Among the moral theories of the 20th century, special attention should be paid to the ethics of non-violence, which finds an increasing number of adherents throughout the world. Historically, there has been and still continues to exist the tradition of resolving various state, national, interpersonal problems from positions of strength. The ethic of non-violence is a completely different approach to conflict resolution that excludes violence. The ideas of non-violence are formulated in the Bible, in the New Testament, which recommends that if "whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." AT this case a certain ideal was reflected, according to which non-resistance to evil is considered as a manifestation of moral perfection, moral superiority over another's sin. The non-multiplication of evil is regarded as a manifestation of good. The corresponding biblical commandments were affirmed with great difficulty in the minds of man and still seem impossible to many. Significant development the ethics of nonviolence received in the works of the outstanding Russian writer and thinker L.N. Tolstoy (1828-1910), who believed that the recognition of the need to resist evil by violence is nothing more than people justifying their usual favorite vices: revenge, self-interest, envy, anger, lust for power. In his opinion, the majority of people in the Christian world feel the misery of their situation and use to save themselves the means that, in their worldview, they consider valid. This means is the violence of some people over others. Some people, who consider the existing state order beneficial for themselves, by violence state activities they try to maintain this order, while others, by the same force of revolutionary activity, try to destroy the existing order and install another, better one in its place. L. Tolstoy finds the error of political doctrines in that they consider it possible to unite people through violence so that they all, without resisting, submit to the same structure of life. “All violence consists in the fact that some people, under the threat of suffering or death, force other people to do what the raped do not want.” Violence does not create anything, it only destroys. He who repays evil with evil multiplies suffering, intensifies disasters, but does not relieve others or himself from them. Thus, violence is powerless, fruitless, destructive. Not without reason, even in the teachings of the ancient sages, love, compassion, mercy, retribution of good for evil were considered the basis of moral relations. Another supporter of this theory is M. Gandhi, who dreamed of gaining the freedom of India through peaceful
means, considered non-violence as a weapon of the strong. Fear and love are contradictory concepts. The law of love works like the law of gravity, whether we accept it or not. Just as a scientist works miracles by applying the law of nature in various ways, so a person who applies the law of love with the accuracy of a scientist can
perform even greater miracles. Non-violence does not mean passivity, it is active and involves at least two forms of struggle: non-cooperation and civil disobedience. Ideas of non-violence as a means of resolution
conflicts and problems finds an increasing number of its supporters around the world.
One of the most interesting philosophical concepts of the 20th century is the ethics of reverence for life, the founder of which is the outstanding humanist of our time - Albert Schweitzer. At the heart of this theory is the principle of reverence for life in any form, alleviating the suffering of all living. Reverence for life, according to A. Schweitzer, refers to both natural and spiritual phenomena, since admiration for natural life necessarily entails admiration for spiritual life. “They find it especially strange in the ethics of reverence for life that it does not emphasize the distinction between higher and lower, more valuable and less valuable life. She has her reasons for doing so. For a truly moral person, all life is sacred, even that which, from our human point of view, seems inferior,” he notes. Equalizing the moral value of all existing forms life, A. Schweitzer, however, fully admits the situation of a moral choice: “Being, together with all living beings, under the influence of the law of self-dividing will to live, a person increasingly finds himself in a position where he can save his life,
like life in general, only at the expense of another life. If he is guided by the ethics of reverence for life, then
he harms and destroys life only under the pressure of necessity, and he never does it thoughtlessly. But where he is free to choose, man seeks a position in which he could help life and avert from it the threat of suffering and destruction. Understanding how difficult the fate of those who will follow his ideas, A. Schweitzer draws attention to the need for self-denial as a means of activity. Self-denial does not devalue a person's personality, but helps to get rid of selfishness, bias in assessing others. It is necessary to fight evil, but not by means of evil, not by revenge, by stopping the spread of evil. In this position, the views of A. Schweitzer are close to the ideas of supporters of the theory of non-violence. One of the means of preventing evil from entering the human soul, he considers the need for forgiveness, thereby neglecting evil, excluding it. This method of preventing evil allows a person to be saved from the torment of moral choice, the need to seek self-justification. "True ethics begins where the use of words ceases." This statement by A. Schweitzer has a deep meaning. His whole ethical concept calls for active purposeful activity, the preservation of all existing forms of life, selfless service to people, giving them a particle of his life, participation, love, kindness.
