What is the moral power of religion. Morality and religion. The role of religious morality in the development of culture

Moral and religion - Morality is a system of rules, concepts and feelings that regulate the relationship between people among themselves and their relationship to society.

Their implementation in the behavior of people is called morality.

Religion and morality are close, interrelated spheres of culture. The similarity of religion and morality is most noticeable in their spiritual manifestations.

However, the church was incomparably more influenced by the morality of society, rather than morality on religious cult and intracerer practice.

In accordance with this, violations of religious norms in the religious morality system are considered particularly sinful and punishable.

The disbelief in God, in the truth of dogmas and canons ranks first in intended for the confession of the list of interests. At the same time, in the list of sins condemned by the Church are also the main defects, tested by secular morality, and among virtues - the values \u200b\u200bof a universal nature.

Among the rising religion of values \u200b\u200bare loyalty and innovation, tolerance and hard work, coating and obverse.

Belief, hope and love in a Christian understanding mutually reinforce each other.

And yet, in the religious and secular presentation of morality, not all coincides, therefore the church concept of "sin" and the secular "vice" is not identical. The core of religious morality is the doctrine of sinfulness.

From the story about Adam and Eve, it follows that the fatal way the sinful start is transmitted from parents to children. Therefore, a person is already from birth - a fallen creature, whom he suffers to badly, rather than good.

A very important and paradoxical moment is noticed here in the moral nature of man.

Another Apostle Paul looked at the advantage of a person to a bad and tied it with a "carnal" beginning. "For we know that the law is spiritual, and I am a town, sold sin. For I do not understand what I do; Because I do not do that I want, but I hate, I do. If I do something that I do not want, I agree with the law that he is kind, and therefore I do not do that, but a sin living in me. For I know that he does not live in me, that is, in my flesh, good; Because the desire for good is in me, but to make it, I do not find it. Good, whom I want, do not, and evil, whom I do not want to do. If I do something that I do not want, I do not already do that, but a sin living in me. Poor I am a man! Who will save me from this body of death? Thank God (mine) Jesus Christ, our Lord. So, the same mind (mine) serve the law of God, and the fleet of the law of sin "(Rome 7: 14-20, 24-25).

Indeed, vicious temptations are often attractive and more affordable virtuous aspirations. In the morality feelings (passion) brought over the mind.

Psychologists state that in the structure of feelings, negative emotions are exceeded by the number and strength of the emotions are positive, so many people have selfish motifs over altruistic.

These are the earthly aspects of this moral paradox. In religion, it is represented as a curse, God's punishment for the estimated progenitor.

The idea of \u200b\u200bsinfulness is closely conjugate with the religious idea of \u200b\u200bsalvation.

Salvation acts as the ultimate goal of human religious efforts and the highest donation by God.

In the Christian morality, sexual perversion, crop flowering, licentiousness will decide. "It's good to conquer a woman," says the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7: 1).

So, Christianity builds virginity in the ideal. According to the apocalypse, 144 thousand righteers will appear before the throne, "which did not defile themselves with their wives, for they are virgins" (14, 4).

Marriage in Christianity is the sacrament in need of a special blessing of heaven, since sexual attraction is perceived as a beginning that tying to the earth and thereby distracting from heavenly purposes. Love for a woman can eclipse the love of God.

True, in the religions of antiquity there is a peculiar consecration of sexual attraction (and even worship of sex symbols), but this sacralization of the highest sensual pleasure was deprived of personal attachment - it is enough to familiarize himself with the "Kamasouter", the love treatise of Hinduism. Individual sexual love is a product of later civilization. Hence the religious justification of the social and family inequality of a woman, preventing her to the priesthood and the household restrictions, which are reflected in a number of pious edidations (for example, in "Domostroy").

Sometimes religious morality contains condemnation and alienation of the inner and non-believers.

In Islam, this trend is expressed in the idea of \u200b\u200bJihad - a sacred war against "incorrect." True, the moderate currents of Islam are interpreted by jihad as zealousness in faith, not allowing violence and murders.

The spread of world religions led to overcoming many cruel pagan customs and general mitigation of morals.

Many universal moral ideas were renewed in the village of religious exercises.

Christianity, for example, so raised the personality, which proclaimed her god-filistic and thereby introduced a powerful source of humanism to the moral world of Western culture.

The principles of the Nagorni sermon in their moral potential and today remain all-in-law.

Even a secular person will support the idea of \u200b\u200bMuslim establishment "clogging" about the duties of a secured person to help the poor.

Obvious in Islam and the moral and preventive meaning of the ban on wine. The same ban is present in the famous Buddhist ethical principles. Buddhist principle of harming harm to any living (Ahims) - the forerunner of the Code of Ecological morality of mankind today.

Religious moral encourages mercy and goodwill as a natural, voluntary and disinterested aspiration of the soul.

"Any good deed, made by duress, loses its reward," John Zlatoust notes (360-407).

Love encourages goodness: "There is no goodness without love," said Tikhon Zadonsky (1725-1783).

In determining the extent, it was such ideas that deteriorated so characteristic of hardly all confessions of charity. Most believers are engaged in her disinterested moral motion, in the name of love for neighbor and far.

Thus, religious morality contains an exalted ideological potential of mobility, which stimulates not so much care from the world in the name of its own salvation, how much matches to the highest samples of moral selflessness, which a follower of Hinduism M. Gandhi and Baptist Pastor M. l . King, prison leak F. P. Gaaz and Surgeon V. F. Waro-Yasenetsky (Archbishop Luka), Laureates of the Nobel Prize A. Schweitzer (missionary, musician and doctor) and nun Mother Teresa.

Undoubtedly, people's humanity of these outstanding personalities permeatedly deeply religiousness, and the moral potential of religion became the leading motive of their mobility.

At the same time, their active humanism is supervised and is universal.

Making good, believes, as a rule, is not only purely religious, but also worldly, civil satisfaction.

If he encourages the high-profile act alone and "fear of God" or the calculation of its own salvation, then this is a sign of a violation of his inner moral harmony.

Do not oppose the morality of believers and unbelievers.

Studies of psychologists, sociologists, specialists in ethics and criminologists show that there is no direct proportional dependence between human attitude towards religion and his behavior in society.

Purely formal religiosity will not keep an unstable personality from immoral actions.

No religion and no church is able to withstand the temptations, sinful impressions, injustice, malice and aggression, which are generated by real contradictions of social life.

Differences in relation to religion should not exacerbate the moral alienation between people.

Understanding and unity of believers of various religions and unbelievers is an important condition for social harmony and moral rehabilitation of society.

Content

Introduction ................................................................................................... ..3
1 Morality and Religion as a subject of consideration .......................................4
2 The ratio of morality and religion .............................................................................................. 6
2.1 general characteristics.……………………………………… ……………….6
2.2 Unity of religion and morality .......................................................... 8
2.3 The main differences between morality and religion .............................. 9
2.4 Contradictions between morality and religion .................................... 11
3 Relationships, interaction of morality and religion ................................. 12
3.1 Essence of the relationship of morality and religion .................................... .12
3.2 Interaction of morality and religion ........................................... ... 13
4 Law, customs, traditions, moral and religious norms ............. ... 13
Conclusion ......................................................................................................... ... ..17
List of sources used .................................................... 18

Introduction

Starting researching the theme, we note that the relationship between religion and morality is very close. Along with the religion, Moral dominates in this system. Morality - a broader concept than religion and religious morality. In comparison with other social standards, she has the most extensive scope. Only small sections of social reality are free from moral assessments. This means that the spheres of the religion and morality are largely intersecting, however, morality and religion remain independent sovereign regulatory formations.
This topic is relevant, since Morality and religion acts often in the same areas. Subject of consideration: religion and morality in their relationship, interaction and relation.
The ratio between religion and morality is complex, it includes four components: unity, difference, interaction and contradictions. The fulfillment of the work demanded a careful comparison of religion and morality, the clarification of the relationship between them was allowed to know both of these phenomena deeper.
Scientific literature in this issue enough. Theoretical works of Lukashev EA were the greatest interest in preparing the work. , Ageshina Yu.A., Alekseeva S.S., Wengerova A.B., Marchenko M.N. And, of course, it is impossible not to take into account the opinions of Matuzov N.I., Malo A.V., Lazareva V.V., Nidayysh V.M., Gorelov A.A., Gaysinovich., Bashcheu ..

Main part

1.Moral and religion as a subject of consideration.

Moral (Lat.Moralis - concerning the morals, morality) is a special type, one of the main methods of the regulatory regulation of a person's actions submitted by the set of norms and principles extending its influence on all and each and embody moral values. Morals covers moral views and feelings, life orientations and principles, goals and motives of actions and relationships, conducting the border between good and evil, conscientious and unscrupiance, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice, norm and abnormality, mercy and cruelty, etc. Moral embodies in their norms absolute values, because of which moral norms and estimates are higher criterion behavior.
Modern philosopher Francis Fukuyam considers morality as social capital, determining the degree of viability of society. Such an understanding of the morality is close to its definition as collective intuition.
Moral is aimed at the uniformity of the regulation of relations and reduce conflict in society.
It is necessary to separate the ideal (propagandable) and real moral systems.
Moral is formed mainly as a result of upbringing, to a lesser extent, as a result of the action mechanism of empathy or adaptation process. The moral of the individual, as an imperative subconscious mechanism, is poorly aware of conscious critical analysis and correction.
Moral is the subject of learning ethics. The wider concept coming beyond the morality is Etos.
Moral - the concept is more subtle than morality associated not only with the system of morals, but also with the spiritual world of man, its orientation on internal values. From issues of ecology, technology, political science, we will inevitably go to discuss the problems of the evolution of the inner world of a person. It is necessary to find ways of such an impact on it so that the inner world of man becomes its basic value. This is the key to the most important thing - the preservation of the type of Homo Sapiens.
The formation of morality has a natural-historical origin, inseparable from the very vital activity of people, in the process of which the values \u200b\u200btested by the experience of human dormitory and ideals are enshrined in a public and individual consciousness in the form of certain views, moral ideas and expectations. The subject forms moral norms and reigns them itself.
Religion (from Lat. Religiositis, piousness, shrine) is a worldview, an animated faith in God. This is not only faith or a totality of views. Religion is also a sense of linations, dependence and cruise relative to the mystery of the highest strength, giving support and worthy worship. That is how many wise men and philosophers - Zarathustra, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, Christ, Mohammed, understood the religion. Do not disperse with this meaning of religion and what modern thinkers are offered.
Theological religion is engaged in theologian, historians, philosophers, but they do it from different sides, the first takes care of the most accurate expression of the facts of religious consciousness, the data through revelation, the second considers the steps of religious consciousness, compares and classifies various religions. The philosopher seeks to comprehend the phenomenon of religiosity. A comparative study of religion began only in the XIX century. Philosophers are trying to allocate religious forms of consciousness, reveal their main types.
The judgments of thinkers:
"There are four grounds, by virtue of which in the minds of people are formed concepts about the gods:
1. Faith in the prediction of the future.
2. Fear in front of the formidable phenomenon of nature.
3. The abundance of objects that serve for our existence.
4. Observations of the constant order in the movement of the starry sky "(Kleyan from the ASSOS).
"The natural cause of religion is anxiety about the future" (Thomas Gobbs).
"The fear of the invisible force invented by the mind or imaginary on the basis of fudges admitted by the state is called religion not allowed - superstition. When imaginary strength is in fact, as we present it, then this is a true religion "(Thomas Hobbs).
"Religion is the art of fading people in order to distract their thoughts from the evil, which is caused by the power of immaneous power in this world (Paul Holbach).
"The philosophy of identity with religion" (Georg Hegel).
"If people are so weak, having religion, what will they do when they are without it?" (Benjamin Franklin).
"The power of religion rests mainly on faith in it, and the power of human laws is at fear of them. The antiquity of existence favors religion; The degree of faith is often measured with the remoteness of the subject in which we believe, for our mind is free from the side concepts of the remote epoch, which could contradict our beliefs "(Charles Montesquieu).

