CC BY
16PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCES
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE EAST-WEST DICHOTOMY IN THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE UKRAINIAN DIASPORA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY
Solovian V.
PhD student,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Faculty of Philosophy
Abstract
Today political philosophy is an essential intellectual resource aimed at modernization of social and political relations. Political philosophy goes beyond the scientific discipline. It more and more often focuses on the ontology of national cultures and the search of national worldview milestones in an attempt to find out how to reach public consensus.
The specific nature of the Ukrainian political and social culture is often seen in transitional position between the West and the East. Contemporary Ukrainian scientists interpret the binary East-West opposition as an effective way to research mental borders within Ukraine. In this context, the search for ways to reconcile the diversity of cultural and social life phenomena is an important task facing political philosophy in Ukraine nowadays.
The study substantiates the thesis that intellectual heritage of the Ukrainian diaspora of the second half of the 20th century productively complements modern understanding of the East-West dichotomy in the Ukrainian political philosophy.
Keywords: the Ukrainian diaspora, political and philosophical studies in the culture of the Ukrainian diaspora, East-West dichotomy, Ukrainian national character.
Introduction. At the current stage of development, Ukrainian political philosophy has faced with the challenge of reconciliation of the diversity of cultural and social life phenomena around the project of national state formation. In this regard many approaches to constitute the Ukrainian political culture had been established in the modern Ukrainian intellectual environment. A binary opposition of the East-West type of political thinking is considered as one of these effective approaches.
Consequently, there appears a factor of the East-West contrast within the Ukrainian political world. Furthermore, in a public discourse, the issue of social and cultural East-West dichotomy sometimes gets conflic-togenic features. In the hands of certain political forces it turns into a toolkit of manipulations aimed to split society on various grounds. Not less important challenge is the erosion-affected support of the vector of European integration in the state development.
In our opinion a productive way to expand the scientific knowledge of the East-West dichotomy in Ukrainian culture is to involve the Ukrainian diaspora's intellectual heritage of the latter half of the 20th century in the current scientific discourse. These studies contain quite a few research studies aimed to understand the issues like the forms of cultural identity, «Ukrainian characterology», mental borders amongst Ukrainians, etc. Also the issue of Ukrainian belonging to the western culture and civilization dimension is an integral part of political and philosophical studies in scientific environment of the Ukrainian diaspora of the 20th century.
Therefore, the study of the political and philosophical heritage of the Ukrainian diaspora of the 20th century should be seen as an efficient way to extend the horizons of comprehending Ukraine's place in the European cultural environment. This article also discloses social and historical importance of the diaspora's intellectual tradition for the Ukrainian nowadays.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the major approaches to resolving the issue of the East-West dichotomy in the political and philosophic discourse of the 20th century Ukrainian diaspora. This approach allows us to find out the diaspora thinkers' achievements that are relevant for Ukrainian nowadays.
Literature review and the problem statement. Since the time Ukraine gained its independence, the Ukrainian diaspora's intellectual thought remains the object of interest in modern Ukrainian political philosophy. At the same time, most of the recent studies that refer to the East-West dichotomy issue frequently ignore the diaspora thinker's visions of the issue or at least consider their findings as artefacts of Ukraine's political history.
Today's Ukrainian researchers whose scientific publications reflects «East-West» dichotomy in Ukrainian political culture, only tangentially consider superficially the legacy of diaspora scholars. Interesting considerations in the context of our study can be found in the studies of such researchers as: O. Boyko, L. Orokhovska, S. Kost, V. Popovych, M. Soroka. However the basis for implementing the purpose of this article formed political and philosophical works of representatives of the Ukrainian diaspora.
At the same time the defining feature of the political and philosophical heritage of the Ukrainian diaspora of the 20th century is its development in the forms of literary journalism or socio-political activity. Therefore, philosophical and political studies of the Ukrainian diaspora acquire an interdisciplinary nature.
