Human values ​​as well. Human values ​​and their role in the modern world. d) Irrational and pseudoscientific values

Human values ​​are instilled in a person in the course of his upbringing. They represent the accumulated spiritual, moral and ethical principles that maintain the level of goodness in society. Fundamental is human life with the acute problem of its preservation in the current cultural society and under existing natural conditions.

In another sense, universal human values ​​are an absolute standard that contains the foundations of moral values; they help humanity to maintain its kind.

However, critics argue that some are capable of misusing the concept. So, it can be used to manipulate public opinion. And this is despite the difference in national life, religion, etc. As a result, the same values ​​for everyone and everyone may contradict some culture.

But for every argument there is a counterargument. Opponents of this side argue that without such values, society would already be morally decomposed, and individual subjects could not coexist peacefully.

Important - they first of all form and only then the culture of the country and society as a whole. And, nevertheless, there are no specifics in this kind of values ​​- this is not a certain set of rules that must be unquestioningly followed. Also, they are not associated with a certain period of time in the development of a particular culture, a particular ethical tradition. This is what distinguishes a civilized person from a barbarian.

Human values ​​include several components. The spiritual component is religion, philosophy, art, ethics, aesthetics, various cultural monuments, masterpieces of music and cinema, literary works, etc. That is, the entire spiritual experience of peoples is a universal value. This conceals deep philosophical reflections on the meaning of being, morality, cultural heritage and mores of the people.

The spiritual component is divided into moral, aesthetic, scientific, religious, political and legal foundations. modern society is honor, dignity, kindness, truth, harmlessness and others; aesthetic - the search for the beautiful and the sublime; scientific - truth; religious - faith. The political component reveals in a person the desire for peace, democracy, justice, and the legal component determines the importance of law and order in society.

The cultural component includes communication, freedom, creative activity. Natural is organic and inorganic nature.

Human values ​​are a form of application of moral standards, which is associated with the ideals of humanism, human dignity and justice. They direct a person to ensure that his life rests on three important components: awareness, responsibility and honesty. Therefore, we are the people that are able to come to this. The prosperity of society, the atmosphere in it depends on us. Mutual understanding and mutual respect should reign in the world. Observance of universal human values ​​can realize such a longed-for world peace!

Values ​​\u200b\u200b"eternal"

1. Based on goodness and reason, truth and beauty, peacefulness and philanthropy, diligence and solidarity, worldview ideals, moral and legal norms, reflecting the historical spiritual experience of all mankind and creating conditions for the realization of universal interests, for the full existence and development of each individual.

2. Well-being of loved ones, love, peace, freedom, respect.

3. Life, freedom, happiness, as well as the highest manifestations of human nature, revealed in his communication with his own kind and with the transcendent world.

4. "The golden rule of morality" - do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.

5. Truth, beauty, justice.

6. Peace, the life of mankind.

7. Peace and friendship between peoples, individual rights and freedoms, social justice, human dignity, environmental and material well-being of people.

8. Moral requirements associated with the ideals of humanism, justice and dignity of the individual.

9. Basic laws that exist in most countries (prohibition of murder, theft, etc.).

10. Religious commandments.

11. Life itself, the problem of its preservation and development in natural and cultural forms.

12. The system of axiological maxims, the content of which is not directly related to a specific historical period in the development of society or a specific ethnic tradition, but, being filled in each socio-cultural tradition with its own specific meaning, is reproduced in any type of culture as values.

13. Values ​​that are important for all people and have universal significance.

14. Moral values ​​that exist theoretically and are the absolute standard for people of all cultures and eras.

Explanations:
Human values ​​are the most common. They express the common interests of the human race, inherent in the life of people of different historical eras, socio-economic structures, and in this capacity they act as an imperative for the development of human civilization. The universality and immutability of universal human values ​​reflects some common features of class, national, political, religious, ethnic and cultural affiliation.

Human values ​​represent a certain system of the most important material and spiritual values. The main elements of this system are: the natural and social world, moral principles, aesthetic and legal ideals, philosophical and religious ideas and other spiritual values. In the values ​​of universal human beings, the values ​​of social and individual life are united. They form value orientations (determining what is socially acceptable) as priorities for the sociocultural development of ethnic groups or individuals, fixed by social practice or human life experience.
In connection with the object-subject nature of the value relationship, one can note the subject and subject values ​​of universal human beings.

The idea of ​​the priority of universal human values ​​is the core of new political thinking, which marks the transition in international politics from enmity, confrontation and forceful pressure to dialogue, compromise and cooperation.
Violation of universal human values ​​is considered as a crime against humanity.

The problem of universal human values ​​is dramatically renewed in the era of social catastrophism: the prevalence of destructive processes in politics, the disintegration of social institutions, the devaluation of moral values ​​and the search for options for a civilized socio-cultural choice. In Modern and Contemporary times, attempts have been repeatedly made to completely deny the values ​​of universal human or to pass off as such the values ​​of individual social groups, classes, peoples and civilizations.

Another opinion: Human values ​​are abstractions that dictate to people the norms of behavior that in a given historical era better than others meet the interests of a particular human community (family, class, ethnic group, and, finally, humanity as a whole). When history gives the opportunity, each community seeks to impose its own values ​​on all other people, presenting them as "universal".

Third opinion: the phrase "Universal human values" is actively used in the manipulation of public opinion. It is argued that, despite the difference in national cultures, religions, living standards and development of the peoples of the Earth, there are some values ​​that are the same for everyone, which everyone should follow without exception. This is a myth (fiction) in order to create an illusion in the understanding of humanity as a kind of monolithic organism with a single development path for all peoples and ways to achieve their goals.
In the foreign policy of the United States and its satellites, talk about the protection of "Universal Human Values" (democracy, protection of human rights, freedom, etc.) develops into open military and economic aggression against those countries and peoples who want to develop in their traditional way, different from the opinion of the world community.
There are no absolute human values. For example, even if we take such a basic right, spelled out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as the right to life, then here you can find enough examples of various world cultures in which life is not an absolute value (in ancient times, most cultures of the East and many cultures West, in the modern world - cultures based on Hinduism).
In other words, the term "Universal Human Values" is a euphemism that covers the West's desire to impose a new world order and ensure the globalization of the economy and multiculturalism, which will eventually erase all national differences and create a new race of universal human slaves serving for the benefit of the elect (it should be noted that the representatives of the so-called golden billion will not differ from such slaves in any way).

The fourth opinion: the attitude to the concept varies from a complete denial of the existence of "Universal Values" to the postulation of a specific list of them. One of the intermediate positions is, for example, the idea that in the conditions of the modern world, where no community of people exists in isolation from others, some common system of values ​​is simply necessary for the peaceful coexistence of cultures.

The attitude to the concept varies from a complete denial of the existence of such a thing as "universal values" to the postulation of a specific list of them. One of the intermediate positions is, for example, the idea formulated by Francis Fukuyama that in the conditions of the modern world, where no community of people exists in isolation from others, a certain common system of values ​​is simply necessary for the peaceful coexistence of cultures.

Different sources refer to universal human values, for example, the following:

• Basic laws that exist in most countries, as an expression of universal values ​​(prohibition of murder, theft, etc.).
• Religious commandments as an expression of universal values.
• "Golden rule of morality" - do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.