2. The ratio of morality and religion.

2.1. Total characteristic.

The development of civilization has determined the formation and functioning of the set of various norms of norms, interrelated. Bearing in mind the variety of norms acting in different areas Society's life, their close relationships, you can talk about the "system system" norm. From other types of norms used in society, the actual social norms are characterized by a sphere of action, the method of formation, content, functions, methods of reinforcement - sanctionation, dissemination mechanisms and action.

A holistic, dynamic system of social norms is a necessary condition for the life of society, a means of public administration, to ensure the agreed interaction of people, human rights, stimulating the growth of the welfare of the people. The social norm is nothing more than a hostel of people, the rule of socially significant behavior of members of society. Rules governing the behavior of people, the actions of social groups, teams, organizations, in their totality and make up a system of social norms.

The system of social norms reflects the level of economic, socio-political and spiritual development of society, it manifests the historical and national features of the country's life, the nature of state power, the quality of life of people. Norms regulating public relations specify objective laws, trends in social development, that is, such patterns that act with the historical necessity. The objective nature of these laws, the trends are organically related to the scientific knowledge and use of their people in its focusing social activities. Social norms are also associated with the laws of morality and morality, natural sciences, with the scientific and technical progress of society, the entire civilization.

The social norms system consists of various groups of norms acting in the relationships. In approaches to their classification, both basic and additional, comprehensive criteria can be applied. The specifics of the values \u200b\u200bare taken into account, the quality of the rules of behavior, incentives and guarantees of the implementation of the norm. In the works of modern domestic lawyers, classification of social norms, which have certain differences, features in the name of individual groups of norms are given. So, Professor N. I. Matowov calls among social norms legal, moral; Political, aesthetic, religious, family, corporate, norms of customs, traditions, habits, business customers, rules of etiquette, correctness, decency, rites, rituals. Professor M. N. Marchenko, in the textbook on the theory of state and law in the system of social norms, is considering the right, morality, custom and religion. Professor V. N. Kropanyuk divisions social norms on two grounds: according to the method of their establishment (creation) and on the means of protecting them from violations. He allocated on the basis of this social norms: the norms of law, the norms of morality (morality), norms public organizations, norms of customs, norms of traditions, norms of rituals. According to the content among social norms, they allocated political, technical, labor, family norms, rules of culture, religion, etc. Different opinions are expressed on the issue of so-called technical standards.

"Social norms are regulators of relations between people, groups, social communities - should be classified depending on the nature of social relations that regulate these norms." Social standards include economic, political, legal, moral, religious, aesthetic, etc.

In the process of regulating public relations, the active role of one group of social norms is complemented, corrected by other groups. Interaction of specific norms, groups of norms in unified system Social norms discloses the complex properties of the component partners. The effectiveness of social norms is expressed in achieving, maintaining public consent of citizens, a solid social order, an atmosphere of a fair social partnership and initiative, social responsibility, conscious compliance with citizens.

Principles and specific rules of behavior are carried out by regulatory, control, educational functions. For example, not only specific legal, religious or moral rules, but also legal, religious or moral principles have an active impact on public relations through the regulation of the volitional behavior of people by impact on its motives. The principles of justice and humanism, democratism, religion, respect for human rights, legality and others deeply affect the choice of a certain behavior of people, social groups, teams, and in the absence of a rule that directly regulates this type of relations. Social norms are associated with the interests of a person, society as a whole, as well as with the interests of social groups, the international community. Social norms that express interests, values \u200b\u200bpeculiar to all people, social groups, the entire international community, can be called universal norms.

In training and practical purposes it is very important to identify both the close relationship of all types of social norms and their specificity. This is especially true of religion and morality, which are of particular interest as the highest spiritual values \u200b\u200bin the social norms system.

Without lessons of morality, morality, ethics religion is unthinkable. Moral is the most important social institution, one of the forms of public consciousness. It represents a well-known set of historically developing and developing life principles, views, assessments, beliefs and based on them.

The definition reflects only the most common traits of morality. In fact, the content and structure of this phenomenon is deeper, richer and includes psychological moments: emotions, interests, motifs, installations and other terms. But the main thing in morality is the ideas of good and evil.

Morality has internal and external aspects. The first - expresses the depth of awareness of the individual of his own "I", the measure of responsibility, spirituality, public debt, duties.

Morality and morality are the same. In scientific literature and in practical use, they are used as identical. Some analysts are trying to establish here the differences, offering under the morality to understand the totality of norms, and under morality - the degree of their observance, i.e. Actual state, moral level. In this case, we proceed from the identity of these concepts. As for the ethics, this is a special category, meaning the teaching, science of morality, although it contains certain estimated criteria.

The second aspect of morality is the specific forms of the external manifestation of the above qualities, for morality cannot be reduced to bare principles. These two sides are closely intertwined.

"Morality implies a human value attitude not only to others, but also to himself, a sense of self-esteem, self-esteem, awareness of themselves as a person. Honor, dignity, good name is protected by law - these are the most important social values. It is sometimes more expensive than life. Once because of honor, they went to a duel, Pushkin, Lermontov died in such fights. Representations of honest and dishonest - another rod of morality. The highest law and higher court for the individual is its own conscience, which is considered to be the most complete and deepest expression of the moral essence of a person "

2.2. Connection of religion and morality.

Religions in the prevailing historically confessional forms have had a significant and comprehensive effect on the moral principles of the peoples, their confessants. Religious morality, being coded in religious texts, distributed with religions. It should be noted that monotheistic religions clearly and hard determine the boundaries of good and evil compared to religions, where polytheism is practiced. However, there are whole cultures and civilizations in which the formation of morality and morality occurred in the conditions of paganism (the ancient Greeks formulated the golden rule of morality and developed the very concept of ethics), or which may look like a degrees (Confucianism of the Chinese civilization).

Religion and morality are varieties of social norms forming a complete holistic system. regulatory regulation And, by virtue of this, they have some common features, they have a single regulatory framework; They pursue ultimately the same goals and objectives - streamlining and improving public Life, the introduction of the organizing, the development and enrichment of the personality, the approval of the ideals of humanism, justice.

Morality and religion are addressed to the same people, layers, groups, collectives; Their requirements are largely coincided. And Moral, and religion are designed to act as fundamental generalistic values, indicators of social and cultural progress of society, its creative and disciplining principles.

2.3. The main differences between morality and religion.

Being priority, morality and religion have a mutual influence on each other. Morals, unlike religion, there are no specialized conductors (such, for example, as sacred Scriptures) of its norms and principles. Moral reproduced by the power of beliefs, habits, moral debt, etc. Religion and religious morality are applied by special institutions (churches, temples) using special means and mechanisms.

Moral - a universal regulator and its influence applies to all or almost all areas of actions and actions of a person. Religion acts still selectively. There are spheres inaccessible to its impact, or its effect is sufficiently specific.

With the development of moral values \u200b\u200bin the world and spread the idea about the existence of the universal morality, the religion itself and its sacred texts began to be exposed sometimes to disappointing estimates from these, several excellent, moral systems. For example, rigidity and injustice towards innerities and atheists practicing in some religions are often considered immoral.

From many atheists, religion is often presented as a doctrine that carries immorality. At the same time, often in criticism is the fact that some people use religion as a tool to achieve their own goals. A similar opinion is sometimes expressed by the words of Sigmund Freud, saying that immorality at all times found no less religion than morality.

The Jewish God was accused of immorality: "The God of the Old Testament is perhaps the most unpleasant character in world literature. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unfair, ruthless supervoloch, a vengeful, bloodthirsty ethnic clever, a meno-naughty, homophobic, racist, detecting, sowing plague and death Sadomazochist, Capricious, evil hooligan "(Richard Dokinz).

And the gods of polytetic religions: "How are you cruel, about the gods, how envy you surpassed!" (Homer, Odyssey).

Moral supports evolution and scientific progress. Modern defenders of religion do not want to quarrel with science, they are afraid of her huge, ever-growing authority. The leaders of the Catholic Church are now claiming that the persecution of scientists inquisition was a tragic mistake, and now the church allegedly respects science and scientists.

The Russian Orthodox Church puts himself to merit the fact that it is less than the Catholic Church and the Catholic Inquisition, which is guaranteed in the persecution of advanced scientists. At the same time, the main - the root ideological opposite of scientific knowledge, justified by morality, and religious dogmas. After all, knowledge frees a person, gives him the opportunity to harmoniously develop, rebuild society on genuinely humanistic, moral principles. The religious ideology on the contrary, is generated by the domination of the person alien to the natural and public forces alien to him, it ships creative energy, strengthens the non-vision of man.

And the struggle of scientific and religious ideology in Russia was as acute and sometimes no less dramatic than in Western Europe.

Reading pre-revolutionary literature, quite often meet examples of the hostility of the church to science and technical progress. Where the church was able to slow down scientific and technical development, prevent the growth of the educational and cultural level of the population, she sought to do it with all their might.

Sometimes the dislike of Orthodoxy defenders to scientific and technical progress led to curiosities. Even railways and those called once the hostility of the highest hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church. Now it is difficult to believe in it, but Metropolitan Moscow Filaret (1782-1867) tried to counteract the construction of railways in Russia, arguing that they were damaged by the religious zeal of the Bogomolev: more walking towards the "holy places", according to this religious figure, much more useful To save the soul of a believer, rather than a trip by rail ....

In 1898, religious fanatics burned at the Nizhny Novgorod Fair. One of the first in Russia of cinema declared by them by the creations of the devil.

The storm of the resentment of the clergy environment caused a project of the construction in Moscow, the subway, considered by the City Duma back in 1903. The reactionary and oblique clergy strongly condemned the very idea about the construction of an underground road, calling it the "sinful dream" and stating that, being under the ground, in the "Underworld", passengers can get into the kingdom of Satan and destroy their souls. A position occupied by the Moscow clergy in a large extent contributed to the rejection of the project of the construction of the Metro City Duma.

Modern Russian Orthodox theologians are trying to create an impression that the Orthodox Church, as opposed, for example, from Catholic never hesitated with science and did not pursue advanced scientists. But real historical facts indicate its wary, disliked relationship, science and scientists. The Russian Orthodox Church, albeit on a smaller scale than the Catholic, in the pre-revolutionary period, prohibited and burned scientific books, organized the lap of the largest naturalists - materialists, pursued atheists and freedomsides, slowed down the development of education and science.

