Values ​​occupy the most important place in the life of a person and society, since it is values ​​that characterize the actual human way of life, the level of separation of a person from the animal world. The problem of values ​​acquires special significance in the transitional periods of social development, when cardinal social transformations lead to a sharp change in the value systems that existed in it, thereby placing people in a dilemma: either to maintain established, familiar values, or to adapt to new ones that are widely offered, even imposed representatives of various parties, public and religious organizations, movements. Therefore, the questions are: what are values; what is the ratio of value and appreciation; what values ​​are the main ones for a person, and what are secondary ones - are vitally important today.

What are the values, so are the society and the individual. It is no coincidence that the problem of values ​​always comes first in the transitional periods of social development. This is the time our society is going through today, with its instability and sharp social shifts. All this finds its expression in the process of revaluation of values. It should be borne in mind that the denial of old forms of life of society and the individual is hidden behind the denial of old values.
The concept and nature of values
The philosophical teaching about values ​​and their nature is called axiology (from the Greek axios - value and logos - teaching). But before taking shape in its modern form, this theory went through a historical path of development, equal to the formation of the philosophy itself, within the framework of which it was formed. In ancient, and then in medieval philosophy, values ​​were identified with being itself, and value characteristics were included in its concept. Values, therefore, were not separated from being, but were viewed as being in being itself. For example, for Socrates and Plato, values ​​such as goodness and justice were the main criteria for true being. In addition, an attempt was made in ancient philosophy to classify values. In particular, Aristotle singled out self-sufficient values, or "self-values", to which he attributed a person, happiness, justice, and values ​​that are of a relative nature, the comprehension of which depends on the wisdom of a person.

Different historical eras and different philosophical systems leave their mark on the understanding of values. In the Middle Ages, they are associated with the divine essence, acquire a religious character. The Renaissance era highlights the values ​​of humanism. In modern times, the development of science and new social relations is largely determined by the main approach to the consideration of objects and phenomena as values.

Kant was the first to use the concept of value in a special, narrow sense. The prerequisite for axiology for him is the separation of the existing and the ought, reality and the ideal. Values ​​are: requirements directed to the will; the goals facing the person; the significance of certain factors for the personality. Hegel paid special attention to the differentiation of values ​​into economic (utilitarian) and spiritual. The first act as goods and are characterized by their "quantitative certainty". Essentially, what is meant here is the abstract, exchange value of a commodity.

According to the main areas public life usually there are 3 groups of values: material, socio-political and spiritual.

Material values ​​are valuable natural objects and objects, i.e. means of labor and things of direct consumption. Natural values ​​include natural benefits contained in natural resources. And to object values ​​- objects of the material world, created as a result of human labor, as well as objects of the cultural heritage of the past.

Socio-political values ​​are the value values ​​of social and political phenomena, events, political acts and actions. Social and political values, as a rule, include the social good contained in political and social movements, as well as the progressive significance of historical events that contribute to the prosperity of society, the strengthening of peace and cooperation between peoples, etc.

Spiritual values ​​are the normative and evaluative side of the phenomena of social consciousness, expressed in appropriate forms. Spiritual values ​​are considered to be the values ​​of science, morality, art, philosophy, law, etc.

The second basis for the classification of values ​​is by subjects. Here individual, group and universal values ​​are distinguished.

Individual or personal value is the value significance of an object, phenomenon, idea for a specific person. Any value is inherently individual, because only a person is able to evaluate an object, phenomenon, idea. Personal values ​​are generated by the needs and interests of the individual.

Group values ​​are the value significance of objects, phenomena, ideas for any community of people. Group values ​​are of great importance for the life of a particular collective, rallying the individuals included in it with common interests and value orientations.

General human values ​​are the value significance of objects, phenomena, ideas for world society. The universal values ​​include socio-political and moral principles shared by the majority of the population of the world community; universal human ideals, national goals and the main means of achieving them; natural values ​​and values, which in their essence and significance are of a global nature: problems of preserving peace, disarmament, international economic order, etc.

From the point of view of the role that values ​​play in the life of society and individuals, they can be divided into the following three groups:

Values ​​of secondary importance to individuals and society. These are the values ​​without which the normal functioning of society and man is not disturbed.

The values ​​of everyday demand and everyday life. This group includes most of both material and spiritual values. This is all that is necessary for the normal satisfaction of the material and spiritual needs of a person, without which society cannot function and develop.

The highest values ​​are values ​​of the utmost importance, reflecting the fundamental relationships and needs of people. Without the highest values, not only a person cannot take place, but also a normal life of society as a whole is impossible. The highest values ​​include a part of material, spiritual and socio-political values. These are, first of all: the world, the life of mankind; ideas about justice, freedom, rights and duties of people, friendship and love; family ties; the values ​​of the activity; self-preservation values; values ​​of self-affirmation, self-realization; values ​​characterizing the choice of personal qualities, etc.

The classification of values ​​is dialectical, i.e. it is not rigid and motionless.
Value Theories in Philosophy
After the separation of axiology into an independent area of ​​philosophical research, several types of value theory were formed. Here is some of them.

Naturalistic psychologism considers values ​​as objective factors, the source of which lies in the biological and psychological needs of a person. This approach makes it possible to classify as values ​​any objects and actions with the help of which a person satisfies any of his needs.

Personalistic ontologism. The most prominent representative of this trend, Marx Scheler, also substantiated the objective nature of values. However, according to Scheler's concept, the value of any objects, phenomena cannot be equated with their empirical nature.

The world of values, according to Scheler, has a certain hierarchy. The lower rung of this hierarchy is occupied by values ​​associated with the satisfaction of sensual desires and material goods; higher values ​​are the values ​​of "beautiful" and "cognitive" values; the highest value is the value of the "saint" and the idea of ​​God. The reality of this entire world of values ​​is based on the value of the divine personality. The type of a person's personality is determined by its inherent hierarchy of values, which forms the ontological basis of a given personality.

Axiological transcendentalism understands values ​​not as an objective reality, but as an ideal being, independent of human needs and wishes. These values ​​include truth, goodness, justice, beauty, which have a self-sufficient meaning and exist in the form of ideal norms. Thus, value in this concept is not reality, but an ideal, the carrier of which is some kind of transcendental, i.e. otherworldly, beyond, consciousness.

Cultural and historical relativism. The founder of this direction of axiology was Wilhelm Dilthey, who based it on the idea of ​​axiological pluralism. By axiological pluralism, Dilthey understood the plurality of equal value systems that are distinguished and analyzed using the historical method. In essence, this approach meant criticism of attempts to create an absolute, only correct concept of values, which would be abstracted from the real cultural and historical context.

Sociological concept of values. The founder of this concept is Max Weber, who introduced the concept of values ​​into sociology and applied it to the interpretation of social action and social knowledge. According to Weber, value is a norm that has a certain significance for a social subject.

Subsequently, this approach of Weber was developed by the American sociologist William Thomas and the Polish sociologist Florian Znanetsky, who began to define values ​​not only through their social significance, but also through social attitudes. According to them, any object that has a definable content and meaning for members of any social group is a value. Attitudes are the subjective orientation of group members in relation to value.

If we have in mind the most general understanding of values, then we can say that value is a concept that indicates the cultural, social or personal meaning (significance) of phenomena and facts of reality.

All the diversity of the world can act as "object values", i.e. evaluated from the point of view of good and evil, truth and falsehood, beautiful and ugly, just and unjust, etc. Such values ​​include objects of material and spiritual activity of people, social relations and natural phenomena included in their range, which have a positive meaning for a person and are able to satisfy their diverse needs. Another type of value is "subjective values", which are attitudes. Assessments, requirements, prohibitions, etc., expressed in the form of norms. They act as guidelines and criteria for people's activities. Thus, at the center of the understanding of values ​​is the value attitude of a person to the world, the sides of which are "object values" and "subjective values".

All significant factors of human existence - biological, social, mental, etc., influence the value perception and the process of forming values. Their individual combination determines the personal nature of a person's values, which, however, does not deny the presence of universal human values. One should not only think that universal human values ​​exist along with individual values. General human values ​​are at the same time individual, personal values. And each person perceives and realizes them in his own way.
How are they related social values and personality socialization?

Everyone lives in a particular system values, objects and phenomena of which are designed to satisfy his needs. In a sense, we can say that value expresses the way the person exists. Moreover, different values ​​have different meanings for her, and the hierarchy of values ​​is connected with this. Like the values ​​themselves, their hierarchical structure is of a concrete historical and personal nature. The same objects and phenomena for different people can be of different value, as well as at different times for the same person. There is not only historical, but also individual dynamics of values ​​and their hierarchy.

The values ​​of the personality form a system of its value orientations, by which we mean the totality of the most important qualities of the internal structure of the personality, which are especially significant for it. These value orientations form a kind of basis for the consciousness and behavior of the individual and directly affect its development. At the same time, in accordance with a specific, individual hierarchy of values, the relative nature of value orientations is observed. A specific system of value orientations and their hierarchy acts as regulators of personality development. They serve as a criterion for the norms and rules of personality behavior, as the assimilation of which occurs its socialization.

Socialization - the formation of personality - is the process of assimilation by an individual of patterns of behavior, psychological attitudes, social norms and values, knowledge, skills that allow him to function successfully in society. Human socialization begins at birth and continues throughout life. In its process, he assimilates the social experience accumulated by mankind in various spheres of life, which allows him to fulfill certain vital social roles. Socialization is viewed as a process, condition, manifestation and result of the social formation of the personality. As a process, it means the social formation and development of the individual, depending on the nature of human interaction with the environment, adaptation to it, taking into account individual characteristics... As a condition, it testifies to the presence of that society that is necessary for a person for natural social development as a person. As a manifestation, it is the social reaction of a person, taking into account his age and social development in the system of specific social relations. It is used to judge the level of social development. As a result, it is the fundamental characteristic of a person and his characteristics as a social unit of society in accordance with his age. A child in his development may lag behind or ahead of his peers. In this case, socialization as a result characterizes the child's social status in relation to his peers.

In the literature, there are different ways and principles of classification and hierarchy of values. So, they distinguish values-goals, or higher (absolute) values, and values-means (instrumental values). They talk about positive and negative values, keeping in mind their social significance and the consequences of their implementation. You can highlight material and spiritual values, etc. It is important to emphasize that they are all in close interconnection and unity and form the integrity of the world of each person.
However, despite the various forms of differentiation of values ​​and their relational nature, there is the highest and absolute value - this is the person himself, his life.

Social communities and society as a whole, which are also subjects of values, are of the same value. The basis for this lies in the social essence of man and the dialectic of society and personality that follows from this.

In addition, the highest values ​​should include such "extreme" and most common values ​​for people, such as the meaning of life, goodness, justice, beauty, truth, freedom, etc. This type of values ​​has a primary impact on the socialization of the individual. Their realization is essentially identical to the realization of the deepest layer of the personality structure, its self-actualization. Without this, not only a personality cannot take place, but life itself for the majority will be unbearable.

With regard to the role of higher values ​​in the socialization and self-actualization of an individual, the prominent American scientist A. Maslow wrote that all self-actualizing people are involved in some kind of business. They are committed to this cause, which is something very valuable to them. This is a destiny's vocation, and people love it so that the division "work-joy" disappears for them. “One devotes his life to law, another to justice, and someone else to beauty or truth. All of them, in one way or another, devote their lives to the search for what I have called "existential" (abbreviated "B") values, the search for ultimate values ​​that are genuine and cannot be reduced to something higher. There are about fourteen such B-values: truth, beauty, goodness of the ancients, perfection, simplicity, versatility and several others. " These values ​​of being act as the most important needs (meta-needs), and they are so significant for the personality that their suppression even generates a certain type of pathology of the soul, which occurs, for example, from permanent residence among liars and loss of trust in people. Existence values ​​are, according to Maslow, the meaning of life for most people.

But not only the highest values ​​affect the socialization of the individual. Of no small importance in this process are values-means, which act as intermediate values. They are subordinated to and conditioned by the highest values. For example, if a person seeks to assert justice, he will never use unjust means for this, and the pursuit of good is incompatible with unkind means. In other words, without values-means no value-goals are achievable, but at the same time no noblest goals justify bad means.

Another urgent and most important problem for us today is the influence of market values ​​on the socialization of an individual. Our society is going through a crucial historical stage - the formation of market relations. It is associated with a change not only in economic relations, but also in the entire system of social relations, which is based on them. The whole way of life of people is changing, and this, of course, cannot but lead to a change in value orientations, the motivation of behavior and the entire process of socialization of the individual.
The essence of market relations is economic liberalism, competition, the pursuit of profit. They affect the value orientations of a person in an ambiguous manner. On the one hand, they undoubtedly awaken the initiative, activity, energy of people, expand the opportunities for the development of the abilities and creativity of the individual. But we must not forget or not pay attention to the second side of the influence of market values ​​on the formation of personality. It consists in the development of economic liberalism and competition, as well-known Western scholars K. Horney have shown. E. Fromm, J. Homans and others, leads to such consequences as double standards, general alienation, mental frustrations, neuroses, etc. The values ​​of the individual are, as it were, passed through the prism of the market and acquire the character of market values. Not only the material, but also the spiritual life of society and the individual is built according to the laws of market relations and economic exchange. Under the conditions of the dominance of market relations, a person often loses his highest values, which make up the meaning of his life. And this leads to the formation of an existential vacuum.

As a manuscript

Osipova Yulia Valerievna UTILITY VALUES IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN CULTURE 09.00.13 - philosophical anthropology, philosophy of culture

dissertation for the degree of candidate of philosophical sciences

Rostov-on-Don 2011 2

The work was carried out at the North Caucasian Scientific Center of Higher School of the Southern Federal University Scientific Consultant - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Kolomiets Natalya Viktorovna

Official opponents:

Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Rezvanov Sergey Vladimirovich Doctor of Art History, Professor Leonid Vladimirovich Usenko Leading organization - Rostov State Medical University

The defense will take place on June 1, 2011 at 15.00 at a meeting of the Dissertation Council D.212.208.13 on Philosophical Sciences at the Southern Federal University at the address: 344006, Rostov-on-Don, st. Pushkinskaya, 140, conference hall.

The dissertation can be found in the zonal scientific library of the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Southern Federal University" at the address: 344006, Rostov-on-Don, st. Pushkinskaya, 148.

Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council Shulman M.M.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

Relevance research topics. Contemporary culture generates a special cultural and philosophical context based on a comprehensive and contradictory analysis of the interweaving of diverse value systems.

The interpretation of values ​​in the philosophical and culturological aspects is becoming an essential condition for understanding and evaluating the present anthropological being and its future states. Axiology directly interferes with cultural and philosophical discourse, assuming the role of a theoretical regulator of value orientations. At the same time, she builds new topical typologies of cultural values. Among the entire spectrum of values ​​in modern culture against the background of crisis socio-economic, political, scientific-theoretical and ethical-aesthetic phenomena, the values ​​of utilitarianism stand out with the principle of “benefit for all”. The formation of utilitarianism in the science of the twentieth century acquires a clearly expressed specificity that requires a comprehensive philosophical and culturological analysis. Within the framework of this analysis, it is possible to study the features of utilitarian values ​​in culture, the degree of their influence on the formation of modern global civilization. Utilitarian values ​​in the system of modern sociocultural values ​​build a system of complex relations between various axiological systems. The transformation and the role of utilitarian values ​​in Western culture presupposes other imperatives than Eastern utilitarianism.

Values ​​are defined and formed by whole groups of needs and interests of the individual and society, and are arranged in a special hierarchy. According to utilitarianism, they are based on the underlying benefits that are necessary for the realization of meaningful landmarks. The axiological utilitarian picture of the world of society includes a certain structure and set of values, expressed in evaluations, and also presupposes evaluative norms and stereotypes. Bringing the interpretation of the system of utilitarian values ​​to re duction ad absurdum 1, i.e. only to the satisfaction of material needs and material benefits, to universal bodily pleasure, requires its constructive understanding and some points and metaphysical from lat. - reduction to the absurdity of th refutation. Utilitarianism, developing into multi-valued axiological systems, forms its initially moderate form, and then - developed.

In the domestic axiological system with its traditional social forms, utilitarianism acts as a moderate one, which is characterized by a constant desire to increase material wealth through equalizing distribution. Under these conditions, it is possible to predict an extremely difficult socio-economic situation, characterized by a discrepancy between the spheres of material production and consumption.

Utilitarianism has many forms and interpretations. It can at the same time be considered as a cultural and philosophical direction, as a moral philosophy and a system of imperatives, as deontological concepts, etc.