Criticism

Doctor of Philosophical Sciences and Professor F. I. Girenok argues that there are no universal values, based on the argument of the famous sociologist N. Ya. Danilevsky, that there have always been many diverse civilizations.

see also

Notes

Links

• Leonid Stolovich. The "golden rule" of morality as a universal value.
• Arab-Ogly E. A. European civilization and universal values ​​// Journal "Questions of Philosophy", 1990, No. 8.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Universal Human Values" is in other dictionaries:

The latest philosophical dictionary

The complex of concepts included in the system of philosophy. teachings about man and constituting the most important subject of study of axiology. O.c. stand out among other values ​​in that they express the common interests of the human race, free from national, ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

HUMAN VALUES- a system of axiological maxims, the content of which is not directly related to a specific historical period in the development of society or a specific ethnic tradition, but, being filled in each sociocultural tradition with its own specific ... ... Sociology: Encyclopedia

Human values- the concept of the existence of values ​​accepted by all people of the planet, by the whole human race, equally present in different cultures, illuminated by the age-old life of people. The sets of these values ​​are different. The most recognized includes ... ... Fundamentals of spiritual culture (encyclopedic dictionary of a teacher)

Human values- the concept of cultural studies, which characterizes the totality of ideals, principles, moral norms, rights that are of priority importance in people's lives, regardless of their social status, nationality, religion, education, age, gender, etc. Man and Society: Culturology. Dictionary-reference

MORAL VALUES- the concept of ethics, with the help of which the significance for the community and the person of social is characterized. historical phenomena. In C.m. the actively interested attitude of a person to the world and himself is expressed, as well as the problematic implementation of relevant moral ... ... Russian sociological encyclopedia

The meaning of human existence. The concept of value. Types of values- briefly These questions are asked by many especially sharply because sooner or later in the life of every person there comes a moment when he realizes that life is finite. In order to live and act actively, a person must have an idea of ​​the meaning of life... Small Thesaurus of World Philosophy

Not to be confused with Nazism. This term has other meanings, see Nationalism (meanings). Waking Wales, Christopher Williams, 1911. The image of Venus as an allegory for the birth of the nation Nationalism ... Wikipedia

Not to be confused with the term Nazism. Awakening of Wales, Christopher Williams, 1911. The image of Venus as an allegory for the birth of a nation Nationalism (French nationalisme) is an ideology and policy direction, the basic principle of which is the thesis of a higher ... ... Wikipedia

Books

• Konstantin Vasiliev. Life and work (deluxe edition), Valentina Vasilyeva. We offer you a stylishly designed deluxe edition in fabric binding, with three-sided silver trim. The book is dedicated to Konstantin Alekseevich Vasiliev - a talented modern ...

the concept of cultural studies, which characterizes the totality of ideals, principles, moral norms, rights that have priority in people's lives, regardless of their social status, nationality, religion, education, age, gender, etc. They allow you to most fully embody the generic essence of a person. They are opposed to class values, which, within the framework of the class approach, claim the role of universal human values, and replace them. Universal values ​​are close and understandable to everyone (at least potentially), unite people on the basis of the generally significant nature of the interests and needs they express, orient in relations to each other, to society. The system-forming principle for universal human values ​​is the principle of humanism, the absolute priority of the value of human life. Fundamental importance in the system of universal values ​​belongs to the nature of a person for an original existence and free development, the priority of the personal over the public. Human values ​​usually include the right to life, freedom, respect for elders, property, love for children, care for loved ones, patriotism, hard work, honesty, etc. The establishment of such values ​​presupposes the existence of appropriate conditions - economic, political, spiritual. Human values ​​are an essential factor in the success of modern integration processes, a kind of universal language for the dialogues of different Cultures.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HUMAN VALUES

a system of axiological maxims, the content of which is not directly related to a specific historical period in the development of society or a specific ethnic tradition, but, being filled in each socio-cultural tradition with its own specific meaning, is nevertheless reproduced in any type of culture as a value. O.C. problem dramatically resumes in the era of social catastrophism: the prevalence of destructive processes in politics, the disintegration of social institutions, the devaluation of moral values ​​and the search for options for a civilized socio-cultural choice. At the same time, the fundamental value at all times of human history has been life itself and the problem of its preservation and development in natural and cultural forms. The variety of approaches to the study of O.Ts. generates a plurality of their classifications according to various criteria. In connection with the structure of being, natural values ​​(inorganic and organic nature, minerals) and cultural values ​​(freedom, creativity, love, communication, activity) are noted. According to the structure of personality, values ​​are biopsychological (health) and spiritual order. According to the forms of spiritual culture, values ​​are classified into moral (the meaning of life and happiness, goodness, duty, responsibility, conscience, honor, dignity), aesthetic (beautiful, sublime), religious (faith), scientific (truth), political (peace, justice, democracy), legal (law and order). In connection with the object-subject nature of the value relation, one can note the subject (results of human activity), subjective (attitudes, assessments, imperatives, norms, goals) values. In general, the polyphony of O.Ts. gives rise to the conditionality of their classification. Each historical epoch and a certain ethnos express themselves in a hierarchy of values ​​that determined the socially acceptable. Value systems are in the making and their time scales do not coincide with the socio-cultural reality. In the modern world, the moral and aesthetic values ​​of antiquity, the humanistic ideals of Christianity, the rationalism of the New Age, the non-violence paradigm of the 20th century are significant. and many others. Dr. O.Ts. form value orientations as priorities for the socio-cultural development of ethnic groups or individuals, fixed by social practice or human life experience. Among the latter, value orientations to the family, education, work, social activities, and other areas of human self-affirmation are singled out. In the modern era of global changes, the absolute values ​​of goodness, beauty, truth and faith are of particular importance as the fundamental foundations of the corresponding forms of spiritual culture, suggesting harmony, measure, balance of the integral world of man and his constructive life-affirmation in culture. And, since the actual socio-cultural dimension today is determined not so much by being as by its change, goodness, beauty, truth and faith mean not so much adherence to absolute values ​​as their search and acquisition. Among O.Ts. moral values, traditionally representing the universally significant in its relationship with the ethno-national and individual, should be specially singled out. In universal human morality, some common forms of community life are preserved, the continuity of moral requirements associated with the simplest forms of human relationships is noted. Biblical moral commandments are of lasting importance: the Old Testament Ten Commandments of Moses and the New Testament Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ. Universal in morality is the form of presenting a moral requirement, associated with the ideals of humanism, justice and dignity of the individual. (See Value).

When you ask people a question - Are there common human values?- as a rule, the answer you get is unequivocal: of course! Few doubt the existence of such a category as universal value. After all, something must unite us all!

And what unites us in the field of morality? When talking to an audience where different people have gathered, you can hear a lot of very different answers. But if everyone is allowed to speak, then sooner or later some “theorist” will take the floor, who, believing that he represents the general opinion, will begin to reason in the following way: any of us has its scale of values, no one will argue with that, right? But it is shaped by his environment, i.e. society in which this someone was born, brought up and lives. Therefore, it would be more correct to call it public scale. Go ahead. It is clear that when working with this value scale, a person corrects it, changes it in some details or tries to change it, but one way or another it is always present in him. Therefore, we will talk about social scale of values. Now you, dear lecturer, are asking us: is there something universal in the field of morality, the same for most people, at least for a long period of their history? Did I understand your question correctly? So, we categorically declare: of course, there is! Otherwise, humanity will not survive...

Okay, the lecturer agrees. Now let me ask a second question: Is there such a thing as absolute morality? First, let's clarify the terms: if morality is a relationship between people, then absolute morality is such an optimal system of relationships that is suitable for most people at all times (or for a long period of time). So, does it exist? Try the experiment in your circle and you will see that this question is answered in different ways. It turns out that many sincerely believe that human values is, and here absolute morality No. We are told that all people are different, societies and living conditions also differ from each other, and therefore there is no single system in the field of morality and cannot be. Moreover, our respondent continues, ethical norms are constantly changing under the influence of time, the development of society and, if you like, technology. But the values, they say, remain the same. This is where we need to clarify: what are the values?

Usually called: human life, peace (as the absence of war), confidence in the future, health, family well-being, honor and dignity. What else was valued by people at all times? Love, honesty, diligence, courage - there is an enumeration of the so-called positive qualities of the human soul. Please note that the list of values ​​includes different concepts from two different areas. General condition: peace, life, absence of unpleasant moments, beauty, etc. - and the qualities of the soul: directness, sincerity, courage, etc. One refers to what a person wants to see in people, including himself, the other - what he aspires to.

But in one environment, under certain conditions - one's own concept of beauty or the world, in another environment, under other conditions - the exact opposite. If we do not talk about values ​​of a physiological nature, then in everything else it is very difficult to see common points of similarity. Therefore, the very fact that many tend to believe that values ​​that are common to all nevertheless exist seems somewhat strange.

Everyone appreciates life. At night? Entire civilizations have become famous for their downright barbaric attitude towards human life. Its value was not a social category, but an individual one, at the level of "I value my life." Pay attention - I, not society; it does not value my life. And even if he appreciates (as it seems to me), then only mine and people of my circle, i.e. us, but not those who live across the river, where we send border detachments.

The reasoning is clear. Society, as a rule, strives to preserve the system that it has built for its existence and within which it lives. Therefore, there was no question of any respect for human life or human rights for thousands of years. These categories were not on the agenda. Proclaim in ancient Rome that the life of a galley slave is no less valuable than the life of Caesar, and you yourself will end up in the galleys, for the system sought to preserve itself. Another thing is that in different systems the issue of self-preservation was solved in different ways: sometimes the system encouraged the physical destruction of everyone who undermined its foundations, sometimes more “flexible” methods of protection were used. In principle, Caesar's approach in this area was not much different from Stalin's approach.

