Like morality, customs also made spontaneous in the life of concrete human communities. Com but with the right morals and traditions most deeply rooted in the original syncretism in ancient history. (We cannot say the original law, but the primitive customs - entirely.) This custom, although it is not always realized, is the most profound and mass-ing form of regulation and our present life - in most cases, speaking with people, selling their goals, etc., we act, but not special pondering over this, just as it zave proved, as usual for us and those around us. This applies to both daily and holidays, celebrations and more. Only faced with extraordinary situations and problems, all sorts of surprises, we have mo retreat from the ordinary - customary - and look for nontrivial gauge routes, including in the field of mo rally.
Given this, vporyadkovuyuche custom value in public life really difficult to overestimate - as well as the importance of traditions, habits established spoke in a human speech and thought someone, uniting our Seg tion with the historical experience of mankind. Destruction Us customs supposed to be able, as the rich social and cultural history of disasters tour of the XX century.,-A painful process that leads to primitivization and expansion of relationships, generating chaos and confusion. No wonder today so acute the revival of customary structures of human existence - is, so to speak, the bread of morality, without which it is - even to the highest operational its manifestations - can not exist.
However, paying tribute to the customs, we will weigh all the same and the fundamental difference of morality. If the attempt to formulate happen most common custom of the principle itself, he, as outlined in the literature, would require: do so, as do all! Following custom, and I act as diady similar circumstances my grand-grandfathers, as are my neighbors and friends. You pravdannyam or justification of any act there is a certain precedent and formed his expectations: what should be entirely due to the fact that was and is that the usual, routine.
In contrast, the morality based on some other principles of man she needs: do so, as must all do! So, before you do something, I very first ask ourselves not how behaved like to place on my neighbor or my great-grandfather, and of things in this situation requires me to my duty. Thus, morality in comparison with custom Tipova introduces the principle difference between suschym and proper, between what was and is and what it should be. Precedent for it is no longer the final justification of any act or Held ing from it. As noted creator ethics katehorych foot imperative Kant, even if I knew the history of mankind no one has yet fulfilled its duty properly, it would not relieve me from the necessity Nosta its own duty - to do , do it here and now. After all, this moral need not depend live on empirical relations and precedents that I can see the past but only on the internal requirements of the mandatory areas as such.
It follows that the whole sheer, all moral human being can not accept because of the very fact of its availability only in the world. Moral point of view comes from the fact that the very existence and even repeat something over the centuries is not evidence of that so it should be, an old injustice, even osvya Chen manner of justice have not yet become with the proper moral position be convicted as well as the injustices committed yesterday or today. With that said it follows a radical difference and complementarity of custom and morality in public life. The Power of custom - a powerful foundation that cements, strengthens the existing system of human existence and relationships, provides sustainability in its functioning. As for morality, it can strengthen the role of this custom, if, based on its own criteria, considers the status quo justified and appropriate. If not - Revolutionizing morality appears as a factor that opposes the conservative habit and to overcome it.
On whose side is truth in this ancient custom of dispute and morals?
If not confined narrowly traditionalist or, conversely, moralistic point of view, and try to look at wool cause wider - we have to recognize what happens in different ways. In many specific cases, right, of course, has morals, and her condemnation of certain practices should be considered as evidence of their historical conclusion. Thus, in condemning the blood tion of revenge, human sacrifice, slavery mo ral, of course, was right, this confirmed the rightness of its next human development. And now we often profit from the experiences junction with the moral condemnation of the ancient customs and the recent past, the rationale is sad that can be used no.
However, it is obvious that the customs and emerged yut not scratch. No matter how archaic or absurdnymy they sometimes seem, one should consider that they have accumulated life experience and wisdom of many generations - the experience and wisdom that is not always open briefly, not very insightful look of man, immersed in their own urgent problems of today .
Therefore, in the moralistic critique of certain customs, which is age-old traditions, we should, in general, be careful not to rush, as they say, together with water and vyhlyupuvaty child. Condemning, say, the customs associated with the affirmation of inequality articles, inhuman humiliation of women, is it worth it, as we often see today, make this campaign equalizing up to the absurd limit, which lost itself cultivated for centuries antropokulturnyy image of femininity - and hence people feel less and less incentives to develop their own men of virtue?
Unlike the field right here, between tradition and morality, clear, predetermined criteria for differentiation be, of course, can not - solve all our ability to comprehend each particular case, our tact and sense of proportion, which is gen scrap some of the most important the cultural formalities capable person.
Conclusion
One of the conditions of moral choice is the variability of behavior, ie the presence of a range of objective opportunity to compare and give preference to certain actions, and consciously determine the meaning of his life, that is a subjective ability to choose.
Thus, during the detailed consideration of this issue is becoming more difficult, because not fully elucidated: What is the opportunity and ability to choose and which character they are - objective or subjective. Depending on the answer to this question is determined and the position of the philosopher, thinker about human nature and its place in the world
In philosophical and ethical works of human nature dealt primarily with the position of specific properties - mental activity, which was perceived as a primary characteristic of a certain man, and man - as a winner in his expression. Human Morality in this case is integrally connected with her mind and is perceived as something natural, and freedom - as the existing property of every human individual.
Individual human life bears the imprint of some "zadanosti: certain ethnic environment, its customs and traditions of the era in which he lives, cultural values, even before any data selection from her childhood.
Thus, in the everyday practice of a person facing a specific, real existing natural conditions of life, social and economic factors, the existing culture.
These conditions in many respects determine the range of interests, aspirations and needs of people, a number of possibilities to choose the person directly and concrete meaning to its activities, the standards and criteria by which it assesses their behavior, their life path.