5. Plato and Aristotle on ethics. Ethics of Plato (427-347 BC) Plato made a seemingly incredible, but in fact quite logical assumption: if virtue is not rooted in this world, then there probably exists another world, the reflection and expression of which it is. Plato constructs new world- in order to lay the foundation for moral concepts, to provide them with existence. He was forced to do it. Since the task was set to rationally comprehend morality, and it suddenly turned out that moral concepts were hanging in the air, homeless, then it was necessary either to abandon these concepts, which the sophists did, or to invent another world for them, to build a house proportionate to them. This is what Plato did by constructing a world of ideas in which the idea of the good rules. The world of ideas is not just better than the real world, it is perfect. It differs from the real world as an original from a copy, in relation to the latter it is both a beginning, a cause, an image, and a model. Plato introduces a number of epistemological concretizations that he needs in order to substantiate the possibility of knowing morality. He distinguishes between two kinds of understanding (knowledge) and two kinds of pleasure. One kind of reason and knowledge is aimed at that which does not arise and does not perish, but remains eternally unchanged, always identical to itself. The subject of another kind of reason and knowledge is that which arises and perishes. The first kind of destruction and knowledge is superior to the second. As for pleasure, proportionate pleasures belong to the first kind. They are not associated with suffering, they are carefree. The lack of them is imperceptible, their replenishment is palpable and pleasant. They are weak. Their source is beautiful and virtuous. Pleasures of the second kind are characterized by immensity, bring excitement to the soul, and are always associated with suffering. These are anger, pride, fear and similar feelings. In a word, as Plato says, there are pleasures from gentle sounds, and there are pleasures from tickling. There is nothing in common between them. Only pleasures of the first kind enter into the structure of virtue, but they also occupy last place. The path of virtue is an ascending path of knowledge of the beautiful, which can be completed only when the soul sees the eternal, and the love of truth will not be overshadowed by anything. Ethics of Aristotle (384-322 BC) Aristotle's ethics is the pinnacle of ancient ethics. It was he who introduced the term "ethics", systematized ethical ideas and knowledge. Aristotle gave the deepest understanding of ethics for his time as a doctrine of the virtues, of a virtuous person. Unlike philosophy, ethics is a practical science. The goal of ethics is not knowledge, but actions. She teaches how to become virtuous. That is, ethical studies do not aim only at contemplation. Of course, ethics, like any science, produces knowledge. However, ethical knowledge does not have value in and of itself; they are a form of actualization of behavioral tasks and are designed to guide human activity. They turn into norms, into requirements for behavior. Aristotle has two main definitions of a person: a person is a) a rational (thinking) and b) a political (polis) being. They are interconnected in such a way that a person becomes a polis being to the extent that he realizes his capabilities as a rational being. The polis is the embodied, objectified mind. If, in general, Aristotle understands activity (practice) as the actual being of a living being, the transition of its capabilities into reality, then the policy is a specific form of human practice. And morality is simply the optimal form of the realization of reason, both when it comes to an individual and when it comes to a policy. She finds her flesh in virtues. Ethical virtues, according to Aristotle, are a special class of human qualities; they are formed as a result of such a correlation of reason and affects, when the first leads the second. They coincide with a reasonable measure in affects, and a reasonable measure (the famous Aristotelian middle), in turn, is established by correlating with the usual forms of polis behavior. Individual virtue and polis expediency mutually rely on each other. Virtue acts as a form of expediency, albeit a special one, relating, on the one hand, to the human character as a whole, and on the other, to the life of the entire polis. At the same time, the very expediency of polis life is supported by the virtue of individuals. There are three states of mind, two of which are vicious. One due to excess, the other due to lack. Vices overstep their due either in the direction of excess or in the direction of deficiency. Virtue, on the other hand, knows how to find the middle and chooses it. For example, courage is the middle of fear and insane courage; generosity is the middle of stinginess and wastefulness, etc. The striving for the middle is the content of moral freedom, moral choice. Ethical virtues begin when not a simple desire for pleasure, but a balancing mind becomes the guiding principle of behavior. Virtues act as prescribed by a correct judgment. Aristotle gives ethics and ethical virtues a secondary, auxiliary, applied character. Such an approach ruled out the very formulation of the question of mandatory moral laws, generally valid criteria for distinguishing between good and evil. The measure of the virtue of behavior is always concrete, it is specially specified in relation to each virtue, and, moreover, it is always individualized. For example, there is no such set of objective signs that would make it possible to establish whether actions are fair, because for this they must be correlated with the individual who performs them. And Aristotle comes to the conclusion that actions are just when they are such that a just person could do them. Aristotle created ethics that completely ignores the claims of morality to absoluteness, autonomy and holiness. In this sense, he rationalized morality to the utmost. He saw in it a certain dimension of a person, which he himself asks himself in accordance with his nature and the conditions of life, and which may well be under his control. It is important to emphasize that in the study of ethical virtue, Aristotle reached the point where a demonstrative judgment turns out to be impossible and one has to accept the truth without indicating its foundations.6. The concept and content of the main categories of ethics.
| Parameter name | Meaning |
| Article subject: | Modern ethics. |
| Rubric (thematic category) | culture |
The ethics of the twentieth century can be called an intellectual reaction to the social catastrophes that occurred in this century. Two world wars and regional conflicts, totalitarian regimes and terrorism prompt us to think about the very possibility of ethics in a world so openly alien to goodness. Of the great variety of ethical teachings created in the twentieth century, we will consider only two. Their representatives not only constructed theoretical models of morality, but also drew practical normative conclusions from them.
Another very significant variety of ethical teaching, which had a huge impact on the development of Western culture, is ethics of existentialism (philosophy of existence). Existentialists are French philosophers J.P. Sartre (1905–1980) G. Marseille (1889–1973) A. Camus (1913–1960), German philosophers M. Heidegger (1889–1976) K. Jaspers (1883–1969). Existentialism was formed in Western Europe between the two world wars. Its representatives tried to comprehend the position of a person in crisis situations and develop certain values that allow him to adequately get out of a crisis situation.
The starting position of existentialism is that existence precedes essence, the cause that determines it. Man first exists, appears, acts, and only then he is determined, ᴛ.ᴇ. receives characteristics and definitions. Openness to the future, inner emptiness and initial readiness for free self-determination from oneself is the true existence, existence.
Existentialist ethics considers freedom as the basis of human moral behavior. Man - ϶ᴛᴏ freedom. Freedom is the most fundamental characteristic of man. Freedom in existentialism - this is, first of all, the freedom of consciousness, the freedom to choose the spiritual and moral position of the individual. All causes and factors acting on a person are necessarily mediated by him. free choice. A person must constantly choose one or another line of his behavior, focus on certain values and ideals. By posing the problem of freedom, the existentialists reflected the main foundation of morality. Existentialists rightly emphasize that people's activity is directed mainly not by external circumstances, but by internal motives, that each person in one circumstance or another does not mentally react in the same way. A lot depends on each person, and one should not refer to "circumstances" in the event of a negative development of events. People have considerable freedom in determining the goals of their activities. At each particular historical moment, there is not one, but several possibilities. In the presence of real possibilities for the development of events, it is equally important that people are free to choose the means to achieve their goals. And the ends and means, embodied in actions, already create a certain situation, which itself begins to influence.
Freedom is closely related to human responsibility.. Without freedom there is no responsibility. If a person is not free, if he is constantly determined in his actions, determined by some spiritual or material factors, then, from the point of view of existentialists, he is not responsible for his actions, and therefore is not a subject of moral relations. Moreover, an individual who does not exercise free choice, who renounces freedom, thereby loses the main quality of a person and turns into a simple material object. In other words, such an individual can no longer be considered a man in the true sense of the word, for he has lost the quality of true existence.
At the same time, real life shows that for many people, true existence turns out to be an unbearable burden. After all, freedom requires independence and courage from a person, it implies responsibility for the choice that gives this or that meaning to the future, which determines what the distant world will be like. It is these circumstances that cause those unpleasant experiences of metaphysical fear and anxiety, constant anxiety that push a person and the sphere of ʼʼinauthentic existenceʼʼ.
