Examples of people's presentation of good and evil. An example of the presentation of people about good and evil in different historical era. List of used literature

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

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

Goodand evil

Good and evil refer to the most common concepts of moral consciousness, distinguishing moral and immoral.

Good associated with the concept of good, to which they belong to what is useful to people. From this it follows a judgment that it is not good for useless, no one needs or harmful. However, it is necessary to clarify that the benefit is not the benefits itself, but only that, benefits; So evil is not harm, but what causes harm leads to it.

Fortunately can exist in the form of a variety of things and states: it may be a book, food, attitude to person, technical progress and justice. All the above concepts have one sign of their sign: they are positive in human life, they are useful to meet his needs - household, social, spiritual.

Fortunately: there is nothing such that it would only be harmful, as such that would be only useful. Before one respect can be evil in another. The benefit for people of one historical period may not be such for people of another period. Goods have unequal values \u200b\u200band in different periods of life of the individual (for example, in youth and in old age). In addition, not all that is useful to one person, it is useful to another. Thus, social progress, bringing certain and considerable benefits to society (improving the living conditions, mastering the forces of nature, victory over incurable diseases, democratization of social relations, etc.), it often turns out of the same considerable disasters (invention of mass destruction, wars for the possession of material benefits, technical catastrophes) and is accompanied by the manifestation of the lowest human qualities (malice, vague, envy, greed, meanness, betrayal).

Ethics are not interested in any, but only spiritual benefits, to which such higher moral values \u200b\u200bare both freedom, justice, love, happiness. In this row, it is a special kind of good in the field of human behavior. In other words, the meaning of good as the quality of the actions is what these actions are to good.

Good, as evil, is the ethical characteristic of human activity, behavior of people, their relationship. Therefore, everything that is aimed at creating, maintaining and strengthening the good, is good. Evil is the destruction, the destruction of what is a blessing. And since the highest good is the improvement of relations in society and improving the very personality, that is, the development of man and humanity, then everything in the actions of the individual contributes to this - good; Everything that prevents is evil.

Based on the fact that humanistic ethics at the head of the corner puts a person, its uniqueness and uniqueness, his happiness, needs and interests, we can define the criteria of good. This is, first of all, what contributes to the manifestation of a genuine human essence - self-discharge, self-realization of the individual. In this case, another criterion of good and at the same time - a condition that ensures human self-realization is humanism as "Absolute Goal of Genesis" (Hegel). And then good - this is all related to the humanization of human relations: this world, love, respect and attention man to man; This is a scientific and technical, social, cultural progress - not only in those aspects that are aimed at approving humanism.

Thus, in the category of good, the submission of a society about the most positive in the sphere of morality is embodied, about what corresponds to the moral ideal; And in the concept of evil - ideas about what opposes the moral ideal, prevents the achievement of happiness and humanities in relations between people.

Like all moral phenomena, good has the unity of the motivation (motive) and the result (actions). The good motivations, intentions that have not manifested in actions are not yet real good: this is good potential. It's not good and a good deed that has become a random result of malicious motifs.

Good should be both goal and means of achieving it. Even the most beneficial, a kind goal can not justify any, especially immoral, funds. So, the benefit of the goal is to ensure the order and safety of citizens does not justify, from a moral point of view, the use of the death penalty in society.

As the qualities of the personality of good and evil perform in the form of virtues and vices. As behavioral properties - in the form of kindness and malice. A kindness, on the one hand, is a line of behavior (in a friendly smile or in time pronounced courtesy). On the other hand, kindness is the point of view, consciously or unwittingly practished philosophy, and not a natural tendency. In addition, kindness is not exhausted by what was said or made. It is the whole creature of man. A kind person is always responsive, attentive, hearty, able to divide someone else's joy, even when concerned about his own problems, fatigue, when he has an excuse for a sharp word or gesture. Good man radiates warmth, generosity and generosity. It is natural, accessible and responsive, while he does not humiliate with his kindness and does not put any conditions

So, good, in the broad sense of the word, as a good, means a value idea that expresses the positive value of something in its attitude to some standard, or this standard itself. In live speech, the word "good" is used to designate a wide variety of goods.

The evil includes such qualities as envy, pride, to be mad, arrogance, atrocities. The feeling of envy uroduces the personality and relationship of people, it excites a person to the desire that the other fails, the misfortune, discredited himself in the eyes of others. Envy prompts the identity of immoral actions. It is not by chance that envy is considered one of the greatest sins in the Christian religion, because all other sins can be considered as a consequence or manifestation of envy.

The arrogance, on what achievements or merit it would be based, is also considered one of the evil manifestations. It is characterized by disrespectful, contemptuous, in charge of others (to all or to a separate person, in particular). The opposite are highly modesty and respect for people.

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

Differentiation of culture allocates various plans in the general concept of evil:

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

· Social (evil, speaking in the guise of public strength - layer, groups, personality, - opposes themselves in a whole and decomposes it).

· Human (evil as disharmony of bodily and spiritual qualities of personality).

So, although the imperative value content, good as if commensurate evil, their ontological status can be interpreted differently.

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

According to another point of view, the valid absolute world began is divine good, and evil is the result of erroneous or vicious solutions of a person free in his choice.

In relation to being evil there is nothing. So, good, being relative in opposing evil, absolutely perfectly perfectly; Evil - always relatively. This explains the fact that in a number of philosophical and ethical concepts (Augustine, V. Solovyova, D. Mura) was considered as a higher and unconditional moral concept.

To the extent that good is understood as Absolut, unity, the source of evil is seen in the man itself, in its original sinfulness, in natural origin of egoism (Gobbs, Zimmel).

According to the third point of view, the opposite of good and evil is mediated by God (L. Shelets), "Higher Value" (N. Berdyaev), and Ontologically and axiologically good is not a complete concept.

Ideas about good and evil

The ideas of good and evil changed from different peoples from the century to the century, while remaining the cornerstone of any ethical system.

Depending on the adopted standard, good in the history of philosophy and culture was interpreted as:

· Pleasure (hedonism)

· Use (utilitarianism)

· Happiness (eudemonism)

· Relevant circumstances (pragmatism)

· Generally accepted, appropriate.