In the context of modern domestic axiological realities, the influence of utilitarian Western values ​​on the culture of Russia should be especially highlighted. Modern scientific discourse pays little attention to the analysis of the problem of utilitarianism in Russia. In accordance with the prevailing prejudices in society, towards the ideas of utilitarianism, its ability to somehow have a positive impact on the socio-economic and cultural development of Russia, a one-sided biased view of modern utilitarianism and its values ​​is developing. This state of affairs in modern domestic science with regard to a lack of understanding of the essence and possibilities of utilitarianism can lead to extremely negative consequences, since modernization socio-cultural and economic processes increasingly express basic utilitarian axiological models.

Understanding the importance of modern utilitarianism in Russia, its value system during the period of large-scale reforms will help to identify an important aspect of the development of society that determines the expected positive result.

The degree of elaboration of the topic.

Bibliographic sources should be divided into several main groups:

1. The problem of axiology in the framework of the cultural and philosophical tradition Different approaches to understanding axiology and the category of "value" have determined the diversity scientific approaches to axiology itself and as applied to the ontological, epistemological, sociological, culturological, cultural-philosophical interpretation of the concept of “value”, to the axiological system of its interpretations, interpretations of the position, structure and significance of values ​​in culture.

Axiological ideas are reflected in the following scientific approaches:

One of the approaches to axiology is personalistic ontologism represented by M. Scheler, N. Hartmann, Brentano. In the approach of naturalistic psychologism, value is perceived pragmatically (A. Meinong, J. Dewey, S. Pepper, J. Santayana, R. Perry). In the transcendentalist approach to axiology, G. Rickert, R. Ingarden, J.-P. Sartre, Lotze, in the Baden school of neo-Kantians (W. Windelband and Rickert) value becomes an aspect of the transcendental subject. Cultural axiological relativism is represented in philosophy by the concepts of the philosophers of life - A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, Dilthey, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, P. Sorokin and others. The concept of axiological pluralism is represented by the works of Boas, R. Rivers, R. Bendikt, Sumner and others. Sociologism in axiology is represented by the concepts of structural and functional analysis by Talcott Parsons, Radcliffe-Brown, E. Durkheim, Ortega y Gasset, and others.

In the Russian scientific and philosophical tradition, the most developed axiological approaches are: neo-Kantian normativeism, represented by the works of P.I. Novgorodtseva (the problem of moral idealism in the philosophy of law) 2, B.A. Kistyakovsky (neo-Kantian sociology);

the phenomenological and hermeneutic concept of G.G. Shpet "sense-analysis" 4;

A. Bely's theory of symbolism (value is interpreted symbolically and ultimately becomes a symbol) 5;

religious and philosophical concepts of Vl. Solov'eva (considers value as an unconditional religious meaning) 6, N.A. Berdyaeva (existential approach to the understanding of values ​​- “man is a being that carries reason and values”) 7, N.O. Lossky (absolute value is a person's path to God. Absolute value lies at the core of P.I. Novgorodtsev On the social ideal / http://www.philosophy.ru According to the book: V.V. Kistyakovsky // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1994. Vol. 63, 3.

V.S. Soloviev Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. - M .: Republic, 1996.

Berdyaev N.A. On the appointment of a person / http://philosophy.allru.net of the "ontodological theory of values") 8, М.М. Bakhtin (emphasizes the subjectivity of values, he gives a phenomenological description of value consciousness), P. Florensky. In the Soviet period, V.P. Tugarinov, O. G. Drobnitsky, A.A. Ivin, P.P. Gaidenko, M.A. Kissel, I.S. Narsky, B.T. Grigorian, N.V.

Motroshilova, E. Yu. Soloviev, Yu.N. Davydov, and many others. dr.

In the cultural aspect, axiology is one of the subjects of scientific interests of S. Averintsev, A. Ya. Gurevich, A.V. Gulyga, G.S. Knabe, A. Me (a person in biblical axiology), V.L. Rabinovich, Yu.A. Zhdanova, E. Ya. Rezhabek, G.V. Dracha, E.E. Nesmeyanova, T.P. Matyash, O.M. Shtompel, L.V. Zharova, L.V. Usenko, A.M. Pyatigorsky and others. It is also possible to single out the domestic studies of S.F. Anisimova, B.S. Barulina, N.A. Benediktov, G.P.

Vyzhletsova, A.V. Gulygi, A.G. Zdravomyslova, A.V. Ivanova, M.S. Kagan, L.N. Kogan, V.V. Kor-tavy, O.K. Krokinskaya, D.A. Leontyeva, L.A. Mikeshina, V.V. Mironov, K.Kh. Momdzhyan, B.V. Orlova, V.N. Sagatovsky, B.C.

Stepina, L.N. Stolovich, A.S. Panarin, N.Z. Chavchavadze, L.A. Chukhina, in which value is considered as a complex, diverse, developing phenomenon.

2. Classical utilitarianism: formation and development in Western philosophy The ideological foundations of utilitarianism can be most clearly traced in the English utilitarianism of the 18th century (Beccaria, Verry), as mentioned by Stephen Leslie in his work "English utilitarianism".

Bentham and James Mill became the founders of utilitarianism. They are joined by J.S. Mill, S.B.R. Kent, E. Haley. These thinkers are trying to find and strengthen the connection between utilitarianism and economics. For this reason, they are joined by famous economists of the 19th century - Jevons, Edgeworth.

The very formulation of the principle of benefit does not belong to Bentham, and he never attributed it to himself. It runs through the entire 18th century, starting with F.

Hutcheson, and is found in C. Beccaria, D. Priestley, C. Helvetius and others. To disseminate this "new" ethics, Bentham created and published in France the magazine "Utiliter" (1829).

Lossky N.O. Value and being. God and the Kingdom of God as the basis of values.

In England, the utilitarian values ​​of the new ethics are cultivated by the Westmin Ster Review. The task of popularizing utilitarianism in Germany is undertaken by F.E. Beneke. Fiercely criticizing the rationalism of Kant and Hegel, F. Benecke asserts a new ethics based on the principle of benefit. Beneke, followed by Gartley and Holbach, are trying to deduce general ethical principles and provisions from an egoistic position, to substantiate it by means of psychoanalysis.

Undoubtedly, initially utilitarianism was based in the 19th century on the philosophy of Hume and A. Smith, where the idea of ​​a combination of altruism and egoism was presented. Utilitarianism is a new term introduced into general use by J.

S. Mill, in Utilitarianism (1861). In his work "On Liberty" Mill proclaims the main principle of utilitarianism. Peru John Stuart Mill owns works not only on political theory, but also on logic and epistemology. His works include On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism (Utilitariamsm, 1863), The Subjection of Women (1869) and Principles of Political Economy (1848 ).

From modern scientific works on classical utilitarianism, the following works can be distinguished: A.A. Guseinov. "History of ethical doctrines" 9, where the author points to the genesis of classical utilitarianism, lining up the concepts of Hutcheson 10, C. Beccaria, D. Priestley, C. Helvetius, Bentham;

Hajikurbanova PA, who characterizes classical utilitarianism as the desire for pleasure and happiness inherent in people, classical utilitarianism formulates an idea of ​​the social and political purpose of moral philosophy 12;

Pinsky D.A., considering the hedonic concept of I. Bentam 13, E.N. Yarkova, which suggests A.A. Guseinov. History of ethical teachings. M. 2003.

Hutcheson F. Research on the origin of our ideas of beauty and virtue // F. Hutcheson, D. Hume, A. Smith. Aesthetics. M., 1973.

Bentham I. Introduction to the basis of morality and legislation / Per., Foreword, note. B.G. Cabbage on. M., 1998.

Hajikurbanova P.A. "Summum Bonum in classical utilitarianism" // Ethical thought. Issue 10.M .:

IFRAN. 2010.

Pinsky D.A. Normative-ethical program of classical utilitarianism // Topos. No. 1 (6). 2002.

from the standpoint of synergetics in utilitarianism, to take the stimulus of self-organization of culture and society 14.

3. Modern concepts of utilitarianism The problems of modern utilitarianism in the West are being developed within the framework of the International Society for Utilitarian Research - (Jesus).

The society annually holds international conferences on the problems of utilitarianism. The 11th International Conference on Ethics of Economic Development is planned for June 23-25, 2011 at the San Romano Conference Center, Lucca, Italy. The conference will be organized by the Faculty of Economics of the University of Pisa. The International Society for Utilitarian Research - Jesus - serves as a scientific platform for scientific discussions and research on utilitarianism, the main research problems are the historical role of utilitarianism, the history of its development and its relevance in such areas as ethics, politics, law, economics and public policy ... Also, on the basis of the International Society for Utilitarian Research, the journal "Utilitas" is published, where a systematic international review of original research in all aspects of utilitarian theory is carried out. The journal also covers the disciplines of moral philosophy, economics, psychology, political theory, intellectual history, law and jurisprudence 15. The so-called European Network of Utilitarian Scientists (E-NOUS) has also been created within the framework of the International Society for Utilitarian Research.

Among the most prominent Western scholars in the field of modern utilitarianism are Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University) - Director of the Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, Special Adviser to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon;

Peter Singer (Princeton University) Ira W. Descump Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and Laureate Professor at the Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (Cappe), University of Melbourne;

Gustav Arrhenius (Swedish College of Advanced Study, Stockholm University). Torgni Segerstedt Pro Futura Associate Professor Practical Yarkova E.N. Utilitarianism As a stimulus for self-organization of culture and society // Social sciences and modernity. 2002. No. 2.

http://utilitarian-philosophy.blogspot.com/ philosophy at Stockholm University;

Frederica Rosen (College of the University of London) Professor Emeritus of the History of Political Thought, former Editor-in-Chief of the Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham;

Nadia Urbinati (Columbia University) Professor of Political Science.

Also, when considering modern concepts of utilitarianism, one should highlight the concept of T.H. Green. Thomas Hill Green continued his critique of the simplistic psychological and ethical theory that formed the basis of classical liberalism (of both Bentham and Ricardo). He emphasizes that a person is necessarily connected with a social community.

In addition to the problem of determining utility, modern utilitarian thought discusses the question of what exactly should pass through the utility maximization test: actions and their consequences, moral norms, motives, character traits, or social institutions? It is believed that prior to Henry Sidgwick, the difference in approach resulting from different responses to this question was not clearly understood. However, at the moment, the boundaries between them are quite definite, and the difference is being actively discussed. The first approach was called "direct utilitarianism", the concept of "utilitarianism of actions" is used as a synonym (a bright representative is J.Smart). Another approach is assumed to be "indirect utilitarianism", whose representatives, for a number of reasons, refuse to carry out the consequences of specific actions through the utility maximization test. The argument against "action utilitarianism" gives rise to two variants of "indirect utilitarianism" with different prevalence:

"Utilitarianism of motives" and "utilitarianism of rules". In the latter, more influential, version of utilitarian moral philosophy, the main subject of the search is the most successful code of ethics in terms of maximizing utility. According to R. Brandt (1910-1997), it should include a set of rules of conduct, simple enough to be easily learned, and a set of effective procedures for resolving conflicts between regulations.

Some thinkers try to show that the dichotomy of the two types of utilitarianism is false. Thus, from the point of view of Richard Hare (1919-2002), their opposition is removed by distinguishing between the “critical” and “intuitive” levels of moral thinking.

The third direction of development of utilitarianism in the XX century. is the development of ways to summarize utility. Thus, John Rawls, a modern American philosopher, the founder of the liberal-state concept of domestic and international law, is trying to solve the problem of rationally substantiating a moral theory based on the concept of law.

Among modern domestic scientists, the problems of utilitarianism in Russia are dealt with by G. Pirogov, B. Efimov, who consider utilitarianism from the point of view of social justice in economics and sociology 17, E.N. Yarkova (deals with the problem of nationalism and utilitarianism in Russia), Akhiezer A., ​​Klyamkin I. and Yakovenko I. 19 consider the authoritarian utilitarian ideal during the transformation of Russian statehood.

The object of the research is modern culture as a system of axiological measurement.

The subject of research is a system of utilitarian values, their implementation in the context of modern Western and domestic culture.

Hypothesis. Conceptual cultural and philosophical analysis of modern culture determines one of the basic problem areas of scientific and theoretical research - utilitarianism in culture, the possibility of its application on the present stage sociocultural development. This direction of research, operating with the principles of consistency and comprehensiveness, creates a theoretical model of the variability of the inclusion of utilitarian values ​​in the context of modern culture in general, and the culture of Russia in particular.

Justice as honesty // Logos. 2007. - Translated from English by Natalia Litvinenko edited by Yaroslav Shramko from John Rawls Justice as Fairness // John Rawls, Collected Papers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England, 1999, pp. 47-72.

G. Pirogov, B. Efimov. The problem of social justice in economics and sociology / http://www.old.za nauku.ru Yarkova E.N. Nationalism and utilitarianism in Russia // Almanac "Discourse - P" Vol. 3. "Discourse of Tolerance in the Global World". http://discourse-pm.ur.ru/avtor3/yarkova.php Akhiezer A., ​​Klyamkin I., Yakovenko I. History of Russia: the end or a new beginning? M .: New publishing house, 2005 .-- 708 p. (Research of the Liberal Mission Foundation) The purpose of the dissertation research is a conceptual cultural philosophy and phenomenological analysis of the axiological system of utilitarianism in the context of modern culture, forecasting the axiometric influence of utilitarianism on modern sociocultural processes.

The research objectives follow from the relevance of the topic and the formulated purpose of the work.

1. To present utilitarianism as an expression of the axiological system of modern culture, to conduct a cultural-philosophical discourse of axiological concepts of the system of modern culture.

2. Trace and carry out a scientific and theoretical analysis of the formation and development of utilitarianism in Western philosophy of culture as a system of cultural values.

3. Identify and describe diversity modern trends and forms of utilitarianism.

4. To substantiate the basic transformations of utilitarian values ​​in modern Western and domestic culture, to show the structural and semantic changes in utilitarian values ​​in modern culture.

5. Consider the problematic field of the formation of utilitarianism in the modern culture of Russia.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the dissertation research is built on the scientific principles of studying social and cultural phenomena - consistency, objectivity, historicism.

In substantiating the provisions put forward in the dissertation, such attributive methods of research as the principle of the unity of analysis and synthesis, historical and logical, induction and deduction are used. In interaction with the methods of idealization and theoretical modeling, they allow us to consider the problem of transitivity in dynamics.

The specificity of the object and subject of the dissertation led to the use of other research methods, which gave the work an interdisciplinary character. These include: a comparative historical approach;

synthesis of philosophical and culturological approaches;

comparative analysis;

methodology of the theory of self-organization of systems;

the use of hermeneutic techniques in the study of cultural-philosophical, sociological, political science texts.

Scientific novelty research:

1. Within the framework of the philosophy of culture, a systematic conceptual analysis of the interpretation of values ​​and axiology as a scientific and theoretical fundamental element of the consideration of the problems of utilitarianism and the system of utilitarian values ​​has been carried out. Proceeding from the refusal of utilitarianism to absolutize axiological systems, its constant striving for the relativity of understanding value structures and hierarchies, it is the mechanisms of the transformation of values ​​into the sphere of utilitarianism that are being investigated. The author puts forward the idea that the principle of relativism applies not only to the utilitarian values ​​themselves, but also to the mechanism of their hierarchy formation and historical actualization.

2. The construction of ideal models of each type of morality, the identification of the essential foundations of morality of the traditional, utilitarian and liberal types makes it possible to reveal, on the one hand, the mechanisms by which Various types morals orient a person towards a simple or extended reproduction of culture and social relations, on the other hand, it exposes the mechanisms of the moral dynamics itself, that is, it makes visible the logic of transitions from one type of morality to another, in particular, to utilitarianism.

3. Two types of grounds for assessing utilitarianism have been identified: the result to which the action led, and the standard or rule to which the action must comply. The specificity of the principle of benefit in utilitarianism as a specific standard for assessing actions is determined.

4. It is conceptually substantiated that utilitarian values ​​in modern culture are subject to structural and semantic changes.

5. The future trend of social development is determined, according to which utilitarian values ​​become a means of social unity. At the same time, the constant economic, political and social confrontation between two global civilizational systems - the East and the West - is cultivated and deepened. The values ​​of art, culture, aesthetics, the ideals of humanism become objects of cynical sale and management. Stating the paradox that people, realizing the untruth of political, ideological and advertising phenomena, nevertheless listen to them, and even get carried away by them, describes individual moral and cognitive models formed on the basis of utilitarian values.

