or material factors on people's behavior and the life of society.

Youthful idealism does not really disappear for a long time. And at 18, we believe in perfect friendship and platonic love. We represent people better than they are sometimes in reality. We also want to reshape society according to our own standards, based on an ideal fictional society in which all people are brothers, there are no deceit and wars, and men and women are infinitely beautiful.

An idealist is a person who exaggerates the role of spiritual values ​​and ideals in everyday life and in the development of society.

However, in youth, idealism, which originated in adolescence, often turns into maximalism. I need everything at once, I want eternal and sincere friendship, or I don’t need any at all. Such idealism appears to express itself in a preoccupation with social problems. Disagreement with poverty and inequality, drug addiction and calls for war. Is such maximalism bad?

So who are they really, modern boys and girls, idealists or materialists? They are idealists because they want to rebuild our society in accordance with the best ideals that humanity has developed over many millennia. They are materialists because they do not hover in the clouds and do not withdraw from the struggle. They consistently defend their beliefs and implement their plans. This is what today's youth is like.

It is during adolescence that the foundation of long-term values ​​is laid. They are focused on the eternal questions of being, and not on achieving a momentary goal. They express concern for the future, thoughts about reforming society. Eternal values ​​are very abstract and altruistic, they are aimed at "others" and not "at themselves".

Cultural values ​​vary among individual peoples depending on historical, geographical and social conditions, but they can

The real code is absolute, it is not subject to place and time. Relative cultural values ​​existed alongside such manifestations of evil as slavery, serfdom, and even genocide. Today these extreme manifestations are stigmatized, but some evil can always be opposed to the moral principle of love.

Western values ​​of individual freedom formed on the plains North America. Isolation, independence and the need to rely only on oneself began to be perceived as national character traits and, despite a fair touch of romance, continue to influence people today. From an early age, a rigid system of values ​​is instilled in the Japanese: loyalty, devotion to the emperor, state and nation, filial duty to parents and ancestors, obligations to one's work.

V pre-revolutionary Russia harsh nature forced people to rally into large communities that helped them survive. Therefore, a different cultural experience has taken root here, based on the values ​​of mutual dependence and equality.

The origin of the idea of ​​good and evil. Ideas about good and evil originated in deep, deep antiquity. So deep that scientists find it difficult to give an exact date. There was no written language then, and humanity was only just learning the language. In this language, there were words denoting specific objects - birds, trees, stones. But there were no abstract concepts, even such familiar to us as "beautiful" or "beauty". Our ancestors could only, pointing to a red sunset, in this way convey the idea of ​​red. Of course, the concepts of good and evil were then completely different. They were concrete, visual, tangible.

Showing on bad man, his kinsman seemed to say: this is what evil is. This is an evil person. Of course, this method was not very convincing. For one person, his tribesman was evil, and for another - good. These are all biased, highly subjective assessments.

Later, already in the period of the decomposition of the primitive system and the birth of the class, ideas about the afterlife appear. So, in the afterlife, lodagaa (a tribe in West Africa) all the dead are tested sitting in the sun: for good people it lasts three months, for the bad - six, thieves suffer five months, liars - four, sorcerers - three years, the same - greedy rich and leaders. It turned out like this: the more correctly, kinder you live on earth, the less you will have to suffer in the afterlife. Simple, clear and convincing. Now, the fear of painful trials made the idea of ​​evil very understandable. The man imagined how painful it was for him to sit in the very hell, and experienced an almost emotional rejection of the evil and the sinful.

A person fell into the category of evil people, sinners for committing crimes. Among the ancient Scandinavians, perjurers, murderers, cowards who betrayed comrades on the battlefield, and seducers of other people's wives were tormented in the next world.

Evil and good. A person's life experience is formed at the crossroads of two forces of pressure - the super-ego, the demands of society, and the libido, rebellious instincts, always ready to rebel. We want to please our desires, hopes and aspirations hidden deep in our souls, to meet our “I” and at the same time we are afraid to quarrel with society and its laws. We are torn apart by forces acting in opposite directions.

Or maybe man is dual by nature? Is F.M. Dostoevsky did not write that the devil (the personification of Evil) and the Lord God (the personification of Good) lurk in man? Who will win whom? And the human soul is the field of this battle. Once he complained that when the devil wins and a person decides for himself: “God is dead,” then everything will be allowed to him: voluptuousness, and betrayal, and murder. The highest moral standards that society supposedly imposes on us in its own name are in fact created not by itself, but by someone who is higher. They have a divine essence. It turns out that society only appropriated them, but God is the author of eternal values ​​and moral precepts.

In our behavior, we consciously or unconsciously follow some ideals. Most often without even knowing it.

Ideal - a concept that characterizes the idea of ​​such behavior that seems worthy of imitation (or causes internal agreement).

People strive for the ideal all their lives. Many conclude at the end: he lived his life, but he did not achieve the ideal. The ideal becomes that distant, but all-subordinating goal, for the sake of which all human life is built. But the ideal not only organizes our behavior, it also serves as a standard. We compare our actions and successes with it. I did not reach the ideal, I put a “deuce” in my life diary.

Perhaps the most surprising thing lies in the fact that we adjust not only ourselves, but also others to the ideal. And in others, especially in relatives and loved ones, we want to see the embodiment of our ideal. The question is, does he himself have no ideal of his own? There is, of course, like everyone else. But we certainly demand from him conformity to our own, and not to his ideals.