The definitions of the concepts under consideration tried to give more ancient Greek philosophers. Socrates, for example, argued that only a clear awareness of what is good and evil contributes to the right (virtuous) life and knowledge of himself. The difference between good and evil he considered the absolute and saw him into the degree of virtue and awareness of a person. According to Socrates, no one makes evil intentionally, according to his will, but only by ignorance and ignorance. Evil is the result of ignorance of truth and, therefore, good. Even knowledge of his own ignorance is already a step towards good. Therefore, the greatest evil is ignorance, which Socrates saw that a person does not recognize his ignorance and does not need knowledge.

Other philosophers of antiquity saw virtue in the social relations of man (Aristotle), in his connection with the world of ideas (Plato). Third believed that good was laid in the very nature of man and his manifestation / misappropriation depends on the very personality: "Being a good person - it means not only not to make injustice, but also not to descend this" (Epicur).

With the development of a category of moral consciousness and ethics, a more stringent concept of moral good is produced. Good is recognized as a special kind of value that does not concern natural or natural events, phenomena. This substance marks not only free, but also consciously correlated with the highest values, ultimately with the ideal, actions.

The positive value of the good content is to overcome the isolation, disunity and alienation between people, the approval of mutual understanding, moral equality and humanity in relations between them.

Good is directly related to the spiritual world of the person himself: no matter how the source of good is determined, it is going on a person as a person, i.e., responsibly.

The concept of good, associated with benefits, Immanuel Kant considered "empirical", and unconditional good - "the concept of mind." He emphasized that the main component of good is his intelligence.

Minding the concept of good to individual positive qualities accompanying events and phenomena, which is perceived by society as good, J. Moore considered a naturalistic error. The latter, as R. Hair showed, is that in determining specific events, phenomena, characters as "good" and "good" their regulatory characteristics are mixed.

The distinction between naturalistic (in the Murovo understanding of this word) and the ethical understanding of good corresponds to the difference of good in the relative and absolute sense.

So, Socrates talked about the relativity of the concept of "good": "... it is impossible to say which items specifically are definitely good, but we can say what" good "as such."

Sofists directly express views on the relativity, artificiality, contrived of the ideas with which it is customary to associate the concept of good and evil. A similar understanding of the category of good expresses F.Nitska: "... Good is respectful only because of the vital weakness of his carriers, the evil is vigorously, purposefully."

In addition to the above points of view, special attention should be paid to the religious ethical system (in particular, Christian). Christian religion the idea of \u200b\u200bthe highest good was embodied in God. He is the Creator of all the best, eternal, reasonable. Most High did not create evil. Evil comes from congenital sinfulness of the human race who inherited this line from the progenitor (Adam and Eve), seduced by the Devil in the Garden of Eden. So, evil is the chinny of the devil, but evil is not an independent something, but the absence of good, just like darkness - the lack of light. Starting from the original sin, the person accompanies the free, but inevitable choice between good and evil. Christianity approved the right to this voluntary and natural choice for which a person pays for an eternal otherworldly being in paradise (absolute good) or in hell (absolute evil). In order for a person to be left defenseless before this choice, the Christian religion armed with its moral code, following which a believer can walk along the way of good, avoiding evil. This code was the content of the famous Nagorn's preaching of Jesus Christ (the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 5), in which Jesus not only teaches the people of the Ten Commandments, formulated by Moses in the Old Testament, such as "Love Middle His", "not killing", "not Stormy "," Do not pronounce a false testimony to your nearby ", but also gives them their interpretation. So, the Old Testament "... Love your neighbor and hate the enemy of your Jesus complements:" And I tell you love your enemies, bless you curse you, charity hate you and pray for those who are offending you and drive you .., for if you love you love you .. What a reward do you? And if you welcome only your brothers, what do you do anything special? "

Concretion, allowing or forbiving certain forms of behavior, the Christian commandments were essentially an expression of the basic principles of morality on which the attitude of a person to man should be constructed.

So, if religious ethics considers good and evil, first of all, as the basis of moral behavior of the person, the philosophical analysis of these categories is rather aimed at identifying their essence, origins and dialectics. The desire to understand the nature of good and evil, combining the efforts of various thinkers, gave rise to a rich classic philosophical-ethical legacy, in which we allocate the consideration of these concepts G.V.F. Hegel. From his point of view, interrelated and mutual concepts of good and evil are inseparable from the concept of individual will, independent individual selection, freedom and bemppedion. In the "Phenomenology of the Spirit" Hegel wrote: "Since I can be good and evil, I can make a choice between them, I can decide on the other, I can take into my subjectivity, both and the other. The nature of evil, therefore, is that a person can want him, but it is not necessary to want him. "

Well implemented by Hegel also through the individual will: "... good there is a substantial being for subjective will, - it must make it goal and commit ... Good without subjective will there is only a reality abstraction, and this reality should only be obtained through the will of the subject, Which should have a good understanding, make it its intention and implement in its activities. " The concept of Will Hegel distributes not only to the area of \u200b\u200bexternal implementation, the area of \u200b\u200bactions, but also to the region internal, the area of \u200b\u200bthinking and intentions. Therefore, it is a fundamental role, he assigns a self-consciousness, which acts as the source of selfososos of the human person through the free choice between good and evil. Hegel "self-awareness has the opportunity to put its own feature above the universal and implement it through actions - the ability to be evil. Thus, it is self-awareness that owns the most important role in the formation of an angry will, as well as good.

Moral consciousness is always in front of a severe and hopeless dilemma: "Any act precedes the wonderful intention, it inevitably makes evil," hegel says, - refusing to act, trying to preserve his purity, without saying it by any action, it inevitably flows into the emptiness and Nicely existence, which is also evil, but aimed against himself.

Hegel considers evil through the phenomenon of the fanatical crowd - "negative freedom", or "freedom of emptiness", which, according to its definition, "is both in the field of politics and in the field of religion the fanaticism of the destruction of any existing social order and eliminate individuals suspected of commitment to commitment to order ... Only destroying anything, this negative will feels existing. She, however, it seems that it seeks to some positive state, but in fact, she does not want to have a positive implementation of this state ... "The fanatical crowd described by Hegel, draws all its" rabies of destruction "to the native civilization (" Existing public order ", including on cultural monuments. The crowd wants to return to the initial, pre-civilized being, to restore the past, which seems so rainbow and alien evil the state of" universal equality ", the real kingdom of good.

Another phenomenon of evil, by Hegel, - hypocrisy, which contributes to the moral justification of many unacceptable actions, up to a crime.