But this is about the main value - about human life in general. We consider the attitude towards it to be the main one when we talk about the measure of humanity in society. But there are other characteristics, secondary, but no less characteristic. For example, the attitude towards weak people. Or to children. It seems that they are weaker socially? So, is the life of children and their dignity a social value within a particular society? We are not talking about our children, the cat also treats its own well, namely, children in general. In many societies, little attention has been paid to this. Children were killed, they were traded, they were a thing. However, they were not treated with love everywhere either. In our area, in the Middle East, in ancient times, there was a widespread custom to sacrifice the firstborn. It was believed that the house stands better if the corpse of the first child in the family is immured under the threshold. And the city will more successfully withstand the siege if the main gate of the city wall is placed on the fresh grave of the slaughtered royal first-born. So it was accepted, and no one opposed it.

If we talk about such “value” categories as love (everyone wants love and everyone wants to be loved), then it is rather a biological feeling, a certain kind of emotional state, but not a value that has risen to the level of a social ideal. You can sing love, but at the same time hurt your loved ones. Why? Yes, because love is not moral. The moral is What do it with love, not herself. Different cultures have very peculiar attitudes towards love as such. Polygamy, temple prostitution, the availability of women, their lack of rights, adultery (as a generally accepted norm) - all this does not agree much with what we understand by the proper attitude to love. A society that loves love takes care of its women and respects the institution of marriage. Tell me, do you know many such societies from history and in the modern world?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the values ​​that seem to us natural and obvious, they were not so before, and even now “in fashion” is by no means everywhere. Important point: universal value cannot be something that concerns only me, my loved ones and my environment. That's why she general-human ... Then how to understand the usual answer that universal human values ​​certainly exist?

But if this is the case with universal human values, then it is even more confusing with absolute morality. If there is no single moral system for all people, peoples and times, then I cannot say to any person: you did bad. I can only say I think you did bad(in accordance with my value scale or the scale adopted in mine circle, etc.). To which he calmly answers: but I think that I did the right thing and highly moral. Because he has a different morality, a different scale of these same values.

If we proceed from the concept of the majority, then in general one can come to a dead end. Because, firstly, in any field, the majority can be wrong. And secondly, if anyone should appeal to the majority, then certainly not to us Jews. We are always in the minority - and yet we hold on to our laws and regulations, often coming into direct confrontation with the surrounding society.

Indeed, remember that the early Jews opposed the worship of idols when the very idea of ​​rejecting idolatry was wild for all other tribes. They were looked upon as uncivilized and uncultured people: look, they do not believe in the power of idols, what a backwardness! The Jews introduced the concept of a free day from work into the world. The Greeks and Romans laughed at them, calling them idlers. Our ancestors proclaimed that man must love other people, not just yourself and your family. And again they were misunderstood. The Jews shared with other tribes the great secret of the universe: it turns out that the Almighty is One! And again, this thought struggled to find its way within the framework of foreign cultures. It is terrible to think what would happen to humanity if the Jews always agreed with the majority.

So, as soon as we recognize that any ethical system is relative and can change over time, we immediately get that no one can be condemned (neither verbally with censure, nor in fact, using the force of a tribunal). Nobody, not even Hitler!

A bit unexpected, isn't it? However, this name is pronounced by us for a reason. For here, too, I would like logic and clarity. Hitler was judged by the victors who had strength on their side. What is objective in their court? They didn't like him, we understand that - we may not like him either. But what crimes against humanity made this international a criminal, if there is no absolute and uniform system of moral values ​​for all people? Did he kill people? But it is customary for people to kill people. He robbed entire nations? But who didn't rob whom? Let's briefly cover this topic. It will help us to understand what morality is in general.

Everyone is accustomed to calling the German Fuhrer a degenerate, possessed, or, in the language of the intelligentsia, a fanatic of the racist idea. But, having heard the verdict of the court, we did not give the word to the defendant. However, before moving on to the Fuhrer, let's get acquainted with a few thoughts that introduce the essence of the matter. Here is a quote from a book by Ernst Haykel, a natural scientist at the end of the last century. Note that Haykel was an "orthodox" student of Darwin, a popularizer and continuer of his teachings.

In astronomy, geology, and the vast field of physics and chemistry, no one today speaks of a moral code or a personal Gd, Whose "hand determined all things with wisdom and understanding." The same applies to all organic nature, if we exclude for the time being man himself. Darwin, with his theory of selection, showed us not only that the successive processes in the life and structure of animals and plants appeared mechanically, without any conceived plan. He taught us to recognize in the struggle for existence the powerful force of nature, which for millions of years exercised the highest and uninterrupted control over the entire sequence of the organic evolution of the world ...

Is the history of peoples, which man, based on his anthropocentric megalomania, likes to call world history, an exception to this rule? Do we find at every stage of it a lofty moral principle or a wise ruler who directs the destinies of peoples? In the highest stage of natural and national history, in which we are today, there can be only one objective answer to this question - no! The fate of those branches of the human family, which in the form of nations and races have been fighting for existence and progress for thousands of years, depends on the same external iron laws that determine the history of the entire organic world and ensure life on earth for millions of years.

By themselves, these words do not surprise us. We've heard a lot of this before. They show an unlimited faith in the omnipotence of science, which has finally found the basic principles on which everything that exists in living nature stands. One can argue about the legitimacy of transferring the laws of nature to human society; here you can cite many confirming facts, but there will be no fewer examples, so to speak, of a refuting nature. One way or another, we have before us another, fairly understandable view of a scientist on the world. And now the second quote on the same topic, but by another author:

The highest wisdom is to always understand instinct. Those. man must never fall into the idiocy of believing that he has ascended and become the lord and master of nature. One day, this easily led him to arrogance. He must understand the fundamental necessity of the laws of nature and realize how much his existence depends on these laws of eternal struggle and rivalry. Then he will feel that in a universe where the planets revolve around the stars, and the moons around the planets, where only strength always conquers weakness, forcing it to be an obedient slave or crushing it, there cannot be special laws for man. And the eternal laws of this higher wisdom apply to him. He may try to understand them, but never avoid them.

Good quote? You can conduct an experiment - read it to your friends and acquaintances. Many will agree. Meanwhile, the author of the quote is Adolf Hitler. We brought it to demonstrate how the ideas shared by Hitler and his followers are accepted in our modern society. Agree, if you do not declare who was the author of the words just given, they look quite innocent.

And now let's make a statement for which people, our contemporaries, brought up on a respectful attitude towards science, are least prepared. It turns out that Nazism was also based on science, however, of its era, but this does not make it less “scientific”. The political justification for fascism did not begin with a spontaneous movement of maniacs. Its ideologists took the data of their contemporary system of knowledge and applied the principles discovered by that time in the world of living matter to the world of people. Man is subject to the same laws as animals. Natural selection rules there: the strong defeat the weak, only those qualities that are necessary in the struggle for survival are fixed in the offspring, everything else is swept aside and dies. The same thing happens in the human world. Or rather, it should happen. Because false teachings have appeared that, by their preaching of mercy and philanthropy, distract humanity from the main path of development. Who exactly did the Nazis mean? They declared the enemy themselves - this is a Christian ideology. Christian - in accordance with the vocabulary of Nazism, by which they understood the ideas of mercy and philanthropy. The Nazis treated the Christians themselves quite tolerantly. But they proclaimed the Jews their main and unconditional enemy. However, before noting the Fuhrer's special affinity for the Jews, let's cite a third quote. Look at the logic construct:

The development of the species requires the elimination of unadapted people, weak and abnormal. But Christianity, as a reactionary force, appeals precisely to them. Here we run into a major contradiction. Development comes either from natural life, or from the equality of individual souls before God.

The author is the early Nazi ideologue Alfred Baumer. Think about it, there are two points of view on the world, two mutually exclusive approaches. Or - "natural life". As intended by nature, without any sentimental condescension to weakness, which will gradually lead to a strong, healthy appearance of super-humans, who received only useful qualities and properties from their ancestors as a result of cruel evolution. Or - "equality of souls before God", when everyone has the right to exist - both the weak and the strong.

But why, speaking out against Christianity, did fascism engage in the systematic extermination not of Christians, but of Jews? Quote:

The heaviest blow that has been inflicted on humanity is Christianity. Bolshevism is the illegitimate son of Christianity. Both of these phenomena were invented by a Jew.