Values ​​and goals. Often we confuse these concepts either intentionally or out of ignorance. For example, is wealth a value or a purpose of life? The one who gave the correct answer - wealth is a goal, not a value - was still mistaken. Why? Is wealth the meaning of life?

Wealth can be the goal of life in a practical but not an ethical sense. Wealth is not really the goal of life because it cannot be a value.

But this happens only with wealth, success, and some other value goals. But very small and very specific goals, for example, go for milk, wake up tomorrow at six in the morning and wash your shirt, you can never confuse with big values. For example, social position.

A high social position is a goal that we can pursue with perseverance. But the same can hardly be said of the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to pleasure). Is it possible to become happy by setting yourself the goal of achieving happiness?

Quite the opposite often happens: happiness is achieved by those who demand little. A position in society may be worth the effort, but the effort itself easily turns into absurdity. Like happiness, social position usually comes to us as a by-product of some other activity.

Comparing the various goals that we set for ourselves, we must mention the desire to create something beautiful, necessary and interesting for everyone. An artist, writer, or musician sets a goal that does not lead to a position in society, or to wealth, happiness, or a quiet life. A sculptor carving a masterpiece from a block of marble creates a beautiful work of art. For him, this is both work and fun, he is sorry for every minute lost on food or sleep. The statue that he carved can bring him both a certain amount of money and fame in the art world. He is happy when he works, and feels satisfaction when he completes this work. He believes that fame will outlive him and his the best works remain a legacy for future generations.

Only this kind of occupation can connect all conceivable goals: fame, wealth, happiness, interesting work, pleasure. What joy can compare with the joy of a composer who wrote the music for a musical that is wildly successful? Make the whole world sing

this is happiness in itself, but if you get pleasure while working, and at the end of it fame and fortune still fall on you, this means that you have achieved almost everything that can be achieved in life.

How to be successful in life? Perhaps you need to set the right goal. Professor of Medicine at Cornell University Dr. Herbert Fensterheim advised to pay attention to the fact that: “Setting a goal means separating the important from the small things and properly spending time and effort. Long-term plans give you the opportunity to feel the movement through life, and the achievement of small intermediate goals allows you to experience a sense of victory. The technology for setting goals and achieving them can be, for example, the following:

1. Set a goal for yourself. (What are your goals? How can you achieve them? How do you overcome obstacles?)

2. Try to focus on intermediate goals. Ask yourself what you want from life. Then divide your life into several stages. It means: "What do I want to do today?" Intermediate goals add courage. Without them, it's easy to lose confidence.

3. Start small. Once you have set your goals, write them down. Your list should be clear and specific. No need for general phrases like: "I will not put anything off until later." You need to break down your goals into specific actions. For example, if your goal is to speak in class and correct a previous grade, possible actions are described as follows: “choose a topic”, “read the desired paragraph in the textbook”, “find additional literature and make extracts from it”, etc.

4. Highlight the main thing. Distribute time and energy: then I will do this, but then - that. If you have something really important to do, put off everything else until tomorrow. Do urgent things first.

5. Remember that you are not omnipotent. Talent and age are the two main limiters of your possibilities. At 40, you can learn how to play tennis, but you can’t become a great professional tennis player. If you decide to succeed in the sports field, you need to start as early as possible. In developmental psychology, it is known what a teenager can achieve at a particular age, and what else it is too early to take on. Get to know her and set goals that take age into account.

6. Create a reward system for yourself. You can reward yourself (of course, if you have achieved the goal) or you can also make others reward you. Ask your parents, brother or sister, friends to finally do something nice for you if you have progressed towards your goal. The purpose of this action is to inspire you to new achievements.

Basic terms and concepts

Morality, right, meaning, preference, self-respect, materialist, idealist, ideal

Questions and tasks

1. What is morality and how does it differ from law?

2. What role does morality play in society?

3. How are morality and religion related?

4. What human relationships can be called moral?

5. Try to formulate what Good and Evil are.

6. What are values? What is the difference between values ​​and ideals?

7. What are the basic values ​​of the individual. How are they related?

8. What is a conflict of values? Give examples from life that characterize it. How was it resolved in the cases you cited?

9. What are the life values ​​of a teenager? Compare them with the life values ​​of an adult. Why are they similar and why are they different?

Workshop

1. Play mentally the strategy of setting and achieving one of your life goals using the technology given in the paragraph.

2. Review the list of democratic values ​​and beliefs below. Do you understand all of the above? Do you agree with this list? Can you add to it (or maybe shorten it)?

1) The rights of the individual to: life, liberty, dignity, security, justice in court, privacy, private property.

2) Freedom of the individual: participation in the political process; religion; views; conscience; legal investigation; the words.

3) Responsibilities of the individual: to respect human life; respect the rights of others; be tolerant; be compassionate; show restraint; participate in the democratic process; work for the common good; respect other people's property.

4) Beliefs related to the conditions of life in society and the duties of running the state: society needs laws that are acceptable to the majority of the nation; dissident minorities are protected; the government is elected by the people, respects and protects individual freedoms, guarantees civil liberties, and carries out its activities in the name of the common good.

Compare these democratic values ​​with the Christian commandments below.

Christian commandments

Sinful deeds: fornication, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, witchcraft, enmity, quarrels, jealousy, outbursts of anger, strife, discord, heresy, envy, drunkenness, gluttony.

Godly deeds: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, goodness, kindness, fidelity, meekness, self-control.