Indeed, there are quite a few examples in history when theft, mass murder, terrorism, violence, genocide often find a hypocritical excuse with moral sofics, outstanding the interests of a limited social group, a separate nation or even personality for universal.

Hegel believes that a genuine way out of the dominance of universal and long-fashioned evil is possible only if you wish to listen not only yourself, but also to the near, understand, and not condemn it. Only then, "evil is moving away from himself, recognizes the existence of another ... begins to believe in his ability to moral revival." Thus, the possibility of good hegel directly connected with the self-consciousness dialogue. Moreover, the dialogue of non-free, unsure of self-consciousness should through dramatic conflicts of mutual denial, distrust, loneliness, mutual contempt and universal evil to revive the hope of the possibility of a new dialogue of free and able to respect someone else's freedom of people.

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

Vl. Solovyov in his work "justification of good" analyzes the main attributes of the concept under consideration and notes that it is, firstly, purity or autonomy of good. Pure good nothing is determined, it requires that he can only be elected for himself, without any other motivation.

Secondly, it is fullness of good.

And thirdly, his power.

Vl. Solovyov believed that the idea of \u200b\u200bgood was inherent in human nature, and the moral law was recorded in the human heart. The mind only develops on the basis of the experience initially inherent in a person's idea of \u200b\u200bgood. V. Solovyov's thought in the "Mercantiment of Good" comes down to be completely consciously and freely subjugate our will, the idea of \u200b\u200bgood, embedded in us from nature, the idea of \u200b\u200bpersonally thought out, "reasonable".

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

· The feeling of shame must remind a person about his high dignity. It expresses the attitude of the person to the creation of the lower in comparison with it. This feeling is specifically human, it is completely deprived of the most highly organized animals.

· A feeling of pity is the second moral beginning of human nature, it concludes a source of relations to itself like. The root of this feeling is in animals. Therefore, V. Solovyov says: "If a man shameless represents his return to the cattle state, then the man is ruthless below the animal level."

· A sense of reverence expresses the attitude of a person to the highest start. This feeling of worship before the highest is the basis of any religion.

Developing the provisions of its moral philosophy, V. Solovyov indicates three basic principles based on the considered primary elements of good and morality:

1. Principle of asceticism

2. Dropsip Altruizma

3. Religious principle.

Solovyov argued: "Asceticism builds in principle all that contributes to the victory of spiritual over sensual. The main requirement of asceticism comes down to the following: subordinate to the flesh of the Spirit, as far as it is necessary for its dignity and independence. On the contrary, unworthy man be a challenging servant of matter ... ". However, asceticism cannot be an end in itself, self-sustaining asceticism leads ultimately to Gordin and hypocrisy.

The principle of asceticism has moral significance only when it is connected with the principle of altruism. His foundation is a feeling of pity that communicates humanity with all the living world. According to Solovyov, when a person regrets another creature, he does not identify himself with him, but he sees a creature in him like himself who wants to live, and recognizes this right for him, as well as. From here and the requirement follows, known as the golden rule of morality: do it with others, as I would like to come with you. This general rule of Altruism Solovyov dismembers two private rules:

1. Do nothing of anything that you do not want yourself from others;

2.Dell others around everything that I yourself would like from others.

The first rule of Solovyov calls the rule of justice, the second is the rule of mercy, and they are inseparable.

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

The ethical system of V. Solovyov is the only concept of Christian morality in Russian philosophy, penetrated by faith in the firmness of goodness in man.

Good and evil: features and paradoxes

The difficulties in determining the concepts of good and evil are rooted in their characteristics. The first one is universal, the universal nature of good and evil. At the same time, the categories under consideration are characterized by concreteness and immediacy. They are the concepts of historical, depending on real public relations. The third most important feature of good and evil is their subjectivity, they do not belong to the objective world, but relate to the activities of human consciousness.

Good and evil - the concepts are not only value, but also estimated, with their help, humanity evaluates phenomena, events, moral qualities, actions, etc. But as any evaluation concepts, they carry the element of human subjectivity, personal bias, emotionality. By virtue of certain reasons, the fact that for one person is objectively acting in the form of good, for the other is (or it seems) evil.

Subjectivity, therefore, implies the absence of absolute good and evil in the real world (they are only possible in abstraction or in the world to otherwise). Thus, from subjectivity, the fourth feature of the analyzed categories is sorted - their relativity, also manifested in a number of moments.

Russian philosopher N.O. Lossky illustrated this thesis on the example of death. Death is undoubted evil, moreover, it symbolizes the extreme evil of the world. But if you abstract from personal experiences and consider death from the point of view of its role in the process of life, but it becomes an obvious necessity, while not only biological, but also ethical, among other things. The awareness of the man of his mortality encourages him to moral searches. Without death there is no life, but there is no death without death. Due to death, life acquires the quality of incredit value. Only that is valuable that of course. Awareness by a person of his limb encourages him to look for ways to overcome the death of spiritual or even physical. She becomes a pulse to creativity.

Perhaps it is the relativity of good and evil, observation that "everything is good - bad" and vice versa, they led F. Nietzsche to the conclusion: "No way is so expensive, as for his virtues."

Russian Philosopher S. L. Frank In the work "Wrestling of Worlds" wrote that "all the grief and evil, reigning on earth, all disasters, humiliation, suffering, at least ninety-nine percent of the essence of the will of the will to implement good, fanatical faith In any sacred principles that should be immediately put on Earth, and wills to merciless extermination of evil; Then how hardly one hundredth share of evil and disasters is due to the action of frankly angry, criminal and self-will. "

The considered manifestations of the relativity of good and evil highlight and confirm their fifth feature: unity and inseparable communication with each other. They are meaningless separately, they cannot exist independently.

According to F. Nietzsche, evil is also needed, as well as good, even more than good: both is a necessary condition for human existence and development.

For modern civilization, a situation is characterized when a person is placed in inhuman conditions in which he does not have anything, how to create evil (modern cinema). The beginning of such "experiments" put F.M. Dostoevsky, who as a result came to the conclusion that "it is impossible to experience a person."

Unity of good and evil is the unity of opposites. And this means that they are not only interconnected, but also mutually exclusive. And this mutually exclusion determines the constant struggle of good and evil, which is another one - the sixth of their distinctive feature.