Existentialist ethics calls to resist all forms of collectivism. It is necessary to openly realize your loneliness and abandonment, freedom and responsibility, the meaninglessness and tragedy of your own existence, gain strength and courage to live in the most unfavorable situations of hopelessness and hopelessness.
Existentialist ethics develops in line with stoicism: the moral confusion and despair of a person, the loss of his dignity and strength of spirit, is not so much the result of a collision of our mind and morality with meaninglessness. human life and the inability to achieve well-being in it, how much is the result of disappointment in these our hopes. As long as a person desires and hopes for a successful outcome of his undertakings, he will fail and fall into despair, because the course of life is not in his power. It does not depend on a person what situations he can get into, but it entirely depends on him how he will get out of them.
Among the moral theories of the XX century. attention should be paid to ʼʼethics of non-violenceʼʼ.
Every ethic considers the renunciation of violence necessary. Since violence breeds retaliatory violence, it is a deliberately ineffective method of solving any kind of problem. Non-violence - ϶ᴛᴏ not passivity, but special non-violent actions (sitting strikes, marches, hunger strikes, distribution of leaflets and media appearances to popularize their position - non-violence supporters have developed dozens of such methods). Only morally strong and courageous people are capable of carrying out such actions, capable, thanks to the belief in their rightness, not to strike back.
Hosted on ref.rf
The motive of non-violence is love for enemies and faith in their best moral qualities. Enemies should be convinced of the wrongness, inefficiency and immorality of forceful methods and reach a compromise with them. The ʼʼethics of non-violenceʼʼ considers morality not as a weakness, but as a strength of a person, the ability to achieve goals.
In the XX century. developed ethics of reverence for life, the founder of which was the modern humanist A. Schweitzer.
Hosted on ref.rf
It equalizes the moral value of all existing forms of life. At the same time, he admits a situation of moral choice. If a person is guided by the ethics of reverence for life, then he harms life and destroys it only under the pressure of extreme importance and never does it thoughtlessly. But where he is free to choose, man seeks a position in which he could help life and avert from it the threat of suffering and destruction. Schweitzer rejects evil.
Modern ethics. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Modern ethics." 2017, 2018.
Plan
INTRODUCTION 3
1. ETHICAL CONTENT, MORAL RELATIONS IN MANAGEMENT AND
MANAGEMENT. four
2. MANAGEMENT, MANAGEMENT ETHICS: CONCEPT, VALUE AND FUNCTIONS. 7
3. MORAL PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT. VALUES AND NORMS OF ETHICS OF THE MANAGER.
10
4. INTERRELATION OF MORALITY AND RIGHTS IN MANAGEMENT. fourteen
CONCLUSION 16
LITERATURE 17
Introduction
Ethics is a large and important part of human culture, morality,
morality developed over many centuries of life by all peoples in
in accordance with their ideas of goodness, justice, humanity - in
areas of moral culture and about beauty, order, improvement, household
expediency - in the field of material culture.
There are many examples of complete disrespect for others, allowed
people:
a neighbor in a theater or concert hall who has laid down widely and “forever”
your hands on both armrests;
a person in a museum or exhibition who blocks his back
exhibits from other visitors;
unceremonious colleagues interrupting important business negotiations.
Each of us daily meets with dozens of people, has with them the most
different, sometimes very difficult relationships. And sometimes find the right, reasonable
and ethical in relation to another person solutions to emerging conflicts - not
so easy.
Ethics helps to study the moral significance of actions, motives,
characters. Ethics, while remaining a serious philosophical science, is becoming
at the same time the life position of both society as a whole and its individual
members.
Currently, much attention is paid to the study of business ethics.
relations, business and management in order to raise the level of culture of these
relations. She analyzes the relationship of business partners with
positions of interpretation of moral assessments of the reasons for success or failure in any
activities, in particular in commercial and managerial.
There is a complex of reasons that caused the emergence of interest in business ethics and ethics
management in particular. Chief among them is the cumulative harm of the unethical,
dishonest business behavior, felt not only by consumers, but also
manufacturers, business partners, employees, society as a whole,
the excess of this social harm over the individual or group
benefit.
Russian and foreign researchers agree that
modern Russia is a system in which at the same time
the formation of the most important social subsystems is taking place: social
economic, political, sociocultural. Together they form a special
transitional model. Accordingly, those ethical norms and principles,
that take place in the modern Russian business environment, also
are in the process of becoming and can be considered as transitional. They are
represent a kind of synthesis of stereotypes of behavior transferred from
era of totalitarian and authoritarian economy, borrowings from Western
business culture and not fully formed rules, still only
emerging in the process of transition to a market economy.
1. Ethical content, moral relations in management and
management.
Although some business people adhere to strict moral values in
everyday life, the dynamics of business life requires them to have
additional strong moral principles.
Each profession has its own moral "temptations", moral "valor"
and “losses”, certain contradictions arise, peculiar
ways to resolve them.
The need to improve the quality of ethical consciousness is especially evident in
in the light of changes in the organization modern business:
1. growth in the level of corporatism at the present time;
2. information revolution.
The need to introduce modern production technologies is often
is tantamount to the need for significant economic innovation in the work
large corporations.
One of the drawbacks of the incredible growth of modern corporations is
the inevitable growth of bureaucratic organizational structures within them. Wherein
there is a tendency typical for bureaucratic structures responsible for
decision-making, which consists in unquestioning obedience to the person
higher on the hierarchical ladder. This trend leads to
initiative is severely suppressed. And this puts a lot of ethical
problems for those responsible for making decisions within such
organizational structures, which also leads to situations where
even good and honest people do bad and dishonest things, although this
done for the good of the corporation.
The second change in the organization of modern business is information
revolution. The computer has concentrated the information and made it much more
accessible. On the one hand, significantly more people around the world are now
time have the widest access to information sources. With another -
the use of a computer allows for a massive concentration of purely personal
information about people and their habits. Such collection and centralization of such
information can be used, for example, to better understand requests
and the needs of the people, or be usurped by narrow groups for the use
this important information for personal use.
