CC BY
5
УДК 373.3
Shukurullaeva G. master's degree Department of Ethics and Aesthetics Faculty of Social Sciences, National University of Uzbekistan named after MirzoUlugbek
teacher
Department of Social Sciences, Tashkent Banking Credit College Uzbekistan, Tashkent
ROLE OF PUNISHMENT IN MORAL EDUCATION
Annotation: This article analyzes the moral and legal consequences of punishment. The role of punishment in moral education is considered. Discusses approaches to the concept ofpunishment in the work of thinkers.
Key words: punishment, purpose of punishment, law, society, legalism, moralism.
The punishment is diverse and includes several types. The most important basis for its differentiation can be considered the subject of punishment. In prestate conditions, the duty of blood vengeance took over the clan as a whole. In ancient mythology, personified fantastic representations arose - demonic figures personifying the rudiments of moral feelings; conscience was recognized as the main moral authority serving the function of punishment. Medieval philosophy endows the functions of the arbiter of the punishment of God. In modern times, the state was considered the main legal source of punishment. The second basis for classification is the source of the right to punishment. This right can be legitimized and morally unjustified by anyone, as well as come from an absolute source (cosmic justice, God, moral law). At the same time, it can be relative, i.e. derived from real social being - a social contract or the needs of a person and society in self-defense.
Depending on the temporal orientation, punishments can be divided into consequential (aimed at preventing future crimes) and retributive (focused on punishment for past crimes). A compromise mixture of these theoretical approaches is also possible, when the punishment of an individual is justified in the consequentialist paradigm, and punishment as a social practice in a retributive one. Finally, sentences can be classified according to their purpose. Utilitarian theories derive from the punishment any public benefit — intimidation, limitation of the possibilities of the criminal or his correction. Non-utilitarian - are based on retaliation and testify to the immorality of using a criminal. Arising from blood feud, retaliation is based on world justice, divine punishment, or unconditional moral duty. Theoretical reflection on punishment demonstrates the variability in the interpretation of the concept. Initially, the punishment was considered in the
spirit of equal retribution, corresponding to the principle of the "give evil to evil" talion. Due to the collectivist foundations of the morals of the pre-state era, blood vengeance was recognized as the leading form of punishment. Ethics of Socrates, who began the classical era in ancient philosophy, put the focus of the study not on the act, but on the subject of punishment. Antique ethics changed the perspective of considering punishment to promising and saw in it a means of correcting the offender. The most effective punishment, according to the philosophers of antiquity, is moral sanctions - conscience and public censure, and the best way to combat crime in society is to educate in the spirit of civic virtue. The philosophy of the Middle Ages rethought the theory of punishment in a religious spirit, where it appeared primarily as an atonement for guilt before God. Accordingly, the main purpose of earthly punishment was the recognition of sinfulness and repentance.
In the philosophy of modern times, punishment was seen as evil (suffering), inflicted in response to the crime. Its purpose was mainly considered public good. The laws of the state were a guarantee of justice, so the punishment was considered in an ethical and legal context. At the same time, there was a tendency towards the humanization of penitentiary discourse - to reduce crimes, it should not be a toughening of punishments, but a general mitigation of "morals" (C. Beccaria, Sh. L. Montesquieu).A special place in the theory of punishment of the New time belongs to the rigorous ideas of I. Kant, who opposed utilitarianism. Society has an unconditional duty to punish a criminal symmetrically to his crime. It must be executed regardless of the requirements of the benefit, the conditions of the crime or the situation at the time of punishment. The triumph of justice is higher than other possible benefits: I. Kant returned the idea of punishment from the sphere of state law to the sphere of morality. Further, Hegel gave the punitive retribution a dialectical filling.
The introduction of sociological perspectives into the theory of punishment made it possible to consider its functions in relation to the whole society as a complex functional, self-regulatory system. In this aspect, one can study the effect of punishment not on the fate of individuals (which can be neglected), but on social relations in general. So, E. Durkheim saw in punishment a means of restoring damage to the moral feelings of society, a form of a kind of social catharsis. In the interpretation of M. Foucault, punishment appears as a manifestation of impersonal power aimed at manipulating an individual, regulating his behavior, forming an obedient and disciplined producer and consumer.
In Russian thought, the theory of punishment went through the same stages as in Western European ethics. In different eras, it was dominated by the idea of just retribution in the spirit of .talion; divine judgment and the need for repentance; state punishment as intimidation; tasks of correction and labor education of the criminal; the need for forced economic activity for the sake of public good. Russian moral philosophy of the XIX - XX centuries. covered a wide range of problems related to the idea of punishment, and did so at a high theoretical and artistic level. The work of at least three of the Russian thinkers - F.M. Dostoevsky, JI.H. Tolstoy and A.I. Solzhenitsyna - outgrew the national level and became one
of the world-famous works that are important for understanding the essence of punishment as such. For the first time as an element of an integral moral and philosophical system, the problem of punishment was considered by Vl. Soloviev. Consistently rejecting the extreme goals of revenge and exhortation, he came to the definition of punishment as a morally justifiable means restricting the manifestation of the evil will of the offender for the sake of public safety, including in the interests of correcting the offender himself. F.M. Dostoevsky, based on the identity of the criminal, proposed a concept of punishment that is close to religious. He worked out in detail and artistically described the way to rectify it: from guilt to repentance, and through purification by suffering to forgiveness. L. Tolstoy, based on the personality of the victim, called for love, forgiveness and a good answer to evil. A.F. Koni turned to the third figure in the process of punishment - the identity of the judge, indicating the need for priority of the moral principle in the trial. ,The analysis of theoretical works allows us to realize the correspondence between the type of punishment prevailing in a particular era and the cultural foundations of the era. Before the advent of the state, punishments were regulated by spontaneously formed local traditions and customs that did not have a legal and moral justification. At the prehistory stage, it was understood as revenge - retribution committed by the hands of the victim or his relatives. The perpetrator of the violence, given the principle of revenge, knew that he would inevitably receive an adequate response. Thus, the fear of the inevitability of retaliation was an effective deterrent ;, the response in the framework of initial violence.