Fighting good and evil

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

True, the paradox is that in the process of this struggle can "get infected" evil and put even greater evil; For "During the struggle with evil and evil, kind are made evil and do not believe in other ways to deal with it, except for evil ways." It is difficult to disagree with this statement by Nikolai Berdyaeva, in this convinces the centuries-old experience of the struggle of mankind with evil. Therefore, the meaning of this struggle is to reduce the "number" of evil to all possible means and increase the "number" of good in the world, and the main question is what ways and ways to achieve this. In fact, the whole history of the culture and development of ethical thought in one form or another contains attempts to give answers to this question. In a modern ethical system, there is a significant "scatter" in the responses: from the famous "good should be with fists" to ethics of non-violence based on the idea of \u200b\u200bnon-resistance to evil violence.

The ideal of non-violence, formulated at the dawn of Christianity in the Nagorno sermon Jesus Christ, was always in the center of attention of European culture ("... and I tell you: Do not oppose the evil. But who will hit you on your right cheek, turn to him and the other"). The commandments of the failure of evil violence, love for enemies at the same time and understandable, and paradoxical: they contradict the natural instincts and social reasons - therefore, they are perceived by modern society very skeptical.

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

In this regard, it is necessary to bring a number of arguments as a justification for ethics of non-violence:

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

· Nurse breaks down the "back logic" of violence that generates the effect of "boomeranga evil" (L. Tolstoy), according to which the deed evil is necessarily returning to the greater size;

· The requirement of non-violence leads to the celebration of good, since it contributes to human improvement;

· Without responding to evil violence, personality, oddly enough, opposes evil power, for the ability to "substitute the cheek" requires a much greater spirit of the Spirit.

Thus, non-violence is not to encourage evil and not cowardice, but the ability to adequately resist evil and fight him, without dropping the merits and not falling to the level of evil.

Ethics of non-violence, no matter how paradoxically, in the twentieth century there was a huge number of supporters who are receiving, implementing and developing non-violence ideas. These are ideological supporters and practically acting within the framework of various movements ("hippies", "pacifists", "green" and others).

Non-violence can change not only personality and interpersonal relationships, but also public institutions, the relationship of masses of people, classes, states. Even a policy, it is legal and organized violence, can be transformed on fundamentally non-violent basics.

Thus, non-violence in the form that it acquired in the theory and practice of the twentieth century becomes an effective means of solving public conflicts, previously deciding with the use of violence.

At the same time, it is necessary to consider the arguments of supporters of the opposite point of view, supporters of the violent form of combating evil. Of course, those social movements and institutions that practice violence or call for it do not consider it a positive phenomenon and evaluate violence rather as a necessary necessity than as a desired state. Note the main arguments of opponents of non-violence:

· Impact evil in non-violence;

· Ethics of non-violence is utopic and idealizes ideas about a person, focusing on the person inherent in the pursuit of good and considering this tendency as a peculiar lever that can turn the world.

However, the adherents of ethics of non-violence at the same time recognize that human behavior can be the source of evil. But consider a person with a completely evil creature - it means to slander him, just as it is only good to consider it - it means to flatter him.

Only the recognition of moral ambivalence, the duality of human nature expresses a fair and objective attitude towards him. It is this, purely sober, realistic concept of a person serves as a guarantee of effectiveness and, moreover, the practical method of non-violent struggle, which offers the path, strategy and strengthening tactics and the multiplication of goodness.

Adherents of non-violence believe that for this, the parties are primarily necessary:

1. To refer to the monopoly on the truth;

2. Aware that anyone can be on the site of the opponent, and at this angle it is critical to analyze the behavior;

3. What comes from the belief that a person is always better what he does, and that it always keeps the ability to change, look for such a way out, which would allow the opponent to preserve the dignity;

4. Do not insist on your own, not refute the point of view of the opponent, but to look for acceptable solutions;

5. Walk to turn enemies to friends, hate evil and love people behind him.

Thus, if the violence is aimed at suppressing or destroying the enemy and only temporarily drowshes the conflict, but does not eliminate its reasons, then the non-violent action is aimed at eliminating the very foundation of the conflict and offers the prospect of the development of relationships, especially when the previous evil is not an obstacle for subsequent good relations. The originality of the moral position of supporters of non-violence is that they are responsible for evil, against which they are fighting, and they encourage "enemies" to good, in the name of which lead their struggle. Interesting ideas on this occasion can be found in "Agni Yoga", consulting: "... Know the enemies, take care of them, but do not have anger. Anger, hatred is attached to us to the enemy, and the fight against it leads to the unproductive consumption of vital energy. The enemy must be overcome by the power of its aspiration to a positive goal. In enemies it is necessary to draw strength to increase creative activity ... "

Justice

Whatever form was not the struggle with evil, but the victory of goodness is always regarded as a triumph of justice, because the category "justice" is mostly responsible to the criteria of good. It is connected with the idea of \u200b\u200ba combination of morally acceptable norms, which act as the correct adequate measure of the identity of personality for the actions perfect. This concept is estimated by the ratio between:

· "Roles" of individuals or social groups (everyone should gain their place in life, their "niche" corresponding to its abilities and opportunities;

· Act and reward;

· Crime and punishment;

· Rights and obligations;

· Dignity and honor.

Their compliance, harmony, the fair ratio is regarded as good.

The consciousness of justice and the attitude towards it was originally and remain incentive of the moral and social activity of people. Nothing significant in the history of mankind was committed without awareness and the requirement of justice. But the objective measure of justice is historically due to and relatively there is no uniform justice at all times and for all nations. The concept and requirements of justice are changing as society. Almost only the criterion of justice, which is the degree of compliance of human actions and relations to the social and moral requirements achieved at the level of the development of society.

In the concept of justice, those properties of good and evil are embodied, which was mentioned above (relativity and subjectivity). After all, what seems to be fair one may be perceived by others as shine injustice, which is manifested in the system of assessments, promotions and punishments.

Justice - Merilo of the natural human rights, the basis of the concept is the principle of equality, which equalizes the rights of each person into uniform starting capabilities and gives the same chances to realize themselves. But equality is by no means the same thing as equality. People are equal in their rights, but are not equal in their capabilities, abilities, interests, needs, responsibilities. On the one hand, in this inequality, the originality of individuality, uniqueness and uniqueness is laid down. On the other hand, the mixing of concepts generates a lot of misunderstandings and delusions.

The intentional or accidental mixing of the concepts of "equality" and "equality" testifies to the language negligence and level of culture, or - which is much more serious - it is consistent with the socio-political and moral speculation and attempts to manipulate people with the help of the desire for justice, which is always driven by a person.