Ethical standards in the workplace differ significantly from those generally accepted
standards in everyday life.
In the process of official activity, people are often forced to do such things,
which would never be done in ordinary, domestic conditions. For example,
most would never even consider stealing writing materials from someone's
or at home. However, very often they take away various materials from their working
places for their further use for personal purposes or give them to members
your family or friends.
But in an organization where petty theft is common, it becomes
it is difficult to draw a line between the normal behavior of employees and such
dubious actions, such as personal telephone conversations,
intended for business contacts, private travel of employees at the expense of
organization budget, etc. Precisely because petty theft seems to everyone
so trivial, it seems extremely inconvenient to everyone and to fight with them. But how
only such an order turns out to be generally accepted, it turns out to be more difficult and
the fight against misconduct, which, in terms of the degree of harm caused, turn out to be much
more severe. Over time, workers find themselves in a position where they
cannot resist the large waste of funds that could go to
profit to shareholders or returned to the people on whose money it operates
organization. Hiding the truth is another example of behavior that
considered wrong, but not in the workplace.
Some wrong things are done by people as a result of working in
business competitive environment. Often working in an organization can force you to lead
themselves in such a way that, under normal circumstances, they would consider such behavior
wrong. For example, criticism of the results of someone else's work leads to
many grievances, which under normal conditions they try to avoid. On the
work, this, however, may be part of the official duties - to criticize,
deal with shortcomings. People are forced to hide any facts,
get out, seek advantages, cause harm or ignore harm,
caused to others, or to remain silent when they see various unjust
actions towards other people.
Doing business basically means buying and selling merchandise on a one-way basis.
benefit. When it becomes possible to give false information about an object
sale, the seller will not necessarily take advantage of this opportunity, fearing
sanctions laid down in the legislation. However, hiding the whole truth
features of the information about the product being sold, which may cause
buyer to look for the same item elsewhere, just not counted in
such a "game" as trading. From the foregoing, it follows that the work of a person
creates situations with unusual rules of behavior that are significantly
different from the rules that apply to any other human contact in
society. People can hide any facts outside their workplace,
considering it right, for example, to hide any facts from acquaintances for their
well-being - so as not to put them in an awkward situation. But at the same time there will be
feel embarrassed in this situation if they do it to achieve
some benefit for yourself.
In contrast, any seller will feel satisfied,
seeing your customer leaving in a used car,
but sold as new.
A feature of business is often indifference to harming others.
people, which is atypical under normal conditions. Products manufactured and
sold by entrepreneurs under conditions market economy, often
turns out to be simply dangerous for the life and health of people. It has often been noted that
due to various circumstances, the public seeks to acquire such products,
even when aware of the risk. But manufacturers and sellers are by no means
seek to warn potential buyers of imminent danger if
they are not required by law to do so.
Indifference to harming other people often manifests itself when contacting
with employees of the organization. In relation to a person who is fired from
work, demoted or reduced wages,
sympathy on the part of the executive is simply unacceptable
luxury. In some cases, such actions are performed with a feeling
undeniable confidence and superiority, without granting any
explanations, with the realization that the authority of the boss alone is enough
for the consent of the subordinate with any action of the boss. Perhaps, according to the law of this and
actually enough, but for other reasons the law in this case does not
is absolutely perfect. From a moral point of view, neglect
harm done to other people is a type of behavior that we in
normal conditions is called wrong.
In working conditions, flattery and intrigue can be considered a "skill
work with people." Under normal circumstances, to a person who flatters
wins over other people, so that later he can use them to achieve
their goals, will be treated as a person insincere. At work
place it will be called "capable of maneuvering."
No one will dispute the existence of such phenomena in the business world.
2. Managerial, managerial ethics: concept, meaning and functions.
The modern level of development of science and technology places high demands on
the level of professional preparedness of a manager specializing in that
or another area. In addition, any manager, regardless of the area
activities, whether it be manufacturing, commerce, finance or show
business, it is necessary to have skills in working with personnel, constantly take into account
human factor in solving managerial tasks:
- to foresee, predict further development, determine goals and
develop a strategy and tactics to achieve them;
- organize the activities of the enterprise (department, subdivision) in
in accordance with its goals and purpose, taking into account (coordinating)
material and social aspects;
- manage staff; - to coordinate (to connect, to unite, to combine)
all actions and efforts; - control the implementation of management decisions and
orders.
These are the functional tasks of management as a whole. In particular, each
a self-respecting manager is obliged to strictly comply with the ethical standards adopted at
the company in which he works. Here are some of them:
upon hiring, the manager assumes ethical and
legal obligation not to disclose confidential or proprietary information
trade secret information, even if he later decides to leave
from the firm. Similarly, if he previously worked in another organization, then
must be aware that he has no right to disclose confidential information
previous employer.
the manager of the firm must work with full dedication for its benefit.
It is unethical to have outside business interests that would distract
a significant portion of the time or attention from the performance of official duties
responsibilities in the firm or otherwise adversely affected
firm's activities.
every manager must avoid external financial or other
connections that could adversely affect the interests of the firm, create
duality in his attitude towards the company or its interests and hinder
effective performance of their official duties, as well as cause
the occurrence of a conflict of interest.
under no circumstances may be taken in connection with
work any invitations to entertainment, travel, sports
events, as well as accept gifts, tickets, paid holidays, personal
offerings in cash, etc. Actions of this kind can be regarded
by others as the acceptance of a certain obligation by the company and
involve you in a conflict of interest.
managers need to know the laws that govern them
activities and carry them out using all appropriate means available to
company's disposal.
The main ethical issues that arise in this case are as follows:
concealment of facts and incorrect information in reports and during
checks;
unreasonable price gouging and outright fraud in the conduct of business
negotiations;
unconditional obedience to leadership, no matter how unethical and
it did not turn out to be unfair;
conscious exaggeration of the benefits of his work plan for
receiving support;
defrauding customers in order to obtain benefits for the company;
moving up the career ladder over the heads of colleagues;
sacrificing the interests of other employees of the company for the sake of
performing any work;
production of products with dubious characteristics according to
security;
creating alliances with dubious partners in the hope of a happy
accident.
