home Tool

Man's idea of good and evil. Good and evil. The essence of good and evil, the idea of these two concepts, their relationship in life. What constitutes a good

Good and Evil Man's ideas about good and evil are the fruit of his religious views. Humanity knows too little about the world around us to form a complete scientific picture about it, and its knowledge will never be sufficient for this. To formulate a holistic concept of the universe, a person is forced to resort to guesses and assumptions, which constitute the largest and most important part of his worldview. Rational knowledge will always be only a small component of it and can fit consistently into the composition of various philosophical and religious systems. As a result, the basis of the worldview was, is and will be faith. Even atheism is essentially a faith, since its fundamental provisions are scientifically unprovable and are hypotheses. Atheists believe that there is no God, that the universe is infinite in space and time, and matter is eternal and capable of self-development, that living things arose from non-living things as a result of random processes, that man is nothing more than a highly organized animal, that non-existence awaits him beyond the grave that the driving force of evolution is the struggle for existence. Can godless materialism give rise to concepts of good and evil worthy of man? Let us leave the answer to this question to the most pious reader. Believers have concepts of good and evil in accordance with their ideas about the Divine. And on the contrary, according to a person’s moral ideas, which differ to the extreme in different religions, one can understand which Deity he worships. If in Zoroastrianism good and evil are two eternal and equivalent principles, constantly fighting with each other, then in Hinduism and Buddhism good and evil do not exist objectively; they are considered subjective concepts of imperfect people. God-revealed knowledge of good and evil is the greatest treasure of Christianity, which no other religion possesses. Absolute good is the Will of God, absolute evil is conscious resistance, opposition to the Will of God. God revealed His Will to us in the Commandments. We, by the grace of God, also know that good will win the final victory over evil. These truths, which seem so natural to us, are not the fruit of human research and reflection. They were revealed to people in the Old and New Testaments, and over many generations they were adopted by the Christian world. Religious thinkers of other nations were unable to come up with anything similar to the Ten Commandments of the Law of God and the Beatitudes. Meanwhile, morality and a person’s attitude towards the world around him and other people are based on ideas about good and evil. Sooner or later, every person faces the question: “Why do I live? Is there a purpose and meaning to my existence, and, if so, what is it?” This question is important, because the loss of the meaning of life leads not only to immoral acts, but can also lead to suicide. Different faiths answer the question about the meaning of life in different ways, but they all agree that there is no worthy purpose for human life within earthly limits. Materialism, for example, says that one must live in order to make life on earth better, more comfortable, fairer, to raise children, to leave behind a memory in history, to get maximum pleasure. But since it is clear to everyone that life on earth will someday end, materialism does not find the highest meaning in human life. Psychology says it this way: “There is no meaning in life, but you yourself can give it the meaning you want. And it’s better not to think about it at all, just as other animals don’t think about it. ” Religions that contain the doctrine of reincarnation have the goal of life to achieve a better rebirth with the prospect of once reaching the world and pagan gods. Buddhism aims at liberation from the endless circle of rebirths through the achievement of the state of "nirvana". Islam and some other religions recognize the existence of heaven and hell, where the souls of people fall depending on the life they have lived, on their attitude to good and evil, although these religions have distorted concepts of good and evil. Among all the creeds, Christianity provides the most attractive for the soul and satisfactory for the mind concepts of the meaning of earthly human life. Man is an immortal being. Earthly life for him is a preparation for eternity. He was created to love God, the Creator of all things, to glorify Him, to fulfill the will of his Creator and find his happiness in this. The Divine Will does not limit a person in good, calls him to love his own kind, dominate the earthly world and take care of it, improve himself and prepare for eternal life, and also fight evil and sin. The Christian Holy Scripture reveals to man the origin of the world and man himself, explains to people their place in the universe, describes the most important stages of human history, not only past, but also future, indicates to man the correct relationship with other animate and inanimate creations. A person will not find anything even close to such clarity in any other religion. Igumen Boris (Dolzhenko) "To a quiet haven"

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

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

pleasure (hedonism)

benefit (utilitarianism)

· happiness (eudaimonism)

· appropriate to the circumstances (pragmatism)

· generally accepted, expedient.

