CC BY
33
Section 11. Philosophy
Section 11. Philosophy
Grechishnikova Nina Petrovna, Kaluga's branch of the Moscow State Technical University,
Ph. D. Associate Professor E-mail: nina-grech@yandex.ru
To the problem of moral harmony
Abstract: The article devoted to understanding the processes of transformation of public morality. Author specially stopped on the morality of the middle class, as a naturally phenomenon, and shows how utilitarian morality of the middle class becomes a means of resolving a moral dilemma «success or virtue».
Keywords: moral dilemma, moral harmony, egodikeia, elite, utilitarian morality.
We notice that morality is transformed. It is quite natural processes. But how and where it is transforming? And by what measures themselves to measure? Torment moral choice is especially common among people who are forced to periodically make responsible decisions.
After all, whom much is given, much will be called to account. It is possible, therefore, to understand any person with active life position, hoping to build such a system of relations and ethical norms, in which he would be comfortable.
Where to find these rules, as the crisis in the spiritual sphere smote all mankind? Our time can be called the epoch of the collapse of metaidies. Several mass ideologies, more recently, quite acceptable to the majority of the world's population today is written off to the scrap, as the used equipment. These are already there, and new ones yet.
Spiritual entropy increases. For someone in this situation continues to be a need in development of solid and understandable picture of the world, and someone, and such, probably most, looking for answers to the question "how to live in good conscience?". Moral harmony comes the end, when one of his actions pays discharged himself moral bills.
We are talking about the moral justification or Egodikeia. Egodikeia in this regard is a moral self-reflection, which aims search convincing performance consistency ethical background of specific actions and relevant to that person's moral precepts. This behavior is characteristic first of all, for those who are seriously concerned about finding ways to resolve internal moral conflicts.
Even Kant wrote about the paradox ofhappiness and virtue. Its essence is the following: people who are not burdened with moral duty, faster succeed. You want to be successful, forget about morals; I want to be moral, forget about success. Thus, cheats and cynics are triumph, and virtuous citizens are failing.
This is particularly evident during periods of social upheaval, powerful social transformations. The situation is exacerbated in the case of a sudden extra "democratic freedoms". Gin, long suppressed brutal instincts, breaking out of the bottle begins to destroy everything. The transition from authoritarian regimes to liberal (or pseudo liberal) accompanied, as a rule, the fact that all want as quickly as possible to gain access to the benefits that previously relied only the elected.
Looking around, one notices that in this race for the benefits start winning those who managed to throw the chains of the moral
precepts and prohibitions. So it is easier to flee. Anyway, at first. However, after some time among the winners there are people, which begin to speak sincerely, having in mind not their wallet and their good name. They form the backbone of the new elite establishment. They believe, they want to emulate. Look at them with admiration. They were able to resolve the paradox of happiness and virtue. There is no need to ask them about their secret.
It is obvious: the resolution of this paradox, this main contradiction moral consciousness, is in the realm of so-called utilitarian morality. The basic principle utilitarian morality says: to be honest profitable. Good name, too, has a market value. They can be traded.
The lawyer, who for ten years he worked flawlessly from the ethical point ofview, actually turned his name into the capital. Now he has no difficulty finding the customers. A businessman, who did not violate any agreements with partners, now has no problems with loans for any amount of money at low interest rates. Everyone wants to cooperate with him. And so on.
Utilitarian morality is, first of all, the moral of the middle class. These people are the most socialized. In the sense that included a greater number of social ties and relations. This class lives, mainly, at the expense of their labor. Morality need it as a means of survival. It is only at the very top or, on the contrary, on the lower level of the social hierarchy, people can afford to be morally, putting itself beyond good and evil.
The lumpen have nothing to lose (it now even chains no, and the high and mighties of this world depend only vital (in the end, and they are mortal and are guided solely by the internal beliefs).
Genetically utilitarian morality grows out of the total amoral-ity, the state of "war of all against all", where the main principle of life — homo homini lupus est (dog eats dog). We must assume that the following utilitarian morality stage — absolute morality, where the morality of a person becomes a goal in itself, i. e. it cannot be a means to something else. Accordingly, for each stage needs to have its own personality type. The basis for the classification is the focus on preferential satisfaction of a certain type of needs. Accordingly, total amorality assumes the identity of the biological type, utilitarian moral, social, and unconditional moral, spiritual.
Utilitarian morality is convenient that its orders, in contrast to absolute morality, flexible enough to maintaining internal moral harmony, to write your verdict on the resolution of moral dilemmas. Norms absolute morality are characterized by extreme rigidity. They cannot "push". As said Lao Tzi, "noble man with honest
The question of critical re-evaluation of theological interpretation of the anthropic cosmological principle: paradoxes.
people do honestly, and with dishonest... too honest". Three types of morality, despite the logic-genetic link between them, do not negate each other, and with the need to co-exist next. This segment
of one common ethical system that is subordinated to a certain global law. To understand this law is the task of the future socio-philosophical studies.