This is what the excursion is evidenced in history.

2.4 Contradictions between morality and religion

Tight interaction of religion and morality does not mean that the process is even, smooth, conflict. Between them, acute contradictions, collisions, discrepancies occur between them. Moral and religious requirements are not always and do not agree in everything, but often directly oppose each other. These inconsistencies, contradictions, have both social and dialectical origin, flow out of the action of the law of unity and the struggle of opposites.

The reasons for the contradictions between them are that they have different regulation methods, various approaches, criteria in assessing the behavior of subjects. It matters the inadequacy of the reflection of the real social processes, the interests of various social layers, groups, classes. The religion is more conservative for its nature, it inevitably lags behind the flow of life, besides, in it the most quite a few collisions. Moral is more mobile, dynamic, actively and more more than what is happening changes. These two phenomena develop unevenly, morality predominate elements of flexibility, spontaneity. From here in any society is always a different religious and moral condition.

Although the religion is based on Morality, this does not mean that religion mechanically fixes all the ignitions of morality, regardless of their essence and accessories. Morals are heterogeneous, reflects the aspirations of various social groups, layers, classes, states, nations, religions, in it can confuse mutually exclusive views. F. Engels wrote: "Presentations of people about good and evil changed from the people to the people, from the century to the century, which often directly contradicted each other." Moral, as a rule, turns out to be ahead, but sometimes religious establishments serve for morality as a guideline and can have an advanced impact on it.

Often, situations are often created when the religion resolves something, and the moral prohibits, and on the contrary, the law prohibits, and Morality permits. The lack of agreement and "mutual understanding" between them is reflected, ultimately, on the regulatory and educational capabilities of both of these funds.

Introduction ..................................................................................................... ..3.

1 Morality and Religion as a subject of consideration .......................................4

2 The ratio of morality and religion .............................................................................................. 6

2.1 General characteristic. ................................................................6

2.2 Unity of religion and morality .......................................................... 8

2.3 The main differences between morality and religion .............................. 9

2.4 Contradictions between morality and religion .................................... 11

3 Relationships, interaction of morality and religion ................................. 12

3.1 Essence of the relationship of morality and religion .................................... .12

3.2 Interaction of morality and religion ........................................... ... 13

4 Law, customs, traditions, moral and religious norms ............. ... 13

Conclusion ............................................................................... ... ..17

List of sources used .................................................... 18

Introduction

This topic is relevant, since Morality and religion acts often in the same areas. Subject of consideration: religion and morality in their relationship, interaction and relation.

The ratio between religion and morality is complex, it includes four components: unity, difference, interaction and contradictions. The fulfillment of the work demanded a careful comparison of religion and morality, the clarification of the relationship between them was allowed to know both of these phenomena deeper.

There are many scientific literature on this issue. Theoretical works of Lukashev EA were the greatest interest in preparing the work. , Ageshina Yu.A., Alekseeva S.S., Wengerova A.B., Marchenko M.N. And, of course, it is impossible not to take into account the opinions of Matuzov N.I., Malo A.V., Lazareva V.V., Nidayysh V.M., Gorelov A.A., Gaysinovich., Bashcheu ..

Main part

Modern philosopher Francis Fukuyam considers morality as social capital, determining the degree of viability of society. Such an understanding of the morality is close to its definition as collective intuition.

Moral is aimed at the uniformity of the regulation of relations and reduce conflict in society.

It is necessary to separate the ideal (propagandable) and real moral systems.

Moral is formed mainly as a result of upbringing, to a lesser extent, as a result of the action mechanism of empathy or adaptation process. The moral of the individual, as an imperative subconscious mechanism, is poorly aware of conscious critical analysis and correction.

Moral is the subject of learning ethics. The wider concept coming beyond the morality is Etos.

Moral - the concept is more subtle than morality associated not only with the system of morals, but also with the spiritual world of man, its orientation on internal values. From issues of ecology, technology, political science, we will inevitably go to discuss the problems of the evolution of the inner world of a person. It is necessary to find ways of such an impact on it so that the inner world of man becomes its basic value. This is the key to the most important thing - the preservation of the type of Homo Sapiens.

The formation of morality has a natural-historical origin, inseparable from the very vital activity of people, in the process of which the values \u200b\u200btested by the experience of human dormitory and ideals are enshrined in a public and individual consciousness in the form of certain views, moral ideas and expectations. The subject forms moral norms and reigns them itself.

Religion (from Lat. Religiositis, piousness, shrine) is a worldview, an animated faith in God. This is not only faith or a totality of views. Religion is also a sense of linations, dependence and cruise relative to the mystery of the highest strength, giving support and worthy worship. That is how many wise men and philosophers - Zarathustra, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Socrates, Christ, Mohammed, understood the religion. Do not disperse with this meaning of religion and what modern thinkers are offered.

Theological religion is engaged in theologian, historians, philosophers, but they do it from different sides, the first takes care of the most accurate expression of the facts of religious consciousness, the data through revelation, the second considers the steps of religious consciousness, compares and classifies various religions. The philosopher seeks to comprehend the phenomenon of religiosity. A comparative study of religion began only in the XIX century. Philosophers are trying to allocate religious forms of consciousness, reveal their main types.

The judgments of thinkers:

"There are four grounds, by virtue of which in the minds of people are formed concepts about the gods:

1. Faith in the prediction of the future.

2. Fear in front of the formidable phenomenon of nature.

3. The abundance of objects that serve for our existence.

4. Observations of the constant order in the movement of the starry sky "(Kleyan from the ASSOS).

"The natural cause of religion is anxiety about the future" (Thomas Gobbs).

"The fear of the invisible force invented by the mind or imaginary on the basis of fudges admitted by the state is called religion not allowed - superstition. When imaginary strength is in fact, as we present it, then this is a true religion "(Thomas Hobbs).

"Religion is the art of fading people in order to distract their thoughts from the evil, which is caused by the power of immaneous power in this world (Paul Holbach).

"The philosophy of identity with religion" (Georg Hegel).

"If people are so weak, having religion, what will they do when they are without it?" (Benjamin Franklin).

"The power of religion rests mainly on faith in it, and the power of human laws is at fear of them. The antiquity of existence favors religion; The degree of faith is often measured with the remoteness of the subject in which we believe, for our mind is free from the side concepts of the remote epoch, which could contradict our beliefs "(Charles Montesquieu).

2. The ratio of morality and religion.

2.1. Total characteristic.

The development of civilization has determined the formation and functioning of the set of various norms of norms, interrelated. Bearing in mind the variety of norms acting in different spheres of society's life, their close relationships, we can talk about the "system system" norm. From other types of norms used in society, the actual social norms are characterized by a sphere of action, the method of formation, content, functions, methods of reinforcement - sanctionation, dissemination mechanisms and action.

The social norms system consists of various groups of norms acting in the relationships. In approaches to their classification, both basic and additional, comprehensive criteria can be applied. The specifics of the values \u200b\u200bare taken into account, the quality of the rules of behavior, incentives and guarantees of the implementation of the norm. In the works of modern domestic lawyers, classification of social norms, which have certain differences, features in the name of individual groups of norms are given. So, Professor N. I. Matowov calls among social norms legal, moral; Political, aesthetic, religious, family, corporate, norms of customs, traditions, habits, business customers, rules of etiquette, correctness, decency, rites, rituals. Professor M. N. Marchenko, in the textbook on the theory of state and law in the system of social norms, is considering the right, morality, custom and religion. Professor V. N. Kropanyuk divisions social norms on two grounds: according to the method of their establishment (creation) and on the means of protecting them from violations. He allocated such social norms based on this: the norms of law, the norms of morality (morality), the norms of public organizations, the norms of customs, the norms of traditions, the norms of rituals. According to the content among social norms, they allocated political, technical, labor, family norms, rules of culture, religion, etc. Different opinions are expressed on the issue of so-called technical standards.

"Social norms are regulators of relations between people, groups, social communities - should be classified depending on the nature of social relations that regulate these norms." Social standards include economic, political, legal, moral, religious, aesthetic, etc.

In the process of regulating public relations, the active role of one group of social norms is complemented, corrected by other groups. The interaction of specific norms, groups of norms in a single system of social norms discloses the complex properties of the component partners. The effectiveness of social norms is expressed in achieving, maintaining public consent of citizens, a solid social order, an atmosphere of a fair social partnership and initiative, social responsibility, conscious compliance with citizens.

In training and practical purposes it is very important to identify both the close relationship of all types of social norms and their specificity. This is especially true of religion and morality, which are of particular interest as the highest spiritual values \u200b\u200bin the social norms system.

Without lessons of morality, morality, ethics religion is unthinkable. Moral is the most important social institution, one of the forms of public consciousness. It represents a well-known set of historically developing and developing life principles, views, assessments, beliefs and based on them.

The definition reflects only the most common traits of morality. In fact, the content and structure of this phenomenon is deeper, richer and includes psychological moments: emotions, interests, motifs, installations and other terms. But the main thing in morality is the ideas of good and evil.

Morality has internal and external aspects. The first - expresses the depth of awareness of the individual of his own "I", the measure of responsibility, spirituality, public debt, duties.

The second aspect of morality is the specific forms of the external manifestation of the above qualities, for morality cannot be reduced to bare principles. These two sides are closely intertwined.

2.2. Connection of religion and morality.

Religion and morality are a variety of social norms that form a holistic system of regulatory regulation and, by virtue of this, have some common features, they have a unified regulatory framework; They are ultimately the same goals and objectives - streamlining and improving public life, the introduction of the organizing, the development and enrichment of the individual, the approval of the ideals of humanism, justice.

Morality and religion are addressed to the same people, layers, groups, collectives; Their requirements are largely coincided. And Moral, and religion are designed to act as fundamental generalistic values, indicators of social and cultural progress of society, its creative and disciplining principles.

2.3. The main differences between morality and religion.

1. Phenomenon and the essence of morality

Moral, or morality, is in the form of ideas about good and bad, correct and improper behavior, concepts of good, debt, humanity (humanity), justice, honor, in the form of a voting of conscience, relevant feelings, aspirations and intentions, actions, their own or others that we evaluate positively or negatively, approve or condemn. The task is to reveal the essence of these phenomena. Ethical thought is working on her decision from ancient times, but now the generally accepted theory of morality has not yet been created.

In the 60-70s. XX century We had a rather intensive work on theoretical understanding of morality, various points of view were put forward. So, it was proposed to determine the morality through its individual concepts, for example, through the concepts of good and evil or humanity. But in this case, the logical circle arises, because these concepts themselves can only be determined through the concept of moral, which enters into itself something in common and each of them is not fully expressed completely. In another definition, morality was indicated that it is useful in many respects. But is it possible to say only about morality? Definitions of individual concepts were also proposed. For example, good was determined as something that brings benefit. But then all the good, bringing any other benefit, that is, any means to achieve the goal, must be considered good. Moral specifics with this approach we do not detect.