Research results. The dichotomic split of the world into the East and the West is a rigid construction of the western intellectual thought. It is generally accepted in today's scientific literature that the idea of the world being split into the West and the East originates from the Greek polis culture and its idea of an opposition between the Hellenic and Barbarian worlds. The
first attempts to comprehend the Eastern culture and compare it with that of Europe took place in the European philosophic tradition during the Age of Enlightenment. The philosophers of the 17-18th centuries practiced various comprehension approaches to the East-West dichotomy. For instance, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Voltaire had a great interest in the Oriental culture and considered it to be an example to follow for Europe. Meanwhile, the interpretation of Oriental civilizations in the works of Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Constantin François de Volney has a kind of critical flavor. They gave an especially negative estimation to the despotic government system typical of Oriental countries as well as downplaying civil rights and freedoms. As such, in the context of interpretation made by European philosophers, the «East» and the «West» cease to be solely geographical, but rather stand for two mental realities — conflicting in their nature, yet closely related and permanently interacting. In numerous historiosophic concepts developed by European thinkers, the East tended to be perceived in relation to the West. Given this, the theoretic comprehension of the East, the awareness of its specific nature and distinction can be interpreted as a certain form of building the European identity [2, p.4-
5].
This approach has found its reflection in the Ukrainian intellectual tradition of the 19th-early 20th centuries. The clear evidence of this is tendency can be found in the works of a number of prominent Ukrainian thinkers of that period.
Oppressive russification policy by tsarist rule inspired Ukrainian political and philosophic thought of mid and the latter half of the19th century to define spiritual, cultural and historical, psychological separability of Ukrainian nation. An outstanding historian and ethnologist Mykola Kostomarov applied a comparative approach to describe distinguished features of Ukrainians, Russians and other Slavic nations. In his work «Two Rus' Peoples» M. Kostomarov came to conclusion that Ukrainians are spiritually closer to Poles than to the Russians according to their «features and character» [7, p.50-51]. He pointed out that the Polish tend to aristocratic form of rule whereas Ukrainians tend to democracy. This circumstance makes a worldview and value «abyss» in the relations of two nations. Therefore, M. Kostomarov narrowed down influence of civilization factor on Ukrainian mentality to relation story of Ukraine with its historical neighbors. Thus M. Kostomarov's intellectual heritage paved the way for further research of the issue how Western and Eastern political cultures influence spiritual realm of Ukrainian nation.
Another prominent social and political Ukrainian thinker Mykhailo Drahomanov claimed that Ukrainian movement has always pursued the aim «to return Ukrainian nation to the family of cultural European nations to which it belonged till the end the 17th century, until [...] Ukraine's disunity depleted its strength, until despotic Russian empire has drawn a border between most of the Ukrainians and Western Europe» [1, p.139]. Famous historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky emphasized that Ukrainians and Ukrainian culture belong
to European civilization not only due to historical relations with «western world» but also because of «European nature» of Ukrainian «national character» [3, p.15]. He affirmed «western nature» of Ukrainians through the multiple examples of «easy and profound absorption of samples of Western culture on Ukrainian soil not due to external coercion but internal kinship». M. Hrushevsky also tried to substantiate the thesis on interpenetration between East and West on Ukrainian soil which made Ukrainians one of «.. .the most orientalised Western nations» [3, p.16].
Dramatic and fast-paced experience of Ukrainian national liberation movement in 1917-1921 set a challenge for Ukrainian intellectuals to identify causes of ineffectual nation-building experience and find the ways to eliminate these flaws at the level of national worldview. From the perspective of Ukrainian di-asporic intellectual community one of the most efficient ways to solve the issue was to reveal the place of Ukraine on the map of civilization processes.
During the interwar period the representatives of conservative and nationalistic wings within Ukrainian political and philosophic thought stated that Ukraine belongs to European civilization dimension. Thus, a founder of Ukrainian conservatism Vyacheslav Lypyn-sky considered that «Ukrainian heritage in political and national movement dimensions is a child of European culture but not Asian» [9, p.25]. Therewith V. Lypyn-skyi offered to step back from «East» or «West» alternative. According to him, Ukraine ought to choose its own path «.to realize its potential, to be born, and first of all, it ought to disengage from the West and Poland» [9, p.25].
On the other hand, the mastermind of Ukrainian integral nationalism Dmytro Dontsov defined «West or East» orientation issue as «the most important in Ukrainian history, political and social studies» [5, p.7]. In his work «Reasons for our policy» (1921) D. Don-tsov came to the conclusion that the prospect of the Ukrainian state grows in the vortex of great conflict of two civilizations: «Our eternal struggle against chaos in the East, defense of our own nation-building shape and culture as well as all Western culture express Ukrainian national idea» [6, p.87].