In the early stages of the development of the state, the severity of moral choice was transferred from collective norms to the individual. The retrospective principle of retaliation was replaced by the principle of prevention - the golden rule. A truly virtuous person should refrain from misconduct out of a sense of duty, and not out of fear of punishment. The criterion of morality is conscience, true punishment is its torment, reward is virtue in itself. For the Middle Ages, the subject of punishment, the source of his right was outside of man and identified with God. The connection between man and God was accomplished through an internal instance - the soul of a person, so the essence of punishment was not in external changes, but in internal ones. The purpose of earthly punishment was the remorse of the criminal in their actions. If he did not repent, he would receive a true punishment - eternal torment. In the era of absolutism, the state was recognized as the highest legal and moral authority, and not God, not conscience and the laws of the family. The main function of punishment was considered intimidation, any execution served the purpose of strengthening the authority of the monarch and the authorities as a whole - hence its spectacularity, cruelty and sophistication. Instead of fighting crimes, the authorities threw all resources to maintain their own authority, utilizing punishment as a means of maintaining power. The ideologists of the Enlightenment proposed a number of liberal legal measures designed to streamline and justify punishment: the restriction of violence and cruelty, interference with personal life, the utilitarian use of a prisoner. These
ideals were to be reflected in the growing independence of the judiciary; abolition of public punishment, torture, capital punishment; the replacement of all forms of punishment with imprisonment; ' respect for the human dignity of the prisoner. Despite the fact that not all of them were realized, liberal law remains the leading theoretical base of the modern penitentiary system.
According to many researchers, the modern penitentiary system is in a state of crisis and requires reform. Reforms can follow the path of consistent humanization of the punishment system, its further liberalization or diversification in a postmodern spirit. Currently, there is no universally recognized direction. A correct, balanced attitude of the society towards the criminal and punishment is possible only if a legal culture is formed in the society. As a comprehensive education, it includes many elements, the determining ones of which are legal consciousness, legal understanding, and lawful activity. Legal culture is variable and variable: a diverse combination of its elements is possible. This or that final configuration, in turn, determines the attitude of society towards punishment. In the basis of legal culture, two extreme value positions in relation to punishment can be distinguished. Legalism proceeds from the rule of law; the main thesis of her supporters is: "a crime must inevitably be followed by a symmetrical punishment." Evil must be punished in any case, it is a legal necessity and the duty of the state to its citizens. "Legal punishment is unacceptable, because all violence is immoral" - the antithesis of moralism.
Legalism and moralism are extremes between which there is a legal culture. They are necessary in order to determine its coordinates, although a developed legal culture is equidistant from the extremes of legalism and I moralism. Fixation on any of them leads to the destruction of the legal culture. At the same time, absolute moralism, denying punishment, and legalism in its pure form, seeing only fear of punishment in morality, are dangerous. Law arises in the sphere of "cross consensus" between the personal interests and the interests of the state. The sphere where the combination of morality and law is possible is civil society, which implies the unification of people in a network of non-governmental associations organized on a voluntary basis. A member of civil society is held back from crime by a system of trust-based interpersonal relationships that he may lose in the event of a crime.
During the formation of civil society in Europe and in the process of developing a legal culture, the main compromise moral principles were applied that apply to punishment: saving punitive means, justice, taking into account individuality, individual autonomy, democracy, unprofitability of crime, general truth. In civil society, public dialogue is a way of delegating individual desires to the state through civil society institutions. Only through open dialogue between different parties can a society come to the right, balanced decision, justified both in a legal and in a moral sense. Legal culture is not just knowledge of laws, it is the ability to participate in public dialogue and the ability to exert pressure on the authorities. Only under this condition is there a possibility of solving the problem of crime and the humanization of the penitentiary system.
Sources used:
1. Гринёва, Е.А. Нравственное воспитание школьников: сущность базовых понятий / Е.А. Гринёва // Современное образование: приоритетные направления в теории и практике.: материалы VI международной научно-практической конференции: М.: МШ 'У, - 2014. - С.68 -74
2. Спенсер Г. Воспитание умственное, нравственное и физическое Герберта Спенслера: монография. - СПб.: Лань, 2014. - 364 с.
3. Фоминова А.Н. Педагогическая психология: учебное пособие / А.Н. Фоминова, Т.Л. Шабанова. - М.: ФЛИНТА, 2011. - 320 с.