The problem of the specific purpose of morality was one of the main (if not basic) in the history of ethics. Two goals were indicated: the benefit of the personality and the benefit of society. Probably the first who marked them was Aristotle. Moreover, he raised the question about their ratio, noting that the benefit of society should be considered more preferable. Stoicism was the only genuine purpose considered to fulfill the debt, that is, the service of society, epicureism, in the first place, put the achievement of personal happiness. In a new time, two points of view were also preserved: altruism (the theory of moral feeling A. Smith) and egoism (theory of "reasonable egoism", utilitarianism). "The synthesis of the opposites" was produced by Immanowil Kant, who was and, probably, remains a thinker, most deeply penetrated into the mystery of the moral phenomenon. (We can only interpret his doctrine of morality, although with some amendments of philosophical, and to some extent ethical character.)

From the ethical ideas of Kant, its categorical imperative is most famous. Do not lead to this Cant of wording literally, it can be said that in the first place it puts the requirement to act in accordance with the "general legislation" expressing, obviously, the interests of society as a whole, the overall benefit, and to the second - respect and personal benefit least to each member of the community not only as to the medium, but also as a goal. The unity of these two goals is not yet emphasized, but is clearly implied by their inclusion in one formula.

In essence, developing the idea of \u200b\u200ba categorical imperative, Kant gives the definition of the highest good as the unity of debt and happiness and clarifies the understanding of the person as a goal, determining the latest as the ultimate goal. Since the identity is assumed as a subject that performs the main moral law, this law can be formulated as an attitude (amount of relationships) of a person to certain purposes, namely: to the common good as a source and leading goal, to a personal good as the ultimate goal And to their unity (coordination, harmony) as a higher goal, the highest good.

In the first approximation, the Company serves only a tool for its members. But individuals can exist only in society, so they must take care of its good, and therefore refer to it as a goal. In turn, the Company relates to them as intelligent, for their actions have a socially appropriate character. Since the well-being of society is the first and basic condition of the well-being of individuals, and all of their activities should be socially appropriate, the benefit of society should be for the personality source and lead. But it is balanced by the fact that the personal benefit for society should be the ultimate goal. Moral created by society as the necessary spiritual form of its being, and only within the borders of this form it is possible an idea and practice of such an attitude to personality, the rate requiring relevant respect for its blessing. The condition of this respect is respect for the system of public norms in general, the recognition of its initial and leading importance for socially significant activities of individuals.

It is incorrect to characterize the benefit of the personality as a higher goal, since the highest goal is recognized by the unity of personal and common benefit; Two different goals can not be higher towards each other. This is clear if the question is placed in general terms. But in certain situations, each of them may turn out to be above another. The overall benefit becomes higher in the conditions requiring a person seriously risking health or life when it comes to the protection of the Motherland, the salvation of man, and in some other cases. Personal benefit can be higher in relation to some common interests, such as production, when the patient needs to be exempted from work. But these are extreme cases, exceptions confirming the general principle of the unity of personal and public as the highest good. His violations in such situations are the necessary moments confirming it in general.

On intellectual (rational) level, morality is given to us in the form of a number of well-known specific concepts, the meaning of which we understand intuitively. The formula of the main moral law (OMZ), or the main moral relationship (OMO), allows them to make their definition and thereby understand their meaning logically, that is, clearly and clearly. In this case, they can already be applied theoretically, as ethical categories. So, the debt can be determined as the form of expression of the need for moral relations (MO), good - as a goal and the result of MO, humanity - as an attitude to the benefit of the person as a final goal, etc.

From OMZ, or OMO, there are provisions that obviously need to be considered by the general laws of morality. They are formulated using specific moral concepts. For example: it is necessary to fulfill its duty, to make people good, etc. These are the laws of debt, good, humanity, respect for human dignity, justice, solidarity (collectivity). In consciousness, they act as principles. From the rules, they differ in that they cannot be violated, to allow exceptions, whereas from the rules may be the exceptions required or allowed by the principles. (So, not in all cases you can tell the truth.) The general idea of \u200b\u200bmorality is the moral ideal, which obviously has two aspects: the ideal of the moral personality and the ideal of humane society.

Morality in full includes emotional and subconscious levels, as well as the will in its moral aspect, as good or evil. Knowledge in the field of ethics, if they are convictions, play a certain moral and regulatory role, and therefore can be attributed to the content of morality. Do not be considered an element of morality behavior (in his ethical sense). It is illogical to recognize morality by the controller behavior and at the same time include it in the same morality. (It makes sense to distinguish between morality and the subject of ethics, the ethical region as a whole, because it includes immoral phenomena, views and feelings, contradictory morals, as well as actions actions, of which there are behavior in an ethical sense and which are the consequences of the implementation [or non-identization ] Moral views and feelings.)

2. The basis of morality

Morality is the sphere of norms, requirements, prohibitions, the sphere of proper. She says not about how people come in reality, but about how to do. And it is a value form of consciousness: assesses the actions of people corresponding to the right, recognizes them correct and approves, and the contradictory considers it wrong and condemns. There is a point of view, according to which the proper and existence is absolute opposites, so that due will be brought to life from somewhere from the outside, from some independent of her peace. But if there was nothing in due, there was nothing that would fit the reality, how could it come into contact with it, especially in it to incarnate? Moral actions have always been committed and committed, therefore, morality is not only something proper, but also in existing, refers to the sphere of existing, and due to the right thing. Moral-proper is a spiritual, subjective form of reflection of its objective basis - a certain real need.

As the ancient philosophers said, everything in the world occurs as needed. (Accident is only a form of need.) Knowing what is the essence of morality, it is possible to determine what the necessity underlying it is based on it. To do this, refer to the nature of a person, to its inherent needed, which are concluded in human needs. The latter have an insurmountable force and with understandable need forced to act for their satisfaction. On their basis, the interests arise in which conditions are expressed, as necessary to meet the needs.

N. V. Medvedev in the article "In search of the foundation of morality" objects to the explanation of the morality on the basis of the nature of people, from their needs, considering it "naturalism" in ethics. "Naturalism", according to the author, considers morality as a "function" of some natural reality. So, morality should be output from an outprior reality? This is not talking about this. But it is clear that he opposes materialism in the understanding of morality. Idealism remains, from the position of which the scientific explanation of morality is impossible. The author denies the presence of a single human nature, but then it recognizes it, noticing, however, what can we talk about it only at the maximum abstract level, and therefore (?) It is not the basis for understanding morality. There is little logic here, but there is a reason to say a few words about the unified nature of man and about the meaning of its abstract understanding.

Obviously, all people have something in common, which allows you to attract them to one type - a man is reasonable. It was forced to recognize N. V. Medvedev himself. As for the abstract concept of human nature, it, of course, cannot be considered a bad. Its important thing is that it allows you to highlight and fix the most essential features inherent in all people. As K. Marx noted, if we want to understand what is useful for a person, you need to know what is its common nature and how it is modified into each historical era. In the morals of all eras and cultures there is something in common. The same morality is inherent in the same degree of commonality as the nature of man, therefore their abstractions are quite comparable. So, you can ask a question: is there any properties in nature, features, of which it would be possible to derive essential peculiarities of morality, first of all the module-peculiar to her, as in its formal, and in a meaningful value?

We will proceed from the synergue concept of human nature, according to which all its levels are essential from physical. The needs of a person are directly due to the two highest levels - biological and technical. The latter is called social. But for us, in this case, it is difficult to understand that we will have to understand the main life of the public life of people mainly under socialism, but only her form, the attitude of their compound in the community. In the exact and literal sense, the term "sociality" has exactly this value. In this sense, sociality is the property of the whole animal world. In turn, sociality is a type of associativity, which, as obvious, is a common property of matter, peace in all forms of its being. In this sense, the person is correctly called not a biosocial creature, but biotechnical, or biotechnological.

The initial impulses encouraging activities, man, like animals, give biological needs. But to satisfy them, he again, like most animal species, should be a member of society. Life in society makes a man creative social, as it happened with his animals ancestors, not only with the closest, but also with the most remote. Within the time of their existence, animals originated, formed and developed, transmitting genetically from generation to generation, social instincts, feelings and stereotypes of social behavior. Based on biological needs, social, inherited by people, who have received a conscious, conceptual form of expression arise. The essence of sociality does not change. It is the same for animals, and for people and consists in coordinating the individual and collective, which can be considered the highest law of social and individual expediency in the aspect of their interaction. This means that the needs of the individual should be satisfied with the needs of other members of the community and the well-being of the generality as a whole, and the needs of the whole - taking into account the needs of individual individuals, of all and each. Such a ratio of two groups of needs and underlies morality.

Individual needs and interests represent the basis of morality without themselves, but in their synthesis with common. It is the synthesis, their mutual denial and approval is this basis. Therefore, personal interest from the point of view of morality can, if necessary, be limited to reprimand in favor of the public. The moral necessity turns out to be higher, stronger, if there is a normal identity in moral terms than those needed, based on the connection of which it occurs. This can explain the great power of a sense of debt and voices of conscience, huge historical meaning Laws of humanity and justice.

Morality is an integral side of the nature of man and the existence of humanity. But its regulatory force changes during historical development. In certain epochs, social morality is at an extremely low level. At the same time, people in their bulk consciously or unconsciously, with a greater or less energy, seek to achieve a moral ideal. It can be said that in history there is a need for the law of establishing and preserving the unity, the harmony of the interests of the person and society, in other words, the need to implement the highest law of the feasibility of the relationship between the individual and society. It seems that this law that determines the essence of morality is the general and main criterion of historical progress, assessing historical figures and events. Manifesting themselves in everyday existing forms of morality, it affects the various sides of public practice, on the course of history.

Ultimately, the development of society is not determined by morality, but by the production activities of people, as a result of which the forms of their life change. Thus, with the occurrence of a private nature of labor and private ownership, an individualistic tendency in the consciousness and behavior of people, equal, friendly relations were replaced by hostility, "the struggle against all", the domination of those over others. As F. Engels wrote, it was a real sin with a simple moral height of the generic system. Morality was largely "in the Pagon", and this situation in certain conditions Stored to the present. But there were always people - "Prophets", "Saints", poets and writers, scientists and philosophers - who believed in the possibility of creating such a public system, in which it will be a fearful genuine moral ideal, will trust good, humanity and justice. It was a socialist idea that was a consequence of moral intricacies, ideas about the highest human intelligence of moral laws, a moral ideal. Socialist was the ideology of early Christianity. In a new time, the teachings of utopian socialists, scientific socialism K. Marx and F. Engels appeared. In the twentieth century The era of the transition from capitalism to socialism began, from class inequality to social equality, to the practical implementation of a moral ideal. This is based on again the development of production, but now already leading to the emergence of a social nature of labor, which means that the need to establish social ownership of labor.

The moral ideal and the idea of \u200b\u200bsocialism is essentially identical. They equally flow from the same features of human nature. The most important need for sociality is to ensure its strength. Social equality between people strengthens public SystemAnd the inequality relaxes it, ultimately destroys. If the private interests of some kind of society are stronger than general, it will eventually lead to his death. So, the law of conservation of society is the social equality of its members. This law is the essence of socialism. It also determines the essential feature of morality. For morality, all members of generality are equal, everything is characterized by the same human dignity. The assumption of inequality from the point of view of morality is impossible: an integral line of morality is that it is followed by her own will, freely (such is another principle of a categorical imperative). But maybe the individual can be morally free if he is the suffering side in the system of social inequality, which N. G. Chernyshevsky said that there are some free on the golden dishes, and others - to sleep under the bridge. Will such a person be guided by morality in relation to all members of society and society as a whole?