From the perspective of another representative of nationalistic idea in Ukrainian diasporian community of pre-war period Yurii Lypa civilization dichotomy undermines the foundations of spiritual, social and political patterns of behavior among Ukrainians. «Let's apply «East-West» in Ukrainian religious life - and we'll get wars of religion; and let's apply «East-West» for political orientations - and we'll prepare [...] field for [intrigues] by enemy agents» - stressed Y. Lypa, [10, p.311]
Therefore, concepts of Ukrainian identity that were formed within the nationalist and conservative currents of Ukrainian political philosophy during the first half of the 20th century paid considerable attention to the phenomenon of social and political ambivalence of the Ukrainian world. Thus the constant idea of Ukraine as a civilizational crossroad between Europe and Russia was laid out.
In the latter half of the 20th century representatives of political and philosophical thought of the Ukrainian diaspora faced with a challenge to specify situation and prospective of national development within new world order which rose on fire-ravaged remains of World War II. Painful experience of lost country and grievous impression of the reinforcement of geopolitical role of the Soviet Union on the European continent in the latter half of 1940s made them search for destructive factors in the structure of the mentality of the Ukrainian people which stood in the way of Ukrainian nation-building.
Thus, the diaspora scientists came to an idea of Ukraine's marginality with regard to the European «culture environment». Philosopher Oleksandr Kulchytsky noted that Ukraine's marginality found itself in a reduced impact of three «waves of ideas» of the western spirit: Catholicism, Renaissance and Enlightenment [8, p.715]. Historian and political scientist Ivan Lysyak-Rudnytsky also accentuated that even though Ukrainians are susceptible to the western culture influences, common European social and cultural trends tended to reach the Ukrainian national environment somewhat delayed and often weaker than it ought to be. I. Lysyak-Rudnytsky was certain that the Ukrainian history demonstrates «relative retardation and mar-ginality of Ukraine as compared to the geographic nucleus of the western civilization» [11, p.42].
At the same time, the diaspora thinkers have payed considerable attention to a factor of oriental impacts in the structure of national identity. They interpreted regular contacts with the world of Eurasian nomads as the key determinant in the Ukrainian history and a factor of the Ukrainian spiritual reality. For instance, I. Lysyak-Rudnytsky claimed that nomadic people of the Great Steppe hampered social and economic development of Ukraine. Nomad raids resulted in demographic and economic loss and destroyed culture values. Given flat landscape Ukraine had no clear demarcation between the lands of a farmer and a nomad, I. Lysyak-Rudny-tsky thought. As a result, changing, flexible border between an «inhabited country» and a «steppe frontier area» shaped a «border-zone man» in the Ukrainian national type [12, p.513].
It is worth noting that modern Ukrainian scholars reject such an interpretation of oriental influences on the Ukrainian mentality. «There is no cultural and political «Asia as a whole» - notes M. Popovych. He concludes that the discourse about Ukraine as a kind of cultural synthesis of Europe with this East is groundlessness: «There is Steppe, a powerful nomad civilization, which degraded increasingly after XIV-XV centuries. There is a Far-East civilization center, great China, which had cultural impact on the Steppe yet was its inexorable enemy and antipode» [13, p.718].
Therefore, some diaspora scientists see Ukraine not as a battlefield for civilizations, but rather a place for mutual West-East penetration. Thus a concept of a «frontier nature» of Ukrainian people arises. According to O. Kulchytsky, Ukrainian soil historically attract the «conquering West» and the «wild steppe East» with its wealth and rich crops. Consequently, Ukrainian found himself cramped «at the frontier» - in the perimeter of
counteraction between two civilizations. As such, O. Kulchytsky interprets the «at the frontier» situation as «permanent human being on the edge of existence» [8, p.715].
A widespread approach among the diaspora scientists was to consider «spirit frontier» as a factor that hampers the state formation process. Among the destructive elements of national identity predetermined by centuries of external expansion, the Ukrainian diaspora thinkers mentioned an inferiority complex, inability to differentiate the true patriotism and its expediency in a specific historical situation from abnormal ambitions. Intolerance towards foreign political system gets permanent resulting in a dangerous habit of a «riot for riot», an absolute counteraction, «negation» of not only foreign power, but any power whatsoever. Hence, the diaspora thinkers believed that the major adverse consequence of geopolitical confusion suffered by Ukrainian people was statelessness.