At the end of the review of the problems associated with the concepts of good and evil, justice and injustice, equality and inequality, it is necessary to once again focus on mutual boundness of the above-mentioned concepts. Already in antiquity, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe insurpection of the connectedness of good and evil was deeply understood; It passes through the entire history of philosophy and is specified in a number of ethical provisions:

· Good and evil meaningfully;

· Good and evil learns to oppose unity

· Formal transfer of dialectics of good and evil on individual moral practices is fraught with the temptation of man. "Trials" of evil (even mentally) without a strict concept of good can be much more likely to turn into a vice than knowledge.

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

· Understanding evil is not enough without readiness to resist evil.

However, being "balanced" at the level of concepts, good and evil are unequal grounds for assessing the existing reality. It is one thing to first or evil, and another - allow evil to work. Harm evil is more significant than good good. The prevention of injustice, from a moral point of view, is essential than the creation of mercy.

For society evil and injustice more destructively than good and mercy - constructive.

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

good evil dialectic moral moral

References:

1. Likhachev D.S. about good and evil

2. Men A. about good and evil

3. Solovyov V. Justification of good. // V. Solovyov writings in two volumes, T.1.

4. Froch E. Psychoanalysis and Ethics. M., 1992.

Posted on Allbest.ru.

Introduction

A lawyer is an extremely broad concept that includes many professions. The activity of a lawyer concerns the most important benefits of people's interests, often connected with the invasion of their personal life, and sometimes with restriction of rights, making decisions affecting the fate of a person.

Ethical problems and rules affect the relationship between the lawyer with the client, with other participants in the process, with colleagues by profession, with government agencies, with society as a whole. The study of the moral aspects and the problems of the profession is necessary to every lawyer, especially in modern conditions, when the task of humanization of public and state life is raised when the legislation attaches great importance to independent decisions of a professional professional: judges, investigator, prosecutor, notary. The solutions made should be not only legal, but also valid. A lawyer must understand and apply the basic concepts of ethical categories in practice: good and evil, justice and debt, conscience, dignity and honor.

The main essence of law enforcement activities is directly found in their name: this is the fulfillment of the most important constitutional duty of the state - the protection and protection of human rights and freedoms and citizen (Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 2.)

All other of their functions are the protection of public order, property, the fight against crime, suppressing antisocial manifestations, etc. - are elements of this crucial responsibility. And the law enforcement agencies themselves, in turn, are an element, one of the main state structures, the power structure, which is a guarantee of law as a system of social norms and relations organizing the normal vital activity of a society. That is why ideas about good and evil should be clear and unambiguous. Therefore, the topic of this work is relevant and timely.

The purpose and objectives of the work is to study the idea of \u200b\u200bgood and evil in the history of civilization

1 concepts of good and evil and their criteria. "Gold Rule" morality

Good and evil are the most common forms of moral assessment, distinguishing moral and immoral. What do they imagine?

Good is the category of ethics that combines everything that has a positive moral value, serving the elimination of moral from the immoral, opposing evil. Since the times of antiquity, good and evil was interpreted as two forces that dominate the world, inspection, impersonal1 .

With the category of goodness, such a thing as virtue is also a sustainable positive qualities of individuals pointing to its moral value. Virtue is opposed by vice.

A virtuous person not only recognizes positive moral principles and requirements, but also creates good, acting in accordance with them (vast - do good). The ideas about virtue, as well as good, have historically changed. So, in ancient Greece, in accordance with the teachings of Plato, virtue associated with such moral qualities as courage, moderation, wisdom, justice. The Christian faith in the Middle Ages era has put forward three major virtues: faith, hope, love (as faith in God, hope for His mercy and love for him).

With all the variability of views at different times and in various layers of society, honesty, humanity, courage, selflessness, loyalty, etc. were evaluated and evaluated positively.

In everyday life, all that contributes to human life, serves to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of people, is a means to achieve certain goals. These are natural benefits, and spiritual (knowledge, education, cultural consumption). Usefulness does not always coincide with the blessing. For example, art is devoid of utilitarian use; The development of industry, material production leads humanity to the edge of the ecological catastrophe.

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

Good (good) reflects the most common interests, aspirations, wishes and hopes for the future: what should be approved is what it deserves. In modern ethics, good reveals in several different, but closely interrelated aspects:

a) good as the moral quality of the act;

b) good as a totality of positive principles and moral standards;

c) good as a moral motive and moral goal of a deed;

d) good (virtue) as a moral quality of a person, which is expressed in such concepts as good faith, responsibility, unity of the word and case, etc.2 .

The forms of manifestation of good and virtue are diverse and in principle are inherent in any human positive quality, behavior or act. For example, in relation to work - this is conscientiousness, dedication, accuracy, accuracy, etc.; In relation to man is humanity, justice, goodwill, sensitivity, tactfulness, etc.

Evil - category of ethics opposite to good. It summarizes the ideas about immoral actions and human qualities that cause humans and deserving moral condemnation. This is all what opposes public and personal good, all that is directed against Goodness: racism, chauvinism, bureaucracy, all types of offenses and crimes, drunkenness, drug addiction, etc.

Good and evil are the most common categories of ethics. All people's activities occur within the borders of good and evil. As a result of this category of good and evil, the methodological function is performed, for it is almost impossible to consider other ethical categories otherwise, as through the prism of these most common categories.

In the system of moral norms of human society, the rule gradually stood out, which became a generalized criterion for the morality of the behavior and actions of people. It was called the "Gold Moral Rules". Its essence can be formulated as follows: do not make another of what you do not want to do you. Based on this rule, a person learned to identify himself with other people, his ability developed to adequately assess the situation, the ideas of good and evil were formed.

"The Golden Rule" is one of the most ancient regulatory requirements, expressing the universal content of morality, its humanistic essence.3 .

The "golden rule" is already found in the early written monuments of many cultures (in the teachings of Confucius, in the ancient Indian "Mahabharata", in the Bible, etc.) and firmly enters the public consciousness of the following epochs until our time. In Russian, it fastened in the form of a proverb: "What do not like to others, do not do it yourself."

This rule, which established in relations between people in society, was the basis for the emergence of legal norms of the emerging society in conditions of statehood. So, the norms of criminal law, protecting life, health, honor and dignity of personality, embody the principles of the "golden rule of morality", humane relations and mutual respect.