How to understand the position of the classiness of morality? The moral of the dominant classes to the extent that it was characteristic of them is applied only to their internal relations, in which the equality of class members is recognized. On representatives of the lower classes, it is not transferred. So, the slaves in the ancient world were considered not by people, but "speaking guns." Recall that A. S. Pushkin in the Village poem wrote about his time:

Without seeing tears, not a moan,

On the Pump of People Choices Fate,

Here is a born wildly without feeling, without the law,

Awarded a violent vine

And work, and property, and the time of the farmer.

Leaning on an alien plow, conquering Ticham,

Here Slavery Skinny worschers in the Brazdam

Inexorable owner.

Is it possible to talk here about morality, common for all society?! For the bourgeoisie from morality there are pitiful nurses. It comes to shift the antipode of morality - egoism, the leading motive becomes the unfortunate thirst for personal enrichment. Amoralism dominates in international relations. Thus, it is obvious that morality in its true understanding may be united for the whole society, to spread to all its members and be an effective regulator of the behavior of everyone only in conditions of social equality, that is, with socialism.

Is it possible under capitalism, nothing in it is not changing, morally combine, consolidate society? Is it possible to "consolidate" billionaire with school teacherwho lacks funds to pay for utility bills, for a place for a child in kindergarten, for treatment and medicine, etc.? If something "unites them," is that they both deduct income tax on one "flat" scale.

3. Morality and Mind

For more complete characteristics of the morality, it should be approached from the point of view of gnoseology. Now in some publications it is possible to meet the statement that Morality expresses the subjective interests of different classes and layers of society, which means that it is not related to the truth. She seemed to have no objective grounds, so each in its own way. The fact that from one point of view is fair, on the other - unfairly, the concept of justice does not have a strictly definite meaning, and in political struggle to use it almost useless. A more "deep" argument in favor of this position is there that Morality is a regulatory value system, and standards and evaluations are subjective, have ideological importance, they cannot be counted to the field of knowledge and scientifically justify or refute.

Is it really? Does moral attitude towards the field of knowledge and mind, does it contain truth or is purely conditional and subjective? The answer to this question is important for understanding the social and historical significance of morality. Speaking of knowledge and mind, it is impossible not to affect the question of faith, because these concepts are closely connected. IN lately They sometimes be identified that it is impossible to be recognized correct.

The person is determined as a creature with a mind. With a non-smaller right we can say that he is a moral being. Morality and mind are inseparable. Is it possible to imagine that a completely reasonable person was amoral at the same time? What is mind? Does each other differ from each other, for example, the concept of mind and mind? Is it possible to consider a religious faith with the view of the mind? How do the mind and knowledge correlate between themselves?

Obviously, it will be correct to assume that the mind is knowledge taken in a functionality, as a basis, means for thinking and any other activities, for their own growth and development. Knowledge is the content of mind. Of course, you need to be able to use it, but for this again we need certain methodological and methodological knowledge. No knowledge - there will be no reason. It is already clear that the religious faith cannot claim the title of mind, for it is not based on any knowledge of its estimated subject. To make sure that it is necessary to understand what the word "knowledge" means.

According to the philosophical dictionary (FES, 1983), knowledge is an adequate reflection of reality in consciousness in the form of ideas, concepts, judgments, theories. Apparently, in a stricter sense of the elementary form of knowledge, judgment is, so that ideas and concepts can be considered only elements of knowledge. According to the fome Aquinsky, knowledge arises on the basis of sensual perception of things. The child moves one wand to another and finds out that one plus one is equal to two. So begins mathematical knowledge. All knowledge is ultimately based on experience, without it, it is impossible to get knowledge. If knowledge is already received in finished video, lessons or from textbooks, then and then this position remains true. Knowledge includes the moment of conviction or confidence that it corresponds to its subject, is a genuine knowledge. Therefore, the knowledge is inherent in the modality of the necessary truth, the apoditivity. ("Conviction" and "confidence" - not the same as "faith", but the hardness in recognizing the truth of both knowledge and faith. D. Yum believed that knowledge precedes the "Animal Vera", but most likely he I meant the conviction. In fact, on the contrary, knowledge as a material serves as a necessary prerequisite for faith.)

I. Kant showed a fundamental distinction between knowledge and believers, giving them comparative definitions: knowledge has a sufficient objective basis, the faith is insufficient. If the modality of knowledge is the need (recognition of the truth of judgment), then the modality of faith is an opportunity. It can be said that knowledge categorically, faith is problematic. Kant notes a moderate and modest tone of faith that does not require unconditional submission. This means that faith does not enter into full, unconditional conviction in his truth that it is inherent in the moment of disbelief. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between rational and irrational faith. The first is based on knowledge and can be considered as knowledge in the formation process. In science, for example, attitude towards hypothesis. If it is justified, faith turns into knowledge, and the conviction in its truth becomes complete. Such faith serves as an incentive of knowledge and practice. We are interested in religious faith, irrational in nature. Below we will talk about faith, meaning it.

Religious faith is also preceded by certain knowledge, without which it would be completely devoid of any subject and any meaning. Using cognitive material, faith, however, gives it a turning interpretation. Specific for it is the recognition of the supernatural, what is missing in nature, it is alien to her, it is incompatible with it. Some moments of the real world, Vera attaches an absolute character in the presentation, thereby making them unpredictable and logically unthinkable. So the words "omnipotence", "omniscience", "allability" appear. But they can not be thought without contradictions. The question arises: if there is a "world spirit", called "God", possessing these attributes, together, if "he" loves people, according to theologian, then why is there so much evil in our world? Our "weak" mind can not understand this and never be able, because it is radically incompatible with elementary human logic. You can say: "I believe, for absurd." But why should I believe? Who needs it and why? In one educational manual on philosophy, it is argued that theology is special species Cognition, for faith is available that it is impossible to know "in the forms of human logic". Now they declare that faith is a mind, and even higher than the human mind. But there are a variety of beliefs, you can believe anything, there can be no restrictions here. What, all beliefs are intelligent, or only one faith is intelligent, that we recognize? But with what logic it can be proved? Where is the criterion with which you can distinguish a reasonable faith from unreasonable? Obviously, we will choose the usefulness criterion for us. Then it should be a faith due to reason, but it is no longer a religious faith, and the faith is rational, resulting from understanding the role of reason in our life. A reasonable person can and should be guided by his mind and only to them, for the other, and even the best, higher than our, we do not know and not know if it were even for it, for we can think correctly and act only in the "coordinates ", In the" limits "of our mind. Our mind is often unreasonable, brings us a lot of evil. But overcome its incompleteness, the imperfection can be only one way - with the help of the most reason. There is no other way and will not.

Is it possible to explain morality from the will of the "World Spirit"? How to do it if we do not know what this expression mean? It turns out an explanation of still incomprehensible from generally incomprehensible. In one of the dialogues of Plato, Socrates asks: is something evil considered, because God has fallen so much, or did he take it so much because it is in itself evil? This question contains doubt that morality has a divine origin, as well as the assumption that it has an objective meaning and does not depend on the subjective arbitrariness. Kant directly argued that the moral of autonomous, independent in relation to religion. (True, he still left the place of faith, which is associated with its agnosticism.) In fact, morality can only be explained within the limits of mind, on the basis of our knowledge of the person that we tried to show above. We have seen that morality is subordinate to objective laws that do not depend on the will of people, which means that moral estimates cannot be manipulated, considered them subjective and absolutely flying, which do not require any compulsory recognition. Nihilism in relation to morality is widespread, but it is false and intolerant that we should clearly understand.

Do they have norms and evaluations, the ideology that operates them, attitudes towards knowledge, mind, truth? On this issue, a negative opinion is quite common. Ideologies say that it is subjective, and since philosophy includes an ideological component, it cannot be considered science. This is an example of absolute, metaphysical, that is, anti-dialectic, distinction of various aspects of a single human spirit, which are actually deeply connected with each other. Is ideology - not a form of reflection of reality, which means it contributes to a cognitive moment? Another thing is that it can be adequate or inadequate, true or false. Why does scientific theory can at the same time be ideology, play a specific social role?

The norm or requirement, a call or a ban on its logical form cannot be characterized as true or false, for they are not talking about what is, but about what only should be. But everything is not so simple. After all, due, as we noted, expresses the necessary, existing objectively. Required can be described using an explanation or evaluation judgment. Take such a judgment: "Be honest moral." This judgment has the form of truth. This truth is called: "We must be honest," and therefore it should be considered correct. It is clear that the moral and correct and moral and true, essentially identical. And this, in turn, means that morality should be attributed to the field of knowledge and that it is included in the content of the mind. In addition, it is reasonable in a broader sense.

Under the "reasonable", "rational", obviously, it is necessary to understand what it is advisable from the point of view of the needs and interests of a person is useful for him, is a blessing by itself or means to achieve some good. (In addition to the factory, the means also acts as a good. Therefore, it is incorrect to determine the good as something that brings benefits.) It is considered that the "rational" means the scope of the mind, in contrast to feelings, instincts, intuition, etc., which relate to the region of irrational. But if under rational understand the reasonable and appropriate, then under his antipode it is necessary to think the anti-refulsory and inappropriate. Meanwhile, feelings and instincts can be quite reasonable. Therefore, it is better to accept (as I offered K. Popper in one of my works) another terminology: "Intellectual" instead of "rational" to designate the sphere of the mind and "unscutically designed" to indicate that it is beyond. Then one should no longer be perplexed or disagreement of recognition that morality at its lower levels (feelings, intuition), not to mention intellectual, is reasonable, rational, and through higher Level (the level of concepts, judgments, etc.) enters the scope of the mind. It remains only to repeat that there is no human mind without morality. And from this it follows that morality cannot be attributed to the field of religious faith, which is an irrational opposite reason.

To overlapping the concept of mind, it is worth comparing it with the concept of mind (without claiming the unattended interpretation of the meaning of these words). The mind, apparently, can be understood as a logical ability to achieve the necessary goals, regardless of their significance: they may be kind or evil or not to have social meaning. It is just a "algebra" of solving any intellectual tasks. Mind is something much more: it is contained, includes the desire for supreme life goals, including moral, which are taken into account when achieving private purposes. It is especially important for us that the mind will imbued with moral content, guided by the laws of morality. And at the same time he does not change himself, for the knowledge of these laws is just as objectively true as knowledge of scientific laws and in general any knowledge.

Close to the concept of mind is the concept of wisdom. To distinguish them, it seems quite difficult. In our opinion, wisdom is the highest degree of intelligence, similar to genius in scientific, technical or artistic work. Wisdom is based on strong intuition and large vital experience, but the leading importance for it has a high moral attitude, the desire to approve and protect the principles of morality, to implement in their behavior, in the behavior of other people, in society the requirements of the moral ideal, the essence of which is reflected in the morality. According to Kant, wisdom means the knowledge of the highest good and the compliance of the will with the highest blessing, that is, the unity of debt and happiness, public and personal. Consequently, wisdom is an adequate understanding of the general nature of a person in its social aspect and the desire to implement its requirements, in other words, following the law (the principle) of the highest human feasibility and the corresponding major moral law.