In order to meet these requirements, the manager must
to develop a number of abilities and personality traits of a leader, among which
the most important are intelligence, self-confidence, honesty,
responsibility and common sense.
The sum of these qualities allows you to rely in your work not only on imperious
the powers vested in the head of the position, but also on the informal
an authority that can play a more important role in working with people, especially in
establishing an atmosphere of cooperation and the formation of a healthy moral
psychological climate in the team.
As the well-known specialist John Chestara notes, any human activity
requires the use of his professional, specialized knowledge (know-how) and
ability to communicate with people, however, "for the activities of an ordinary worker
it is necessary that ninety percent be accounted for by his know-how and ten
percent on the ability to get along with people. For middle manager know-how
makes up seventy-five percent of the activity, and the ability to get along with people
twenty five percent.
The authorities, standing even higher, use know-how in their activities
only twenty percent, but the ability to get along with people here accounts for
already eighty percent. This means that the higher we climb
career ladder, the more we must take into account the orientation towards
people and the higher should be our ability to communicate with them.
Any manager is often faced with the need to make such decisions,
which pose difficult ethical problems for him, and in such situations
the manager has no power to change anything: he is forced to make decisions, in
as a result of which people will inevitably suffer; he has to go
into transactions in which one has to choose between equally necessary
material values and adherence to established moral principles; he
finds himself in such a position that the interests of his organization and the goals of his work
conflict with the personal needs of specific employees or consumers.
An example of this is the misuse of investments, using income and
resources for personal enrichment. Managers apply many ways
indirectly receiving money that rightfully belongs to shareholders. Most
a frequently used method is fraudulent transactions with items of expenditure.
Another common move is to overcharge the account with the subsequent division of the difference.
between the overestimated and the real amount of the invoice with the supplier. Finally, there is
the practice of selling a firm's secrets to a competitor or using intercompany
information for playing on the stock exchange.
The manager must remember that he is personally responsible to his colleagues and
company for assistance in eliminating the causes and circumstances that undermine
such conditions and adversely affecting the atmosphere in the team.
Here are some guidelines for ethical behavior of a manager:
not to give a shadow of doubt in their integrity, honesty and
integrity, especially when it comes to promotion,
bonuses, achieving their career goals;
treats his superiors with respect, following those
the public values it serves;
make it a rule to treat people the way you would like them to
treated you;
do not brag about your talents, let your work reveal them itself;
keep public money as well as your own;
clearly express your views on the rights of others. Recognizing Data
rights, not to go beyond their borders;
openly apologize to everyone if you made a mistake;
try not to let personal insignificant goals take precedence over
professional.
A sufficient number of people who find themselves in an ambiguous business situation,
will conclude that what is not forbidden is considered right - especially if
they are rewarded for certain deeds. Senior leaders usually
rarely ask their subordinates to do what both parties know is
illegal or careless. However, company leaders make it clear that
something they would rather not know about.
In other words, it may seem that they accidentally or deliberately
distance themselves from the tactical decisions that their subordinates make,
to keep a clean hand in case something goes wrong. Often
they seduce ambitious managers with hints that those who achieve
desired results, expect good rewards, and the ways in which they
manage to achieve the desired goal, will not be considered too strictly.
Employees must not take steps that conflict with or may
considered as a contradiction of professional duties.
3. Moral principles of management. Values and norms of ethics of the manager.
In business communication "from top to bottom", i.e. in relation to the leader to
subordinate, the golden rule of ethics can be formulated as follows:
“Treat your subordinate the way you would like to be treated.
treated by the leader. The art and success of business communication in many ways
determined by the ethical standards and principles that the
leader towards his subordinates. Under the rules and principles
This refers to what kind of behavior in the service is ethically acceptable, and what is
no. These norms concern, first of all, how and on the basis of what
orders in the management process, which expresses official discipline,
defining business communication.
Failure to comply with the ethics of business communication between a manager and a subordinate
most people feel uncomfortable in a team, morally
unprotected. The attitude of the leader to subordinates affects the whole character
etc.................
Modern ethics is faced with a rather difficult situation in which many traditional moral values have been revised. Traditions, in which the basis of initial moral principles was seen in many respects, often turned out to be destroyed. They have lost their significance in connection with the global processes developing in society and the rapid pace of change in production, its reorientation towards mass consumption. As a result, a situation arose in which opposing moral principles appeared as equally justified, equally derivable from reason. This, according to A. McIntyre, led to the fact that rational arguments in morality were mainly used to prove the theses that those who cited these arguments already had in advance.
This, on the one hand, led to an anti-normative turn in ethics, expressed in the desire to proclaim individual person a full-fledged and self-sufficient subject of moral requirements, to lay on him the entire burden of responsibility for independently made decisions. The anti-normative tendency is represented in the ideas of F. Nietzsche, in existentialism, in postmodern philosophy. On the other hand, there was a desire to limit the area of ethics to a rather narrow range of issues related to the formulation of such rules of conduct that can be accepted by people with different life orientations, with different understanding of the goals of human existence, the ideals of self-improvement. As a result, the category of good, traditional for ethics, turned out to be, as it were, taken out of the bounds of morality, and the latter began to develop mainly as an ethics of rules. In line with this trend, the theme of human rights is being further developed, new attempts are being made to build ethics as a theory of justice. One such attempt is presented in the book by J. Rawls "The Theory of Justice".
New scientific discoveries and new technologies gave a powerful boost to the development of applied ethics. In the XX century. many new professional codes of morality were developed, business ethics, bioethics, ethics of a lawyer, worker of funds were developed mass media etc. Scientists, doctors, philosophers began to discuss such problems as organ transplantation, euthanasia, the creation of transgenic animals, human cloning.
Man, to a much greater extent than before, felt his responsibility for the development of all life on Earth and began to discuss these problems not only from the point of view of his own survival interests, but also from the point of view of recognizing the intrinsic value of the fact of life, the fact of existence as such (Schweitzer, moral realism).