6. Modern utilitarianism is based not only on the classical concept of "benefit", but primarily on the concept of "justice". There are two types of utilitarianism: positive and negative, where the watershed between them is the laws of justice and their observance.

7. The author's position is formulated according to which the system of utilitarian values ​​in Russia has specific characteristics in contrast to the "classical" form of utilitarianism in the West. Within the framework of Russian civilization, historically, other forms of utilitarianism have developed, which not only determined the specifics of the development of Russian civilization in the past, but, probably, will largely determine the originality of Russia's civilizational path to the future.

Provisions for Defense:

1. A change in axiological ideals leads to a reassessment of values ​​in modern culture. The concept of "value" is interpreted as a benefit, something beneficial for a person, his activities and existence. The change in the axiological, value attitude towards modern culture and man makes the problem of utilitarianism the most acute. Utilitarianism and its problems are at the center of contemporary socio-cultural problems.

The very concept of value is interpreted ambiguously. The value system becomes a product of the social and ideological environment and is associated with the specifics historical development... Value orientations in modern culture acquire a different character depending on its local formations, which are built according to their own ideological ideas. For a person, the value system becomes an absolute cultural value. The massiveization of culture reorients society from humanistic values, which underlie democratic and liberal values, to consumer values, which transform spiritual and moral humanistic ideals into consumerist ideology.

2. An important theoretical dilemma that determined the development of utilitarianism in the 20th century concerns the grounds for evaluating actions. Strictly speaking, human rights are a certain standard, the fulfillment of which is made every person's responsibility. Moreover, every action must, in the final analysis, correlate with the principle of benefit, and this principle is also a certain standard for evaluating actions. Thus, we have before us two types of grounds for evaluating utilitarianism: the result to which the post led, and the standard, or rule, which the action must comply with.

3. Utilitarian values ​​in modern culture, of course, are subject to structural and semantic changes. This transformational phenomenon is due to a whole range of immanent and external causes. The basic group of such reasons is the massiveization of modern culture and consciousness, informatization and globalization of the ontological and axiological components of civilization. In the era of globalization, the pillar of modern culture is universal values ​​that include national components. The American version of utilitarianism - pragmatism is less and less concerned with the theoretical aspect of the problem of utility, more and more proceeds from a specific economic situation.

4. Among the factors that led to the formation of modern forms of utilitarianism are the following: 1) economic (industrial revolution);

2) scientific and technical (significant changes in the system of communications - the invention of the telephone, telegraph, radio and cinematograph, mass media, mass media, the global system of the Internet, cellular and mobile communications);

3) social (a sharp increase in the population of the village, the formation of phenomena of the mass and mass consciousness, the intensification of the processes of migration and marginalization). 4) cultural (domination of urban culture, deactualization of such methods of broadcasting culture as tradition).

5. The most important characteristic of utilitarianism is its axiological and moral relativization. Happiness, blessing is axiological, more and more relative, depending on the socio-cultural context. Orientation towards benefit makes utilitarianism axiologically "omnivorous"; it weaves various values ​​- traditional, liberal - into the fabric of its ideology.

Utilitarian moral law takes the form of a utilitarian maxim - “what brings maximum benefit a person or a society. " As a result, the moral duty is not fixed: the proper becomes dependent on existence, practice determines the content of ideal norms, and these reasons form negative utilitarianism. Behavior patterns become dependent on situational benefits, acquire a dynamic, changeable character. The unrootedness of utilitarian morality in the absolute determines the supremacy of the existential approach, within the framework of which the idea of ​​the priority of existence over essence begins to take shape. Ill-considered scientifically selective pressure on a person leads to the hegemony of negative utilitarianism. The value of the benefit is perceived and interpreted as a benefit, with material point view as "profit", material wealth. This is a utilitarian image of the exterior - external form. At the same time, the benefit for the individual acts as a private one (individualism in obtaining pleasure, achieving happiness for oneself) and prevails over the benefit as a general one (a social approach to the realization of the general good).

6. The positive aspects of utilitarianism are considered in modern humanities as a realization of the problem of justice. This direction of utilitarianism is formed on the basis of a different understanding of benefits, as the realization of justice. Benefit is seen as a good, as a definite categorical imperative - as the implementation of a fair social, political and economic structure of society. The main characteristic of the benefit is its rational moral orientation. Positive utilitarianism merges with social humanism, which is understood as the cultivation of anthropological spiritual creative values ​​of society, where freedom of creativity does not turn into arbitrariness, but is viewed as self-restraint - a social “look” at other members of society. Positive utilitarian values ​​are values ​​that are realized in the context of the common good and benefit. The mechanism of this implementation is, first of all, a concession, a temporary rejection of certain benefits. This can be well traced in the payment of taxes to the state, military service, public works, etc. Benefit becomes good when it acquires the characteristics of all commonality. Benefit from a rational and moral point of view becomes an integral condition for improving the general social foundations of a person, society, and culture.

7. The role of utilitarian value systems in the modern cultural world of Russia is contradictory. Utilitarianism carries the forces of disintegration and organization of a new type. The modern scientific literature reflects two opposing opinions regarding utilitarianism in the culture of Russia.

The dichotomy of these points of view is as follows: utilitarianism is possible within the framework of Russian culture and will contribute to its social and economic development. Another point of view is that domestic culture is not deeply utilitarian and the existence of utilitarian values ​​on its basis is a myth.

The phenomenological analysis of utilitarianism in Russia showed that utilitarianism exists in Russia, but not in the forms that are presented in the culture of the West. At the beginning of the 21st century, mass utilitarianism in Russia is presented in a moderate form. Moderate utilitarianism in Russia is based on equalizing distribution systems of management. The deep spiritual and value foundations of Russian culture, their ideal priority, come into conflict with the ideas of utilitarianism - acquisitiveness, pragmatism, individualism. The ideal of spirituality in Russian culture is combined with asceticism, poverty, naturalness, modesty, material simplicity. The domination of state interests over private interests in the economy also contributed to the emergence of a conservative-moderate form of utilitarianism, manifesting itself in an immoderate consumerist ideology. The traditionalism of Russian society contributed to the formation of a one-sided model of utilitarianism, with an extensive path of economic and social development, a distribution model of trade and consumption, rather than production, technologization and informatization. Moderate utilitarianism must necessarily turn into its developed form. A society based on a developed system of utilitarian values ​​is characterized by openness and modernization processes. At the same time, the expectations of a person within the framework of this form of utilitarianism, in contrast to moderate utilitarianism, are not associated with an immediate local material effect. Developed utilitarianism is aimed at developing the liberalization of the economy, at purposeful labor activity, at ever greater rationalization, division of labor and commodification.

Theoretical significance research. The study allows us to concretize the main directions of the philosophical and culturological study of culture: the necessary analysis of the modern understanding of culture, its essential characteristics is carried out, the idea of ​​the utilitarian aspects of modern culture of the subject of scientific consideration is put forward.

Practical significance The research is determined by the fact that the research results are significant in the educational and scientific spheres of deep analysis of the utilitarianism of modern culture as one of the phenomena of modern science, philosophy, philosophy of culture, philosophical and cultural anthropology.

The results can be of particular importance in predicting cultural development during the period of sociocultural crisis changes. Certain provisions of the work can be included in the reading of general and special courses on philosophical and cultural disciplines. The problem formulated in the study and its proposed solutions are open in nature and require further resolution within the framework of modern philosophical understanding.

Approbation of results research. Basic Provisions works were tested by the dissertation candidate in lecture courses on philosophy, philosophy of culture, cultural studies, world culture and art, history of Western philosophy, in practical classes with students, as well as in articles, publications and reports at theoretical and practical seminars of the North Caucasus the scientific center of the higher school of the Southern Federal University, at scientific conferences, as well as at scientific All-Russian conferences and the Third All-Russian Culturological Congress.

Dissertation structure... The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, including 6 paragraphs, a conclusion and a bibliographic list of titles, of which 16 sources are in a foreign language.

BASIC THE CONTENT OF THE WORK

In the "Introduction" to the dissertation work, the substantiation of the relevance of the topic is given, the degree of research development is determined in the following main sections: the problem of axiology within the framework of the cultural and philosophical tradition, classical utilitarianism: formation and development in Western philosophy, modern concepts utilitarianism. Also in the "Introduction" the object, subject and hypothesis of the research, the theoretical and methodological basis of the dissertation research are formulated, the goal and tasks, the scientific novelty of the dissertation work and the theses submitted for defense are noted, it is said about the theoretical and practical significance of the work, the types of its approbation, the structure of the work.

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE DISSERTATION "UTILITARISM AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE AXIOLOGICAL SYSTEM OF MODERN CULTURE" examines axiological concepts, traces the formation and development of utilitarianism in Western philosophy of culture as a system of cultural values, analyzes the diversity of modern trends and forms of utilitarianism.

Paragraph 1.1 "Cultural-philosophical discourse of axiological concepts of modern culture". The change in axiological ideals leads to a reassessment of values ​​in modern culture. Initially, the concept of “value” was interpreted as a benefit, something beneficial for a person, his activity and existence. The change in the axiological, value attitude towards modern culture and man makes the problem of utilitarianism the most acute. Utilitarianism and its problems are at the center of contemporary socio-cultural problems. The very concept of value is interpreted ambiguously. The natural school of axiology sees value as a benefit, a benefit for a person, for satisfying his needs. The value system becomes a product of the social and ideological environment and is associated with the specifics of historical development. Value orientations in modern culture acquire a different character depending on its local formations, which are built according to their own ideological ideas. For a human being, the value system becomes an absolute cultural value. In the entire general system of values, one can also distinguish utilitarian values, which at their core contain a person's desire for pleasure, goodness and benefit.

These hedonistic aspirations are considered innate for a person and are formed into the ethical direction of ethical naturalism. Philosophical reflection itself on the issue of utility and pleasure as integral values ​​of human existence can be divided into two main areas: 1) Bioanthropological determinism (Aristotle, B. Spinoza, J.

Lametrie, K. Helvetius, D. Diderot, P. Holbach, P. Gassendi, L. Feuerbach, N. Chernyshevsky, J. Dewey, Perry, Durkheim). Such innate human qualities as the desire for pleasure and benefit are primary in relation to other social qualities. 2) Objective determinism (Plato, F. Aquinas, G. Hegel, K. Marx, Brandt, neoplatonism, neo-Hegelianism, authoritarianism) asserts that needs for pleasure and personal benefit are secondary needs, subordinate to the objective laws of nature, society and thinking.

One of the approaches to axiology is personalistic ontology represented by M. Scheler, N. Hartmann, Brentano. M. Scheler for the first time introduces the problems of the typology of values. He ontologizes axiology, like N.

Hartmann, Brentano. In the Russian philosophical tradition, value as an ontological object was considered by N.O. Lossky. R. Ingard, W. Claire, S.

Langer, K. Pratt, S. Aleksandrov saw in value a special specific property of objects. In the approach of naturalistic psychologism, value is perceived pragmatically. In the works of A., J. Dewey, S. Pepper, J. Santayana, R. Perry, Lewis, the source of values ​​is declared to be human needs, which must be psychologically interpreted. Also from the point of view of instrumentalism, as a version of pragmatism, Dewey interprets value as a certain social standard of utility.

In the transcendentalist approach to the axiology of G. Rickert, R. Ingarden, J.-P. Sartre, Lotze value becomes an aspect of the transcendental subject. So, Lotze introduces the concept of "significance" in the logical, mathematical, as well as ethical and aesthetic aspects, where the significance is transformed into "value". Cohen, developing the views of Lotze, argues that values ​​depend on the pure will of the transcendental subject, which strives for personal freedom as its highest value. Representatives of the Baden school of neo-Kantians - W. Windelband and Rickert proposed their own version of transcendental axiology.

Cultural axiological relativism is represented in philosophy by the concepts of the philosophers of life - A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche. Cultural-historical relativism in axiology represented by Dilthey, O. Spengler, A.

Toynbee, P. Sorokina and others lead to a refusal to search for certain axiological universal values ​​and assert a plurality of axiological equal systems. The concept of axiological pluralism, the rejection of the hierarchy of values, is represented by the works of Boas, R. Rivers, R.

Benedict, Sumner, and others, leads to the interpretation of values ​​not absolutely, but in relation to specific sociocultural contexts. This is also stated by Herskovitz, rejecting the possibility of creating a universal cultural code of values. Sociologism in axiology is represented by the concepts of structural and functional analysis by Talcott Parsons, Radcliffe-Brown, E.

Durkheim, Ortega y Gasset, etc. Thus, in the functionalist concept of Radcliffe-Brown, social survival becomes the main value.

Values ​​in society are a condition for coexistence, the highest principles that ensure harmony in social groups and in society as a whole.

M. Weber examines the normativity of values ​​in the aspect of the interpretation of social action. In the domestic scientific and philosophical tradition, the most developed axiological approaches are: neo-Kantian normativeism, represented by the works of P.I. Novgorodtseva (the problem of moral idealism in the philosophy of law), B.A. Kistyakovsky (neo-Kantian sociology);

the phenomenological and hermeneutic concept of G.G.

Shpet "sense-analysis" 22;

A. Bely's theory of symbolism (value is interpreted symbolically and ultimately becomes a symbol) 23;

religiono Novgorodtsev P.I. On the social ideal / http://www.philosophy.ru Based on the book: Sapov V.V. The main book of academician B.A. Kistyakovsky // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1994. Vol. 63, 3.

Shpet G.G. Hermeneutics and its problems // Context. 1989. M., 1991.

Bely A. Symbolism as an understanding of the world. Moscow: Republic, 1994.

philosophical concepts of Vl. Solovyov (considers value as an unconditional religious meaning), N.A. Berdyaeva (an existential approach to understanding values ​​- “a person is a being that carries reason and values”), N.O. Lossky (absolute value is a person's path to God.

The absolute value lies in the foundation of the “ontodological theory of values”) 26, M.M. Bakhtin (emphasizes the subjectivity of values, he gives a phenomenological description of value consciousness), P. Florensky.

In the Soviet period, V.P. Tugarinov, O.G. Drobnitsky, A.A. Ivin studied the problems of axiology as a philosophical discipline (he paid special attention to the definition of the concept of “value”, the history of philosophical research of values, the structure of assessments and norms, methods of Ivin interprets the problem of understanding values ​​and their significance in scientific knowledge, the nature of moral principles, the task of systematizing the main values ​​of the modern era in a new way.), P.P. Gaidenko, M.A. Kissel, I.S. Narsky , B. T. Grigoryan, N. V. Motroshilova, E.Yu.Soloviev, Yu.N. Davydov, and many others. dr.

In the cultural aspect, axiology is one of the subjects of scientific interests of S. Averintsev, A. Ya. Gurevich, A.V. Gulyga (in the final work "Aesthetics in the Light of Axiology" the author, defending the concept of beauty, which today is expelled not only from aesthetics, but also from art, defines the place of esthetics in the system of humanitarian knowledge as a link between science and ethics: beauty, proves it is important for any creative act, both scientific and practical.In turn, for art, both intellectual and moral principles are of great importance.

Only in unity with truth and goodness can beauty be able to save the world), G.S. Knabe, A. Me (a man in biblical axiology), V.L. Rabinovich, Yu.A.

Zhdanova, E. Ya. Rezhabek, G.V. Dracha, E.E. Nesmeyanova, T.P. Matyash, O.M.

Shtompel, L.V. Usenko, A.M. Pyatigorsky and others.

You can also highlight the domestic studies of S.F. Anisimova, B.S. Barulina, N.A. Benediktov, G.P. Vyzhletsova, A.V. Gulygi, A.G. Zdravo Myslova, A.V. Ivanova, M.S. Kagan, L.N. Kogan, V.V. Kortava, O.K. Krokin Soloviev V.S. Justification of Good: Moral Philosophy. - M .: Republic, 1996.

Berdyaev N.A. On the appointment of a person / http://philosophy.allru.net Lossky N.O. Value and being. God and the Kingdom of God as the basis of values.

skoi, D.A. Leontyeva, L.A. Mikeshina, V.V. Mironov, K.Kh. Momdzhyan, B.V.

Orlova, V.N. Sagatovsky, B.C. Stepina, L.N. Stolovich, A.S. Panarin, N.Z.

Chavchavadze, L.A. Chukhina, in which value is viewed as a complex, diverse, developing phenomenon.