Such, in our opinion, the forms in which the rational content of the human soul is expressed. And morality with necessity should be considered as one of these forms. Its rational nature can not be doubtful.

4. Morality and religion

Religion is the oldest form of worldview. For tens of thousands of years, it was the only ideology. And in that and in another quality, it included in its composition morality, which received the religious form of expression and justification. Morals are consecrated by religion and acts with its help. On the other hand, religion finds a rational support in morality and thanks to it strengthens its position. In the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Creator in Christianity and other world religions for believers, the moral and social ideal is embodied. God acts as the creator and the guarantor of moral order, so faith in it performs a moral function.

In the boundaries of religious morality, such great moral ideas were developed and learned, such as the ideas of good, debt, humanity, compassion, forgiveness, moral purity and responsibility, respect for human dignity, etc. In the modern Christian religion, the moral preaching and searches for solving relevant moral problems It seems to occupy a dominant place, and therefore religious morality retains a certain positive value.

Overcoming a religious worldview is a long historical process. Its acceleration by administrative means and atheistic agitation is not able to give positive results and leads to a violation of the moral unity of society. Thanks to the development of science and education, the position of religious faith is gradually weakened. But while it is widespread in the world and must maintain their rights to exist. While there are believers, religious activities are a social necessity. Therefore, the morality of some part of society can be supported by a religion and needs educational activities of the Church.

But there is another part of society for which religious morality has a positive value. The genuine power of morality is in its rational substantiation, rationality and wisdom. It significantly exceeds in this regard religious morality, which is based on the irrational, problematic faith in the existence of Paradise and Hell, gods, or God, devil, devils, angels and other mythological creatures. They say Blessed, who believes. But more reliable power in life - knowledge. The development of science and technology, medicine and education, forms of social life, social freedom is due to the progress of knowledge, not religious faith and theology. The regulatory power of morality is in it itself, and not in its religious sanctification. Scientific ethics are converted to mind, and therefore is logically convincing and practically effective, while religious ethics, as in general, theology is full of alogides due to its irrationality and therefore, on its basis, theoretically untenable. Its common logical error - in violating the law of a sufficient basis, for, as Kant indicated, the recognition of the truth of the judgment of faith is objectively not sufficiently reasonable. And one more general error is a logical circle. As the last proof, a reference to the Sacred Scriptures is usually given: "So the creator says." But it is written by people. So, something claims, repeating what other people said. From this circle there is no exit. We must believe one, because they believe others. There are both mistakes that are incorrigible within the framework of faith. Despite this, supporters of scientific (materialistic) and religious ethics could cooperate peacefully, solving specific moral problems, for example, questions about sexual education in school, about euthanasia, on the forms of humane content of prisoners, whether the size of the income of deputies is legitimate And officials were determined by themselves, whether the state should regulate market relations or they should be free, etc. Now the ROC invites materialists to be partners in the dialogue. Probably, they will not refuse this proposal if they have not yet learned to express and defend their views. After all, materialistic philosophy has not yet been taught not yet taught to students or graduate students ... but the popularization of religion is carried out very intensively and on television, and on the radio, and the school introduces her teaching. For partnership to be equal, it is necessary to restore both the teaching of materialistic philosophy. Otherwise, education and education of young people will retain a one-sided nature, and therefore will be defective.

ROC believes that the moral education of young people is possible only on the basis of religion. But is it true? Modern Christian morality differs significantly from the morality of early Christianity, which had a revolutionary nature and socialist orientation. Today it is a morality of patience and humility, social passivity, reconciliation with reality. She does not express the requirements of a universal moral ideal - the creation of a humane, just, socially homogeneous society, in which there is no manner of humans by a person, equally respected by the human dignity of each member of society and there is equal concern for the well-being of all citizens. Church education is purely educational, therefore it is not effective enough. From the point of view of materialistic ethics, moral education should be carried out on the basis of reorganization of society on moral principles, in the spirit of this process, only then it can be successful. In a mass scale, morality in society can be formed only in humanity and social justice.

The upbringing of religious morality is conducted from the standpoint of the irrational faith, which is problematic and, of course, it seems to be student capable of independent thinking, unconvincing in comparison with scientific, materialistic in their philosophical essential knowledge that the school gives them. This reduces the importance of the moral influence of ethics lessons and causes disrespect for the activities of the school, the ideological position of which looks inconsistent, insolvent and dishonest. As a result, such "education" may be more harm than good. The psychological consequences of such ideological duality also in some cases may be undesirable. If moral enlightenment is conducted on a scientific basis, this ensures the ideological integrity and the logical sequence of knowledge gained by students and the positive moral significance of the entire education process.

5. Conclusion

Already in the above issue of Socrates, doubt is expressed in the need for religious sanctification of morality. In the XVIII century Philosophers materialists wrote about the possibility of the moral society of atheists. I also considered N. G. Chernyshevsky and other materialists in Russia XIX century. The famous philosopher B. C. Solovyov wrote that an atheist may be the same moral, as well as a believer. A comparison of modern Russia with Russia of the Soviet period makes it thinks that not faith or disbelief, and the economic system of society determines its moral level. In our understanding, morality in its essence is not only possible, but in the modern era, it is functioning in the educated layers of society, regardless of the influence of religion. As for believers, in their consciousness, morality, of course, is associated with their faith and without it is unthinkable. While there are believers, I need religious morality. But how effective is faith as the basis of mindsetting and moral and positive behavior? To judge this, special psychological research is needed. It is possible that in a considerable number of cases, faith helps to be moral to those who and without its influence is moral. And, on the contrary, an immoral personality will always be able to bypass religious bans if they interfere with the achievement of its goals, and justify themselves.

Morality, as I. Kant believed, is a necessary condition for achieving happiness and its integral element. Genuine happiness is completeness and harmony of life. And the achievement of happiness is possible only on the basis of the mind, rationally understood morality. The doctrine, carrying happiness in the otherworldly world, actually depriving a person of hope for its achievement, cannot be the basis of genuine morality. For the ultimate goal of morality serving a means of implementing the requirements of the general nature of a person, primarily reliable and solid sociality, is human happiness.

Medvedev, N. V. In search of the foundation of morality // Bulletin of Tambov un-ta. Series: Humanitarian sciences. - Vol. 6 (50). - 2007. - P. 82-86.

Introduction

1. Theoretical aspects of the problem of morality and religion

1.1 The concept of morality

2. Religion and morality on modern stage

2.1 Religion and Morals in the Russian Federation

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance. Currently, a certain "reassessment of values" occurs in Russian society. Instead of the previous system of values \u200b\u200bdeveloped in a socialist society, a new system is approved. However, these processes are contradictory when, together with valid universal moral values, false "pseudomacy" begin to be bent. Along with the growth of attention of the population to morality and religion, there is a growing crime, nihilism. The company receives the spread of various kinds of teachings, defending the cult of strength, anti-precision "superman", mysticism and immoralism. Therefore, it is very important to have fundamental scientific knowledge about morality and religion. And this is especially essential for young people who do not have due life experience And the desired knowledge to correctly evaluate the incoming information.

The problem of the ratio of morality and religion to the present is one of the most confusing philosophical problems.

Theoretically, this is expressed in approval that religion generates morality, and in practice - in the dominant still medieval prejudice, as if the "non-religious morality", and, therefore, the society consisting of atheists is not possible.

Characteristic for our time, as well as for any crisis period of history, the resuscitation of religion and the loss of moral landmarks makes the issue of morality and religion more than relevant. In this regard, it is interesting to appeal to the history of philosophy - to the heritage of those thinkers who, just as now - we were worried about this issue.

Moral and religion have intersection points, for example, only they raise the meaning of life. However, the question is: whether ethics is derived in its origin, is it dependent on its existence from religion to such an extent that outside the religious context is deformed and loses its authenticity?

There is no religion "by definition", there are only diverse, often denying religious experiences, including those that Moral himself declare religion. For example, Lev Tolstoy considered himself a deeply believer Christian and created his religious and moral teachings. However, the Holy Synod called the last "anti-child". It is obvious that in this case we are dealing with two different understanding of religion in general and the Christian religion in particular.

Religious ethics are ethics, which is based on both the natural, social facts of morality, and at the revelation of the man of moral truths by God. It is argued that the moral truths breathled by people are supplemented in revelation of those who cannot be "open" by the mind, such as, for example, the commandment of love for enemies or truth about the soul of God's grace, etc.

1. Theoretical aspects of the problem of morality and religion 1.1 The concept of morality

In Russian, there are two kindred concepts - morality and morality. What is the relationship between them? In ethics there are attempts to "dilute" these concepts. The most famous idea of \u200b\u200bHegel, who Moral connected with the sphere of proper, ideal, and morality with the sphere of existing, valid. There is a big difference between the fact that people are recognized for due and the fact that they actually fulfill.

In Russian culture there were proposals at all not use the words "Moral" in Russian, which has a foreign origin - it comes from the Latin word "Moralis", which means "moral". In Russian, as I believed I.V. Dahl, it is borrowed from french word. "Moralite", which initially meant "dramaturgical genre; In the Western European theater in the XV-XVI centuries - an edging, allegorical drama, whose characters were personalized virtues and vices who join the struggle for the soul of man." And. Dahl believed that the Russian word "moral" was not worse than the French word "moral". But any scientists, including great lingules, which was V.I. Dahl! After all, he proposed to replace, for example, the word "horizon", which is also foreign origin, the word "asleep." However, the word "moral", and the word "horizon", "unfortunately" remained the "stillborn" lingu invention of Dalya and the word "horizon".

In modern Russian and in modern ethics, the words "morality" and "morality" are usually considered synonyms, or specifically stipulate if they share them. We will further use these words as synonyms.

The definition of "morality" ("morality") is much more complicated than to give the definition of "ethics", which is due to the complexity, the multidimension of the subject itself. The following, most common definitions of "morality" can be distinguished.

1) Morality is "internal, spiritual qualities that are guided by a person; ethical norms, rules of behavior defined by these qualities." In this definition, the moral is reduced to certain human spiritual qualities, as well as to certain norms and principles of behavior, i.e. To a certain form of consciousness. However, it is not taken into account in due measure the moral measurement of society, as well as practical moral activities. Therefore, in Russian-speaking Soviet ethics in the 70s of the 20th century, another, wider concept of morality, was proposed.

2) Morality is a special, imperative and evaluation method for mastering reality through dichotomy (opposite) of good and evil. The relationship of this concept of morality with a person, who only and can evaluate and command. Morality is thus referred to as a subjective form of being, although universal for humans. But how to be with the attitude towards nature, can it be moral? Does the moral self-relief other than a person live creatures? Maltical intuition positively responds with these questions, but they are insoluble for the subjectivistic approach to morality, which connects morality only with man, with interpersonal and social relations. Therefore, there is a legally even wider definition of morality.