We are used to seeing Hitler as a racist. But he said about himself: “I am a mixture of a politician and a philosopher. Politics is for shopkeepers. A philosopher is for people who understand me.” Understanding people are those who were in his circle, communicated with him, sat at the same table. The book "Hitler's Table Talk", collected by his personal secretary, presents records of his conversations with friends and like-minded people, i.e. with those to whom he spoke as a philosopher. The quote just quoted is from that book.

And now back to the quote about Christians, Bolsheviks and the Jew. Curious, isn't it? In addition to Christianity, which adopted "seditious and reactionary" ideas from the Jews, the Nazis also declared the Communists their enemies. Why? Why "illegitimate son"? Very simple. Followers of Jesus preached equality of souls before G-d, and the communists, rejecting religion, began to talk simply about the equality of souls, without any G-d, which they simply do not need. As we can see, they had the same slogans, but they did not recognize ideological kinship.

But for us, the main thing is this: Hitler is not so much against the idea of ​​"God" (God with a small letter, because one can attribute one's own ideas to an invented god), but rather against the equality of souls! Seeing in the Bolsheviks adamant preachers of the idea of ​​equality, Hitler fiercely destroyed them. But Christians did not touch. However, Christians are different. For example, about the Italians, he said this:

After our victory, I will leave the Italians their religion. Because they can be barbarians and Christians at the same time.

Those. with them, this idea is superficial, and therefore not dangerous. As for the Germans, in the future they were to leave the bosom of the Christian church. But without any repression, because:

No one in history has shed so much blood fighting for the victory of the idea of ​​love as Christians themselves.

And since they, preaching love for the weak, are ready to use force, then, according to Hitler, not everything is lost among Christians. They just need to be torn away from the evil idea, but leave the qualities they have shown in the struggle for the widespread planting of this idea. Another testimonial:

Christian doctrine holds that it is man's lot to love one another. But the Christians themselves will be the last to try to bring it to life.

Now it is clear why Hitler destroyed the Christian ideology, but not the churches and not the Christians. The main enemy remains - the Jews, the authors of kindness, the very first distorters of the great law about the dominance of strength over weakness. Speaking about the attitude of the German Nazis towards the Jews, we note that we are all accustomed to the old truth: fascism declares the Jews an inferior race. In this language, Hitler spoke with the shopkeepers. But these are the words of a politician. And what did Hitler the philosopher say? After all, for some reason he really had to exterminate the Jews. Now we will see why. However, first a few words from Hitler on the theory of racism. Quote from the same "Table Talk":

I know perfectly well," he said, "just like all these terribly smart intellectuals, that in the scientific sense there is no such thing as a race. But if you are a farmer or livestock breeder, then you cannot successfully breed new varieties without accepting the concept of "breed". As a politician, I need a concept that would be able to abolish the order based on history that existed until now and introduce a new anti-historical order based on an intellectual base. You understand what I mean,” he said, breaking off. - I must free the world from its dependence on the historical past. Nations are the external and visible outlines of our history. Therefore, it is necessary to fuse these peoples into a single whole of a higher order, if you want to get rid of the chaos of the historical past, which has become absurd. And for this purpose, the concept of "race" serves as well as possible. It gets rid of the old order and makes it possible to move on to new associations. France took the Great Revolution out of the borders of its state with the help of the concept of "the people". With the concept of "race" National Socialism will take its revolution abroad and change the world."

Terribly curious: it turns out that the racist Hitler does not believe in the existence of the concept of "race"! It is not scientific for him. But he needs it as a method to achieve the goal. Indeed, in order to convince ordinary Germans that the Jews must be exterminated, the shopkeepers must realize that the Jews are so low and primitive that they have no right to exist. But what did he really mean?

Indeed, why did Hitler attack the Jews? A number of reasons are usually given: the struggle for political influence, economic motives, concern for the cleanliness of the “Aryan type”, the search for a social enemy, etc. But none of these reasons is viable, because by the time the machine of total extermination of the Jews was launched, the latter had already been deprived of all political, economic and social rights. Things were going so well for Hitler by that time that, on the contrary, it would be logical to leave the Jewish community alone, if only for propaganda purposes, or as a "scapegoat" for tomorrow.

It turns out that the reason for Hitler's hatred of the Jews lies in a completely different plane. In the ideological For in their person he found worthy opponents when he came up with the doctrine of the need to use physical force in the struggle for survival. The Jews are not just the weak who must yield to the strong; they are opponents of the very idea “the strong must defeat the weak”, i.e. hinder the development of mankind, which means they must be swept away and destroyed ... Hitler's thoughts, expressed aloud:

The Jew inflicted two wounds on mankind: circumcision on the body and conscience on the mind. The war for influence over the world is going on between us and the Jews. Everything else is a façade and an illusion.

So there are two concepts. Power concept when the strong conquer the weak. The Nazis called her honor concept, we call it social Darwinism (here it is, the name of the theory, from the pronunciation of which we refrained a little higher!). And the second - mercy concept. Its authors are Jews. In order to destroy it, throwing off the fetters of mankind and allowing it to go along the straight road of improvement, it is necessary to destroy the carriers of this infection, i.e. its authors are Jews.

Read the last quote again. That is not how one speaks of an inferior race. Hitler was afraid of the Jews. The ideal for him was Ancient Rome, the citadel of power, spirit and victory. He considered himself the successor of the cause of Rome, arguing that his whole theory came from the Roman idea. But where did Rome go? Hitler answered this question clearly: he was first seduced by the Jews, planting Christianity in him, and then completely destroyed. The Jews seduced humanity with their doctrine of helping the weak. The doctrine of love and forgiveness. Quote from Hitler:

Without Christianity there would never have been Islam. The Roman Empire under German influence would have developed towards world domination, and mankind would never have crossed out fifteen centuries with a single stroke of the pen ... As a result of the fall of the Roman Empire, a night fell that lasted for centuries.

But if you think that Hitler was wrong in his view of Rome, then here is a quote from Seneca:

The customs of this accursed race have become so influential that they are accepted all over the world. The vanquished gave their law to the victors.

But why should it be destroyed? all Jews? Are we All do we put into practice one philosophy, which is unique to us? You can think anything, but Hitler had his own opinion:

As for the destruction of the Jewish spirit, it cannot be achieved mechanically. The Jewish spirit is the product of the Jewish personality. If we do not hurry to destroy the Jews, they will very quickly convert our people to Judaism.

Let us note again - is that what they say about the lower race!

Of course, this does not mean the direct conversion of the Germans into orthodox Jews, but the introduction into the German consciousness (and at the same time into the consciousness of all Europeans) of the ideas of Judaism - with its keen attention to the weak and oppressed, with its preaching of humanism.

Here, Hitler noticed one important detail of the Jewish people, an obvious feature, a characteristic sign, not so much associated with faith, as entered into the very blood and flesh of the Jews: they always and everywhere most actively take the side of the weak, the oppressed and the destitute. They are known as eternal champions for justice. True, apart from the Torah, the concept of justice becomes vague and unclear, but the main thing is still present in them: compassion for other people's pain - whether it is the rights of blacks in Alabama, women in modern America, dissidents "behind the Iron Curtain", etc., etc. ... The Jew cares about everything. This means that in order for him not to impose his orders everywhere, he himself must be got rid of, because there is no hope for correction. Hitler thought so.

And one more evidence of a kind of respectful attitude towards the Jews on the part of the Fuhrer:

If at least one country, for whatever reason, gives shelter to at least one Jewish family, then this family will become the germ of a new rebellion.

Beautifully said, isn't it? The German family will not become the initiator of the German spirit, but the Jewish family will become the germ of their own, Jewish rebellion. And therefore there is no mercy for any Jewish family!

And yet the hatred of the Jews is not attributed to Hitler. Ideas, as we have already mentioned, he borrowed from the ancients. And even Seneca among them, whose shadow we have already disturbed several times, was not the first. The Roman orator spoke of the laws that "the vanquished gave to the conquerors." But one might think that the "great Roman", not familiar with the Jews, exaggerated somewhat. Let's look at the development of the world after the decline of the Roman Empire, which collapsed before the barbarians burned the "eternal city". The Romans first adopted Christianity, the "Syrian religion", and then disappeared as a people. Seneca was right - the law of the vanquished triumphed. Injustice has become an object of attack. With the advent of the "Jewish spirit" a new theory arose: injustice must be destroyed. The Romans saw it, we see it, Hitler saw it. True, unlike you and me, Hitler came to the opposite conclusion: it is not injustice that needs to be destroyed, but the Jews themselves, and precisely because of their commitment to doctrine of love. What you and I consider injustice, Hitler considered the norm. That's why we interfere with him!