Research in axiology in recent years has been presented in Russia by the following authors: A.A. Ilyin (value-oriented foundations of an active-creative, subject-active relationship of a person to the world), V.L. Abushenko (historical view of axiology), Baryshkov V.P. (axiology of personal being), I.I. Dokuchaev (values ​​are shown as the most important driving force of historical changes traced from the period of anthropo sociocultural genesis, through the forms of traditional culture, to the forms of creative culture.), I.M. Bykhovskaya (axiology of the human body), G.P.

Vyzhletsov (axiology of culture), V.A. Slastenin and G.I. Chizhakov (pedagogical axiology).

The relational nature of the value system is evident in the study of the general process of revaluation of values ​​in modern culture. The massization of culture reorients society from humanistic values, which underlie democratic and liberal values, to consumer values ​​that transform spiritual and moral humanistic ideology into a consumerist ideology.

Paragraph 1.2 "Formation and development of utilitarianism in Western philosophy of culture as a system of cultural values." Utilitarianism as a new system of cultural values ​​in Western Europe took shape in the middle of the 19th century. Bentham and James 27 Mill became the founders of utilitarianism. They are joined by J.S. Mill, S.B.R. Kent, E. Haley. These thinkers are trying to find and strengthen the connection between utilitarianism and economics. For this reason, they are joined by famous economists of the 19th century - Jevons, Edgeworth. Mill interprets the term utilitarianism as a moral theory in which activity is evaluated in terms of utility. Mill clarifies that there is no general concept of utilitarianism. He was the first to question the concept of value that is central to the Kent C.B.R. The English Radicals. L. 1997.

Haleuy E. La Formation du radicalisme philosophique. P. 1967.

for the entire political economy of that time. Drawing on a positivist philosophy that began to grow in influence in 1840, Mill characterizes utilitarianism not only economically and politically, but also meta-physically, proposing that economics should focus on such phenomena as prevailing price in the market and utility. embodied in society. Mill and Bentham formulated the idea of ​​utilitarianism based on the concept of "individual freedom". The concept of utilitarianism, according to Mill, includes three unequal components: beauty, limitation, utility - which can be used as the basis for the demand for a product.

After conducting a historical and philosophical analysis of the formation and development of utilitarianism, several main stages of utilitarianism can be distinguished: 1) Early utilitarianism. This period should include the French materialists (Helvetius, Holbach), who in their philosophical and anthropological structures were based on the principle of benefit and human striving for pleasure and happiness. 2) Classical utilitarianism - represented by I. Bentham and J.S. Mill, who build a system of values ​​according to which pleasure and pain are the basic natural principles of human life. Morality, society, law, the state must obey these principles. Summarizing the basic provisions of human existence, Bentham deduces the principle of utility as the highest happiness and good. He writes: "the greatest happiness of all those whose interests are at stake is the true and proper goal of human action," the goal "desirable in all respects," and also "the goal of human action in all positions, and especially in the position of an official or meetings of officials using government power ”29. The principle of utility states that that which leads to an increase in the amount of happiness has a right to exist. The basis of this principle is the idea that happiness and suffering are inseparable unity and happiness itself is nothing more than the prevention or avoidance of suffering. At the same time, the benefit is not considered purely as a material benefit, i.e. external benefit, but as a value immanent to human existence. Utilitarian - the one who Bentham I. Introduction to the basis of morality and legislation / Per., Foreword, note. B.G. Cabbage on. M., 1998.S. 9.

adopts the principle of utility, and thus becomes involved in the universal utility underlying the theory of ethics.

Paragraph 1.3 "The variety of modern trends and forms of utilitarianism." Development of utilitarianism: from classical to modern.

The development of utilitarian thought in the XX century. went in several directions.

First, work began on a precise definition of the concept of “utility,” which was understood in different ways by the founding fathers of the current. Bentham's version of the understanding of the key utilitarian good was based on its hedonistic reading: everything that contributes to the maximization of pleasure is useful. The disadvantage of this approach is its inextricable connection with the naive hedonistic understanding of human consciousness and behavior. The hedonistic theory of motivation simplifies the interpretation of the origins of most human actions, reducing, for example, any sacrifice to the desire for pleasure, and any self-restraint to the manifestation of self-love. The concept of “pleasure” is not sufficiently clarified for correct theoretical use and, especially, for formalization in the process of utilitarian calculations. Therefore, in the XX century. it is gradually being ousted from utilitarianism. Instead of pleasure, a quantitative measure of utility begins to be determined through the satisfaction of preferences, which eliminates the need to discuss the question of what are the subjective psychological correlates of utility. Along with the introduction of simple and operational definitions of utility, some utilitarians seek to introduce a mechanism of bounded rational selection of preferences, which makes it possible to assign a different index of utility to their satisfaction. The degree of rigidity and direction of operation of this mechanism can vary significantly. The first option presupposes an assessment of random actual preferences on the basis of their comparison with “well-informed” preferences 30. The second option, following the eudemonistic utilitarianism of J.S. Mill, suggests that it is possible to rationally justify the preference for the so-called "higher" pleasures.

In addition to the problem of determining utility in modern utilitarian thought, the question of what exactly should pass through the Brandt Self The Theory of the Good and the Right is discussed. Oxford, 1979.

utility maximization test: actions and their consequences, moral norms, motives, character traits or social institutions? Prior to Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900), it is believed that the difference in approaches arising from different answers to this question was not clearly recognized. However, at the moment, the boundaries between them are quite definite, and the difference is actively discussed.

The first approach is called "direct utilitarianism", the concept of "utilitarianism of actions" is used as a synonym (a bright representative is J. Smart). The criterion for the moral correctness of a certain action in this case is its ability to lead to such consequences that maximize the total or average utility to the greatest extent. Another approach is assumed to be "indirect utilitarianism", whose representatives, for a number of reasons, refuse to carry out the consequences of specific actions through the utility maximization test. The third direction of development of utilitarianism in the XX century. is the development of ways to summarize utility. P.S. Gurevich, identifying the transition of Western culture to utilitarian values, notes that “Protestantism has radically changed the value attitudes of people. The resulting system of norms and shrines began to regulate human relations and social behavior in a different way.

New socio-ethical assessments have emerged. A qualitative shift in the structure of consciousness naturally led to a revolution in the entire system of spiritual ideas and intellectual and ideological characteristics of society ”31.

An important theoretical dilemma that determined the development of utilitarianism in the 20th century concerns the grounds for evaluating actions. According to classical utilitarianism, as it was formulated by Bentham and developed by Mill, the assessment of a step should be based on the results of an action, moreover, an action taken autonomously, as a separately carried out act. But in Mill's interpretation, the grounds for assessment are not reduced to this: the observance of the rights of other people can also be considered as one of the results of action. Strictly speaking, human rights are a kind of standard, the fulfillment of which is obligatory for every person. Moreover, each action must, ultimately, correlate with the principle of benefit, and this principle is Gurevich P. S. Philosophy of man. Part 2. - Moscow: RAS Institute of Philosophy, 2001. P. 6.

- also a certain standard for assessing actions. Thus, we are faced with two types of grounds for assessment: the result to which the action led, and the standard, or rule, which the action must comply with.

CHAPTER 2. “TRANSFORMATION AND THE ROLE OF UTILITARY VALUES IN MODERN CULTURE” is devoted to the problems of structural and semantic changes in utilitarian values, the analysis of two types of utilitarianism - positive and negative, as well as the problems of the form of formation of utilitarianism in contemporary culture of Russia.

Paragraph 2.1 "Structural and semantic changes in utilitarian values ​​in modern culture." Utilitarian values ​​in modern culture are subject to structural and semantic changes.

This transformational phenomenon is due to a whole range of immanent and external causes. The basic group of such reasons is the massiveization of modern culture and consciousness, informatization and globalization of the ontological and axiological components of civilization. These tendencies are reflected in the works of modern philosophers, sociologists, culturologists, and lithologists. Utilitarian values ​​become a means of social cohesion. At the same time, the constant economic, political and social confrontation between the two global civilizational systems - the East and the West - is cultivated and deepened.

At the same time, the values ​​of art, culture, aesthetics, the ideals of humanism become objects of cynical sale and management. Stating the paradox that people, realizing the untruth of political, ideological and advertising phenomena, nevertheless listen to them, and even get carried away by them, one should not reject the constant aspiration of people to traditional values ​​that fit into individual moral and cognitive models. Similar paradoxical processes are reflected in the activities of the media themselves, politics, and economics. Advertising tries to harmoniously attract the values ​​of culture, art, religion, morality, science, packing them in commercial packaging, creating industrial design projects from them, etc. Music turns into remixes, real tones, musical intros. At the same time, only the so-called “exchange value” or value, “alienated rationality” or utilitarianism is singled out from the content of traditional values.

Thus, among the factors that led to structural and semantic changes in modern forms of utilitarianism, the following can be distinguished: 1) economic (industrial revolution);

2) scientific and technical (significant changes in the communication system - the invention of the telephone, telegraph, radio and cinema, mass media, mass media, the global Internet system, cellular and mobile communications);

3) social (a sharp increase in population, the formation of phenomena of the mass and mass consciousness, the intensification of the processes of migration and marginalization). Marginalization as a separation from one's own culture and the impossibility of joining a new one in a short period of time further aggravates the negative manifestations of utilitarianism. A marginal person is a person who is on the border of various social groups, systems, cultures and is influenced by their conflicting norms and values, and ultimately finds a new axiological support, primarily in material and economic utility. Mass consciousness as the basis of modern utilitarianism is characterized by discontinuity, mobility, inconsistency, rapid unexpected changes in some cases and certain stereotypes in other cases. 4) cultural (dominance of urban culture, deactualization of such methods of broadcasting culture as tradition).

The semantic content of utilitarianism is centered around the idea of ​​elevating the material and social well-being of a person and society into the status of the meaning of life.

Paragraph 2.2 "Negative and positive utilitarianism in the system of modern cultural values" Modern utilitarianism is based not only on the classical concept of "benefit", but primarily on the concept of "justice".

Negative utilitarianism: firstly, this is the negative influence of the principle of utility and the "reasonable" desire of a person to obtain pleasure, which can be expressed in an emphasized attention to the physical. Marginality - from lat. margo - edge.

sky, and not the spiritual actualization of man and society, its pronounced consumer character. Secondly, these are the negative results of practical scientific research in the field of prolonging human life, denial of the value of suffering and the ability to experience physical and mental pain. Thirdly, the manifestation and cultivation of hyper-utilitarianism, how to see only benefit in everything, as the development of exorbitant individualism and egoism. "Justice, which comes from nature, is a contract about the useful - with the aim not to harm each other and not to suffer harm." The negative striving of man and mankind for the physiological embodiment of absolute happiness, and not as a spiritual ideal, can lead to grave social, cultural and subjective consequences. Thus, R. Guénon argues that modern people, in general, do not recognize any other science than the science of things measurable, countable and weighed, that is, again, about material things, because the quantitative point of view is applicable only to them;

the claim to reduce quality to quantity is very characteristic of modern science 33.

Negative utilitarianism is a complex socio-cultural genetic condition that operates in modern culture.

Unfortunately, the bipolarity of negative utilitarianism with the pursuit of manic abundance can spiral out of control. Euphoria can be accompanied by hyperactivity, insomnia, chaotic leaps of ideas (especially metaphysical and national), pressure from the flow of information and grandiose financial fantastic projects, especially against the backdrop of the global financial and economic crisis. Hypersexuality, religious delusions are universal. This is how egomania rages, which arouses panic, paranoia and utilitarianism becomes destructive. Being in the grip of euphoria, there is confidence that a person is doing everything correctly, he is right. It is in this state that many behavioral mistakes are made, an incorrect axiological orientation occurs. A look at the prevailing stereotypes of communication behavior from the standpoint of benefit, common sense, sober pragma Guénon R. Ibid. P. 138.

calculation creates a precedent for overcoming the archetypal predestination of communication behavior, stimulates the processes of depressurization of culture. Of course, we are not talking about genuine rationalism, only about its distant predecessor - utilitarian micro-rationalism. Therefore, one should not lose sight of his limitations, inability to make large-scale decisions, focus on momentary success. It is these attitudes of utilitarianism that are most dangerous, since they can initiate negative, predatory-predatory forms of communication. To a greater extent, this refers to the "moderate utilitarianism" strategy. However, overcoming the negative manifestations of utilitarian intentions lies through the development of utilitarianism, the formation of its productive and creative forms - developed utilitarianism.

The principle - be content with little - cannot be in tune with the philosophy of utilitarianism and consumption. Therefore, the maxim of this philosophy is “making money”, which will help to find the myth of freedom and happiness of material possession of desired goods, such a passion becomes the only goal of a person's entire life. It is these provisions that can become the basis for the emergence of fashion, image, respectability, as well as envy and hatred, the objects of which are people with greater purchasing power, i.e. wealth.

Positive utilitarianism. The positive aspects of utilitarianism are viewed in modern humanities as the realization of the problem of justice. This problem is solved within the framework of both foreign and domestic scientific concepts. First of all, the signs of positive utilitarianism are most clearly revealed in the concept of J. Rawls.

Positive utilitarianism can be characterized by the following features: firstly, this direction of utilitarianism is formed on the basis of a different understanding of benefits, as the realization of justice. Benefit is viewed as a good, as a definite categorical imperative - as the implementation of a just social, political and economic structure of society. The main characteristic of the benefit is its rational moral orientation. Secondly, positive utilitarianism merges with social humanism, which is understood as the cultivation of anthropological spiritual creative values ​​of society, where freedom of creativity does not turn into arbitrariness, but is considered as self-limitation - a social “look” at other members of society. Third, positive utilitarian values ​​are values ​​that are realized in the context of all common good and good. The mechanism of this implementation is, first of all, a concession, a temporary rejection of certain benefits. This can be well traced in the payment of taxes to the state, military service, public works, etc. Benefit becomes good when it acquires the signs of universality. Benefit from a rational and moral point of view becomes an integral condition for improving the general social foundations of a person, society, and culture.

From the point of view of positive utilitarianism, humanity in the future should not be a "super-soma" (super-body), intoxicated with the high-tech pleasure of the machine. Instead of negative utilitarianism in the material form of deception, trampling on social justice, an extremely fertile range of purposeful and productive creative activity based on fairness and fairness.

Positive utilitarianism denies a naturalistic approach to the realization of the principle of benefit - it is good only for the elite group of society.

The peculiarities of positive utilitarianism in the system of modern cultural values ​​are that the very process of their implementation should not harm the physical and mental health of a person, should not lead to an unfair distribution of material and other concessions.

At the same time, the principle of rational egoism is replaced by the position according to which egoism is the basis for the formation of altruism, its initial form. Utilitarianism contains elements of humanism: by moving attention to the sphere of human needs, it involuntarily moves them into the sphere of the meanings of human existence, thereby creating certain prerequisites for the emergence of genuine humanism. Thus, positive utilitarianism practically formulates the hedonistic imperative of modern culture and of man himself in the plane of fair moral relations.

Utilitarianism, both in its positive and negative forms, is a culture that follows the dynamics of life, responsive to all kinds of changes in reality, responding to the challenges of an increasingly complex world. That is why utilitarianism can take on an infinite number of guises, forms, and configurations. The mobility of utilitarianism makes it extremely problematic to define its typical features, to separate substantial features from accidental layers. The definition of the role of utilitarianism in the dynamics of culture is no less problematic. Uti litarism behaves as a kind of catalyst for change, development, however, never being a guarantor of its progressiveness and humanistic orientation. Utilitarianism as a whole is a dual phenomenon, its positive aspects are in close contact with negative ones.

For all the complexity of theoretical and historical studies of utilitarianism, it is necessary to emphasize their relevance. The study of the specifics of any culture-civilization will be incomplete without understanding the forms of utilitarianism developed within its framework. In essence, the degree of cultural assimilation of utilitarian meanings is the most important indicator of a culture's ability to develop and change itself. Research on utilitarianism inevitably merges with research on modernization processes. Utilitarianism acts as the moral core of modernization, its motivational basis.

The peculiarities of the modernization processes of a particular civilization are largely due to the specificity of utilitarianism.

Paragraph 2.3 "Problems of the Formation of Utilitarianism in the Contemporary Culture of Russia". The modern scientific literature reflects two opposing opinions regarding utilitarianism in the culture of Russia.