Distrust of statistical data from Soviet Ukraine as well as severely limited opportunities for communication with its scientific circles caused a situation in which Ukrainian diaspora thinkers faced with the lack of empirical data on the current trends of Ukrainian society development. In such conditions, diasporic political and philosophical thought turned to the study of national character as a resource of knowledge about the Ukrainian national worldview. Thus, one of the most pressing issues within Ukrainian diaspora thought in the middle of the twentieth century became the concept of national character.
National defeats (loss of a state status) and adverse (in the context of state building) traits of the Ukrainian national identity were explained from the perspective of external forces. However, this position often took those representing the political and philosophic thinking to over-idealization of the Ukrainian national type and understatement of the Ukrainian responsibility for historical fails.
Yet another finding of diaspora's thinkers addressing the problem of a binary East-West opposition was the issue of the domestic Ukrainian «watershed lines». The diaspora scientists initiated research of mental traits typical of Ukrainians of different historical regions. So we see a binary East-West opposition being moved to the area of research of the Ukrainian society. This approach was underpinned by the evident discrepancies in the ways of social and cultural as well as political development of Ukrainians in the period from late 17th century until early 20th century against the background of two empires - the Romanovs and the Habsburgs.
Publicist Ivan Honcharenko claimed that discrepancies between the Ukrainians from the East and the West of Ukraine were so considerable that it is reasonable to speak about the «two types of Ukrainians». In I. Honcharenko's opinion, the background of the Eastern Ukrainian spirit is the «Ukrainian-Byzantine Orthodox Christianity». Meanwhile, the Western Ukrainian intellectual elite had been shaped under the influence of the Union and the Western Catholicism isolated from the «root of the Ukrainian national organism in the East», -wrote I. Honcharenko. As a consequence, «Ukrainians
from the western regions of Ukraine, especially those from Galicia, bow too much to the West and its culture thinking all the Western to be better and treating their fellow nationals from the East as something inferior», says I. Honcharenko [4, p.32].
Probably the most large-scale detailed research of mental differences between the Ukrainian East and West was made by M.Shlemkevych in his paper named «Halychanstvo». The scientist aimed to study the development of «halychanstvo» (Galicia national identity) as a «standalone spiritual and ethnic differences among Ukrainians» [14, p.7]. M. Shlemkevych was looking for the genesis of the inter-Ukrainian «East-West» dichotomy deep in the Ukrainian history. He thought that the economic influence of the West in the 16-17th centuries resulted in peasants being bonded by Polish or Poland-influenced lords. In the long run, more peaceful and law-obedient citizens got settled in Western Ukraine. So the scientist substantiates the idea of Galicia Ukrainians being inclined to conservatism and rationale as opposed to their fellow nationals from the East. M. Shlemkevych is certain that the mental type of a Galicia Ukrainian was also preconditioned by the territorial «segregation» of Galicia, its regional «isolation» [14, p.21-24]. However, M. Shlemkevych shared an opinion that following the unification of Ukrainian lands after World War II, the UkrSSR was undergoing a kind of diffusion: «easting» of Western Ukraine and «Galicia-style westing» of Eastern Ukraine M. Shle-mkevych thought the original Ukrainian culture could only rise on the background of «unused spiritual and mental wealth of the Ukrainian East» [14, p. 105].
Conclusion. Intellectual heritage of the Ukrainian diaspora contains quite a few constructive approaches in the context of the search for national consensus. It should be noted that representatives of political and philosophical thought in the culture of the Ukrainian diaspora established a number of valuable methods to resolve the situation of internal division of Ukrainian socio-political reality.
It should be noted that attempts to conceptualize the East-West dichotomy in the context of Ukrainian political culture by Ukrainian emigrant thinkers of the second half of the 20th century are relevant for Ukrainian nowadays.
At the same time the topicality of the research is emphasized by the absence of studies describing this aspect of the philosophical culture of the Ukrainian diaspora. Therefore it is important to emphasize that during the study, representatives of political and philosophical thought of the Ukrainian diaspora who have made the most significant contribution to the development of the idea of the East-West dichotomy were identified. Among them are I.Honcharenko, O.Kulchytsky, I.Lysyak-Rudnytsky, M.Shlemkevych.