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

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

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

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

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

The concept of good associated with goods, Immanuel Kant considered "empirical", and unconditional good - "the concept of reason". He emphasized that the main component of goodness is its rationality.

The reduction of the concept of goodness to individual positive qualities that accompany events and phenomena that are perceived by society as good, J. Moore considered a naturalistic mistake. The latter, as R. Hare showed, lies in the fact that in the definition of specific events, phenomena, characters as "good" and "kind" their normative characteristics are mixed.

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

So, Socrates spoke about the relativity of the concept of "good": "... one cannot say which particular objects are definitely good, but one can say what "good" as such means."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, it is the fullness of goodness.

And thirdly, his strength.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.principle of asceticism

2.principle of altruism

3.religious principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Testament. Matthew 7:12

The most important rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GoodAndevil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideas about good and evil

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

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

pleasure (hedonism)

benefit (utilitarianism)

· happiness (eudaimonism)

· appropriate to the circumstances (pragmatism)

· generally accepted, expedient.

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

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

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

So, Socrates spoke about the relativity of the concept of "good": "... one cannot say which particular objects are definitely good, but one can say what "good" as such means."

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

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

Secondly, it is the fullness of goodness.

And thirdly, his strength.

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

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

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

1.principle of asceticism

2.principle of altruism

3.religious principle.

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

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

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

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

Good and evil: features and paradoxes

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

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

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

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

Perhaps it was the relativity of good and evil, the observation that “everything good is bad” and vice versa, led F. Nietzsche to the conclusion: “Man does not pay for anything so dearly as for his virtues.”

The Russian philosopher S. L. Frank in his work “The Collapse of the Worlds” wrote that “all the grief and evil reigning on earth, all disasters, humiliations, sufferings, at least ninety-nine percent, are the result of the will to do good, fanatical faith in some sacred principles that should be immediately planted on earth, and the will to the merciless destruction of evil; while almost one hundredth of evil and disasters are due to the action of an openly evil, criminal and self-serving will.

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

According to F. Nietzsche, evil is necessary just like good, even more than good: both are a necessary condition for human existence and development.

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

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

The fight between good and evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

· non-violence breaks the “reverse logic” of violence, which gives rise to the effect of the “boomerang of evil” (L. Tolstoy), according to which the evil done necessarily returns to the person who did it in a larger amount;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Impunity for evil in conditions of non-violence;

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

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

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

Adherents of non-violence believe that for this, the parties, first of all, need to:

1. give up the monopoly on truth;

2. to realize that anyone can be in the place of the opponent, and from this angle to critically analyze the behavior;

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

4. do not insist on one's own, do not refute the opponent's point of view on the move, but look for acceptable solutions;

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

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

Justice

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

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

· action and reward;

crime and punishment

· rights and obligations;

· dignity and honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good and evil are meaningful;

good and evil are cognized in opposing unity

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

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

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

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

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

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

good evil dialectic moral ethical

References:

1. Likhachev D.S. about good and evil

2. Men A. About good and evil

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

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

Posted on Allbest.ru

Good and evil in ancient times

With the development of society, changes occurred in culture and worldview. Ideas about the concepts of “good” and “evil” also changed.

For example, in ancient times both animals and humans were used for sacrifices. This was a common occurrence.

Under the primitive communal system, benefits and harms were considered based on the opinion of the collective. Members of the tribe represented evil as something that prevented them from surviving and satisfying their needs. Attacks on other tribes, and even cannibalism were considered good, since with this they fulfilled wishes. Virtuous qualities were attributed not only to courage and bravery, but also to cunning, deceit, and sometimes cruelty, that is, to everything that influenced the survival of the clan.

People's dependence on nature is gradually decreasing. As human needs change, the value system becomes different. Due to the stratification of society, the content of the concepts of good and evil is divided. They become different for different segments of the population. For slave owners, the work of slaves was perceived as good, because the result of their work gave wealth and a life of luxury. For slaves, working for the master seemed evil, a heavy and exhausting burden.