Let's go back to what we talked about earlier. Imagine a picture: we speak at the trial against Hitler and say - you are a criminal! He, from the dock, answers: no, I am a highly moral person, because I acted on the basis of his morality, and you accuse me on the basis of your morals. You and I have different systems, and it is wrong to judge each other within the framework of only one of them! .. What can we object to? If there is no absolute morality, then essentially nothing.

Let's expose the situation even more. Before us is not just a dispute between two equal parties. The whole thing can turn out in such a way that it is this villain who is right, and not us, that's what's scary. Let's say we make our way to Germany in a time machine during the seizure of power by the Nazis. We burst into Hitler's room, where he, unarmed, is resting after speaking at a mass rally, we point an uzi machine gun at him and announce that we have come from the future, now we will judge him for crimes against humanity and in particular against the Jewish people. Let us leave aside the problem of still uncommitted crimes. Suppose he did manage to ruin several Jewish lives, and already for this he can be shot. Yes, however, he is unlikely to deny it, most likely, he will look at us with his transparent eyes and declare that yes, he dreams of doing all these things, plans to do them and is very glad that he will do them in a few years, judging by our message. Tell me, how do we explain our reprisal to him? We declare: you bring evil, murder. He replies: but you also came with the murder. We say: you want to kill many, and we will kill you alone. He replies: I am not alone, you will have to execute many of my followers; why are their lives worse than the lives of your Jews? We say: the Jews do not attack you, but you attack them. He is calm to us: you are mistaken, dear ones, it was the Jews who first attacked us, planting a doctrine that bound humanity hand and foot. But this is not even the main thing, he tells us the simplest words: now you are going to kill me, which means that by doing so you are taking my positions. Why? Because tell me: you are dangerous to us, and we are killing you. But this is what I call for: the Jews are dangerous, and we kill them. You are now executing me, but not because you are right, but because you are stronger. But I’m talking about this too: the strong kill the weak, this is his rightness, such is the law of nature, isn’t it? So pull the trigger - I won!

Sorry, but it follows that either he is right (“the strong can and often even must kill”), or Hitler cannot be sentenced to death. Our Jewish heart instantly reacts with wild pain: how! Is it really impossible to sentence-Hitler?!

Yes, imagine Hitler. With a small correction, though: if there is no absolute morality.

It is interesting that when conducting a discussion with the audience on this topic, one is surprised to find that the majority of listeners are convinced that Hitler is wrong, but find it difficult to explain why. People have no logical arguments to defend their own position.

But let's leave the topic of the Nazis. Let's consider another example. In America, Professor Alain Blum's book "How Americans are being deceived" is popular. There is a lot of material in it, let's focus on one episode. The episode is as follows: the professor conducts a conversation with American students on the topic of what moral pluralism is, and gives them such a task. Imagine that you are a high-ranking British officer in India in the late 19th century. You are endowed with power and are responsible for order in some city. You are informed that tomorrow the rite of burial of the deceased Nabob will be performed in the central square. In India they bury - burning the corpse. And at the same time, in those days, they burned a living widow. You can forbid the cruel rite, and disperse the crowd by the army or the police. And you can not participate in anything. What do we do?

Let's conduct an experiment - but not in old India, but talking to a modern audience. Let us make it clear to the listeners that self-elimination will be regarded by the British officer as condoning the murder, and, consequently, such an act will be qualified as complicity by his conscience. On the other hand, changing the course of events by imposing a ban on the conduct of a ritual is nothing more than a gross interference in the world of other people's customs and imposing one's own understanding of how one should behave. Let's not forget, India is a country of centuries of civilization. At least, Hinduism is much older than the concepts with which the conscience of our officer operates.

When conducting such an experiment, the audience is usually divided into three groups. One says: let's burn it and not interfere in anything, because you can't get into the world of other people's customs and rituals. Another says: no way! Our duty is to urgently save the poor woman, because human life is more important than any rituals. Still others shrug their shoulders: let's ask the woman first. Two other groups pounce on these third groups, accusing them of not having a clear position: where is the woman, if she is drugged by false ideas, sincerely believing that right now she will be transported from the fire to the Garden of Eden, where she will continue to exist next to her husband! Someone throws a remark that, they say, don't save her, nothing will change; They won’t let her live in peace anyway, and we don’t have time to change the worldview of Hindu society ... The dispute can go on for a very long time, and everyone will remain with their own opinion. By the way, the American students, among whom the dispute described by Professor Blum was held, could not reach unanimity. They gracefully got out of the situation by saying literally the following: what is a British officer doing in India anyway? The finale of the theatrical stage: everyone raises their eyebrows in surprise. In fact, if I didn’t fit in there, there would be no problems.

How good, now you do not have to take responsibility for someone else's life. After all, American students are pluralists in morality. Morality for them is an undeniable value. And if so, then it is impossible to allow the widow to be killed. But to interfere in the ritual of a foreign people is also unethical. Therefore, we find a loophole and avoid answering: why did this colonial official end up in a foreign country? What should he do there?

Isn't it a smart decision? But, besides the fact that this is a departure from the answer, it is also bad because, in addition to everything else, it violates the very principle of pluralism. American students begin judge British officer. They set him my the norm of morality, accusing him of interfering in other people's affairs with his mere presence. Curious situation. The Briton himself regards his mission in a completely different way: I am here to bring civilization into this cruel and wild world. You say tradition? But that's why I was sent thousands of miles to India, "the pearl of the British crown," to stop barbarism. In even wilder Polynesia, people “traditionally” eat each other - have you heard about Captain Cook? So, barbarism, even if there is a thousand-year tradition behind it, still remains barbarism. And it must be eradicated!

Do we understand his mission? Everyone answers: of course. But does he have the right to instill his morality in a foreign environment? That is the question. Are we one hundred percent sure that Christian morality is "more moral" than Hindu? And if so, can those same Christians introduce their morality, say, into Jewish society? Those. among us? With this in the auditorium where the Jews are sitting, few people agree. But then what happens? Since we are denying the officer the right to say "the Indians are wrong," how can we say "the British are wrong"? The result is a paradox. If not absolute morality, then we cannot tell anyone that he is wrong. On the other hand, no one, in turn, can tell us that we are wrong, as soon as he begins to plant his own model of morality. All we can say is: we think that you are wrong; or: I think you're wrong.

The third, no longer hypothetical and theoretical, but a very real example, closer to our life. A family of intelligent, educated people moved to Israel, they settled down, got an apartment, jobs, new friends, the children go to school. Everything is successful. And so the mother comes to the school of her thirteen-year-old daughter for a meeting of parents and there she hears the teacher announce: mothers, if you want our girls not to have trouble, you need to buy condoms, let them bring them to school! Our mother is in shock, and with her everyone who has recently arrived from Russia. Frustrated, she comes home, does not say anything to anyone, looks at her daughter - a child is like a child, an ordinary Jewish girl, capable, learned to play the violin in Moscow, knows English, attended a bunch of circles, winner of Olympiads, reads a lot, friends from intelligent families, gorgeous. Maybe everything will pass? If you do not focus attention, then it really won’t settle down somehow? After all, it can't be that she got it with the boys already before this!! But then a day or two passes, and one fine morning, a pretty girl, getting ready for school, suddenly says to her mother: by the way, we were told that all mothers were warned, but for some reason you still won’t buy me a pack of condoms, what do you have? , no time? Mom is shocked again. She sits down in front of her sweet child and says, holding back tears with difficulty: listen, dear, we are at your age. this did not work! That's right, they didn't do it, - the girl answers, who, it turns out, does not need to be explained what this- but it was like that in the Union. And here there is no Union, it has not been anywhere for a long time. Here is another country. And another moral!

Let's not continue their dialogue. Tell me how to prove to a child that there is no other morality, if we ourselves look at moral values ​​as something that depends on society? And now, in the light of this example, answer - is there another morality or not ?! If we parents choose moral scale that suits our convictions, and for the sake of this alone they are able to change the country, because in the former homeland we did not like the degradation and corrosion of precisely moral values, then why can’t our children choose morality that suits them better? Are we not against coercion! Or against, but only up to a certain limit, and then the area of ​​violence begins, when we can force our children to act as we want? But who said that we are not wrong? Look, the children are sure that we are wrong. Which side is the truth on? (We did not even suspect that when a person proudly declares: I chose to be a moral person - his child hears these words, but understands them in such a way that morality can be choose!)