An important step, representing a reaction to the current situation in the development of society, was an attempt to understand morality in a constructive way, to present it as an endless discourse in its continuation, aimed at developing solutions acceptable to all its participants. This is developed in the works of K.O. Apel, J. Habermas, R. Alexi and others. The ethics of discourse is directed against antinormativity, it tries to develop common guidelines that can unite people in the fight against global threats facing humanity.
The undoubted achievement of modern ethics was the identification of the weaknesses of the utilitarian theory, the formulation of the thesis that some basic human rights should be understood precisely in the absolute sense, as values that are not directly related to the question of the public good. They must be observed even when it does not lead to an increase in public goods.
One of the problems that remains as relevant in modern ethics as in the ethics of past years is the problem of substantiating the initial moral principle, the search for an answer to the question of what can be the basis of morality, whether moral judgments can be considered in as true or false, respectively - is it possible to specify any value criterion for determining this? A rather influential group of philosophers denies the possibility of considering normative judgments as those that can be considered true or false. These are, first of all, philosophers who develop the approach of logical positivism in ethics. They believe that so-called descriptive (descriptive) judgments have nothing to do with normative (prescriptive) judgments. The latter express, from their point of view, only the will of the speaker and therefore, unlike judgments of the first type, they cannot be evaluated in terms of logical truth or falsehood. One of the classic variants of this approach was the so-called emotivism (A. Ayer). Emotivists believe that moral judgments do not have any truth, but simply convey the emotions of the speaker. These emotions affect the listener in terms of forming his desire to take the side of the speaker, caused by emotional resonance. Other philosophers of this group generally abandon the task of finding the original meaning of moral judgments and put forward as the goal of theoretical ethics only a logical analysis of the connection between individual judgments, aimed at achieving their consistency (R. Hear, R. Bandt). Nevertheless, even analytical philosophers, who declared the analysis of the logical connection of moral judgments as the main task of theoretical ethics, still usually proceed from the fact that the judgments themselves have some basis. They can be based on historical intuitions, on the rational desires of individual individuals, but this already goes beyond the competence of theoretical ethics as a science.
A number of authors note the formalism of such a position and seek to soften it somehow. So V. Franken, R. Holmes say that our very initial understanding of morality will also determine whether some judgments contradict others or not. R. Holmes believes that the introduction of a specific value position in the definition of morality is unlawful. However, he allows for "the possibility of including some real content (for example, a reference to a public good) and an idea of the sources of morality." Such a position presupposes going beyond the limits of the logical analysis of moral statements, but despite the desire to overcome formalism (Holmes himself calls his position and the position of V. Frankena substantialist), it still remains too abstract. Explaining why the individual nevertheless behaves as a moral subject, R. Holmes says: “The very interest that prompts the individual to adhere to a normal and orderly life should also prompt him to create and maintain the conditions under which such a life is possible.” Probably, no one will object that such a definition (and at the same time the justification of morality) is reasonable. But it leaves many questions: for example, what does a normal and orderly life really consist of (what desires can and should be encouraged, and what should be limited), to what extent the individual is really interested in maintaining general conditions normal life, why, let’s say, sacrifice your life for the sake of your homeland, if you yourself will no longer see its prosperity (a question asked by Lorenzo Valla)? Apparently, such questions give rise to the desire of some thinkers not only to point out the limited possibilities of ethical theory, but also to completely abandon the procedure for substantiating morality. A. Schopenhauer first expressed the idea that the rational justification of morality undermines the fundamental nature of its principles. This position has some support in modern Russian ethics.
Other philosophers believe that the procedure for substantiating morality still has a positive value, the foundations of morality can be found in reasonable self-limitation of interests, in historical tradition, common sense, corrected by scientific thinking.
In order to give a positive answer to the question about the prospects for the justification of morality, it is necessary, first of all, to distinguish between the principles of the ethics of duty and the ethics of virtues. In Christian ethics, which can be called the ethics of duty, of course, there is an idea of morality as the highest absolute value. The priority of the moral motive implies the same attitude towards different people, regardless of their achievements in practical life. This is the ethic of strict limitations and universal love. One of the ways to substantiate it is an attempt to derive morality from a person's ability to universalize his behavior, the idea of what would happen if everyone acted the same way as I am going to do. This attempt was most developed in Kantian ethics and continues in modern ethical discussions. However, in contrast to Kant's approach, in modern ethics self-interest is not rigidly opposed to moral faculty, and universalization is not seen as something that creates moral faculty from the mind itself, but simply as a control procedure used to test various expedient rules of behavior against their common acceptability.
However, such an idea of morality, in which it is considered, first of all, as a means of controlling behavior, carried out from the point of view of not allowing violations of the dignity of other people, not grossly trampling on their interests, that is, not using another person only as a means for realizing one's own interest (which in a rough form can be expressed in extreme forms of exploitation, slavery, zombification in someone's political interests through the use of dirty political technologies) - turns out to be insufficient. There is a need to consider morality more broadly, in connection with its influence on the quality of performance of all those types of social activities in which the person is actually involved. In this case, it again becomes necessary to talk about virtues in the ancient tradition, that is, in connection with a sign of perfection in the performance of a certain social function. The difference between the ethics of duty and the ethics of virtues is very important, because the principles on which these types of moral theory are based turn out to be contradictory to a certain extent, and they have a different degree of categoricalness. The ethics of duty gravitates towards an absolute form of expression of its principles. In it, a person is always considered as the highest value, all people are equal in their dignity, regardless of their practical achievements.
These achievements themselves turn out to be insignificant when compared with eternity, God, and that is why a person necessarily occupies the position of a “slave” in such ethics. If all slaves are before God, the real difference between the slave and the master turns out to be insignificant. Such an affirmation looks like a form of affirmation of human dignity, despite the fact that a person seems to voluntarily take on the role of a slave here, the role of a lower being, relying in everything on the grace of a deity. But, as already mentioned, such a statement of the equal dignity of all people in the absolute sense is not enough to morally encourage their practical social activity. In the ethics of virtues, a person, as it were, lays claim to the divine. Already in Aristotle, in his highest intellectual virtues, he becomes like a deity.