The dichotomy of these points of view is as follows: is utilitarianism possible within the framework of Russian culture? Perhaps the domestic culture was deeply unused to tarna and the existence of utilitarian values ​​on its soil is a myth. Utilitarianism exists in Russia, but not in the forms that are presented in the culture of the West. At the beginning of the 21st century, mass utilitarianism in Russia is presented in a moderate form. Moderate utilitarianism in Russia is based on equal distribution systems of management. The deepest spiritual and value foundations of Russian culture, their ideal priority, come into conflict with the ideas of utilitarianism - acquisitiveness, pragmatism, individualism. The ideal of spirituality in Russian culture is associated with asceticism, poverty, naturalness, modesty, and material simplicity. The domination of state interests over private interests in the economy also contributed to the formation of a conservative-moderate form of utilitarianism, manifesting itself in an immoderate consumer ideology. The traditionalism of Russian society contributed to the formation of a one-sided model of utilitarianism, with an extensive path of economic and social development, a distribution model of trade and consumption, rather than production, technologization and informatization. “Today, problematic situations in the country are complicated by the need to simultaneously overcome at least three main dual oppositions: traditionalism and liberalism, conciliarity and authoritarianism, moderate and developed utilitarianism” 34.

Utilitarianism in Russia contains both positive and negative characteristics. Of course, it is aimed at leveling the traditional values ​​of Russian culture, at destroying the traditional social and axiological environment. On the other hand, he creates a new system of values ​​aimed at getting out of a critical socio-economic situation, at an active position in solving labor and economic relations. The concept of creativity is also an expression of the presence and action of utilitarianism in Russian culture. Activation of creative potential, building up of creative abilities becomes the basis for new integration, innovative and modernist positive trends in Russian culture.

The role of utilitarian value systems in the contemporary cultural world of Russia is contradictory. Utilitarianism carries the forces of disintegration and organization of a new type. These forces of destructive new value systems can be catastrophic for the traditional foundations of Russian culture. Moreover, utilitarianism is primarily fostered by material Akhiezer A.S. How to "open" a closed society. M., 1997.S. 178.

nye somatic foundations of culture. The emasculation of spirituality can lead to a crisis in the spirituality of Russian culture.

The following features of Russian utilitarianism can be distinguished: 1) the prevalence of moderation and conservatism;

2) orientation towards collectivist forms of activity;

3) equalizing distribution systems of labor;

4) prevalence of general interest over private interest;

5) the principle of gender equality.

A feature of the utilitarianism of the modern post-Soviet period in Russia is the increased activity of this value system, its actualization. The economic crisis of the 90s of the twentieth century in Russia associated with the destruction of the USSR, the formation of the Russian Federation, the destruction of the leveling wage system, the system of ubiquitous social benefits, unjust privatization of national state enterprises, means of production, land and natural resources, led to the fact that the majority of the population of Russia found itself below the poverty line. In this situation, the ideology of mass utilitarianism was one of the axiological guiding lines of society. This interference of this ideology manifested itself in: mass urbanization of the rural population, especially young people;

races the color of cooperative and private trade and entrepreneurship;

development of the service sector, provision of consumer services;

development of a private urban transport system;

the development of fraud in financial systems (financial pyramids), voucherisation, banditry and the development of the shadow economy;

mass alcoholism and drug addiction of the population.

This development is characterized by extensiveness rather than intensive qualitative development. Moderate individualism becomes the basis of the described mass utilitarianism in Russia. The primitivization of this basis leads Russian society to expanding the boundaries of moral ethical permissiveness: to freedom of sexual behavior, to the destruction of the institution of the family, to the substitution of social gender roles.

The problem of the development of utilitarianism in Russia is very complex and does not imply one-dimensional approaches, nevertheless, it is possible to outline some main ways of solving it: self-development of utilitarianism in Russia.

Second, the most important sphere for articulating the values ​​of developed utilitarianism, it seems, should be the state ideology, within which the synthesis of the ideals of developed utilitarianism and the national idea should be organic and convincing. This kind of ideology should simultaneously serve as some holistic and large-scale development strategy, therefore, it should be consistent and conceptual. Thirdly, the forms of “germination”) of the values ​​of developed utilitarianism in Russian culture can be propaganda, enlightenment, education, whose task is not only to disseminate a certain amount of positive knowledge about the market system of the economy, but to form a new system of mentality, an organic part of which would be the intentions of a developed utilityism. Art can serve as an effective means of achieving this goal, since the language of artistic images is always more accessible, bright, easy to learn, has the ability to destroy the established mental stereo types. Fostering a culture of mature industrial entrepreneurship, among other things, requires the formation of a domestic adapted version of business ethics, which would enter the blood and flesh of the business world. Fourth, using mass participation towards the ideals of developed utilitarianism, it is necessary to intensify the desacralization of the ideals of moderate utilitarianism, forming a critical attitude towards them from different strata of society. To a large extent, the advancement of utilitarianism in Russian culture depends on this debunking of the holy of holies - the postulates of moderate utilitarianism welded to traditionalism: lack of initiative, consumerism, equalization, etc. Fifth, the most important condition for the establishment of the ideals of developed utilitarianism in Russian culture is the formation of a new religious culture that meets the requirements of civil society. The most important feature the religion of civil society is its facultative nature, the limitation of the sphere of influence of religious norms to a certain framework, therefore, the loss of monopoly positions by religion in culture and society. Sixth, the main idea should rise above all these methods of activating and developing utilitarianism in Russia - the idea of ​​educating an "industrial man", a subject of market relations. Consequently, the main strategy for stimulating developed utilitarianism in Russia should not be the implantation of ready-made models of activity, but their formation.

In custody the main conclusions of the presented study are formulated, the results are summed up, directions for further development, understanding of the problem of the system of utilitarian values ​​in modern culture are outlined.

In the journals included in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission for the publication of the results of dissertation research:

1. Osipova Yu.V. Utilitarianism as an ethical and cultural-philosophical doctrine // Science. Philosophy. Society. Materials of the V Russian Philosophical Congress. Volume II. - Novosibirsk: Parallel, 2009.

2. Osipova Yu.V. Formation of utilitarian values ​​in culture // Humanities and socio-economic sciences (scientific journal SKNTs VSH) Rostov n / D, Issue No. 1. 2010. 0.46 pp.

3. Osipova Yu.V. Negative and positive utilitarianism in modern axiology // Humanitarian and socio-economic sciences (scientific journal SKNTS VSH) Rostov n / D, Issue No. 2. 2010.

Other publications:

4. Osipova Yu.V. Modern utilitarianism is a non-classical tract of ka // Integrals of culture: Russian journal of philosophical and socio-economic sciences. No. 2 (21). - M .: "Sputnik +", Rostov-on-Don: "RostIzdat" - 2008. 0.18 pp.

5. Osipova Yu.V., Balyuk N.A., Dashkevich K.V. Formation of value orientations of youth in the context of modern modernization of society: to the formulation of the problem // Socio-economic and technical-technological problems of development of the service sector: Collection of scientific works. Issue 7. Part 1. Vol. 1 - Rostov n / a: Publishing house of RAS YURGUES, 2008. 0.32 pp.

6. Osipova Yu.V The Olympic movement as a factor in the formation of value orientations of youth Innovative technologies in training personnel for servicing the Sochi 2014 Olympics: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. - Rostov n / a:

IPO PI SFU, 2008 0.23 pp.

7. Osipova Yu.V. Utilitarianism in the system of values ​​// Socio-economic and technical-technological problems of the development of the service sector: Collection of scientific papers. Issue 8. Part 1. Vol. 1 - Rostov n / a: Publishing house of RAS YURGUES, 2009. 0.57 pp.

8. Osipova Yu.V. Utilitarian values ​​in the teachings of J.S. Mill // Materials of the interregional scientific-practical conference dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the journal "Humanitarian and socio-economic sciences" Rostov n / a. 2009. Special issue. 0.1 pp

9. Osipova Yu.V. Utilitarianism and humanistic transformations of modern culture // Integrals of culture: Russian journal of philosophical and socio-economic sciences. No. 1 (24). - M .: "Sputnik +", Rostov-on-Don: "RostIzdat", 2009. 0.3 pp.

10. Osipova Yu.V. Values ​​of utilitarianism in the axiology of the global world // "Man is an object and subject of global processes": Materials of an international scientific conference. St. Petersburg, November 20-21, 2009 / Ed. I.F. Kefeli;

Balt. state Tech. Univ. - SPb., 2010.

11. Osipova Yu.V. Utilitarianism and humanistic transformations of modern culture // Socio-economic and technical and technological problems of the development of the service sector: Collection of scientific works. Issue 9. - Rostov n / a: Publishing house RTIST YURGUES, 2010.47 pp.

12. Osipova Yu.V. Cultural-philosophical discourse of the value system // Socio-economic and technical-technological problems of the development of the service sector: Collection of scientific works. Issue 9. - Rostov n / a:

Publishing house RTIST YURGUES, 2010.47 pp.

13. Osipova Yu.V. Utilitarian values ​​and their transformation in modern culture // Third Russian Cultural Congress with international participation "Creativity in the space of tradition and innovation": Abstracts of reports and messages. - St. Petersburg: HEY DOS, 2010.0.08 pp.

Donated to the set 04/27/11. Signed for printing on 04/27/11. Format 60x Order No. 38 dated 04/27/11. Circulation 110 copies. Volume 2.5 pp. Risography printing.

Offset paper. Printed in RIO RTIST YURGUES

Similar works:

The variety of needs and interests of the individual and society is expressed in a complex system and various types of values, which are classified on different grounds.

• material (economic),
• political,
• social,
• spiritual.

Each of the subsystems is divided into elements that suggest their own classification. So, material values ​​include production-consumer (utilitarian), values ​​associated with property relations, everyday life, etc. Spiritual values ​​include moral, cognitive, aesthetic, religious, etc. ideas, perceptions, knowledge.

Values ​​are of a concrete historical nature, they correspond to a particular stage in the development of society or represent the values ​​of various demographic groups (youth, older generation), as well as professional, class, religious, political and other associations. The heterogeneity of the social structure of society gives rise to heterogeneity and even contradictory values ​​and value orientations. In this sense, values ​​are the objective form of the existence of social relations.

Objective and ideal (spiritual) types of values ​​differ in the form of being.

Object values

Object values ​​are natural goods, the use value of products of labor, social goods contained in social phenomena, historical events, cultural heritage, moral good, aesthetic phenomena that meet the criteria of beauty, objects of religious worship or religious ideas embodied in a symbolic form, etc. ...

Object values ​​do not exist in consciousness, but in the world of concrete things, phenomena that function in the life of people. The main sphere of object values ​​is the products of purposeful human activity, embodying the ideas of the individual and society about perfection. At the same time, both the result of the activity and the activity itself can act as an objectively embodied value.

Spiritual values

Spiritual values ​​include social ideals, attitudes and assessments, norms and prohibitions, goals and projects, etalons and standards, principles of action, expressed in the form of normative ideas about good, good and evil, beautiful and ugly, just and unjust, lawful and justified, about the meaning of history and the purpose of a person, etc. If object values ​​act as objects of human needs and interests, then the values ​​of consciousness perform a double function: they are an independent sphere of values ​​and the basis, a criterion for evaluating object values.

The ideal form of the existence of values ​​is realized either in the form of conscious ideas about perfection, about what is necessary and necessary, or in the form of unconscious drives, preferences, desires, and aspirations. Ideas of perfection can be realized either in a concrete-sensual, visual form of a certain etalon, standard, ideal (for example, in aesthetic activity), or they can be embodied by means of language.

Spiritual values ​​are heterogeneous in content, functions and the nature of the requirements for their implementation. There is a whole class of prescriptions that hard-code goals and ways of doing things. These are standards, rules, canons, and standards. More flexible, representing sufficient freedom in the realization of values ​​- norms, tastes, ideals, serving as the algorithm of culture. The norm is an idea of ​​the optimality and expediency of activity, dictated by uniform and stable conditions. The norms include:

• form of uniformity of actions (invariant);
• a ban on other behaviors;
• the best option for an act in a given social environment (sample);
• assessment of the behavior of individuals (sometimes in the form of some sanctions), warning against possible deviations from the norm.

Normative regulation permeates the entire system of human activity and relations. The condition for the implementation of social norms is a system of their reinforcement, which implies public approval or condemnation of an act, certain sanctions against a person who must fulfill the norm in his activities. Thus, along with the awareness of needs (which, as we have already noted, may be adequate or inadequate), there is an awareness of their connection with social norms. Although norms arise as a means of consolidating approved by social practice, verified by life ways of activity, they can lag behind it, be carriers of prohibitions and prescriptions that are already outdated and hinder the free self-realization of the individual, hinder social progress.

For example, communal land use, traditional for Russia, which was economically and socially justified at the early stages of our country's history, has lost its economic feasibility and is an obstacle to the development of agrarian relations at the present stage. Nevertheless, it remains in the minds of a certain part of our society (for example, the Cossacks) as some unshakable value.

Ideal is an idea of ​​the highest norm of perfection, a spiritual expression of a person's need to streamline, improve, harmonize relations between man and nature, man and man, personality and society. The ideal performs a regulatory function, it serves as a vector that ALLOWS to determine strategic goals, the realization of which a person is ready to devote his life. Is it possible to achieve the ideal in reality? Many thinkers answered this question in the negative: the ideal as an image of perfection and completeness has no analogue in the empirically observable reality, it appears in consciousness as a symbol of the transcendental, otherworldly. Nevertheless, the ideal is a concentrated expression of spiritual values.

Personal and group values

According to the subject - the bearer of the value attitude, supra-individual (group, national, class, universal) and subjective-personal values ​​differ. Personal values ​​are formed in the process of upbringing and education, the accumulation of the individual's life experience. Supraindividual values ​​are the result of the development of society and culture. Personal and social (supra-individual) values ​​are inextricably linked. For philosophy, the question is essential: what is the relationship between them, what is primary - individual or social values, are individual values ​​formed under the influence of social ones or, on the contrary, social values ​​arise as a result of the coordination of the needs and interests of individuals?

In the history of philosophy, this issue has been resolved ambiguously. Thus, relativistic axiology deduces values ​​and their corresponding assessments from an interest or a situation conditioned by the individual being of a person. In contrast to relativism, the naturalistic direction represents values ​​that do not depend on the consciousness of the subject and his value judgments as something primary in relation to the evaluator.

Freud and existentialists recognize the influence of supra-individual values, but assess it negatively, believing that the pressure of social values ​​leads to conflict with individual values ​​and suppresses them. According to Freud, social control leads to maladjustment of the personality, giving rise to all kinds of neuroses. Freud saw the existence of a conflict between the area of ​​the individual's psyche, in which his unconscious desires are concentrated, and culture, which displaces ideas from his consciousness that run counter to the requirements of society. The antagonism of the natural principle and the values ​​of culture leads to a decrease in human happiness, an increase in the feeling of guilt towards society, associated with the inability of the individual to limit his natural desires.

Existentialism also emphasizes that social requirements oppose individual motivation, suppress personality manifestations. The tyranny of social values ​​is fraught with the threat of disintegration and deindividualization of the individual. Conformist consciousness, formed as a result of thoughtless acceptance of the dominant values, the established order of things prevents the expansion of the boundaries of the individual "I", and the orientation of the individual to social values ​​external to her leads her away from true existence to a faceless standard.

Criticism of science, aimed at shaking the scientistic attitudes and technocratic illusions formed by society, is also associated with the named philosophical attitudes. Existentialism also attacks official law, morality. He opposes the thoughtless desire for power to the idea of ​​the inalienability of the freedom of one individual along with his own freedom of another, so that the act of his choice is a choice for everyone. But the individual is obliged to make this choice of values ​​in spite of and in opposition to the choice and those values ​​that society imposes on him.

It is impossible to completely agree with the above interpretation of the ratio of individual and supra-individual values. Social values ​​are predetermined by the consciousness of the individual, are formed and exist before his birth and continue to exist after his death. In this sense, they are perceived and exist for the individual as some kind of objective reality, they are perceived as such. But social values ​​are neither more perfect, nor even more absolute. They are generated by certain conditions of the life of society, are the subjective expression of these conditions. Therefore, the influence of supra-individual values ​​on individual values ​​can be both positive and negative. But the personality is a conscious and actively acting subject, freely defining his immediate and distant goals and priorities, realizing his needs and evaluating life in accordance with his experience.

In this regard, the answer to the question of what place the supra-individual and personal values ​​take in the structure of the personality is also essential, and what is their ratio. The answer to this question is important because values ​​are the basis that forms the core of the personality, ensuring its integrity and certainty. It is obvious that supra-individual values ​​are primary in the formation of a personality, they allow her to adapt to social conditions, take a certain place in society, and obtain a satisfactory personal status. For centuries, social values ​​passed from generation to generation are assimilated by an individual in the process of his socialization.