The ambiguity in the situation again, as in the case of the Nazis and the British officer, arises from the fact that we cannot decide in any way the question: is there such a thing in the world as absolute moral system suitable for all times and for all peoples? Or doesn't exist?

Many more examples could be given on the same subject. From the realities of the "country of origin": the worker does not return from the factory, so as not to take with him a cardan shaft or at least a bunch of nails; the engineer "dragging" paper and pencils, because there is nothing else in the scientific bureau; children "gather" flowers in the city flower bed, to the question "what are you doing?" answer - privatize! The whole society lives, as it were, in the condition of the existence of two standards: one thing - personal property and quite another - belonging to the state or organizations. Morality is relative, what do you want? But even the French encyclopedists proclaimed that the development of ethical laws lies entirely on the shoulders of society. If a society wants to survive, over time it itself develops such norms that will be accepted by all. "Social Contract". And how does this treaty work now if theft is no longer considered theft, although everyone suffers from it?

So if not real one scale for all, which could measure the actions of any people - we have all these insoluble difficulties. But if such a real scale exists and it is “built into” in all people, then and only then can we say to every violator: you have broken the law, you are a criminal. And only in this case do we have the opportunity to compare our behavior with the requirements imposed on us by this scale, to compare them with perfect behavior, us prescribed. The subjective system is measured by an objective scale.

Someone will say that it is unpleasant to feel dependent on someone imposed morality. Like, we are free people! - That's right, free. But the conversation is not about an artificially invented and externally imposed scale of values, but about a natural system, which, like the laws of physics, objectively reflecting the structure of the world, no less objectively describes the real structure of the human central nervous system. And not only describes the device of this complex apparatus, but also gives specific instructions on the optimal use of it. Agree that if such a scale of laws, priorities and instructions for behavior exists, then not knowing about them and not following them means turning yourself into an obedient slave not only of your instincts, but also of the habits and superstitions of the society in which you live. And even those who believe that there is no such an objective, “one for all” scale will agree that it would be quite convenient if there was one. Indeed, who said that it really exists? Now we will answer, but first we will return for a while to the world proud of people. (After all, "man - it sounds proud," do you agree?)

It is often heard that enough to be a good person and everything else will follow. Well said. But let's think, in a world where morality is set by people, is it possible to proclaim the principle "be a good person"? Imagine the following picture: we are talking with Eichmann and Academician Sakharov. We ask everyone: are you a good person? Most likely, Sakharov will think about it. But Eichmann will answer instantly: yes, I am a good person! A curious phenomenon - the more requirements a person has for himself, the more doubts he has about the correctness of his actions. But the one whom the whole world stigmatizes as a criminal and a degenerate does not doubt a positive assessment of himself. And believe me, he has where to draw his confidence from. At the Nuremberg Court, among other things, the documents of the offices of those departments where the defendants worked were made public - yes, yes, they worked and served in the most ordinary way, coming to work every day and fulfilling their duties. So, Eichmann's characteristics were impeccable: honest, dedicated, enterprising, executive, and, in addition, a wonderful family man. I bought flowers for my wife every year for their wedding anniversary. When the Israeli commandos "took" Eichmann in South America, he was leaving the flower shop at that moment, because it was his wedding anniversary. Tell me, do many of us remember the date of our weddings or the birthdays of our wives or husbands? And he bought flowers. What is not an exemplary person? Well, now what are we going to do with the advice “be a good person”? It is clearly insufficient.

Or here's another very common opinion. Sometimes they say that one must live by the principle of "do not hurt another." A good principle, by the way, it is taken from Judaism. But there he one of principles, but here we are offered to make it the main and almost the only one. Let's see if it will be sufficient. Take, for example, the case when an adult daughter announces to her mother a few months after the wedding: congratulate me, mommy, I have a lover. As always, Mom panics because her life experience tells her that nothing good will come of it. But the daughter reassures: Mommy, don’t worry, everything is settled with my husband, he agrees; moreover, he also has a mistress, and guess who is the wife of my lover, we are changing, and everyone is happy ... You say: well, it happens, there is nothing pleasant for me personally in such a picture of morals, but even before tragedy is also far away. Then here is another example from the same series. A daughter comes to her mother (another daughter and another mother) and declares: Mom, I have news, my husband and I divorced, I'm tired of men, and I decided to live ... with a goat. Mom faints, and the daughter continues as if nothing had happened: well, why are you so worried - I feel good, the goat is fine (you call him a goat, he is not offended), the ex-husband does not care, no one suffers, what's the matter?

We repeat, in the Torah system, the principle “do no harm to others” does not work in isolation from other fundamental provisions. Because he is not enough. And if you think that the example just given about a daughter with a goat is speculative and practically never occurs, then here is an example from life, or rather, a historically noted law, at least the Talmud writes about it as about the realities of its time. We are talking about the ancient prohibition against selling a male slave and even a sheep to people who can use both as objects of sexual claims. In Judaism, homosexuality and bestiality are prohibited, even if they do not seem to cause any harm to all other people not participating in this process. And we intuitively see that such a ban is justified. Why?

The fact is that, divorced from other moral requirements, the principle of "do no harm" lies at the heart of idolatry. Your relationship with an idol is nobody's business. The main thing is that you do not cross the boundaries of someone else's personal autonomy - and everything will be fine. But for some reason, sooner or later, all systems of idolatry fall apart, causing indescribable suffering to people. History simply does not know other examples.

A set of rules of conduct can only then be called a real moral system when it answers not only the question No need to do, but also to the question of what necessary do.

A non-participant in evil - under many circumstances looks like a very high stage of personality development. But sometimes the same degree characterizes only the callousness of the soul. It is clear that it is already good that a person does not cause suffering to others, but this is called not being a criminal. Few! For the world in which we live, this is not enough. You have to be a good person. Necessary to be that kind of person.

Those who have moved to Israel know how much the participation of seemingly strangers who help the olim is highly valued. We call them good people. While the rest, who have not shown themselves in this field, remain for us outside the circle good people. You tell me what an egocentric rating system! But that's how it's supposed to be: good is the one who does good affairs, bad is the one who does bad and he who, having the opportunity to do good, shirks it.

Moreover, none of the legislative civil systems adopted in the world can condemn someone who does nothing. Neither the court nor the police will fall upon non-creative good. He must comply with the orders of the authorities and not violate the prohibitions, but - do good? It is believed that this is a matter of conscience for everyone. Did you walk down the street and saw a half-blind old woman run a red light? No one will sue you for not rushing to save the old lady's life. But people will judge you. They will say: what did you do, friend, acted so strangely? And if you don't have good enough reasons to explain your behavior, they will turn their backs on you. They will say - he is either a callous, useless person who doesn't give a damn about anyone, or even a villain.

It makes no sense to demand that legislators introduce laws against callousness. There are always many ways to offend a person outside the jurisdiction. And the system of legislation itself does not eradicate indifference, rudeness, arrogance, etc., but is busy with a completely different matter: laws stand to keep order, those. directed against bad deeds, and do not initiate good deeds of citizens. Perhaps that is why there is a general decline in morals. Morality is degrading even in the citadel of legality, in America. Year after year, they try to strengthen the legal system there, but morality, on the contrary, is falling. But since the system of legality is inextricably linked with the moral climate of the country, the force of the law also rolls down. For it does not happen that the corrosion of ethics does not affect those who stand in defense of order and moral foundations. Judges who try people for bribes themselves begin to take bribes. The police fighting crime themselves acquire criminal features.

It turns out that, whether we like it or not, the system of moral values ​​should encourage a person to active creative behavior, should push him to good deeds.

We are told, well, let's introduce such a system. Let's write down a series of rules that will prohibit bad deeds and force people to do only good. So let's write: chapter such and such of criminal law, paragraph number such and such - anyone who sees an old woman stepping onto the roadway under a red light is obliged to drag her back, even if she resists, otherwise he is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three months in light security colonies with the right of limited correspondence with those who still remain at large ... You are laughing. But try to come up with something constructive, using the power of civil law, declaring to citizens: our society has decided so!

A reasonable moral system cannot be introduced either by agreement (someone will always say: I don’t sign under your document), or by voting (someone will always say: why should I fulfill the will of the majority?). The social contract cannot but conflict with the personal benefit of each individual. And when he enters into such a contradiction, then, tell me, what wins - the contract or personal interest?

See how criminal codes work. Announce: theft is punishable. And how does the ad help? Where who and when observed the decrease in the statistics of burglaries?