The defeat of state-building projects caused the turn of the diaspora's research interest to the problem of Ukrainian mentality. The Ukrainian diaspora thinkers explored the mentality of Ukrainians through the prism of the conceptual East-West opposition. Thus they initiated studies on the causes of the regional split among Ukrainians and mental vacillation between East and West.
Thereby the issue of the Ukrainian national character became one of the key research areas of the Ukrainian diaspora's political and philosophic thought in the latter half of 20th century. The national character was interpreted through the prism of cultural and civi-lizational influences on Ukrainian lands. In this context, there arises a problem of «national complexes» as a consequence of destructive external influences on the Ukrainian national environment. It should be noted that, as of today, the relevant issue remains an integral part of public discourse in Ukraine. Therefore, the studies of the phenomenon of East-West dichotomy in the context of Ukrainian political culture expand the horizon of modern understanding of the obstacles related to the formation of the Ukrainian state.
It also should be noted that among the important intellectual achievements of the Ukrainian diaspora of the second half of the 20th century was establishing Ukraine's affiliation with the European cultural and civ-ilizational circle. Relevant conclusions fill the relevance of political and philosophical studies of the diaspora for the Ukrainian present.
References
1. Andrusyak T. Shlyakh do svobody (Mykhaylo Drahomanov pro prava lyudyny) [The path to freedom (Mykhaylo Drahomanov about humar rights]. Lviv: «Svit», 1998. - 189 p. [in Ukrainian].
2. Herchanivska P. Dykhotomiya skhid-zakhid : istoryko-kul'turolohichnyy aspekt [East-west dichotomy: historical and cultural aspect] // Visnyk Natsionalnoyi akademiyi kerivnykh kadriv kultury i mystetstv. - 2019. - №1. - P. 3-8. [in Ukrainian].
3. Hrushevsky M. Na porozi novoyi Ukrayiny: hadki i mriyi [On the threshold of a new Ukraine: thoughts and dreams]. Kyiv: "Petro Bars'kyy u Kyyivi", 1918. - 120 p. [in Ukrainian].
4. Honcharenko I. Osnovy ukrayinskoho natsional'noho vykhovannya [Fundamentals of Ukrainian national education]. Neu-Ulm: «Ukrayinski visti», 1959. - 123 p. [in Ukrainian].
5. Dontsov D. Rosiya chy Evropa? [Russia or Europe?]. London: «Vydavnyztvo Soyuzu Ukrayintsiv u V. Britaniyi», 1955. - 59 p. [in Ukrainian].
6. Dontsov D. Pidstavy nashoyi polityky [Foundations of Our Politics]. 1921. Vienna: Vydavnytstvo Dontsovykh, 1921. -212 p. [in Ukrainian].
7. Kostomarov M. Dvi rus'ki narodnosty [Two Rus' Peoples]. Kyiv; «Tsentr navchal'noyi literatury», 2012. - 112p. [in Ukrainian].
8. Kulchytsky O. Rysy kharakterolohiyi ukrayins'koho narodu // Entsyklopediya ukrayinoznavstva. - V. 2. - Kyiv.: Instytut ukrayins'koyi arkheohrafiyi ta dzhereloznavstva im. M.S. Hrushevskoho NAN Ukrayiny, 1995. - P. 708718 [in Ukrainian].
9. Lypynskyi V. Povne zibrannya tvoriv, arkhiv, studiyi / Lysty do brativ-khliborobiv: Pro ideyu i orhanizatsiyu ukrayins'koho monarkhizmu [Complete collection of works, archive, studies/ Letters to the Brothers-Farmers: On the idea and organization of Ukrainian monarchism ]. Kyiv-Philadelphia . - V.6., 1995. - 471 p. [in Ukrainian].
10. Lypa Y. Pryznachennya Ukrayiny //Vseukrayins'ka trylohiya: u 2 tomah // [Ukraine's purpose //All-Ukrainian trilogy: in 2 volumes ]. — V. 1.: Kyiv.: MAUP, 2007. — 336 p. [in Ukrainian].
11. Lysyak-Rudnytsky I. Problemy terminolohiyi ta periodyzatsiyi v ukrayinskiy istoriyi // Istorychne ese [Problems of terminology and periodization of Ukrainian history // Historical essays]. - V.1. - Kyiv: «Osnovy», 1994. - 531 p. [in Ukrainian].