Psychology also answers the question of what are the mechanisms for the transformation of social values ​​into internal stable elements of the mental life of an individual. Such a mechanism is the formation of the internal structures of the human psyche by assimilating the external structures of social activity. What in a certain historical period is a form of mass behavior of people is further transformed into the internal mechanisms of consciousness. These are, for example, rituals, theater, church, collective actions such as games, and in modern conditions, school, television, mass media, within which a certain structure of the psyche is formed.

But not only various forms of activity (labor, cognition, communication, play) are involved in the formation of individual values. Social structures in general act as such a tool. Market and everyday life, advertising and fashion, politics and law, education and upbringing, mass media and art, prevailing cultural norms and the authority of some persons officially recognized by social and political institutions as standards, socio-psychological stereotypes, patterns, specific ritual practice , morality and taboos are all components of the spiritual life of society, which form the value orientations of the individual.

Personality is formed within the framework of social groups, communities, associations with their specific set of values. A person's belonging to these groups is expressed in the fact that she shares their ideals and values, and contradictions between these groups can lead to the emergence of an intrapersonal value conflict, to an independent search for priority values. Thus, the emergence of individualized, distinctive and unique personality traits, her special life experience are inevitably associated with the formation of special individualized values ​​that do not oppose social values, but complement them.

As regulators of a person's behavior, values ​​influence his behavior, regardless of whether certain phenomena are recognized as values ​​or not. Conscious ideas about the system of values, the totality of value attitudes constitutes the value orientations of the individual. They are formed in the process of assimilating social norms and requirements of the time and those social groups where the personality is included.

Value orientations are reinforced and corrected by the life experience of the individual and the totality of his experiences. They allow the individual to separate the meaningful from the insignificant, condition the stability and stability of motivation and the continuity of his behavior and consciousness. Nevertheless, unconscious drives, desires, aspirations make themselves felt, especially when they come into conflict with the conscious value orientations of the individual, which leads to contradictions between consciously declared and actually shared values. The reason for these contradictions may be that a person is not aware of real values, preferring actual ones; the contradiction between self-esteem and actual personal status, as well as the awareness of the contradictions between their own individualized values ​​and values ​​shared by socially prestigious groups.

Hierarchy of values

Therefore, the choice of individual values, the answer to the question about the meaning of one's life sometimes turns out to be painful searches for a person to choose priorities. The Russian religious thinker S. Trubetskoy (1862-1905) wrote in his article "The Meaning of Life" that the search for meaning turns into cruel suffering from the nonsense surrounding us. The meaninglessness of our life is especially acutely realized when life is presented in the form of a vicious circle closed in itself, or in connection with an unattained goal, or when the meaning of one's life is limited to preserving it at any cost, when a person gives his spirit into slavery to biological needs. Trubetskoy sees a way out of the value vacuum in consciousness: realizing the meaninglessness of life, the personality breaks out of it. The thinking being is susceptible to doubt, which is the inner mover that pushes us towards the intuition of unconditional meaning.

Meaning lies in the deepest foundations of life. Life is an invaluable gift, and it itself is the bearer of deep meaning. Russian philosopher in exile SL. Frank (1877-1950) pointed out that the meaning of life is determined by its Creator, God. However, this does not mean that the life of every person will become meaningful without his participation. Man himself is the creator of his own life, realizes its meaning and creates it in accordance with his own value priorities. Consciously or unconsciously, he makes his own choice. From early childhood, he thinks about the question: who will I be? A five-year-old boy, having watched a film about the famous designer Korolev, said: “Dad, I decided who I would be. I will be a designer. Otherwise, you will die, and nothing will remain after you ... ”But the task of professional self-determination is not as simple as it seems to a child. It involves answering the questions: what are my abilities, what can I do, what should I and want to be? And the only possible answer is to be yourself.

The meaning of every person's life is the realization of his originality, the embodiment of the best that he has. And the way to understand the meaning of your life is to pay close attention to the movements of your soul, successes and failures, abilities and preferences. The habit of in-depth introspection allows a person to discover the sources of his own originality and originality, and to remain himself is an important condition for the meaningfulness of life.

However, the vanity of everyday life, the humiliation of utilitarian values ​​diffuse a person, make him partial and one-sided. To break out of a meaningless, animal, automatic state, to realize the highest values ​​- that's the main task person. Realizing his originality, a person is also aware of his universal human essence, connection and identity with others, the universal principle. To be yourself means, first of all, to be human. The universality of the meaning of human life consists in the embodiment of the highest humanity of one's being: love, beauty, compassion, kindness, wisdom. Only in community with other people, taking care of one's neighbor and taking responsibility for him, does a person acquire the meaning of his existence. When a person does not think about himself, cares not about his own interests, but finds the roots of his existence in another, in the one who needs him, his life receives meaning and justification. An unnecessary person is unhappy. The one who is limited by the circle of selfish aspirations, closed on his own interests, as a rule, suffers a collapse.

The meaning of human life inevitably intersects with the meaning of human history. It is no coincidence that N.A. Berdyaev defined the meaning of world history as a combination of the fate of an individual and the fate of the Universe. And the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) saw the meaning of history in the unity of the human race. Humanity is called upon to preserve and multiply the centuries-old traditions of creating universal human values. The unity of mankind in time and space will ensure the humanization of man, his acquisition of the highest values.

The concept of value priorities, including the unconditional meaning, which Trubetskoy writes about, brings us to the problem of the hierarchy of values. Since values ​​are determined by the needs, interests of the individual and society, insofar as they have a complex structure, a special hierarchy, at the base of which there are fundamental benefits necessary for a person's life as a living being (natural wealth, material living conditions - housing, food, health care, etc.) .) and the highest values, depending on the social essence of a person, his spiritual nature.

The first group of values ​​belongs to the utilitarian, the second - to the spiritual. The first group of values ​​is determined by an external goal that is external to a person, the second has an internal basis. Practical, utilitarian value is the value of a means, for the usefulness of a thing is determined by the task for which it is intended to serve. Having completed its task, this thing dies as a value. In contrast to the utilitarian value, the spiritual has a self-sufficient character and does not need outside of its underlying motives. If utilitarian pragmatic values ​​determine the goals of activity, then spiritual ones - the meaning of human activity.

Accordingly, and spiritual world personality has its own hierarchy. Thinking everyday empirically, narrowly utilitarian, purely functional, or correlating one's actions with moral criteria - this is the dividing line between consciousness and spirituality, knowledge and value.

In the publicistic literature of recent years, the revival of spirituality is associated mainly with the revival of religiosity (the restoration of churches, Orthodox and other religious shrines, initiation into a religious cult, etc.). From the point of view of religious ideology, cultural identity and the religious factor are inseparable. The ministers of the church and theology argue that the church today is not a medieval institution, that it fits into modern society and is an organic element of it, that the mission of the church and religion is to be a conductor of spirituality, to support and strengthen the original spirituality of Russians. However, spirituality is not a monopoly of religiosity, which is only one of the manifestations of spirituality. It is associated with humanistic values, with the ideas of the priority of universal human values, the center of which is a person, his life and happiness. H. Hesse reminds us of the importance of spiritual values: “Now everyone already knows, at least they guess: if a thought has lost its purity and sharpness, if the spirit is not given its due, then soon the car will not move, and the ship will go off course, both the calculating ruler of the engineer and banks or stock exchanges will lose their authority, chaos will set in. " Words for Russia are almost prophetic ... Spiritual is the sphere of the highest values ​​associated with the meaning of life and the destiny of man.

Human spirituality includes three basic principles: cognitive, moral and aesthetic. Three types of spiritual creators correspond to them: sage (knowing, knowing), righteous (saint) and artist. The core of these principles is morality. If knowledge gives us the truth and indicates the way, then the moral principle presupposes the ability and need of a person to go beyond the limits of his egoistic “I” and actively assert goodness.

A feature of spiritual values ​​is that they have a non-utilitarian and non-instrumental character: they do not serve for anything else, on the contrary, everything else is subordinated, acquires meaning only in the context of higher values, in connection with their assertion. A feature of the highest values ​​is also the fact that they constitute the core of the culture of a certain people, the fundamental relations and needs of people: universal (peace, life of mankind), values ​​of communication (friendship, love, trust, family), social values ​​(ideas about social justice, freedom, human rights, etc.), values ​​of lifestyle, self-affirmation of the individual. The highest values ​​are realized in an infinite variety of situations of choice.

Thus, the concept of values ​​is inseparable from the spiritual world of the individual. If reason, rationality, knowledge constitute the most important components of consciousness, without which the purposeful activity of a person is impossible, then spirituality, being formed on this basis, refers to those values ​​that are associated with the meaning of a person's life, one way or another deciding the question of choosing his life path, goals and the meaning of their activities and the means of achieving them

The very word "aesthetic" is an adjective that has long become a noun. Aesthetic is the most general and most fundamental category of aesthetics, covering all the phenomena of aesthetic reality.

Aesthetics began with the question of the nature and essence of beauty. The first reasoning about this we find among the Pythagoreans - the disciples and followers of Pythagoras. Considering the world and the place of man in it from a mathematical standpoint, the Pythagoreans came to the surprising conclusion that the cosmos is organized according to the principle of musical harmony and introduced the concept of "music of the celestial spheres." The music performed imitates the "music of the celestial spheres" and thus delights people. Awareness of the aesthetic value of the world, therefore, began with the understanding of it as a beautiful cosmos. In Greek antiquity, the question was posed: what is beauty, what is its nature and sphere of being? In Plato's dialogues, Socrates asks: which shield is beautiful, the one that is decorated or the one that reliably protects the warrior? Is it a beautiful monkey, or is it just human quality? The question of beauty as an expression of the aesthetic significance of the world has become key, since the solution of the remaining problems of aesthetics depends on the answer to it.

The following empirical features of the aesthetic originality can be distinguished. What phenomena can we call aesthetic?

1. Aesthetic phenomena necessarily have sensual character. Beauty is revealed through direct contact, neither rational nor mystical (religious) speculation can understand the aesthetic.
2. These are sensory properties that are certainly worried; before and after the experience we are not dealing with an aesthetic phenomenon. This feature separates aesthetic and moral properties that are supersensible: conscience, goodness, for example, cannot be seen with the eyes.
3. Aesthetic properties are associated with the experiences that are worn non-utilitarian character. These experiences are disinterested or disinterested, as Kant said. Admiring the beauty of the world or a person becomes an immense value for the soul.

Let us highlight the typological, conceptual interpretations of the nature and essence of aesthetic phenomena that have developed historically. There are four of these interpretations: naive-materialistic (naturalistic), objective-idealistic, subjective-idealistic, relational.

A person, coming into the world, fixes in it the presence of some special, aesthetic properties. The question is - where do these properties come from? Positions formed in response to it:

The first- a point of view, organic to the everyday consciousness of a person, associated with the materialistic tradition in philosophy. You can call this view naturalistic: aesthetic properties are understood as properties of the material world, inherent in things initially, from nature, they do not depend on human consciousness, which only fixes these properties. The most ancient and naive view, which has its own reasons, since aesthetic properties are merged with the domain of objects. The conviction of everyday consciousness: I see beauty, therefore, it is and is independent of me. These ideas come from Democritus. The naive consciousness seeks beauty in nature through symmetry: a butterfly is beautiful, but a camel is not. Of course, this point of view is hopelessly outdated. In N. Zabolotsky's poem in 1947:

I am not looking for harmony in nature,

Reasonable proportionality of beginnings

Not in the depths of the rocks, not in the clear sky

I still, alas, did not distinguish.

How capricious is her dense world!

In the fierce chanting of the winds

The heart does not hear the correct accords,

Arguments that reveal the weaknesses of the naturalistic interpretation of the aesthetic: if a phenomenon has a material nature, it can be recorded objectively, in addition to human consciousness, by a device, for example. The materiality of properties is confirmed by their interaction with other material systems, while the aesthetic is thus not revealed. The only "device" with the help of which aesthetic qualities are recorded is the aesthetic consciousness inherent in man. And the argument concerning human consciousness itself: if a property is material, then the disclosure of this property by consciousness is subject to the law of objective truth: the Pythagorean theorem is the same for all countries and peoples. If aesthetic properties are objectively inherent in the world, they should be perceived by all people in the same way. Meanwhile, objects receive different aesthetic qualities and are valued differently. The paradox of beauty arises! A camel is beautiful for nomads, a cow is for Indians, and comparing a girl to a cow is clearly not a compliment for Russians. And, for example, in Indian culture, the gait of an elephant and the gait of a girl are the same in value, beautiful. The naturalistic view cannot explain this relativism and relativity of the aesthetic.

Second the approach assumes that aesthetic properties are associated with the object, but on different grounds. Aesthetic properties are objective, but their source is the divine principle. The aesthetic is the expression of the spiritual in the material world. From these positions, the aesthetic is not a thing in itself, but the spirituality of a thing. The look, of course, is more subtle than naturalistic. Here the meaning of spirituality in the analysis of the aesthetic and the need to reveal one through the other is felt. But even this view is difficult to accept as final, and the same arguments apply here: if God is one, then why is he perceived so differently? And for religious philosophy, negative qualities have always been a problem: where does the ugly come from in the world, if the world was created by God? This, resorting to scholastic reasoning, idealist aesthetics does not explain. Both the first and second positions underestimate the role of the subject and the subjective principle: aesthetic properties are always given to us through experience.

Third, subjective-idealistic position - ancient Greek philosophy, Kant and modern American aesthetics. The aesthetic is subjective in nature. Consciousness ascribes aesthetic properties to objects, objects in themselves are not aesthetic, they receive an aesthetic quality due to the individual activity of a person. Consciousness is a prism that can project aesthetic dimensions onto the world. Kant further considers the question: why and why are these subjective qualities given to man, which he considers as a projection of human ability onto the outside world. Kant shows in his "Critique of the ability to judge" that the aesthetic attitude of man to the world, from which the aesthetic properties of reality are derived, provides consciousness with internal unity and harmony, compensation for the divergence of internal forces. Man becomes free through his aesthetic experience. And with regard to this approach, questions arise:

• if everything depends on the person, then why are there negative aesthetic properties? The ugly is a manifestation of what the world imposes on us. Not all the wealth of aesthetic values ​​can thus be explained. Or, for example, the tragic: why does a person need a tragedy? It is no coincidence that Kant writes about two aesthetic qualities - the beautiful and the sublime, in other works - the comic. But Kant never wrote about the tragic;
• how to explain the coincidence of aesthetic experiences: millions of people perceive the tragic as a tragedy, comedy - with laughter, perhaps there are some objective grounds here?

Thus, historically, two poles were formed in aesthetics in explaining the essence of the aesthetic: some thinkers emphasize the role of the object, ignoring the subject, others argue: everything is connected with the subject and is determined by it, ignoring the object. Both contradict some facts and raise objections.

Obviously, the aesthetic is a special reality that is associated with both the object and the subject. Aesthetic reality is derived from both, and more precisely, from the relationship between subject and object. The aesthetic is the attitude between subject and object. And what are the aesthetic properties then? These are special properties that are relational, that is, arising and existing only in the relationship between the subject and the object.

Relational theory is a view that goes back to Socrates. Beauty is the phenomenon of a meeting between a subject and an object, their intersection, and an attitude.

2. Aesthetic as a value attitude

The relationship between a person and the world can be different, what is the peculiarity of aesthetic relationships? The aesthetic attitude is value. Aesthetic properties are functional properties, they are derived in nature, change with a change in the relationship between the subject and the object. Let's recall the features of aesthetic properties:

• the relativity of these properties, their variability depending on changes in the subject and object;
• these properties are somehow tied to the object's objectivity, but this property is immaterial, immaterial, it cannot be fixed by a device;
• special properties that are realized through human perception, and not simply associated with subjective grounds. These properties are always experienced, evoke an emotional reaction of a person. Human psyche thus adapted to highlight something meaningful, valuable for the subject. Where this significance is absent, human attitude is neutral, there is no emotion.

The value relationships are those where objects reveal their significance for the subject and the properties are special value properties or values.

The questions that arise here are: where does the world of value relationships come from? What are they needed for? But also - why do values ​​exist, how can they exist? What is the value of beauty, tragedy, comedy as the special significance of the world for a person? What is the originality of these values?

From the very beginning, it is necessary to note the fundamental bimodality(bipolarity) values, the presence of positive and negative values, and, above all, utilitarian: benefit - harm. The form of human reaction in which the value manifests itself is grade- an active attitude articulating value.