This means that the ethics of the virtues allows for different degrees of perfection, and not just perfection in the ability to control one’s thoughts, overcome the craving for sin (a task that is also set in the ethics of duty), but also perfection in the ability to perform the social function that a person undertakes to perform. . This introduces relativity into the moral assessment of what a person is as a person, i.e., in the ethics of virtues, a different moral attitude towards different people is allowed, because their dignity in this type of ethics depends on the specific character traits of people and their achievements in practical life. . Moral qualities are correlated here with various social abilities and appear as very differentiated.
Fundamentally different types of moral motivation are associated with the ethics of duty and the ethics of virtues.
In cases where the moral motive manifests itself most clearly, when it does not merge with other social motives of activity, the external situation serves as an incentive for the beginning of moral activity. At the same time, behavior is fundamentally different from that which develops on the basis of the usual sequence: need-interest-goal. For example, if a person rushes to save a drowning man, he does this not because he has previously experienced some emotional stress, similar to, say, a feeling of hunger, but simply because he understands or intuitively feels that the subsequent life with a sense of unfulfilled duty will represent for him torment. Thus, behavior is based here on the anticipation of strong negative emotions associated with the idea of a violation of a moral requirement and the desire to avoid them. However, the need to perform such selfless actions, in which the features of the ethics of duty are most manifest, is relatively rare. Revealing the essence of the moral motive, it is necessary to explain not only the fear of torment due to unfulfilled duty or remorse, but also the positive direction of long-term activity of behavior, which inevitably manifests itself when it comes to one's own good. It is clear that the rationale for the need for such behavior is carried out not in some extraordinary circumstances, and for its determination, not an episodic, but a long-term goal is needed. Such a goal can be realized only in connection with the general ideas of the individual about the happiness of life, about the whole nature of his relationships with other people.
Is it possible to reduce morality only to the restrictions that follow from the rule of universalization, to behavior based on reason, freed from emotions that interfere with sober reasoning? Certainly not. It has been known since the time of Aristotle that without emotion there is no moral action.
But if strictly defined emotions of compassion, love, remorse of conscience are manifested in the ethics of duty, in the ethics of virtues the realization of moral qualities is accompanied by numerous positive emotions of a non-moral nature. This happens because there is a combination of moral and other pragmatic motives of being. A person, performing positive moral actions in accordance with his virtues of character, experiences positive emotional states. But positive motivation in this case is introduced into a morally approved action not from some special moral, but from all the higher social needs of the individual. At the same time, the orientation of behavior towards moral values enhances emotional self-awareness in the process of satisfying non-moral needs. For example, the joy of creativity in socially significant activities is higher than the joy of creativity in a simple game, because in the first case, a person sees in the moral criteria of society a confirmation of the real complexity, sometimes even the uniqueness of the tasks he solves. This means the enrichment of some motives of activity by others. Considering such a combination and enrichment of some motives of behavior by others, it is quite possible to explain why a person has a personal interest in being moral, that is, being moral not only for society, but also for himself.
In the ethics of duty, the issue is more complicated. Due to the fact that a person is taken here regardless of his social functions, good acquires an absolute character and causes the theoretician's desire to present it as an initial and rationally indefinable category for building the entire ethical system.
The Absolute, in fact, cannot be excluded from the sphere of morality and cannot be ignored by theoretical thought that wants to free a person from the burden of phenomena that are incomprehensible to him and not always pleasant for him. In practical terms, proper behavior implies a mechanism of conscience, which is cultivated as a reaction imposed by society on an individual to a violation of moral requirements. In the manifestation of a strong negative reaction of the subconscious to the assumption of a violation of the requirements of morality, in essence, something absolute is already contained. But in critical periods of the development of society, when mass sacrificial behavior is required, automatic reactions of the subconscious and remorse alone are not enough. From point of view common sense and the theory based on it is very difficult to explain why it is necessary to give one's life for others. But then it is very difficult to give a personal meaning to such a sacrificial act only on the basis of a scientific explanation of the fact that this is necessary, say, for the survival of the family. However, the practice of social life requires such actions, and, in this sense, produces the need to strengthen moral motives aimed at this kind of behavior, say, at the expense of the idea of God, the hope for a posthumous reward, etc.
Thus, the rather popular absolutist approach in ethics is in many ways an expression of the practical need to strengthen the moral motives of behavior and a reflection of the fact that morality really exists, despite the fact that, from the point of view of common sense, a person seems to be unable to act against his own interest. But the prevalence of absolutist ideas in ethics, the assertions that the first principle of morality cannot be substantiated, rather testify not to the impotence of the theory, but to the imperfection of the society in which we live. The creation of a political organization that excludes wars and the solution of nutrition problems based on new energy and technology, as seen, for example, by Vernadsky (transition to autotrophic humanity associated with the production of artificial protein), will make it possible to humanize social life to such an extent that the ethics of duty with its universalism and strict prohibitions on the use of man as a means will actually become unnecessary due to the specific political and legal guarantees of the existence of man and all other living beings. In the ethics of virtues, the necessity of orienting personal motives of activity towards moral values can be justified without appealing to abstract metaphysical entities, without the illusory doubling of the world necessary to give moral motives the status of being of absolute significance. This is one of the manifestations of real humanism, since it removes the alienation caused by the fact that external, incomprehensible principles of behavior are imposed on a person.
What has been said, however, does not mean that the ethics of duty becomes unnecessary as such. It is just that its scope is shrinking, and the moral principles developed within the theoretical approaches of the ethics of duty are becoming important for the development of the rules of law, in particular, in substantiating the concept of human rights. In modern ethics, the approaches developed in the ethics of duty, attempts to derive morality from a person’s ability to mentally universalize his behavior, are most of all used to defend the ideas of liberalism, the basis of which is the desire to create a society in which an individual could satisfy his interest in the most qualitative way, not conflicting with the interests of others.
Virtue ethics correlates with communitarian approaches, in which it is believed that personal happiness is impossible without making concern for society the subject of one's own aspirations, one's personal desires. The ethics of duty, on the contrary, serves as the basis for the development of liberal thought, the development of general rules acceptable to all, independent of individual life orientations. Communitarists say that the subject of morality should not only be general rules behavior, but also the standards of excellence of each in the type of activity that he actually performs. They draw attention to the connection of morality with a certain local cultural tradition, arguing that without such a connection, morality will simply disappear, and human society will disintegrate.
