Morals and morality: the supreme law or why they are necessary?
Try to rise over yourself. To fly up up, under clouds, and the most attentive image, it is slow, from there, from the party and height, free as a bird, to look at the Person. To look through time veil, alluvial occupation layers, inconsistent religions, bulky customs and traditions. To peer at least into how still yesterday there lived your fathers and grandfathers by what internal laws they were guided. And as well as than now you live and you are guided.
As the keen observer who is not interested in the beseeming self-deception, alone with himself you will see that the Person, as before, will squeeze as if a rag doll in a mossy chest after with it played enough, in a narrow framework of perceptions and appertseption about and the world, about the good and evil, about the truth and lie. How it is necessary to live and how it is not necessary to live.
When in society for some reasons laws of the state cease to work, as a rule, nothing remains to the Person how to address laws of morals and morality. To laws as it seems to it the highest and therefore correct and suitable for all cases of life. Many of us, in a varying degree, are guided by these supreme laws always, despite of times and circumstances, in sacred belief that do right thing, and internally for that feel elation and feel as the bigger People, than those who, in their opinion, do not adhere to these laws.
What they, these supreme laws of morals and morality who establishes them and why they are necessary? Of course, first of all it is good all familiar bible “Do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery“ … Further, not so often remembered, not capital, but not less important: seniors need to be respected, younger not to offend, care for dumb animals. To be a patriot, to love the wife (husband) and children, to care for parents. Not to lie, not to drink, not to smoke etc. And the people allocated with these or those “morally - moral powers“, - philosophers, writers and statesmen, as a matter of experience the previous generations and the present which is formed in this or that direction establish them, of course. Establish them, as a rule, for spiritual development of the Person, rescue of his Soul, preservation of its divine integrity … well, and for the sake of maintenance of the law and an order in the state that is usually mentioned less often.
But whether so they, we - those who took laws of morals and morality for a paradigm of the terrestrial existence are faultless? Whether our arguments when, for example, wishing to put the fat end to long dispute are so powerful, we cite as an example these supreme laws? Whether some of them, at all the external beauty and correctness, just are anti-humane, entering the conflict with Life and the Nature, or, on extremely measure, nonabsolute?
If to return to the introductory offer to rise up and to look at the Person from height, impartially and honestly, then it is necessary to notice that at various times, in different societies, there were laws of morals and morality which very strongly differed, regressed and progressed throughout short periods. Some of these morally - moral laws were absent at all, from our point of view. For example, the concept “conscience“ in general was unfamiliar to ancient Greeks. The lowest estates were afraid of anger of gods. The highest, as well as now, or doubted gods, or at all rejected them, recognizing for the person laws others: nature and person.
We will take the main of all humanistic, and, therefore, moral laws - do not kill. Church, being the chief lawyer of morals and morality on Earth, accurately and unambiguously lets know that not the person gave life to the person, and the Lord, and, therefore, not the person has the right to take away it. However you should not forget that with this morally - a moral maxim, without reflecting, those who did not face violent death of the family who was not the victim of the military conflicts most often operate, did not look in the face to the murderer and did not face inaction of the authorities. Statistically, as it is paradoxical, most of orthodox Russians is not ready to reject completely from itself Moses the law and to adopt the law Iisusov, even theoretically. Whether so this majority is right?
“Do not steal“ … You should not forget that the concept “others, not my“, has very indistinct contours. It is clear, who from whom stole when the teenager gets into your car and hijacks it. Or when one person in the bus extends at you from a pocket a wallet. But whether it is possible to use the same rectilinear terminology when the worker what fulfilled at plant thirty years for a modest salary and put the health there, pulls kilogram of nails or three bearings from there? He is a thief at plant, at the state, or not the thief? And whether the plant can rob the workers? And state of the citizens? Whether the moral law “do not steal“ and here can be applied? As far as?
It is here too pertinent to remember near the eightieth when there were concepts “fartsovka“ and “speculation“ punishable under the law and blamed by society on all weight of the existing morals and morality. And nowadays, only twenty years later, often the same new - old moralists and nravstvennik reconciled with these phenomena long ago, and even uplift them almost in virtue, calling them respectably “business“ and “commerce“.
“Do not commit adultery“ … who wrote this morally - the moral law and how close it was familiar with the nature of the real living person? In the Bible it is accurately stated that if in thoughts you sin with foreign wife - all the same that sinned in reality, not to mention a real adultery. Whether it is possible to all of us, under this supreme law, ever to be forgiven for those uncountable adulteries that were made mentally and not mentally? And that it is better: a sexual neurasthenia or violation by someone for you written morally - moral decency? And as far as the law bible, moral, correlates with the law legal? It is possible to remember near times when quickly to divorce in the USA the unloved spouse or the spouse, it was possible only in several states. And divorce in all other states or was not considered at all, or was considered by years, or for big money. Also it turns out that that at whom to divorce under not the God`s law, but legal was impossible and it made change, had to be punished by Heaven, the law, the conscience. And our grandmothers and grandfathers to divorce quickly and without serious consequences opportunities had no. On what, again, there was a law legal, and not divine. And as far as the love can be a justification to change, and what is made under a blanket in a family without love is called change? Here the law moral turns into the law legal that cannot be true in any way.
How to be a full-fledged patriot if you have enough sight to see incompetence and the same immorality of actions taken by the state, the country in which you live? You do not wish to participate in them? Here it is better to be the nravstvuyushchy fool closing eyes to what cuts them or the immoral intellectual - the traitor and the traitor?
Whether Vysokomoralno not to lie - and by that to incite against itself the whole world, to complicate existence by another and even to ruin itself, or nevertheless the truth-lover to be bad? As far as? Where that side of the truth permitted by morals and morality - if it in general can be carried out and as far as it where has to be? The real truth and true morals - two ephemeral substances excluding each other. Just because a majority of mankind prefer the world of pleasant illusions and delusions, finds the truth shocking and, just, immoral. It is possible to tell that morally all immoral, to those a time until it is hidden from eyes. And, on the contrary, the morals made public often have immorality signs.
On the concepts and representations of my western friends knowing about us firsthand human life in the USSR was far from high morals and morality. GULAG, partiyno - nomenclature lie and hypocrisy. Berlin wall, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan... In their opinion, and present life in Russia, with its statistics on abortions, alcoholism and theft if is closer to any democracy, then is not closer to morality and morality at all.
On the contrary, the West in our representation though which is economically prospering with elements of external democracy in morally - moral aspect continues to rot: a total money power, unclear to the orthodox person of value and freedom, like homosexuality, the consumer relation to life, individualism and an egocentrism. That is, it is not less immoral and immoral.
In my opinion, morals and morality - so an idea human, as far as also legal laws and laws of the hostel. And as far as the last are imperfect also ambivalentna, so and the first can be not absolute and doubtful. Substances temporary, quickly changing, often inconsistent and mutually exclusive. And therefore the choice - to start helping fallen to rise or falling to push, can be not so unambiguous. At least because the one to whom you helped rise can further continue to fall, in inert expectation of your help. And the one to whom you gave a kick, for the sake of its own benefit to fall next time will beware.