This rule is of great importance, especially in investigative, operational work, since it puts forward the norms of criminal procedure law prohibiting indications through violence, threats and illegal measures. Such a path only leads to a decrease in the prestige of law enforcement agencies.

2 problems of combating good and evil. Ethics non-violence. Specifications of estimated judgments of police officers

The categories of good and evil are in close dialectical interdependence and interconnection. There is no absolute good and absolute evil. In each good act, it is possible to detect the elements of evil and in each evil - at least a tiny particle of good. Moreover, good and evil can change places without changing their objective content. It is known that in the ancient Sparta of infants born with any physical disabilities, they were dumped into the abyss, and in ancient Japan, old weak people attributed alive in the valley of death, where they ended their earthly path. Then it was considered as good acts, now we consider it barbarism. "The ideas about good and evil changed so much from the people to the people," P. Entells wrote, - which often directly contradicted one other "4 . Nevertheless, according to L.N. Tolstoy: "Good is the eternal, the highest goal of our life. No matter how they understand the good, our life is nothing but the desire for good"5 .

It should be emphasized that the same phenomenon at the same time can be assessed and as good and as evil. Human murder in itself is evil. But if in the fight of law enforcement officers with bandits, the lattes were killed, then this act receives a moral justification and is considered as good, good. Calls for the murder of people from the position of the general moral norm immoral and represent evil. But the article Ilya Ehrenburg called the "Kill German" during the Great Patriotic War became a kind of action program for the fighters of the Red Army.

Above it was said that there is no absolute good or evil. So, the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War is the benefit, but the death of many millions of people for its achievement is. It is not by chance that there is no goodness without good, and good without Hud. There are truth and in approval that the road to hell is paved in good intentions. To achieve the good goal, it is often necessary to resort to compromises, choose a smaller evil. On the problem of moral choice, i.e. Choosing a variant of action in which evil will be the smallest, will be speaking ahead. Now it is only necessary to emphasize that it is very complex and requires comprehensive consideration and justification. Take, for example, the problem of the liberation of the hostages. There are many options here. You can go along the way to fulfill the requirements of criminals: to pay them the required amount of money, give a firm guarantee to preserve their lives, etc. However, this "the most light" way is at the same time the ineffective and most immoral, because only encourages bandits and provokes them to commit such acts to continue. There is a path of persuasion, there is a way of liberation by force, sometimes it is possible to achieve the desired result with cunning. But in all cases, it is primarily about that the celebration of goodness will be achieved by a smaller evil.

The objective criterion of good is always the realization of the most significant interests of people achieved through the harmony of personal and public. Of course, it is always quite difficult to solve this task, but it should always strive for this.

The category of good as a category of science does not coincide with the everyday ideas about the good of individual people. Of course, the most general ideas about good are the same for the absolute majority of people (we will take at least 10 biblical commandments), but with all that in the motivations of specific actions of individuals, these ideas are characterized by a wide variety. To determine the truth of good in these cases, it is advisable to focus on public opinion, which is a generalized representation of people about good. It is these generalized moral values \u200b\u200bto underlie legal norms, it is here that the most important of them are protected by legal sanctions. And it is here that the merge of morality and the right takes place, which gives grounds to say: the struggle against evil, protection and approval of goodness is the essence of the work of law enforcement agencies.

Ethics of non-violence is a completely different approach to resolving conflicts, excluding violence. The ideas of non-violence are formulated in the Bible, in the New Testament, recommending, if, "who will hit you on the right cheek, turn to it and the other." In this case, a certain ideal was reflected in accordance with which the non-resistance of the evil is considered as a manifestation of moral perfection, moral superiority over a foreign sin. Multiplication of evil is regarded as a manifestation of good. The corresponding biblical commandments with great difficulty were approved in the consciousness of a person and still many impossible.

Significant development of ethics of non-violence received in the works of an outstanding Russian writer and thinker L.N. Tolstoy (1828-1910), which considered that the recognition of the need to adjust the evil violence is nothing more than justifying the people of his usual favorite vices: revenge, pegs, envy, maliciousness. In his opinion, most of the people of the Christian world feel the plight of their position and are used to deliver themselves that the means that is considered valid by their world. Means is the ambulation of some people over others. Some people who consider advantageous for themselves to be an existing state order, the violence of state activities are trying to keep this order, other violence of revolutionary activities try to destroy the existing device and set it another, the best.

L. Tolstoy finds a mistake of political teachings in the fact that they are considered possible through violence to combine people so that they are all, without controversing, obeyed the same device of life.

"Every violence is that some people under the threat of suffering or death make other people do what they do not want the rape." Violence does not create anything, it only destroys. The one who responds evil for evil multiplies suffering, enhances disasters, but does not save them any other nor themselves. Thus, violence is powerless, fruitlessly, destructive. No wonder in the teachings of the ancient wise men, love, compassion, mercy, the reward of good for evil was considered the basis of moral relations. Another supporter of this theory - M. Gandhi, who dreamed of finding the freedom of India by peaceful means, considered non-violence with a strong weapon. Fear and love - contradictory concepts. The law of love acts as the law of gravity acts, regardless of whether we accept it or not. Just as a scientist creates miracles, applying the law of nature and a person who applies the law of love with the accuracy of the scientist can create even greater miracles.

Non-violence does not mean passivity, it actively and suggests at least two forms of struggle: non-standardism and civil disobedience. The ideas of abandoning violence as conflict resolution means and problems finding an increasing number of their supporters around the world.

The main methods, through which law enforcement agencies carry out their activities, are the prevention of offenses (that is, educational work with citizens) and forced sanctions that take on the form of direct violence. Moreover, as it can be seen from the above definition, the concept of "powerful force" (that is, actions based on coercion for violence) is the main characteristic of the activities of law enforcement agencies.

And the question arises: can be coercion, especially direct violence, moral? It is necessary at this level of the development of society at this level, and therefore it is advisable and inevitable, in principle does not occur in principle (discussions are conducted only about the applications, degree and forms of violence), but as for the morality of violence, then a positive or negative decision This question for a long time and to this day shares scientists (and practitioners, of course, too) into two directions: Moralist and realistic.