It is thought that in order to solve actual problems modern ethics it is necessary to combine different principles, including - to look for ways to combine the absolute principles of the ethics of duty and the relative principles of the ethics of virtues, the ideology of liberalism and communitarianism. Arguing from the standpoint of the priority of an individual, it would be, for example, very difficult to explain the duty to future generations, to understand the natural desire of each person to preserve a good memory of himself among his descendants.
As the complexity of the world increases, the interdependence of people in society increases, the role and importance of moral values increase, including such as solidarity, responsibility, honesty, trust, the ability to cooperate, mutual assistance, communitarianism (a modern synonym for collectivism).
It is moral values (the need for meaning, for social recognition and respect from others, for creative self-realization and socially useful activity) that increasingly act as the most important needs and motives for the social activity of a modern person (scientist, manager, entrepreneur, doctor or teacher).
Already in the 70s. 20th century In the countries of the prosperous West, a very high standard of living was achieved, the quality of life of the population improved, which led to a shift in values towards post-material needs: many people in Western countries felt, for example, the need to benefit people, to feel the approval of others. This qualitative shift was recognized as a postmodern value shift.
This postmodern cultural shift is associated with the actualization of the role of ethics in the life of a person and society, the awareness of the need to develop social capital and ensure social and economic order (and not only within individual communities, but also humanity as a whole). These tendencies are even more intensified in our time.
At the beginning of the XXI century. In connection with the processes of globalization, interconnections, contacts and interdependence of people increase, as well as new dangers, threats and risks, therefore the relevance of ethics increases many times. The world is changing, the subject of ethics is changing and expanding.
Orientation towards the development of individual self-consciousness is the main one for modern ethics in all its forms (social, applied, professional, ecological).
In different cultures, in the course of their historical development, due to their original traditions and customs, their own systems of values and norms, myths and legends were formed. Moral and religious values of different cultures do not coincide, which is the cause of contradictions and conflicts. These contradictions can take on a global character, but the inner world of a person remains the main arena of struggle.
Theoretical, applied, professional ethics
Traditional ethics existed in two forms - religious and philosophical. Religious ethics, for example, the ethics of Christianity, contains a significant normative context in the form of commandments, prohibitions and practical norms of behavior, including ritual (observance of fasts, holidays, performance of rites and rituals of various kinds - calendar, wedding, etc.) Religious ethics also contains theoretical a part consisting of dogmas, teachings, myths, symbols and traditions, the teaching of which forms the basis of religious education and upbringing. Religious ethics considers the same problems as philosophical ethics, but in the context of faith.
Actually theoretical ethics originated in ancient society together with philosophy as a sphere of rational thinking about the world and man. The specificity of ethics as a science lies in what it says about due, those. how must what a person should do (about moral values as the goals of being), what society should be like, what rules of conduct (norms) should be.
Already Aristotle understood that ethics is essentially different from physics or mathematics. Ethics is a special kind of knowledge. He singled out three types of knowledge: theoretical, practical and ethical.
theoretical knowledge (episteme, or the form of "contemplation of eternal ideas") characterizes such sciences as mathematics, physics, biology.
Practical Knowledge (techne) appears in the form skills (the builder knows how to build a house, the artist knows how to paint, the artist knows how to portray different feelings, the artisan knows how to make goods, the shoemaker knows how to sew boots, etc.).
ethical knowledge (phronesis) is knowledge of a very special kind, which consists not so much in reasoning or skills, but in correct behavior, the performance of virtuous deeds, a moral attitude towards another person, including mercy and benevolence. For example, when passing a sentence, a lawyer is guided not only by knowledge of the crime committed, but also by understanding the situation, the ability to put oneself in the place of another person (both the criminal and the victim, and other people), feelings of justice, mercy, empathy and compassion. He knows how to do the right thing, i.e. he possesses not only knowledge of the facts, but also ethical knowledge and understanding of the situation.
The subject of traditional ethics is a person as a moral individual, the problems of the struggle between good and evil, virtues and vices in his soul. The main goal of the traditional philosophical ethics- development of self-consciousness of an individual, the formation of his ability to moral and spiritual self-improvement. According to legend, even Confucius said that a person, if he does not develop as a cultural, moral being, becomes worse than an animal; in relation to such people, the state has the right to apply the most severe punishments. Thus, the Confucian ethics already set the space for the formation of meaningful life guidelines and spiritual development: the lower bar is the inevitable cruel punishment, the upper bar is respect, honor, the high social status of a noble husband.
Traditional ethics was not only theoretical, but primarily normative (prescriptive) in nature, since the theoretical substantiation of the values of human existence was simultaneously a prescription, a moral requirement, a norm, for example, theoretical definition virtue assumed its spread, beneficence theories contribute to the spread of charity. The value of goodness lies in becoming kind, happiness - in becoming happy, love - in learning to love and be loved, justice - in its practical implementation.
The main achievements of traditional ethics are expressed in its normative programs. There are such programs as the ethics of pleasure (hedonism), the ethics of happiness (eudemonism), the ethics of simplification (cynicism), the ethics of contemplation, the ethics of duty (the Stoics, Kant), the ethics of love and mercy, the ethics of compassion (A. Schopenhauer), the ethics of utility ( utilitarianism), the ethics of heroism, the ethics of rational egoism (utilitarianism), the ethics of non-violence (L. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi), the ethics of reverence for life (A. Schweitzer), etc.
It is no coincidence that ethics as a special kind of knowledge was named by Kant practical philosophy. If theoretical reason becomes entangled in contradictions and antinomies (which, according to Kant, is evidence of its imperfection), then practical reason resolves these antinomies quite easily, namely: it recognizes the need for free will, the immortality of the soul and the existence of God as necessary conditions the existence of morality.
Nevertheless, traditional ethics contains a significant theoretical part, including arguments about the origin and nature of morality, its historical forms and essence, consideration of the specifics of morality, its role in the life of society and the individual, the structure of moral consciousness, the categories of good and evil, happiness, duty, fidelity, honor, justice, the meaning of life. The specificity of ethics lies in the fact that it has never been a pure theory, but has always contained theoretical and practical (normative) parts in equal proportions.