Why does a person inevitably come to a value attitude, a value assimilation of the world? Value assimilation is the basis of a person's orientation in the world, here there is a possibility of choice, planning activities, meaningful orientation in the world. The language of values ​​is a special language consisting of labels that call me or warn of danger and, thus, meaningfully include me in reality. The world is being assimilated, that is, the object-bearer of value is recognized, one's own, experienced. On the basis of orientation, motivation occurs, and its meaning is that it stimulates any activity. A constant question before a person: what is good, what is bad?

Value relationships become a way of self-affirmation of a person in those connections in which he falls, thereby a person distinguishes himself as a significant individual.

Let us name a few general characteristics of the values ​​themselves.

First, value is associated with objective properties, but it is not an objective property. Neo-Kantians: values ​​mean, but do not exist, at least they do not exist like things. Values ​​are not natural, they are supernatural. Beauty cannot be touched by hands (but a beautiful object can be), beauty is immaterial, it is supersensible. Value is the specific content of objects: there are no values ​​in nature, they exist where there is sociocultural reality. Value is not a substance and is not energy, but it is a special informativeness. Information is not about the object or the subject itself, but about the relationship between the subject and the object, about the place of the object in the life and consciousness of the subject.

Second, there is another important ontological characteristic of value. R. Carnap introduced the concept of dispositional properties, that is, properties that exist in interaction. Value is the dispositional property of an object, which arises with an active relationship between subject and object. The objective foundations of value are the object properties of the object. The subjective foundations of value are the basic needs of a person and society.

Value is this or that ability of the object to satisfy this or that need of the subject. The one who has no need, there is no question about the value relation, but there are practically no such people. When the need grows, the value capture of the world increases. The abilities of the subject are also associated with the needs, and the degree of development of the ability determines the development of a person. Other subjective structures of value attitudes: interests - the direction of consciousness arising from the need. Interests express the subject's life orientation. Motives are associated with the same, then - ideals. In a broader sense, the ideal acts as a kind of norm: not every situation can satisfy a need. A person can die, but not take someone else's. Norm is an internal law that becomes a prism through which a person relates to the world. Ideals, as a component of a person's value consciousness, act as a normative regulator of his behavior. During the Leningrad blockade, when people were terribly starving, the fund of unique varieties of grain was preserved by N. Vavilov, a scientist who was engaged in the selection of grain crops.

The question is why value relations in general and aesthetic ones in particular arise. The essence of a person is activity that connects him with the world, and value relationships arise as a result of human activity, which is fundamentally practical. Marx, within the framework of the philosophy of practice, explained the emergence of a value relationship. Marx shows that in the process of a material-transformative attitude to the world, all the necessary prerequisites for a value attitude are formed and, above all, a special object. Humanized nature is the object of a value relationship or the humanized world. The objective form of being of human culture is nature transformed, having received special properties, included in the process of human life. Humanized nature includes objective properties that a person endows with a special form. An expedient form is a new, supra-natural, cultural form things. The creation of a new form means the acquisition of functional content: the object receives functions that include it in the system of human activity.

In fact, all human activity is of a design, form-creating nature. The designer solves the problem of connecting function and form. In the function, that is, the content, the significance is fixed, matures, concentrated, which manifests itself through form, special value and information content. Value-based information content is a special content of an object that receives an appropriate form of expression. On the basis of a value expression, special meanings appear. This is the structure of any cultural object, and the object of aesthetic attitude, including.

Here it would be possible to build the following chain of concepts that express the sequence of the process of creating culture: the practical development of the world reveals subject properties presented by expedient form, the content of which becomes value, subjectivized and experienced by man as meaning its existence. Meanings are subjective value, a form of owning the world. A person cannot be called a subject in whom a system of value meanings has not been formed: he is not guided by the world, cannot “read” and decode it.

The other side - in the process of changing the world, a person changes himself - there is a wealth of subjective human sensibility or a wealth of human subjectivity. Working with the world, a person works with himself, he “self-shapes” his wealth: intellectual abilities, communication skills and much more. It is impossible to navigate the world without having such a tool for this.

The world is created by effort and man is created. Culture is a living dynamic connection, constant living transitions, a system of meanings, which becomes the realization of a system of value relations. In different cultural eras, a person evaluates the world differently, and the reassessment of values ​​becomes stages in the development of culture.

Aesthetic values ​​are a necessary parameter of the world of human culture. They become a way of self-realization, a person's affirmation in a humanized world.

3. Specificity of aesthetic values

The specificity of the aesthetic attitude is associated with the understanding that this is not the only and not the first value attitude in the system of human culture. The aesthetic attitude of a person to the world and aesthetic values ​​is preceded by another, directly related to human life, and in this regard, the primary in relation to the aesthetic type of value relationships, which are a condition, basis and material for an aesthetic attitude. These values ​​are called utilitarian. Why are utilitarian values ​​primary? This is determined by their very essence: they are the result of a relationship based on material needs. . Utilitarian values- the value of certain objects to meet the material needs of a person. The logic of utilitarian relations is much simpler than aesthetic and moral ones, because material world simpler than the spiritual. In the world of utilitarian relations, there are only two values ​​- benefit and harm. But in fact there are other, diverse relationships, first of all, vital, biological relationships based on biological reproduction (sexual relationships). But this is not a purely natural material, it is already a cultured reality. Along with the vital in the very system of human activity, utilitarian-functional relations arise, determined not by the needs of survival, but by the activity in which a person is currently exercising himself. But other utilitarian relations are no less important: we are part of a collective subject that needs a social organization, a socio-organizational need. The functioning of such social institutions as the state is connected with the satisfaction of this need. This is a huge layer of values ​​that are utilitarian and functional in their content.

A whole spectrum of values ​​arises from utilitarian relations, and they are spiritual. Throughout a huge period of history, the utilitarian and the aesthetic were closely related and, in fact, coincided. The consciousness of the ancient Greek combines the aesthetic and the utilitarian. Even Socrates insisted that a thing is beautiful because it is useful. Socrates discovered the value nature of the aesthetic attitude, but he did not distinguish between the aesthetic and the utilitarian. Arising from the utilitarian, the aesthetic cannot be reduced to the utilitarian. Plato speaks of love for beauty. And this is the dialectic of values: on the one hand, the beautiful is a derivative of the useful, on the other hand, it is not identical, irreducible to it. Beauty is a transformed form of benefit, a new quality of value.

There are mechanisms in culture that reinforce the specificity of aesthetic values. The object itself has properties that are adapted by culture in order to store aesthetic information. This is a world of expressive object forms capable of expressing and maintaining aesthetic value. But there are also subjective grounds - a special aesthetic human psyche, mechanisms formed by culture through which aesthetic information is realized. The process of developing an aesthetic attitude is the flow of a river fed from below by springs, currents of life that form a new aesthetic attitude, and these springs, including utilitarian values.

But what are the differences between aesthetic and utilitarian values?

First: utilitarian value is a material value in its foundation: it is formed, formed, realized at the material level, it is an existential value, consciousness only fixes the emerging value. Aesthetic value the opposite is the value perfect, it develops and is realized in the space between being and consciousness. Beauty exists for consciousness. For aesthetics - to exist means to be perceived, therefore, there are no unconscious aesthetic values. But the characteristic "ideal" is insufficient for aesthetic value (ideal - belonging to consciousness). There is a deeper characteristic of aesthetic value: aesthetic value spiritual... Not everything that is ideal is spiritual: the reflection in the mind of the material is ideal, but not spiritual. The essence of the origin of value. Spiritual - not just existing for consciousness, but having a basis in the needs of consciousness. There are concepts where the spiritual is equal to the sacred - religious concepts. But spirituality is a special level of development of consciousness. Spirituality is the level of consciousness when consciousness becomes an independent force when consciousness becomes a subject, a free and sovereign beginning. Special needs of consciousness are developed. Before that, consciousness knows and wants only what is needed for practice and the human body. This is "material" consciousness: it is woven into real processes of interaction. But one day the questions arise: why do I live? What is the meaning of the universe? What is the subjective justification of the universe for man? A.P. Chekhov, for example, “three arshins of the earth are not enough for a person, he needs the whole globe”.

Aesthetic values, like all aesthetic relationships, are born in response to harmonization needs... The spirituality of aesthetic values ​​also means their connection with the needs of consciousness. The second important characteristic of spirituality is non-utilitarian nature of spiritual value... Kant draws attention to this when he connects the aesthetic attitude with human freedom. Kant points to a paradox: when we talk about aesthetic value, then we are posing the question for whom it is, but here we cannot ask that. Kant asserts aimless expediency in the case of beauty. On the one hand, a beautiful object is permeated with purposefulness, which is fixed, because this object makes sense to us. On the other hand, there is no purpose in the object for us except admiration. The aesthetic in this respect is the opposite of the utilitarian - it is a goal in itself. The object appears as valuable already by virtue of its existence, and not because it satisfies any specific need. Therefore, human activity here is contemplation; under our loving gaze, value becomes significant. Further is self-sufficient value, that is, sufficient in itself. Here we are dealing with the phenomenon of the power of beauty over a person: it binds, binds. We only need this beauty, we fall in love with her and see nothing but her! The beauty of a loved one is revealed only to a lover!

Further - generalizing character aesthetic value. An object is always concrete, but its value includes various properties and values. In a utilitarian sense, we perceive the world one-sidedly, in its concrete usefulness, we see what we need to see. In the aesthetic, we see more than is revealed to the eye - the spiritual value of the object. In Paleolithic Venus, the head is reduced or there is no head at all, and it is not needed here at all. In archaic culture, a woman is significant in the function that her body performs, therefore the exaggerated, disproportionate forms of these sculptures, representing the image of a woman's fertility, are perceived positively. There are dozens of images of the connection of the male and female genital organs also belonging to primitive culture, but this is a utilitarian image. How far are Rodin's sculptures from this, where the aesthetic value of love appears, where the physical and the spiritual are in unity.

Finally, ideological potential aesthetic attitude: aesthetic value not only belongs to the world, but becomes a "pass" to the world, includes us in the wide context of being, which becomes the foundation of art. Animals have no world, but they have an environment. Man has a world. Aesthetic value says more than it contains, therefore it symbolic: reveals large semantic spaces of which this object is a part. The horizon of consciousness expands to cosmic proportions. This includes areas such as nature. In B. Pasternak's poem "When will he roam":

As if the interior of a cathedral -

The vastness of the earth, and through the window

Sometimes it is given to me to hear.

Nature, the world, the secret of the universe,

I am your long service,

Embraced by a trembling innermost,

In tears of happiness I suck.

Further - culture - the world of man, human activity. Culture enters our consciousness through an aesthetic experience and an introduction to art, which fully realizes the completeness of the aesthetic view of the world. And, of course, the aesthetic understanding of history, diversely represented in the art of all cultural eras (one of the most striking examples of this kind is the painting by E. Delacroix "Liberty on the Barricades", the dominant image of which has become a symbol of the French Republic).

And here it is necessary to point out the paradoxical connection sensual and supersensible in aesthetic value. Moral, ideological, religious values ​​are supersensible, aesthetic ones are of a sensual nature. What is the bearer of aesthetic value in the object? And this requires a special carrier, it must be commensurate with the integrity of the object. Aesthetic value involves a whole system of properties: part and whole, dynamics and statics, and we must find such a dimension of the object that combines all this. This dimension is the form, understood in this case as the structure of the object. Form in its sensible given is the bearer of aesthetic value: where there is aesthetic, there is a world of forms. At the same time, the form carries a meaning that goes beyond immediate sensibility. Form is, firstly, a way of organizing, a way of giving the world unity, therefore, a person's whole life is based on form. But these are special, ordered forms that show that we are synonymous with stability and reliability. Form, secondly, is an indicator of the mastery of the world, an indicator of how much the world is subordinated to reason. And, thirdly, the form reveals the essence of the phenomenon, this is the basis of a person's orientation in the world. Thus, the bearer of aesthetic value is iconic form, which has gone through a certain cultural practice and carries a certain cultural experience. The form and the medium, and the content of the aesthetic value itself.

What are the features of the aesthetic form?

1. 
   The concept and nature of value
2. 
   System of values. Hierarchy of values
3. 
   Economic and socio-political values
4. 
   Morality in the value system
5. 
   Utilitarian and deontological ethics
6. 
   Religious values
7. 
   Historical fate of values

1. Concept and nature of value

The world around a person is heterogeneous. The phenomena that are around us are diverse, their significance for us is different. Some things, ideas, actions are more valuable to us than others. What is meaningful to us we call value. In a broad sense, value is this or that object natural world or one or another product of human activity that has a certain significance for humans... Moreover, the significance of this object can be both positive and negative, only that to which a person is absolutely indifferent has no value.

Traditionally, it is customary to subdivide all values ​​into material and spiritual. But it should be borne in mind that materiality of this or that value, its embodiment in substance, is not yet a sufficient condition for us to classify it as material values. Many spiritual values ​​could not exist without some kind of material carrier, for example, "Ulysses" by J. Joyce or "War and Peace" by L. Tolstoy - without the paper on which they are printed, but matter is secondary here, in the first place is something intangible - idea, artistic design, etc. In material values, it is their material side that is important in the first place. A piece of bread is more likely to feed a hungry person than multivolume discussions about tasty and healthy food, what is valuable in it is matter itself.

The modern German philosopher Jurgen Habermas offers a slightly different approach to the classification of values. He divides all values ​​into intangible, material and post-material. In societies where material values ​​- food, shelter, etc. - are in short supply and certain social groups suffer from their lack, a person often turns to spiritual values ​​in order to somehow compensate for the lack of material ones. So, for example, religion has always attracted the "humiliated and insulted", the destitute and the poor by promising a righteous believer a posthumous reward for the suffering and hardships that befell him in earthly life. Such spiritual values, which a person lives with a lack of material, Habermas calls intangible... It cannot be argued that intangible values ​​are only compensation and have no independent importance for a person, but in the case of intangible values, it is generally very difficult to judge this. But when the well-being of society grows, and each person gets access to material benefits, then his true attitude towards spiritual values ​​is manifested. If they served for a person mainly as compensation for the lack of material wealth, now they are no longer needed. But very often a person notices that for all the importance of material values, he cannot limit himself in his life only to them, and those spiritual values ​​to which he aspires - this is already post-material values. This striving reveals the true need for the spiritual, which can no longer be confused with anything.

Where do the values ​​come from? A certain thing becomes a value as a result of our assessment, we evaluate it based on certain criteria, principles or standards, and we recognize its importance for ourselves, any social group, society as a whole, or even all of humanity. The nature of value is twofold; it has objective and subjective aspects. On the one hand, we recognize as a value something that is objectively significant for us, something without which a person's life would be extremely difficult. But, on the other hand, it is the person who sets priorities and affirms some values ​​above others. Therefore, we can distinguish the following key elements in the structure of the value proposition: a natural or cultural object that is subject to assessment, a person (society) that makes an assessment, and, finally, the assessment itself, the “value” that is endowed with this object. Being in many ways a product of subjective will, from a certain point the value objectified in public consciousness, in various forms of society's life, in specific social relations.

The branch of philosophy that studies values ​​is called axiology... The word comes from the Greek root axio, meaning valuable.
2. The system of values. Hierarchy of values

Values ​​do not exist autonomously, by themselves, but are organized in a complex hierarchical system. Each value has its place in this system, each value is correlated in a certain way with other values, forming a single whole - the world of values, the value dimension of human life. The hierarchy of this system is manifested in the fact that some values ​​are recognized as more significant than others. If there are more important and less important values, then there must be some highest value that takes place at the top of the value pyramid. The rest of the values ​​are endowed with significance based on their proximity and consistency with the highest value.

So Plato used the idea of ​​the good as such the highest value. After all, any person would prefer to have a good than not to have it. Moreover, the good of society is more important than the good of the individual, Plato argued, and, therefore, all other values ​​were supposed to be equal in the idea of ​​the common good. For medieval philosophy, which was primarily a religious philosophy - it was not for nothing that they said: "philosophy is the servant of theology" - such a highest value was faith. The closer the deeds and thoughts of a person were to God and the Law of God, the more valuable they were recognized.

And in the modern public consciousness, you can also find the most significant values ​​that we used to put at the forefront. As a rule, as such values ​​we consider, for example, the value of a human person, pluralism, tolerance, inalienable human and civil rights and freedoms, other liberal democratic ideas and principles. They are sometimes almost as absolute for us as faith in God is for a man of the Middle Ages.