The ancient philosophers of antiquity, in particular Aristotle, considered reason to be the highest good. But the thinker emphasized that reliable knowledge is inaccessible to man. According to Plato, “hora” (the material world) was considered evil, and “hyperurania” (the world of ideas) was considered good. Socrates believed that awareness of good and evil contributes to a respectable existence and self-knowledge. The Greeks also gave preference to courage, pride, impartiality and fulfillment of duty.

Attitude to eternal concepts in the Middle Ages

In medieval philosophy, Christian values were the dominant views. God embodies good, and evil is the devil. Augustine, like Plato, considered Good to be the spirit and evil to be the material world. Thomas Aquinas calls God the absolute embodiment of goodness. The main Christian virtues include humility and love, including towards enemies. The vices included pride and pride. The best human qualities were attributed to saints and folk heroes.

The Renaissance shifts the emphasis towards man. The main feature of this era is humanism. Ideas about good and evil are changing again. When searching for ideals, people turn not to God, but first of all to themselves. Manifestations of one’s own “I” are perceived as good.

New time

New times have put on the agenda questions about methods of scientific knowledge. Problems of ethics and aesthetics become secondary. The rationalism of this time consists of precise conclusions that are based on the truths of physics and mathematics. The highest happiness, according to the philosopher Spinoza, is knowledge. With its help, people's reasonable needs can be satisfied.

In the 18th century, European countries created the perception of morality as a system of usefulness to each other. Philosophers of that time believed that goodness should correspond to the satisfaction of human desires.

The concepts of good and evil were depicted in the 19th century by Friedrich Nietzsche. In the essay “Beyond Good and Evil,” he attributes to these concepts subjectivity and dependence on the psychology of people; it is pointless to look for truth in them.

Good and evil today

The change in worldview on eternal issues was due to various factors. Our time is no exception. Humanity has accumulated vast experience in their knowledge. According to modern man, good is characterized by the functions of creation, and evil is characterized by destruction, violence, and hatred. The destructive function means the collapse of social orders, foundations, traditions; it disrupts the usual course of things, shakes a person’s ideas about himself and the world. Examples include revolutions, military actions, and the collapse of ideals. The old is destroyed, a person breaks harmony with the world around him. The creation function should be understood as the formation of new values, ideals and goals. This helps people stand firmly on the ground and see a guiding star. In order to understand and accept the new, it is necessary to fully comprehend the old. Based on this, we can conclude that these functions are important in combination. Evil encourages a person to act, changing the usual order of things and learning new things. In this case, unanswerable questions and mental suffering may arise when searching for answers to questions. Good has a contemplative nature.

Ancient Indian philosophy confirms these words. It is believed that the world is suffering, by coming to terms with it, you can experience real happiness, the soul will fall into nirvana (a state of supreme bliss). Without knowing suffering and the nature of evil, it is impossible to understand the nature of good. With the help of evil, people are freed from morality and everything around them comes to destruction. Good, on the contrary, binds with certain rules and dogmas, depriving freedom of action. The world develops as a balance of good and evil. Without evil there would be no movement. Thanks to these eternal categories, you can not only evaluate the surrounding reality, but also change and improve it.

Good and evil are the most common ideas of people; through them the structure of the world, social order, human qualities and its motives are comprehended and assessed. Goodness is associated with people's hopes, with progress, free and happy life. It is the goal of human activity, a dream that needs to be achieved. Evil is given a negative meaning that is undesirable for people; it contributes to suffering, troubles and misfortunes. Over the course of history, these concepts have gone through different stages and remain the most important in religion and ethics.

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

Prehistoric period (before 3000 BC)

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

Ancient period (from 3000 BC to 476 AD)

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

The difference appears:

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

Modern period (from 1789 AD to today)

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

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

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

Man's idea of ​​good and evil. Good and evil. The essence of good and evil, the idea of ​​these two concepts, their relationship in life. What constitutes a good