It is for this reason that crime in all countries without exception is growing from year to year. If you study the graph of the growth of crime in some societies, then theoretically you can calculate the date when in the future All their citizens will move permanently to prison cells. The number of offenses can only be reduced by the introduction of draconian laws that mercilessly punish anyone caught in the act. But today's societies, taught by the experience of totalitarianism and dictatorships, do not agree with the establishment of such laws, because restrictions work only under strict rule, which is even worse than street crime.

Trouble social contract affects not only in the field of law. The adoption of norms of behavior "by vote" is fraught with many vital areas of human existence. We are talking about life itself. Everyone knows not to kill. Everyone agrees that the most heinous crime is committed by the one who kills a child. But what do you say about the murder of a child who is about to be born? If the defenders of the idea of ​​abortion believe that the unborn fetus is not yet a person, then we ask them: at what point does it become a person? Right after giving birth? But what changes in it at this moment? There was a layout, a blank, and suddenly - a man. What made him human? If we are told that we should not wait for the moment of childbirth, but should fix the appearance of the first glimpses of consciousness in the fetus in order to declare it a person, then let me ask what is meant by glimpses of consciousness - please indicate the specific age accurate to the day and hour , they say, up to this point you can kill, but after it you can’t, because we already have a person in front of us. Until that particular day, when he becomes a personality, it is still allowed to scrape his little body out of the mother’s body with an iron scoop, and after that it’s impossible, it’s too late. But then what does this particular day depend on? Is the date the same for everyone? And finally, who sets the deadline?

However, let's ask one honest and direct question. Abortion - murder or not? Only without introducing other, albeit very important, but diverting circumstances into the topic of conversation. Because, as it seems to us, murder does not cease to be murder, even if we try to justify it with all sorts of important reasons: we can’t breed poverty, it’s time to learn “family planning”, we can’t allow the population to grow unchecked, etc. After all, it never occurs to anyone to discuss the idea of ​​shooting old people to curb the uncontrolled growth of the world's population ...

If everything depends on voting in a popular plebiscite, then the fetus runs the risk of never being born. Moreover, in their defense, people can only say one thing: such is our morality for today. But since this is our morality, why do we try Nazi criminals? They can always say in court: such was our morality at the moment when we killed people in the camps. However, we object to them: this is not morality, but immorality! Why? What gives us the right to say so? After all, this is contract law In action!

Intermediate conclusions:

1. The system does not work according to the principle “do no harm to another”.
2. Absence assumption does not work absolute morality, because otherwise we cannot present an objective accusation to any criminal, including Stalin, Hitler and other cannibals.

3. It is impossible to come up with one common set of laws for all times and civilizations.

Now let's get to the exercises. There will be two of them, and we will conduct both as thought experiments. The first exercise is very simple. Approach a person or turn to a neighbor in the audience and... Only, we repeat, mentally, not in reality. Approach the person and insult him. You have two seconds to prepare. Insult with words, gesture, anything, but not by physical impact. The task, we repeat, is theoretical. You need to hurt him so much that he believes you, that he is really upset. A lot of people say no problem. Then let's complicate the exercise a little: you need to make sure that a person from another culture is offended by some of your actions or statements. Let's say the ancient Aztec. He does not understand Russian, he first came to your city, he did not hear anything about Europeans. Dare, show creativity, touch it to the depths of your soul, so that more into our space and time with a foot!

Most people suggest looking at a stranger with a contemptuous look, spitting on the ground in front of him and hissing something malicious - in order to shock the poor traveler, if not with words, then with tone and gesture.

And then immediately - a new exercise, the last. Same as a thought experiment. Although you can spend it and really. Tell your neighbor or the same Aztec something nice. Look at him kindly. In short, cheer him up. After all, look how tense he is, sitting in an unfamiliar environment, completely lost, afraid of everything. Cheer up the poor guy!

The second task people perform is also very simple and standard: they smile, show goodwill - face and gestures, speak in a soft voice, even emphasizing their disposition in tone.

In the first case, we seem to declare: you are unsympathetic to me, I despise you, know that I am not your friend. In the second case, we make it clear: I like you, I am your friend and I want to do you only good things, you can count on my special attitude towards you.

And now attention. See, we are all different. Different as individuals. And sometimes different as representatives of dissimilar cultures. But no differences prevent us in any situation, the most spontaneous and urgent, from doing good or bad to a person. Cause him pain or pleasure. Make him friend or foe. What does it say? That we all have something in common. And this common thing unites us, allowing us to judge each other as people who do good or bad deeds.

Psychotherapists treat people regardless of their race or culture. Neither nationality nor "country of origin" play any role here. By the way, it was psychotherapists who noticed that the mechanisms responsible for establishing interpersonal contacts are the same for all people. It is as if a certain unified apparatus is inserted into each of us, which can unambiguously "read" someone else's behavior.

But if there is something in common in all people, then why not model a system of morality that would encourage good deeds and limit bad ones? Let's try. And we will use the knowledge of psychology. Let's start with two principles, two moral imperatives - the first from the category of "do not do", the second "do".

We will give the prohibiting principle in a form that is understandable and acceptable to everyone: “do not hurt with words.” (It would be nice not to cause unnecessary pain at all, not only with words, but for now we will limit ourselves to pain from words, which, you see, is also not enough.) A good ethical principle, almost all of us agree with it. We turn to the audience and ask: can this principle be translated into other languages? Would people who lived in antiquity understand it? Or does it just seem to us that it is obvious? Usually half of the participants in the discussion answer that they would understand, the other doubts: who knows... Then we invite the same hall to discuss another principle, positive, prescriptive, from the “do” category: “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” And again we ask: can it be explained in other languages, lowering the complexities of cultural barriers? To this question, the audience usually answers: of course. If someone here shows doubt, we will remind him that these words became known to mankind more than three thousand years ago - and the whole world understood them. Another thing is that not everyone accepted this principle into service, but everyone was able to understand without exception.

So we have found something generally understood, something that no one opposes, if only because it is nice when you are loved ... The two principles we mentioned are written in the Torah given to the Jews thirty-three centuries ago. They are written in Hebrew, so there is no need to translate them into other languages, they have long been translated, including into Russian. In addition to these two moral guidelines, more than six hundred other ideas found a place in the Torah: do not kill, do not steal, do not put a stone in front of the blind, and so on. All of them are direct instructions - what to do and what not to do. Direct instructions to “do” are needed in order for a person to feel good. The “do not do” prohibitions are needed so that he does not feel bad.

So, having gone in search of the possibility of building a single optimal system of behavior for all people, we came to some positive result, overcoming an obstacle along the way, which can be expressed in the form of a statement: all people are different. We have just seen that in different people there is a certain common beginning. There is another obstacle: the diversity of eras, cultures and individual situations. It is also quite surmountable, if we note that not only do people have something in common, but a common part is found in all conceivable situations of a personal and social plan. These are the so-called situational archetypes, primary images.

For example, there is a ban: do not steal! Our system is not required to specify which object this predicate refers to. Don't steal anything at all! But already with the prohibition “do not harm other people” is much more difficult. After all, damage can be caused by hands or your property. Hands - this is terrorism, everything is clear with him. But what does it mean to “do no harm with property”? My goat went to someone else's garden and ate all the cabbage there, am I responsible for the loss? They tell me: of course. What if someone brought a sack of cabbage, placed it in front of my goat, peacefully grazing near my house, and walked away for a second? (Remember, "don't put a stone in front of the blind"?) Am I responsible for him again? So you can catch fear on any person who, from now on, will not leave his horned property even for a minute. But if I am not responsible for the cabbage he ate from a carelessly thrown bag, but I am responsible for the destroyed garden, then where is the line of responsibility? Our universal system speaks of all such basic propositions. And all of them logically follow from the nature of a person, from his attitude to his own and other people's property. People who are not versed in all these subtleties (and they must be taught, for they are recorded in the Talmud and in the comments to it), usually agree with their reasonableness and logic. They immediately recognize justice in them.

There are many situations, but they are all quite reducible to the main ones. In the field of damage caused by property, they are (in the language of the Torah) called "fire", "pit" and "bull". “Fire” is property left unattended, which tends to move under the influence of ordinary forces (such as wind), which can lead to damage to someone else's property (for example, fire from an unextinguished fire reached someone else's stack). “Pit” is again property left in a place that belongs to everyone, people and cattle walk there, they can fall into this “pit”. “Bull” is horns (butts), teeth (eats) and hooves (tramples).