The first direction is well known to all since the school bench, when, thanks to the work of Lion Tolstoy, we met with the concept of "non-resistance of evil violence" (believers get acquainted with her even earlier, since it is set out in the Nagorno sermon Jesus Christ). The same concept underlies the motion of pacifists and a number of others based on the principles of humanism. Many modern scientists are adhered to a similar point of view, such as, for example, an outstanding philosopher, sociologist and historian of the 20th century, Max Weber, who claims: "From a moral point of view, coercion is always assessed negatively, even in cases where it is perhaps the only one Means for politics "6 .

The realistic direction proceeds from the principal unity of law and morality as reflections and expressions of universal interests or the common interests of certain social groups and classes, which in these two forms acquire the regulatory, regulatory and imperative importance and, therefore, differ from each other are not essentially , and according to the mechanisms of their implementation. In the domestic thought, it was widely distributed that the realistic direction, which believes coercion and violence with the necessary component of any form of social livelihoods. From this point of view, talking about the immorality of violence - it means to tear morality from social practice and move it into the sphere of empty abstractions. This position is extremely clearly formulated by the modern Russian philosopher V.V. Denisov: "Social violence is on the application or a threat to the application by a specific group, a class, a state, a public system of various forms, methods and means of direct or indirect coercion and suppression (political, economic, military, legal, etc.) in For other groups, classes, states, public systems ... In order to impose any of their will. Thus, social violence is practically used in all spheres of public life - economic, political and spiritual "7 .

However, the above definition requires some clarification. All law enforcement activities are based on confrontation with aggressive evil. This confrontation is carried out in two basic forms: in the form of violent resistance, which is determined by a number of articles of the law "On the Militia", and non-violent resistance, which is considered in the practice of official activity as preferred.

If the first form seems more or less clear, the second requires some explanations. The essence of non-violent resistance (which is also to a certain extent is coercion, for it is aimed at imposing any of its own will) lies in the persecution of the opponent, in the desire to replace its behavioral installation of moral and enjoyable. Of course, we are talking in this case not about the crime, but about the criminal intention, on the elimination of the conflict situation, to reorient the personality on socially useful behavior. In other words, we are talking only about such situations that are in the sphere of morality and have not crossed in the sphere of law. For non-violent resistance, there are certain rules and techniques. Let's call the main:

1) should be abandoned from the claim to the absolute truth and be prepared for dialogue and compromise.

2) self-critically refer to their arguments and behavior, try to find that they could cause a hostile attitude of the opponent.

3) It should mentally put yourself in place of the opponent and analyze the situation with his eyes - it will give it an opportunity to understand him and help him find a decent way out of the situation, retaining his face.

4) in no case show the opponent of its hostility, but, on the contrary, to emphasize its friendliness in every way.

5) to be extremely sincere, not to use any lies, hidden intentions, tactical tricks, etc.

Of course, this form is much more complicated than the first. It is much easier to put on a man handcuffs than to convince him. Moreover, for this you need to possess knowledge and logic, and psychology, and culture of speech, and it is necessary to be a model of moral behavior and communication. However, there is probably the need to prove to how much this form of coercion, which and coercion can only be called conditionally, more efficiently form of direct violence.

The violence can be said that in itself it is neither moral nor immoral. In abstract form it is venigally.

It in such a form can be like a knife: you can kill a person with a knife, but you can and cure (if, for example, in the hands of the surgeon). The criterion of morality or amorality of violence is the goal in the name of which it is performed, and the means with which it is carried out. The goal aimed at the benefit, even if it is achieved by violence, is moral, provided that the funds are optimal and will more or less accurately comply with the nature of this goal.

Thus, the concept of moral does not contradict violence, but interacts with it. In other words, violence, as well as any other act, can be worn as moral and immoral character. This approach allows us to proceed to the consideration of the moral content of law enforcement.

People, far from a genuine idea of \u200b\u200bthe activities of law enforcement agencies, as a rule, are not asked about the moral content of this work. From the point of view of the average man, these units use only the means of intimidation and direct violence - legal and physical. And, as they believe, the requirements existing in this area are the requirements for the ability to apply these funds. They do not know that in the work of law enforcement officers, moral qualities are enormous: honesty, love for people, justice, dedication, courage, goodwill and many others, including a sense of high responsibility for their actions to society. The presence of these qualities of the employee serves as a mandatory measure of his professionalism, and the cultivation of these qualities awarded considerable efforts of managers, employees of educational and personnel apparatus, service teams. Requirements for this side of the service are presented by both the Society and Service Documents, in particular, for example, Article 58 (paragraph "L") "provisions on service in the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation", according to which an employee for making misconducts incompatible with the requirements, Followed by the personal, moral qualities of the employee of the internal affairs bodies, dismissed.

Therefore, it is quite natural that law enforcement officials constantly have to wonder how valid by their actions and actions are. And truly professional is the one who appreciates its actions not only from the point of view of the law, but also to honor, and on conscience, the one who, according to V.G. Belinsky, "Does not want happiness and gift", if it can not be confident in the justice of his actions (remember that justice is one of the main categories and morality, and rights).

It will not be superfluous to remember that in 1782 the qualities that put forward in the first place in the activities of officials were clearly defined in the police charter: "1. Sneakless mind; 2. Good will in the departure of the entrusted; 3. Personalism; 4. loyalty to the service Imperial Majesty; 5. Zeali to the general good; 6. Wanted to position; 7. Honesty and selflessness "8 .

In the first part of the "orders of the degree", the moral principles of the Code of honor were formulated: "1. Do not finish the neighbor, what you yourself do not want to end; 2. Not tokmo does not know Likha, but you can choose a good one; 3. WHO WHO DO NOTE CREATE The resentment is personal, or in the name, or in good title, may be satisfied if possible; 4. Help each other in good; 5. Behind the blind, give the roof of the poor, weighing thirsty; 6. Blessed, who is a little cattle, Buda Cattle and Village Your Stumbled - her underly; 7. From the path of the departure of the path "9 .

Not only the bread is alone, not only material benefits, but above all the truth and freedom, conscience and honor, morality and humanism. And those properties of a human nature, which traditionally been considered as highly soluble personalities, are an integral side of the official activity of a law enforcement officer, an indicator of perfection of his professional skills, the level of its moral and cultural development.

conclusions

Law enforcement officer is constantly in the sphere of moral impact of society and its official structure. On the one hand, it is experiencing an educational moral impact of society, which forms it in accordance with the principles of public morality, and on the other hand, it itself has an educational impact on citizens - positive, if the fulfillment of the requirements of the law serves as social justice and is aware of citizens as Deep moral, negative, if its actions are perceived by citizens as unfair and thereby immoral.