3) Morality is a set of values \u200b\u200bof good and evil, as well as the corresponding forms of consciousness, relationships, actions. This definition of morality and we will be considered as the main one. In morality, having the features of autonomy and heteronomy, it is possible to distinguish the natural, social and spiritual basis. Natural origins of morality are congenital moral feelings and, above all, feelings of conscience, compassion, love, debt, awe. There is a lot of true in the teaching VL. Solovyov, who for the subjective foundations of morality took three senses - shame, compassion and reverence. But in man there are many other moral feelings, including negative, such as the feeling of malice, hatred, envy, etc. They are partly social, but partly and congenital.

In ethics there is a doctrine of natural moral law. This teaching was developed in religious ethics, in particular, in Christian ethics. So, K. Gulchila (Pope John Paul II) writes that "the law of nature is known to mind, he is simple, he explains himself, and morality is based on it. It recognizes its every normal person, at least the easiest. This law gives The opportunity to fit into the universal harmony, and if a person breaks the borders, tells him to look for ways to go back. But first of all he allows a person - even the most simple, even not knowing the letter of the Gospel - to participate in the plans of God, Creator and the legislator, exist In the unity of creation. " In Orthodoxy, the reality of the natural moral law is also recognized: "In theology of the Orthodox Church, a provision on the reality of a natural moral law is adopted as a principle that has unconditional and universal nature and underlying all legal and ethical norms." In the Christian ethics, they appeal to a certain tradition, which originates from the Apostle Paul, from the Holy Fathers of the Church. Thus, the Apostle Paul wrote in the message to the Romans: "When the pagans who do not have the law are legitimate by nature, then without having the law, they themselves are the law: they show that they are written in hearts." TERTULLYAN (II B) argued: "So, before the Moses of the law written on the stone srices, I argue, there was an unwritten law that was usually understood naturally and was respected by the ancestors."

The natural fundamentals of morality include the moral values \u200b\u200bthat a person discovers in nature and which make up its definite morality. In nature, there is some predisposition to good, for good, although there is a natural evil. And it is important for a person to see this natural good, which is realized for every creature and come in accordance with this consciousness. - This will be discussed below, in the following lectures.

In morality there are also social foundations. The social basics of morality should be attributed to really existing moral relations, the morals, customs, traditions, norms and principles of behavior. Each culture, nation, estate, social group, class, even the profession produces their specific moral values, relationships, norms. Morality appears the product of historical creativity of all mankind. The development and existence of morality has a huge impact of such social institutions as a family, right, state, church.

The social basics of morality should include the objective moral values \u200b\u200bof various social systems, namely: the moral values \u200b\u200bof the economy, civil society, politicians, rights, spiritual sphere. Really existing morality significantly depends on the existing economy, politics, religions and other social systems in society. In turn, Moral has an active influence that is diverse on all spheres of society.

Social foundations are also at subjective morality, as what was formed in each individual individual in the process of its socialization. This is his moral ideas, the norms of behavior, his virtue. The problem of moral education of the personality remains the urgent, however, it is obvious that it cannot be solved outside of society.

There are also their spiritual foundations in the morality. And this is, above all, the spiritual activity of the person himself. From a person, sometimes huge courage, the power of the Spirit, to resist evil, develop moral qualities. Certain moral temptations experienced even the most advanced people. So, the Apostle Paul wrote: "For we know that the law is spiritual, and I'm a carnival, sold sin. For I do not understand what I do: because I do not do what I want, but I hate, I do."

Religious ethics recognizes morality as the spiritual foundations, also the grace of God, through which, is believed to be transferred to a person certain moral provisions, laws. Here refer to the religious experience of humanity, which reflects such a divine origin of some moral regulations. So, the Jewish people received their legislation for the first time on Mount Sinai from God through Moses, which is reflected in the Old Testament of the Bible. In the New Testament, the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, in which Christians believe both in the Godheads.

1.2 Essence and Functions of Religion

Kant somehow noticed that "the moral law opens up life independent of the wildlife and even the entire sensitly perceived world." It seems that such ideas have been inherent in people from ancient times when the rules, communication standards between people were considered as establishing higher beings (spirits, later the gods). The latter also encouraged a virtuous behavior and punished the vices. On how much this opinion was spread, it is evidenced by the fact that he was adhered to even those whose religiousness was sometimes raised. So, the ancient Greek philosopher democritus (460-370 BC. E) argued: "The gods give people everything is good as in ancient times, and now." According to him, only those people are "kind of gods who hated injustice." Similar judgments are not difficult to detect and Many other antiquity thinkers.

Christian theologians traditionally talk about the divine nature of morality. The individual receives it both in the form of a "natural moral law" (internal law) and in the form of a bog-level (external) law.

Religious interpretation of morality of morality has a number of advantages. First of all, it emphasizes the universal, universal character of morality. Divine prescriptions apply to all people without exception. Before moral, as before God, everyone is equal - both rich, and poor, and the king, and the president, and the last coaster. Religious teaching to a certain extent protects against a simplified-utilitarian approach to morality, elevates moral searches to high sense-sensitive issues. In the known borders, religion is capable of limiting the scope of subjectivism, arbitrariness in moral assessments and judgments.

The similarity and difference of moral and religious consciousness.

The problem of the interaction of religion and morality was occupied by the minds of various thinkers with deep antiquity. And with antiquity on this problem, most different, sometimes opposite points of view were expressed. On the one hand, religious ideologues and last centuries, and now they categorically argue that morality is not able to exist without religion, just like a tree without roots. It was in religion that morality draws the power to fulfill good, it is the religion that provides a man's meaning of his being, the highest moral values \u200b\u200b(God is a living embodiment of good).

It is not interesting to note that ideas about the beneficial effects of religion on morality were separated by those whose religiousness was very problematic.

2. Religion and Morality at the present stage 2.1 Religion and morality in the Russian Federation

In the most important area, scientists can cooperate fruitfully with religion. This is a region of morality ... you need to give a tribute to the role that religion played and plays in this area, but at the same time we must not forget that in the modern world this is not enough. "

We will give the tribute to this role.

In the USSR in 1989 it was:

atheists - 53%,

orthodox - 20%,

believing other denominations - 9%,

non-defining relations to religion - 18%.

In Russia in 2002 it became:

atheists - 31%,

orthodox - 57.6%,

believing other denominations - 7.4%,

not determined relations to religion - 3.9%

According to other data, in 2003 the Orthodox considered themselves 69.3% (100 million people). Religiosity is growing. It is a fact.

The believer sociologist V. Chesnokov, who conducted research, argues: "Morality, of course, can only be based on God." If so, then, an atheist is immoral, and the decrease in their number should improve society, especially since, as the data of the social skins show, the word "believer" is becoming more and more "respectable", "normal" and "decent", and the word "atheist "-" indecent. "

During the same period of time, the number of murders and murder attempts increased from 15600 in 1990 to 33583 in 2001.

Russia has entered world leaders in terms of suicide (2.7 times higher than average indicators in the world). The violent mortality (suicide and murder) is a third mortality from external reasons.

In 2004, in Russia, 493647 drug addicts officially numbered, on operational data - 6 million (4% of the population), of which 2 million are younger than 24 years old, i.e. People who have grown in the post-Soviet period.

I will not injure the reader with numbers of growth of prostitution, almost absent in the USSR; I note only constant calls for its legalization - i.e. To create a legal alongside with illegal - their very appearance speaks of the moral state of society.

The victims of the slave trade in the Russian Federation according to the OSCE data are 50,000 people annually.

And here is the latest data on the state of crime: for 7 months of 2005, the overall increase in the number of crimes - 17.3%, more than half - theft, robbery and discourse (growth, respectively - 18.3%, 31.6% and 11.3%) .

The number of gambling institutions over the past 2 years has increased 3.5 times, and slot machines - 5 times. The income only from gaming machines in 2005 exceeded 100 billion rubles.

Maybe the relations of the state and citizens have done?

Alas, the result of the social range of employees of the central devices of the federal authorities showed that only a quarter of respondents consider the necessary quality of the official inexplicity and only one of the seven is the need to respect the rights of citizens. It is not surprising that the amount of bribes that businessmen pay officials, since 2001 increased 10 times and is $ 316 billion. "Studies show that the younger officials and the less experience of their work in the state agencies, the more often they tend to ignore the mandatory for the civil servant. The norms of morality ... "So the Soviet remnants of this" amoral code "do not explain. "Since the beginning of the 90s, everyone has been replaced by all," the ex-servants of the USSR M. Slabardnia state managers.

But marriage for the calculation is considered more than half of young people, and equally the degree of believers and unbelievers.

"Starting from the 1990s, Russia has been observed an annual increase in crimes against children. If the killets were dominated in the USSR, the killets associated with the abduction of children are increasingly registered today, the number of sexual crimes in relation to the drug business is increasingly registered. juvenile. " For the period 2000--2005, 1080 kilnts of children were committed in Russia, the overwhelming majority - parents. By 100 births in Russia account for 115 taken abortions. For 5 years (1993--1998), the number of killings of newborns has doubled.

But the actions of skinheads (i.e. the Nazis) approves from 50 to 60% of Russians. Skinheads themselves in Russia - 50,000 (in the rest of the world - 70,000).

Near these figures, data on the "ordinary" rudeness, with which 73% of Russians face, of which "the overwhelming majority (67%) are confident that in our days, compared with the Soviet era, rudeness has become more."

"There is an opinion," the actor and director A. Sokolov shares the observations, - as if there is a difference in mentality - Russian and European, that in Russia they will always be taken, they will hear in the kitchen, they will give it. No longer give. Russia has become another. "

But the fact that does not fit in consciousness even after everything that happened with our country over the past 15 years is: in Moscow, the 60th anniversary of the victory is open to the monument to the SS, the Cossacks of the Cavalry Corps of the SS, recognized by military criminals. It is in the fence of the temple of all saints at the subway "Sokol". His existence turned out to be not contrary to the law nor religion: in response to the appeal of the dissatisfied prosecutor's office explained that the installation of monuments to criminal law was not prohibited, and the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate Archpriest V. Chaplin said that although he himself "does not justify those who fought against her Motherland ", but" every person has the right to Christian memory, "and that this is not a monument, but" the place of Christian commemoration. "

What leads to an indulgent attitude towards "their" Nazis and hatred for carriers of someone else's culture, we see on the example of the Baltic States.

The level of morality fell. This is also a fact.

What conclusion should be made from these two facts - the growth of religiosity and the decline of morality? With all due respect to the feelings of believers - the only one: religion is not able to keep a person from making immoral actions. And he could never at their very essence - people take meanness and at the same time they believe in the merciful God, who will forgive them. Unfortunate God people do not need. The victims, instead of the struggle for their rights in this life, are relied on justice in other, and evil on earth becomes abolished.

A religious person, of course, will make another conclusion: religion teaches only good and only religion teaches good, and people sin, because not enough religious. Therefore, it is necessary to bring religiosity to 100%, and for this - to allocate money for temples and processions, and not to schools, hospitals and roads. Was B Believe, the rest will ever be attached.

Many this argument seems convincing. But it is not.