Classification is designed with great detail and works great! So, in each specific case, it is only necessary to establish belonging to a certain type and see how our system characterizes it (who is responsible for what and why). But even here there remains a part that has been transferred to people - then, they say, decide for yourself. So, setting the payment for a particular type of loss, the system does not say anything about prices. For example, the law requires: be honest in commercial transactions. This means that the price requested by the trader cannot exceed some upper price limit for a given type of goods or services. Anything above the acceptable limits is called fraud, trade deception. The upper limit (say, the average price plus one-sixth of it) is set by the legislator, but market prices are wholly in the hands of society (or in the hands of the market, which is the same thing)....

Now, since we have found out that, firstly, all people have something in common that unites them, and secondly, all situations can be reduced to the main ones, then there are no obstacles to building a single absolute systems.

But before we tackle such a system, let's remember where we were brought up. Sorry, but this question is also important.

We are post-Soviet people. We have long been taught that morality evolves with society. They say that the norms of behavior overcome a complex and winding path, adapting to the needs of people and striving for a certain optimum, established for each era.

I'm sorry, but this is all a lie. You and I have been deceived. There is, it turns out, a system that "works", starting from ancient times. Let us recall once again the quote from Seneca: “The customs of this ... race began to have such an influence that they are accepted all over the world ...” Look, we did not invent this when preparing for the lecture: accepted all over the world! Understand and acknowledge. Even then, two thousand years ago (if we talk about the era of the ancient Romans), they understood and recognized it. The ideas of the Torah were accepted by the whole world - albeit in a simplified form, as the "revelations" of Christianity or Islam, but the main ideas in them are the same: do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery. They have been known to the Jews for thousands of years. For the last two thousand years, these principles have been constantly hammered into the head of most peoples: by the righteous - by the power of persuasion, by the rulers - with the help of sword and fire. Slowly, the system has gained universal acceptance. When used, it works and produces positive results. And you and I have been taught for seventy years that societies develop their moral systems through trial and error, i.e. morality evolves. A more ugly lie is hard to compose.

Where, by the way, did this lie come from? And why would she even take it? Here is another quote. Tell me, who is its author? (Hint: it is not given in translation, but in the original language.)

We deny all morality taken from a non-human, non-class concept ... We say that our morality is completely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle and the proletariat. Our morality is derived from the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.

In other words, what we consider useful to our struggle is what we do. Lenin at the Third Congress of the Komsomol.

The communists, striving for power and implanting their understanding of the meaning of life, knew perfectly well that morality is one of the most sensitive points of human existence. One of the biggest pain points. Therefore, if the requirements of morality are not canceled, then no one will follow their slogans. After all, with what idea did the Bolsheviks come into the world? Universal equality and happiness. Nobody is against these things, but how to achieve them? Very simply, they answer: "We will destroy the whole world of violence." And here comes the subtle point. How can we destroy it? Is it possible to eradicate violence with violence? And even if it is possible, then in the process of such destruction, into whom will we ourselves degenerate? As a result, a new call to destruction risked being misunderstood. How can one destroy the enemies of the revolution (only because they live in a decent apartment, and not in a barn), when it is known that it is impossible not only to kill, but also to cause any evil? For human life is sacred! Therefore, the Bolsheviks had no choice but to come to the people and announce that, they say, from today we have a new approach to human life, in particular, and to morality, in general.

The Bolsheviks turned out to be no less Darwinists than the Nazis. (Those, it is true, did not have equality, but even among these equality is very relative - the equality of the poor and the oppressed.) Morality evolves - they proclaimed. Moreover, only the most perfect society can have the most perfect morality. From this it follows that the most perfect morality belongs to the communists. This is what they began to hammer into the heads of people, using the entire available apparatus of power. In essence, the apparatus had no other task - only the imposition of its own communist morality and the destruction of the morality of the Torah, many of whose provisions have long since become common to all mankind.

Excuse me, these are the ethical views that we have inherited. Rather, they were instilled in us by force. And we got along with them!

But here's what's interesting. We all know about the Nuremberg trials, at which the fascist leaders were tried for "crimes against humanity", as the accusation formula stated. It was understood that they were judged by humanity itself. But formally, the accusation was brought - again on behalf of all mankind - by representatives of the two camps included in the anti-Hitler coalition: the pluralist democrats (the United States and its European allies) and the communists (Russia). The winners judged the losers. On what basis did they judge them? This is a very curious question. After all, we just found out that without having a single scale of behavior for everyone, it cannot be said that someone behaved criminally. We will tell him: you did not do well. And he will answer with a challenge: you think so, which is not good, but in my opinion, very good! And if we nevertheless condemn him, it will turn out that we used force. Brute physical strength. Violating one of the principles: the strong should not offend the weak if there is nothing but strength on his side. And the Americans and Russians had nothing but strength, as the Germans said: we have a different morality, different from yours, saturated with mercy ...

How could democrats and non-democrats unite in one judicial coalition at the Nuremberg Trials? On what common platform they stood, that is the question. They must have had some general principles in the field of morality. We have just shown that true pluralism cannot charge anyone at all. And the communists have one morality, a class one: what suits them, they will do.

It turns out that they found a common platform. Two systems of thought, so different in their approaches to justice, found unity on this issue. united them international law. The laws of this law, adopted by all countries, if not for internal use, then at least for the convenience of international communication, have long been known. They were developed by the famous English lawyer John Selden (1584-1654). founded on the so-called natural law, i.e. on positions common to all people. Where did natural law come from? Quote from Selden:

today word natural in jurisdiction means that (in the opinion, beliefs and traditions of the Jews, as well as in the opinion of authoritative scientists) it is accepted as something common to all, as a world law, as a law for all countries and times ... from the very Creation of the world, such as what has been ordained for all mankind by the Creator of all that is, is simultaneously revealed, communicated, and ordained. This is what the Jews call the Laws of the sons of Noah.

It turns out that natural law comes from Laws of the sons of Noah. Selden was well acquainted with Jewish law. He based his concept on it. international law. His central work, from where we took the quote, is literally overflowing with examples of the application of Jewish law in the life of the peoples of the world. As you can see, he believed that Laws of the sons of Noah are natural law for all people.

Curiously, all of humanity, it turns out, has long been living in To the laws of sons Noah, but we, in our time as Soviet people, one of the detachments of the descendants of Noah, forgot to tell about it!

It turns out that universal human values ​​do exist. And they are not at all what is obtained as a result of “trial and error”. These values ​​were brought into the world by the Jews, i.e. us, our people - for which someone loves us, and someone hates or envy. Evolution has nothing to do with it, people do not live at all according to the laws of nature, where the strong defeat the weak. Rather, they can try to apply this principle in action, but they will sue in accordance with completely different guidelines. In accordance with the laws of justice and mercy, where violence against the weak is considered a crime.

These laws of justice are valuable because they are not some kind of conditional agreement between people. They reflect the very essence of man and his nature, the inner structure of the personality, which all people without exception possess and which unites them into one community, making it possible to cooperate and understand each other. Without them there would be no mutual understanding and communication. And therefore, there would be no people.

Universal principles do not depend on human awareness of them. But, since we are endowed with freedom of choice, our awareness is an important component of the work of any moral system. Therefore, we can say that the work of these principles, their effective functioning is based on the awareness of each of us of their usefulness and expediency. For what is formulated in the system of agreement as a benefit for society, in the system given by the Creator, is formulated as a benefit for the person himself. Not just for society, but through it - for a person. No, right for a person.

Let's put it in ordinary terms. Social contract system: stealing is bad for society. Structure Judaism: stealing is bad first of all for the thief himself.

Why for a thief, and not for the society robbed by this thief? Because the experience of rabbinical wisdom, which is many centuries old (which is confirmed, by the way, by the practice of today's psychotherapists), shows that the actions performed by a person leave an imprint first of all on himself and only then on society. Man is what he does. We are shaped by our deeds, words and thoughts. When we act, we create ourselves. So, speaking of morality, we raise the conversation not about the "social contract", but about ourselves. About your duty to your own existence. About the mission for which each of us was born.

So, we are convinced of the need for an optimal moral system and even found out that it exists. Now let's look at its main provisions. They seem to be common knowledge. ThisTen Commandments and the Seven Laws Sons of Noah. Can you list them?

Freedom and Choice (chapter 1: Torah and Morality

Yefim Svirsky

(Lectures-articles by Efim Svirsky. Literary recording and editing - N. Purer and R. Pyatigorsky)

ESH-ATORA (Flame of the Torah), Jerusalem, 1997