Of course, by no means in every society and not in every consciousness of an individual person, values ​​are built into a harmonious, integral system. It often happens that values ​​arrive in some chaotic state, not correlating with each other, not being coordinated by some higher principle. This state of affairs is called anomie... Anomy indicates a crisis of an individual or society, it means that a person or society has lost the guiding lines of its existence, and henceforth there is no unambiguous understanding of right and wrong, valuable and empty, should and should not. Anomy, as a rule, indicates the collapse of one value system and the imminent emergence of another. However, if a person or society fails to restore the value order, anomie can turn into a disaster.
3. Economic and socio-political values

As already mentioned, the world of values ​​is complex and diverse. In addition to the basic division into material and spiritual (intangible and post-material), we subdivide values ​​in accordance with various spheres of social life.

In different eras, various economic values ​​dominated, and their very place in the hierarchy of values ​​varied. Today leading economic values the market, the right to private property, the standard of living and its quality are usually recognized. Market how value is inextricably linked with such values ​​as equality in the rights of competing parties, honest business, freedom of private initiative. Private property right lies at the heart of the modern economic order. This right is enshrined in the Constitution, and the state acts as its guarantor. However, not all philosophers agree with each other regarding the permissible boundaries of private property, for example, Marxism advocated the socialization of large private property, and J.J. Rousseau argued that it was the root of evil that turned a once noble man into a greedy and dishonest egoist.

As examples socio-political values modern society, the Western model must first of all mention the rule of law and civil society. Constitutional state is based on the concept of law as a priority value. The right is above any power. The power that makes the law cannot be higher than it. The right is one for all. And it is based on such values ​​as justice, humanity, democracy. Ideal civil society asserts the value of an individual personality, civil rights and freedoms, which, in turn, can only be guaranteed by the rule of law.
4. Morality in the value system

Morality has a special place in the value system.

Animals are completely at the mercy of reflexes and instincts. A person grows out of an animal, biological instincts in our life still play an extremely important role. However, man is more than an animal, since he subordinates his life not only to the satisfaction of his biological needs, but also to human ethical principles. Morality is a form of social consciousness that includes moral values, principles and ideals... Morality regulates human behavior in society, based on a system of norms of the moral order. There are many similarities between morality and law. Once upon a time in antiquity there was no division at all into moral and legal norms, they existed together. As the differences between morality and law today, one can cite, for example, a greater formalization of legal norms or a greater abstractness of moral norms, but the radical difference will be that the main incentive factor of lawful behavior - the state - is external to a person, while the main regulator of moral behavior is an internal regulator by nature. We are talking about such a phenomenon as conscience... Of course, moral values ​​are revealed to a person in culture, however, thanks to the process of socialization, they are fixed in the inner world of a person ( interiorize).

Unlike law enforcement agencies of the state, which, ideally, should not miss a single offense, conscience, as you know, sometimes sleeps. But each person has a certain boundary in the system of moral values, breaking which, he risks awakening his conscience. And if in the case of legal laws the judge is somewhere outside of us, then, violating the laws of morality, we meet the judge within ourselves. And this judge may turn out to be the most adamant and intractable of all possible judges.

It is far from always possible to unambiguously decide which act is considered morally correct and which is immoral. Moral principles can conflict with each other, moreover, moral principles sometimes do not agree with the real benefits or harms of a particular action. It is a well-known truth that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It sometimes happens that the highest principles can lead to evil, and this evil cannot be avoided in any way, except by violating moral commandments. However, having stepped over morality once, will we not one day throw it away altogether, and together with it all humanity? This difficult dilemma contains the fundamental problem of ethics as a philosophy of morality.
5. Utilitarian and deontological ethics

All ethical theories can be roughly divided into pragmatic-utilitarian and deontological.

For utilitarian morality, the main criterion for the correctness of an act is its consequences. The founder utilitarianism Jeremiah (Jeremy) Bentham suggested introducing a special unit of measurement - hedon, from the Greek word for pleasure - so that we can compare different actions and deduce which one is preferable. So, if different actions are capable of giving us pleasure to varying degrees - for example, pleasure equal to 5 hedons and pleasure equal to 50 hedons - then we should definitely prefer the course of action that will lead to pleasure equal to 50 hedons. Of course, pleasure cannot be measured with a ruler or a thermometer, and Bentham's reasoning should be understood as a theoretical model illustrating the algorithm of moral choice. And this algorithm, as we can see, is very simple and easily applicable in practice.

However, this simplicity was precisely the root of the weakness and even the absurdity of Bentham's utilitarianism. His moral doctrine was immediately criticized by other philosophers. They reproached Bentham with the fact that, according to his logic, a pig lying in the mud and content with all 100 hedons leads a more moral lifestyle than Socrates, upset, for example, by the ignorance of his Athenian acquaintances. John Stuart Mill tried to overcome the costs of Bentham's philosophy by dividing everything accessible to man pleasures into two groups: lower and higher. The lower pleasures make a person related to an animal; these are pleasures, first of all, of a physical nature. They are simple, artless, but can be unusually bright and intense. The highest pleasures are exclusively human, social and spiritual pleasures. They are inaccessible to animals, they are discovered by man, creating a society and culture. Although they are more intricate, difficult to achieve, and less intense than the first-order pleasures, in reality they are deeper and less fleeting. And when choosing between the former and the latter, a person should prefer the latter.

Utilitarian ethics are also called teleological(from the ancient Greek "telos" - the goal). Aside from immediate pleasure, any benefit can be the goal of morally correct choice. The more the benefit, the more correct the action. But, striving for the benefit for himself or his loved ones, a person can harm other people. Therefore, you should act in such a way as to bring the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people. What about moral principles? They need to be followed, but where they run counter to practical considerations, they need to be accepted as convention.

Are the exact opposite of utilitarianism deontological ethical theories... "Deon" in translation from ancient Greek means duty... At the center of deontological morality lies the moral law and strict adherence to it, even if from a pragmatic point of view it would be more useful to neglect this law. Socrates, sentenced to death, should perhaps have escaped with his disciples from an Athenian prison, but he could not to do so, because he would thus have to violate his own moral principles. The ethical philosophy of Socrates, according to which every person should begin with the knowledge of true good and then live in accordance with the known, in fact, is one of the clearest examples of deontological morality. Duty lies at the foundation of Stoic philosophy, religion also implies serving God or gods as the duty of every person. Although it should be noted that the believer sometimes replaces deontological considerations with utilitarian ones, simply taken outside the bounds of earthly life - he leads a righteous life not out of a sense of duty, but on the basis of reckoning, hoping for a posthumous reward for his righteousness.

One of the most developed deontological theories is presented in the "Critique of Practical Reason" by Immanuel Kant. Kant was convinced that morality is not acquired by a person in the process of his upbringing, since every person is initially a moral being. A person is moral by virtue of his own human nature, he just often forgets about it, yielding to his egoism. What is human morality? In each of us, Kant argues, there is a moral law - categorical imperative... There are two types of rules (imperatives): hypothetical and categorical. We are constantly guided by a hypothetical imperative in our Everyday life... It reads: "If you want A, do B." There is a goal and there is a way to achieve it. The goal here is hypothetical, has not yet been achieved, but there is a rule that can be followed by a person who wants to get a certain result. The categorical imperative is completely indifferent to the outcome. A person must follow the moral law without fail, regardless of specific circumstances. The moral law in each of us commands us to act only so that our act could become a model for the actions of all mankind. For example, if a person lies, and the lie becomes a universal model, and all people no longer speak a word of truth, then such a society simply cannot exist. And if a person helps another in an hour of need, and all people will do this, then humanity will only benefit from this. Such an act can serve as a general principle of behavior, and, therefore, it is moral, and this can and should be done.

Later, Kant adds that the other person should never act as a means, using which, you achieve a certain result, even morally justified. This means that even in the name of the good of all mankind, we have no right to infringe on the rights and freedoms of an individual, his human dignity. Always and in everything, a person should be exclusively a goal for us, that is, the one towards whom our good thoughts are directed.

Each of the above ethical concepts is not flawless, has both undoubted advantages and disadvantages that are difficult to eliminate. Utilitarians reproach representatives of deontological philosophy for the fact that for them abstract principles are dearer and closer than living people with their real fates. And philosophers who claim the priority of moral duty criticize pragmatists for the fact that their reasoning leads to relativization any values ​​(all values ​​become relative), except for the values ​​of practical benefit and pleasure, and thereby devalue human spirituality, can give rise to a world where a person will know neither humanity, nor mercy, nor justice, and good and evil will become meaningless words ...
6. Religious values

Although today for many people religion acts more as a subject of personal choice than as a socio-cultural imperative, religious values ​​have occupied a dominant place in the human value system for centuries and millennia, and for a number of societies have not lost such importance to this day.

The meaning of religious values ​​for a person and society can be clarified from the etymology of the concept of "religion", which goes back to the Latin word meaning "binding", "connection". What is the connection between religion? There are two types of connection that religion is trying to establish. First, it is, of course, a vertical connection - a connection between man and God, earthly and heavenly, temporal and eternal. Secondly, any religion unites fellow believers, and this is a manifestation of the horizontal connection, the connection of people with each other through religion. The idea of ​​vertical communication allows a person to discover the special meaning of his life, build an integral hierarchy of values, construct a worldview, based on which one or another phenomenon of the surrounding world could be explained. In the horizontal plane, religion fulfills its integrative (uniting) role, creating such a social institution as a church, communicating a system of norms and principles of behavior to people, acting as a field for communication, transmitting traditional teachings from person to person, from generation to generation.

These two aspects of religious "binding" have historically manifested themselves in different ways. The French metaphysician René Guénon wrote that, for example, in the Greco-Roman civilization, initially vertical and horizontal ties were in equilibrium, while in the Christian religious tradition the vertical relationship "man-God" was put in the first place, and the Confucian teaching gives a clear preference for horizontal communication "person-person".
7. Historical fate of values

Once the religious idea of ​​God headed the pyramid of values ​​and the entire value system was organized based on and in accordance with this idea. Religion served as the ultimate authority for moral values. The Ten Commandments of Moses are primarily moral principles, but it was believed that God was behind them, which protected them from human doubt and relativization. People could still argue with Moses, but you cannot argue with God. And not only the moral sphere was based on the religious one. The law that the ruler issued was issued in the name of God. And the power belonged to the ruler due to his certain connection with the divine principle. So, for example, the pharaoh in Ancient Egypt was considered the son of the sun god, and the emperor in China was considered the son of heaven. The division of society into classes and estates was also based on the ideas of a religious order. Yes, and human life acquired its meaning, first of all, in the prism of the existence of gods or God.

However, most modern societies build their lives according to completely different principles. The fact is that God leaves the thoughts of man, religious faith becomes external, formal, or turns into a separate experience that exists autonomously from the rest of life. Friedrich Nietzsche gave the name to this phenomenon: “ death of god". The fact that God died for man means discrediting the entire system of values, which was previously based on divine authority. Nietzsche places the responsibility for the death of God on human shoulders and adds that there has never been a greater ideal than God, and there has never been a crime greater than his murder, but man has not yet realized what he had done. And the fact is that from now on a person will have to re-evaluate old values ​​and become a creator of new ones. But for this, a person first needs to become worthy of the greatness of his deed. He must overcome all human weaknesses in himself, since the creation of new values ​​is the work of a superman. While a person lived in the shadow of God, he could allow himself to be weak, relying on a higher will and higher wisdom, but this should not continue this way. However, the creation of new values, as Nietzsche fears, can be undertaken not by a superman who has overcome human weaknesses in himself, but by the last person who has collected these weaknesses in himself. And then the new values ​​that we will build will turn out to be born of our weaknesses and will be aimed at indulging everything that is low and imperfect in us.

Value relativism, various forms of anomie, are signs of mismatch and even destruction of a single value system. Such a system is built around the highest value, around its core, which in the past was God. Today's world, as already mentioned, offers its own guiding principles that organize a value dimension around itself, but none of them can yet become universal.

However, another explanation is possible. Higher values ​​not only organize the entire value system around them. They also predetermine what this system will be like. God has always been understood as an absolute, as a supreme power. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." This meant that another ways, another truth and another there is no life. The system of values ​​was built according to the same logic, where God took the leading place. We assume that one of the most important values ​​of modern man is the values ​​of pluralism and tolerance, and it would be unnatural if a system of monovalent meanings were built around these values, where an unambiguous, categorical answer would be given to everything. Totalitarian pluralism, despotic tolerance is nonsense, possible only among formalists and hypocrites. If the unifying principle of the modern system of values ​​is pluralism, then it is no longer one system, but many. But how, then, can a person navigate such a complex and sometimes contradictory world of values? Tolerance - tolerance and respect for to another - complements the principle of pluralism and helps a person build bridges between many different value systems.
Questions for self-control

1. 
   What do you mean by value?
2. 
   How, according to Y. Habermas, are intangible, material and post-material values ​​different?
3. 
   How do values ​​arise? What can we say about their nature?
4. 
   How is the value system organized? Give some examples of value systems. What are anomie and value relativism?
5. 
   What are the most significant economic values ​​of modern society?
6. 
   What socio-political values ​​do you know?
7. 
   What is the place of morality in the value system? How does moral regulation differ from legal regulation?
8. 
   What are the fundamental features of utilitarian and deontological ethics? List the advantages and disadvantages of each of these positions, illustrate them with examples.
9. 
   What role did religion play in the life of society in the past and what is this role today?
10. 
    What, in your opinion, did man lose and what did he gain after “the death of God”? How do you see the prospects for the existence of the value dimension?

^ Basic definitions

Axiology- a philosophical doctrine about the nature of values, their place in reality and about the structure of the value world, that is, about the relationship between various values, social and cultural factors and the structure of the individual. (TSB)

Value- a term widely used in philosophical and sociological literature to indicate the human, social and cultural significance of certain phenomena of reality. In essence, the whole variety of objects of human activity, social relations and natural phenomena included in their range can act as "object values" or objects of value relations, that is, be evaluated in terms of good or evil, truth or untruth, beauty or ugliness, permissible or forbidden, just or unjust, etc. (TSB)

Hierarchy- (Greek hierarchia, from hierós - sacred and arche - power), the arrangement of parts or elements of the whole in order from the highest to the lowest. (TSB)

Anomie- according to E. Durkheim - the state of society in which decomposition, disintegration and disintegration of the system of values ​​and norms that guarantee public order occurs. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)

Relativism- (from Lat. Relativus - relative), a methodological principle consisting in the metaphysical absolutization of the relativity and conventionality of the content of cognition. (TSB)

^ Cultural relativism - the concept according to which each culture can be assessed only on the basis of its own principles, and not universal criteria. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)

Morality- (Latin moralis - moral, from mos, plural mores - customs, mores, behavior), morality, one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions in society; a special form of social consciousness and a type of social relations (moral relations); subject of special study of ethics. (TSB)

^ Ethical relativism - denial of obligatory moral norms and objective social criterion of morality. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)

Interiorization- the process during which the individual studies and perceives as obligatory social values ​​and norms, transferring them to the "internal" level. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)

Utilitarianism- an ethical theory based on the principle of utility, which proclaims the only goal of moral activity to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)

Duty- the category of ethics, in which the moral task of a certain individual, group of persons, class, people in specific social conditions and situations is expressed, which becomes an internally accepted obligation for them. (TSB)

^ Categorical imperative - according to I. Kant - a universal obligatory moral law, which must obey and follow all people, ordering everyone to act so that his behavior could become the principle of universal legislation. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)

Pluralism- a philosophical concept opposite to monism, according to which everything that exists consists of a multitude of spiritual essences that cannot be reduced to a single beginning. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)

Tolerance- tolerance for someone else's way of life, behavior, customs, feelings, opinions, ideas, beliefs. (Social Sciences from Glossary.ru)
Literature

The main

1. 
   Baudrillard J. Transparency of evil. Chapter 1 (After the Orgy). M., 1997.
2. 
   Ilyin V.V. Axiology. M., 2005.

Additional

1. 
   Weber M. Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism // Izbr. manuf. M., 1990.
2. 
   Nietzsche F. The will to power. M., 1994. Book. 2, part 2 (Critique of morality), ch. 1 (The Origin of Moral Valuations), ch. 6 (Concluding remarks on criticism of morality); book 3 (principle of new assessment), part 2 (The will to power in nature), ch. 3 (Theory of the will to power and values).
3. 
   Nietzsche F. On the genealogy of morality // Friedrich Nietzsche. Works in 2 volumes.Vol. 2.M., 1990.
4. 
   Rickert G. Natural sciences and cultural sciences. M., 1998.
5. 
   Freud Z. Psychoanalysis. Religion. Culture. M., 1992.
6. 
   Heidegger M. Nietzsche's words "God is dead" // Heidegger M. Works and reflections of different years. M., 1993.