Here are the grounds that educational service in law enforcement agencies are built. It has many aspects, but moral education, which is organically enters the education of the sense of patriotism and collectivism, the feelings of social justice, respect for people, is the main form of educational work as heads of bodies and divisions and employees of educational and personnel apparatuses, official groups.

It should be recalled that the police officer misses strong and noble characters worthy of universal respect. Unlike a person who or does not allow himself to "not notice" anything wrong, or is limited to internal indignation, the real law enforcement soldier at any circumstances enters into a fight with evil, since official duties organically merge from him with moral requirements, with a vital installation.

Today, more than ever, relevant to the years developed by the rule for each commander: "To lead - it means to raise." And primarily on the examples of courage, dedication, nobility, high business and moral qualities of the best employees, and on this basis, to form a sense of pride in the young replenishment for their profession, the desire to increase consideration and labor traditions.

List of used literature

Huseynov A. A. Golden rule of morality. M., 2008.
Coblikov A.S. Legal Ethics. M, 2009.
Kistaneevskaya I.F. Pedagogy of professional education personnel frames of foreign countries: monograph. M.: Academy of Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2002.
Kushnarenko I.A. Professional ethics of police officers. Tutorial. M., 2008
International Seminar on Police Ethics: Materials of the International Seminar (14-15 May 2002). M.: Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2003.
Professional ethics of law enforcement officers. Tutorial / Ed. G.V.Dubova. M., 2006. Ch. P.
Shcheglov A.V. Professional ethics of internal affairs bodies: educational and methodological materials. M.: Yui Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2002.

1 Arakelov Yu. S., Jugutanov B. K., Olynikov V.S. Professional ethics of a lawyer: Answers to exam tickets. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.

2 Ibrahimov M. M., Kulichenko V. V., Espatin B. G. Professional Ethics and aesthetic culture of police officers. Kiev, 2010.

3 Huseynov A. A. Golden rule of morality. M., 2008.

4 Professional ethics of law enforcement officers / ed. G. V. Dubova, A. V. Opalieva. M., 2009.

5 Professional ethics of law enforcement officers / ed. G. V. Dubova, A. V. Opalieva. M., 2009.

6 Professional ethics of law enforcement officers / ed. G. V. Dubova, A. V. Opalieva. M., 2009.

7 Professional ethics of law enforcement officers / ed. G. V. Dubova, A. V. Opalieva. M., 2009.

8 Professional ethics of law enforcement officers / ed. G. V. Dubova, A. V. Opalieva. M., 2009.

9 Professional ethics of law enforcement officers / ed. G. V. Dubova, A. V. Opalieva. M., 2009.

For many centuries, people dreamed of a happy and prosperous life, filled with high meaning and based on the ideals of good and justice, loyalty and honor, decency and friendly mutual assistance, beauty and harmony.

Conscience and kindness, honor and dignity, debt and responsibility -Ethi moral concepts and values \u200b\u200bhave always expressed the deepest aspirations of humanity in his spiritual development, discovered the prospects for human improvement and gave his life dignity and meaning. In myths and legends, legends and fairy tales, in religious searches and philosophical exercises, the dreams of people about the ideal world order, in which good and justice, duty and responsibility, honor and dignity are the basis and content of public relations. A significant contribution to the spiritual searches of mankind was made and made religion and art.

However, only in ethics as in the philosophical science, the world of moral values \u200b\u200band goals, morality as a whole becomes a subject of special interest. Ethics arose more than two and a half thousand years ago, when the cognitive, theoretical activity was separated from directly practical moral consciousness as a result of publicly practical moral consciousness, it gives a referral of the same practical problems of the moral being of a person with whom he constantly have to face everyday life What is good and that is bad, which is right, and what is not and why, how to act in order to preserve a good name and dignity. Ethics was initially formed as "practical philosophy", giving the concepts of a person about a vast life. At the same time, most philosophers considered their philosophical systems as the necessary foundation of "practical philosophy", seeing in it the main meaning and the result of their theoretical sentiment. Ethics always sought to theoretical understanding of the value behavioral and sense-sensitive problems of a person, as in the name of which need to live, to what to navigate, what to believe and what to strive for.

In order to answer questions regarding this topic, you must first answer what kind of good and evil to try to give these concepts.

The concept of good

In everyday life, we often use the word "good" and despite the lexical unity ("good wine" "approval" and. Etc.) It is necessary to understand the semantic differences in the use of this word. Important at the same time distinguish well in the relative and absolute sense. "Good" in one case is good, that is, pleasant and useful, and therefore valuable for the sake of something else, valuable for this individual, in the circumstances, etc., and in the other, there is a good expression. e. valuable in itself and not serving the means for the sake of a different goal. Good in the second absolute meaning-moral, ethical concept. It expresses the positive value of phenomena or events in their attitude to the highest value, to the ideal.

Welcome is what is evaluated positively, is considered as an important and significant person and society. There is a good thing that allows person and society to live, develop, gracious, reach harmony and perfection.

Let's see what was the idea of \u200b\u200bgood and evil in people who lived in different historical epochs

Prehistoric period (up to 3000 BC)

The prehistoric period is presented by most people, as the time in which people were like wild animals, and their daily goal were survival. In those distant times, people consisted in small tribal groups and were guided by instincts. And the concept of good and evil in those days was not divided by anything other than the intuition of the people put on this or another group. Good manifested in the form of positive emotions, and evil in the form of negative, intuitively.

Ancient period (from 3000 BC to 476 years old)

The ancient period is influenced by the good and evil as a result of development and the first geopolitical wars of states (Rome, Greece, Carthage), as well as union under one religion and the doctrine. At this time, the relationship to good and evil is brighter, and it is possible to allocate features on the basis of historical facts from various sources of that time.

The difference manifests itself:

on a religious plan (sacrifice in favor of gods, for example)
on the state plan (war with other countries, the enemy is evil, for example)
on everyday life (interpersonal conflicts, theft, for example)

Modern period (from 1789 AD to today)

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

It can be said that the current progress, the formation and democratization of society gives each person the opportunity for the measurement range. That you mean, now the tones are distinguished, and not just white and black. Some things depend on the situation, and if at first glance, it seems obvious, then with deep consideration and accounting for the nuances and stakeholders, some situations acquire.

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