Before you start the controversy, the opponent should always be asked: whether his glances are falsified? That is, whether such facts are possible, the presence of which will make it recognize the erroneousness of his position? If there are no such facts, the controversy does not make sense: any facts will be fitted under the initial dogmas.

In this case, we are dealing with an unfalseed point of view. No facts, including those given above, will not force a believer person to recognize none that there are no supernatural forces in the world, nor the fact that faith in these forces (religion) does not strengthen morality.

The conclusion of a believer is known for him before he began to reason: this is a dogma.

That is why there is no point in disputes between religion and science, as in disputes between different religions. Contrary to a widespread look, "dialogue" between religions, if you understand not just uttering the monologues under it, but the dispute leading to the truth is impossible. "Interreligious and interfaith dialogue, regardless of how long it lasts, does not oblige his participants to do anything," Heligica writes, any religion, any confession continues to consider their values \u200b\u200babsolute. " Those who believe that twice two are three, and those who believe that twice two - five, equal to faith above the mind, are often forced to solve disputes violence. Well, if the accomplishment of the punishment will be assigned to supernatural forces, otherwise the blood is poured immediately.

Therefore, believers and non-believers (and believers in different gods) should simply relate to the fact that they are considered to be delusions of the other party, respecting dissent and not allowing insults, especially - violence, to opponents; With the arguments in favor of its position, it makes sense to apply not to those who believe, but to those who are looking for.

2.2 Religion and Morality: for and against

Religion has always been a symbol of spiritual search, serving the good and approval of Christian morality. At the same time, religion consults, soothes those who are lonely and bad in this world, gives examples of the life of the devotees of the Church (Sergey Radonezh, Seraphim Sarovsky, Ksenia Petersburg), rising above everyday vanity and dedicated themselves to serving the highest ideal, God, disinterested help to people .

Thus, religion is inextricably linked with morality. However, at the same time, it is not at all necessary to conclude that believers have always been moral people, and atheists - on the contrary. Among those and others there are immoral, and highly moral people. The fact is that a person is in nature and kind, and angry, and beautiful, and terrible. It all depends on how way in life he will go, he is given a free choice.

The Bible states that for each person two ways are always open: "Path eternal life"- a narrow path and" path of death "- wide. Many go the last way - by temptations and satisfaction of the flesh, consumerism and worldly fuss. It kills the essence of a person, his soul, since material needs are put on the fore, love is addressed only on himself. . A person becomes a egocentrist, guided only by his whims and desires, he makes evil not only by others, but first of all himself. As a result, the personality is destroyed. The desire to approve themselves, self-conceit and pride can lead to crimes that brilliantly analyzed F.M. Dostoevsky In the novel "Crime and Punishment" on the example of the fate of Rodion Raskolnikov. If the meaning of life is a person in serving people, in love for them and to the whole surrounding living and inanimate, it acquires the true meaning of life. The narrow way, the "way of life" is a narrow way The path of spiritual perfection, the path of spiritual purity, inner peace, the path of peace, righteousness and repentance. This is a difficult path, and few find it.

Moral ideals worthy of a person were detailed in detail by Christ in the Nagorno sermon. What he said was unexpected and amazing for listeners. If it was previously considered to be quite fair to act on the principle of "OCO for an eye, tooth for the tooth" or "love your neighbor and hate your enemy", then Christ appealed to the highest reasons for human behavior, to a higher degree of spirituality. In the Nagorno sermon, he says not so much about justice, how much love.

The first and main commandment - about love for God, who redeemed the sins of people with his martyr death, won all low and evil in them. The second commandment is about love for a person. These two commandments are connected with each other, because God has created a person in the image and likeness to his own. So, faith in God is impossible without faith in a person, without high demands for it: "Be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

Moral perfection requires a solution to an even more complex moral problem: to love not only the neighbor, but also their enemies. Love those who love you and welcome your brothers - what's the special? But to love enemies, pray for offending and drive you, to forgive you who hate you - the fulfillment of this commandment provides for a great job on themselves on the path of moral perfection. It is very difficult, but to strive for this as a higher ideal is necessary. In love for another person becomes moral, cleaner. Either the kingdom of love will be established on Earth, spiritual beauty and love will save the world, or humanity will die.

Why do you need moral improvement, high spirituality? After all, life is finite, everything is long, all will erase death. Maybe, in this case, you need to rush and take everything from life that you can? However, wealth, glory, power - all this is relatively in life: today is a beggar, tomorrow is the king, today - the enemy, tomorrow is a hero. In addition, the consumerism inevitably leads the identity for degradation, the disappointment comes in the order and mental emptiness. A person is always looking for the highest meaning of life, strives for something eternal, harmonious, beautiful. Therefore, the main thing in the preaching of Christ is that he came to radically change the natural order of existence, heaven the kingdom of heaven, a new type of immortal being. It must be actively approaching. Thus, reading the Nagorno sermon of Christ, you can come to the following conclusions.

First, it is necessary to constantly moral self-improvement, the refusal of the temptations and the little things of earthly life. These are superhuman requirements, they contradict the nature of man and at the same time urge him to strive for the ideal.

Secondly, moral self-improvement in itself, without active transformation material world Not enough. Active search for new spiritual nature is needed. This direction of human, activity was deeply realized and developed by the Russian religious thinker-utopian N.F. Fedorov (1828-1903) in his "general business philosophy". The project "Regulation of Nature" developed by him, conscious management of evolution provided for the mastery of nature, reorganization human organismAnd in the end - the achievement of immortality and resurrection of ancestors. His teachings of Fedorov called active Christianity, discovering in the teachings of Christ "Space meaning" - a call for the active transformation of the natural mortal world into the immortal, divine type of being. He tried to design a real bridge from the ground to the sky, from natural, to supernatural, i.e. Climbing to the highest nature. In the meantime, we, people of the XX century, who adopted the Absolute of the person himself and came to moral, degradation, would have to think about the need for a man's desire to the highest ideal. This teaches a Nagorny sermon - an important set of laws of the spiritual life of society. The commandments set forth in it had a huge impact on the entire subsequent history of mankind, without them our civilization is impossible.

In IV century Christianity becomes a state religion and thus acquires the status of the "protective" ideology of the Roman Empire. In this capacity, religion was subordinate to himself and philosophy, and art and morality, and science. Religious faith, ensuring a certain, integrity of medieval culture, was the highest truth with which cultural, values \u200b\u200bagreed. As the culture develops, Moral gradually began to challenge the monopoly of religion on the decision of the "eternal" problems of human existence. After all, God thought at the same time not only as the creator of the whole "existing", cash, but also as the Creator "due", the source of moral values \u200b\u200band norms. And this put the problem of the theotice, the "justification of God" before theologists. Otherwise, how was it to explain the presence of evil, since God pecks only good?

But if the relationship of religion and politicians, morality, arts were due to the solution of the objectives of the ideological regulatory order, the relationship of religion and science should be considered in another plane.

Church and sacraments love to repeat that without religion a person will lose their moral appearance, will cease to be a "man." Famous religious obscury Dostoevsky even exclaimed pathetically: "If there is no God, then everything is permitted!". Let's try to figure out whether morality depends on religiosity?

When did Moral appear? Morals were born with human society as one of the features distinguished by a person from the animal. Morality or morality of the trait inherent in only a public person, and is possible only in society. Outside the society there is no morality. Living in society, people are forced to produce, certain, rules of social behavior.

Religion arose much later than Moral appeared, so it in no way can serve as a great-grandfather of morality. Moreover, morality, is not a frozen form, it changes together with the development of society. Certain production relations form their morality. With each new socio-political formation there were a new morality corresponding to it. Primitive-free, slave-owned, feudal, etc. The slavener, aristocrat, the capitalist preached completely different morality.

It is economic ratio that generated their own moral norms. European colonists and missionaries, facing the peoples in the reporting society, noted that these tribes had no deception. Lies were born together with the advent of class society.

In case of slave-owned strict, the slave was considered something natural. The opponents of slavery called the enemies of society, attributing to them the desire to destroy civilization. How will the production will grow, without slave labor in question? You want to make people starve, told critics of slavery. Not as the current protector of operation and capitalism. It should also be noted that the antique critics of Christianity precisely Christians were accused of immorality.

At the time of feudalism, its feudal fragmentation and natural economy. There was a corresponding vassal system. The independence of individual feudalists was almost unlimited. The inheritance system at the feudal police forced the aristocracy to get rid of unnecessary applicants for the feud, one way or another. Therefore, in the environment of the knighthood, fashion arises for Knight's tournaments and military "knightly valor". In the future, it degenerates in the military mercy of the late Middle Ages. In addition to this morality of the dominant class, there were others: communal peasant, shop, urban.

Modern capitalism, Epochs, Hydded a man to complete alienation. In today's world, a person is alone than ever. The value of a person under capitalism is not determined by his personality, but the subjects he owned. Everything, including the feelings, like a person himself, become a commodity.

Conclusion

In the atheistic literature, it seems, not without reason, it was also noted that the progress in Christianity can wear an excessive, dangerous character for everyday morality. There is even such a saying: "Without sinless - you do not shift, you don't have to save - you will not save." Such practice can weaken moral burning, the desire for self-improvement, the demandingness to itself and to others.

Usually they associate morality with religion. But their arguments are very easy to refute. First, different religions have completely different moral aspects, often directly opposite one another. Secondly, believers are no more moral than atheists. If the priests were right, then believers would be an example of morality and virtue. But we are observing quite the opposite. Thirdly, not one religion did not hold anyone from crimes.

Fear before the punishment for sins itself is deeply immoral. A believer must comply with moral standards, not because of the rejection of injustice, but due to the fear of punishment from God. In addition, religious morality creates such antiguman forms as asceticism, fanaticism and hatred of the injectors.

In a word, it can be argued that the religious and moral sermon is not free from a number of problems and contradictions that weaken its moral potential. Therefore, this sermon should be treated not purely apologetically, but constructively, taking into account its positive and negative parties.

List of used literature

1. Fundamentals of religious studies: Textbook / Ed. N.I. Apple. - M., 2004. - S.5-171, 299-347.

2. Garaja V.I. Religious studies. - M., 2005. - S.5-63, 76-131, 255-306.

3. Garaja V.I. Sociology of religion. - M., 2005. - C.27-89.

4. Vasiliev L.S. The history of the religions of the East. - M., 2003. - C.11-72.

Mankind. Thus, in our work, I set my goals to find out what morality is with different points vision, as well as determine the role of morality in human and society's life. Why do you need morality? The word "morality" (from Latin Mos, Mores - temper, morals, customs) means in modern language the same as the word "morality". Therefore, most specialists do not conduct ...

Chaos of material particles could form our solar system. In 1804, Kant died. He is buried in Königsberg / Kaliningrad / on the island of Kant. The most significant works of Kant on the philosophy of religion. In the first - "pre-critic" - a period of Kant was engaged in natural science problems. The main work of the period is "Universal Natural History and Theory of the Sky" (1755). The second is "...

That the solution to this problem directly depends on the general socio-philosophical theory and objectively brings to a specific general philosophical view of society. Idealistic ethics tends to absolutize morality. She considers it as an end in itself, as a kind of independent kingdom, which is on the other side of causality. It turns moral man in man morality. In her moral ...