12. Lysyak-Rudnytsky I. Ukrayina mizh Skhodom i Zakhodom // Istoriya filosofiyi Ukrayiny. Khrestomatiya [Ukraine between East and West // History of philosophy of Ukraine. Chrestomathy] - Kyiv: Lybid', 1993. - P. 509-511. [in Ukrainian].
13. Popovych M. Narys istoriyi kultury Ukrayiny [Essay on the history of culture of Ukraine]. — Kiyv, 1998. — P. 715-725. [in Ukrainian].
14. Shlemkevych M. Halychanstvo. - New York -Toronto, 1956. - 120 p. [in Ukrainian].
Ф1ЛОСОФ1Я ЕТИКИ НА Р1ЗНИХ ЕТАПАХ ЕВОЛЮЦ1ЙНОГО СТАНОВЛЕННЯ
СУСПШЬСТВА
Апшай В.Ф.
Ужгородський тститут культури i мистецтв, доцент кафедри мистецьких дисциплт, кандидат наук, доктор фшософИ
PHILOSOPHY OF ETHICS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY FORMATION OF
SOCIETY
Apshay V.
Uzhgorod Institute of Culture and Arts, Associate Professor of the Department of Arts, Candidate of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy
Анотащя
Дшльшсть в cycnrnbCTBi неможлива за вщсутносп певних загальних етичних норм. Тобто повинна юнувати загально схвалена «угода» вщносно того, яка дiлова поведшка е прийнятою, а яка — т. Деякi i3 загальних норм поведшки людей в сyспiльствi видшити дуже легко: вони записанi у виглядi законiв i нор-мативiв. Iншi ж, формально не записаш, стали звичайними та чiтко виконуються бiльшiстю членiв сус-пiльства. Сукупшсть цих формальних i встановлених норм складае фiлософiю етики. Поведiнка, що не вiдповiдае встановленим стандартам, вважаеться не етичною. Термш «етика» походить ввд давньогрець-кого еthos, що за чаав Гомера означало мюце перебування, спiльне житло, а згодом — звичай, вдачу, характер.
Abstract
Activity in society is impossible in the absence of certain general ethical norms. That is, there must be a generally accepted "agreement" as to which business behavior is accepted and which is not. Some of the general norms of human behavior in society are very easy to identify: they are written in the form of laws and regulations. Others, not formally recorded, have become commonplace and are clearly followed by most members of society. The set of these formal and established norms constitutes the philosophy of ethics. Behavior that does not meet established standards is considered unethical. The term "ethics" comes from the ancient Greek ethos, which in Homer's time meant a place of residence, shared housing, and later - custom, temperament, character.
Ключов1 слова: етика, етикет, поведiнка,фiлософiя етики, мораль та моральшсть, роль звичок, норми морали
Keywords: ethics, etiquette, behavior, philosophy of ethics, morality and morality, the role of habits, norms of morality.
Основний текст статп
Видатний фшософ Вольтер сказав: «Етикет -це розум для тих, хто його не мае». У творах дав-ньогрецьких фiлософiв можна знайти два термши, похвдш ввд слова «етос»: еthikos (етичний) i еthika (етика). Термш «етичний» потрiбний був мисли-телю для тзнання чеснот, що стосуються людсько! вдач^ характеру. Що ж до науки, яка вивчае етичш чесноти, то саме Арютотель i його найближчi учш назвали И етикою.
Етика е сукупнютю знань, що дозволяють ана-лiзувати й ощнювати людсьш стосунки, свого роду довкшля духовного свггу та душевних почутлв лю-дини. Пд етикою розумiемо науку про моральнi та
духовш принципи поведiнки людини, якими вона керуеться в житл. А дшова етика являеться складо-вою етики i дае можливiсть оцiнити з точки зору моральних критерiiв та параметрiв, що добре i що погано в дшових стосунках мiж людьми, а також мiж людиною i суспiльством. Стосовно бiзнесу да-лова етика визначае моральнi критерп та параметри вiдносин мiж виробниками i споживачами, службо-вцями i менеджерами органiзацiй, самими оргашза-щями, пiдприемствами та державою, що утворюе систему взаемних зобов'язань одного перед одним. Дшова етика виконуе функци не тiльки морального судження, а й е засобом прийняття ршень, що дае