References:
1. Andreev. I. S, Grigoryan B. I. Kant's Philosophy and modern idealism. - M.: Nauka, 2007.
2. Dena D. Overcoming differences. How to improve relationships at work and at home. - SPB: 1994.
3. Dlugach T. B. I. Kant: from the early works to the "Critique of pure reason". - M.: Nauka, 2002.
4. Psychology and ethics of the business communication. - M.: Culture and sport, UNITY, 1997.
5. Shanov V. P. Manage others. How to manage yourself (Art Manager). - Minsk: Amalfea, 1996.
6. Shostrom E. Anti-Carnegie, or Man-manipulator. - Minsk: TPC «Polifact», 1992.
Makuhin Petr Gennadyevich, Omsk State Technical University, Omsk, Russia, PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Social Communication E-mail: petr_makuhin@mail.ru
The question of critical re-evaluation of theological interpretation of the anthropic cosmological principle: paradoxes of the "finalist anthropic principle" of F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow
Abstract: in the article, perhaps, the most paradoxical — in the context of scientific thinking — formulation of "the anthropic principle", meaning the "finalist" formulation, is critically analysed. However those paradoxes and contradictions to which F. J. Tipler and J. Barrow's concept led, show basic impossibility of use of scientific data as proofs of religious dogmas. Keywords: anthropic principle, "finalist" formulation, science, theology (divinity), religion, "Omega point".
Within the covers of the "European science review" magazine we already made an attempt to make some contribution to philosophical re-evaluation of the anthropic (in other transcription — anthropological) cosmological principle. (Briefly we will remind its natural-science sense, giving its definitions from the "Astronomical Dictionary" and fundamental "Physical Encyclopedia". "The principle in cosmology, according to which the intelligent life in the Universe is a necessary consequence of its fundamental properties" [1]. "People distinguish the weak and the strong types of the anthropological principle ... The essence of the first one is that our place in the Universe ... is nevertheless exclusive in the sense that it has to be compatible to our existence as observers. .According to ... (to the second one, i. e. «strong» — my note) the Universe, physical laws, which operate it, and its fundamental parameters have to be such that in it at some stage of evolution the existence of observers (mankind) was allowed" [2, 348]. That means — we gave grounds for the thesis that if not to distinguish (and rather "to mix") its scientific and religious interpretations, both scientific character and religiousness as such simply disappear located, turning into "pseu-doscientific mysticism" [3]. We shall not repeat the facts, considered in the previous article, and will provide vivid words of F. Hoy-le, which can be called the motto of the position that we criticize: "sensible interpretation of the facts gives the chance to assume that in physics, and also chemistry and biology the «superintelligence» experimented and that in the nature there are no blind forces deserving attention" (quote of [4, 141]). We realize that this tradition, which we criticize, traces its roots to many classics of the European natural sciences. For example, when the chaplain R. Bentley appealed to I. Newton to help to prepare the sermon on the subject "Atheism Denial" — relying on scientific knowledge of the "Universe structure"! — the great physicist sent him four detailed letters with explanations. In the first of them he wrote: the harmony,
surprising coherence of this "structure" "on my belief can hardly be explained with only one natural reasons and therefore I am compelled to attribute such transformations to the plan and pro-thinking of the certain agent being able to think" [5]. Therefore the following assessment of the Newton principle, that R. Cotes, a friend and a colleague of R. Bentley, gave in 1713, is not surprising: "Newton's works represent the most right protection against attacks of atheists, and not to find the best protection against impious gang" anywhere [6, 21]. Another example, we can provide, is the compatriot of I. Newton, R. Boyle. As the prominent modern Russian social thinker and the philosopher of science S. G. Kara-Murza writes, this great physicist and chemist "could not help thinking of the necessity to break evidentially the arguments of supporters of atheism" [7, 98], and, according to R. Boyle, "only the science based on supervision, experiment and mathematical calculation could rescue values of Christian religion" [7, 98]. If the reader compares these thoughts to the attempts of theological interpretations of the anthropic principle that we considered in the previous article [3], he will see that the similarity is great. We can bring more and more examples of great scientists, "standing in this row", but thoughts, which have already been considered, are enough in order that the reader had such question: "why then we criticize theological interpretations of modern discoveries, in particular, of the anthropic cosmological principle"!? Without repeating earlier provided arguments (see [3]), we will formulate a new one, related such kind of formulation of this principle as "finalist" (this option is alternative to "weak" and "strong" formulations which were briefly provided in the beginning of the article, and also to the "principle of partnership"). "The finalist anthropic principle" was introduced by the American cosmologist and mathematician F. J. Tipler and the English astrophysicist J. Barrow in their work of 1986 "The anthropic space principle" [8]. In the previous article we quoted the book by
