MORALISM, AMORALISM, IMMORALISM… WHAT IS NEXT?

Abstract

The article draws attention to the fact that the concepts of morality and ethics remain invariable in spite of the changeable historic circumstances. This issue always needed additional justification in philosophical thought. This question is analyzed in retrospective: the ethics of the Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the moralism of the Modern Period. A lot of attention is paid to the views of the moral philosopher,    a    typical    representative    of   the    Ukrainian    Cossack    baroque G. S. Skovoroda. Cossack baroque is considered as a type of culture characterized by the incompleteness, the irregularity of the world, the ambiguity of the nature and the human being. These are the features, which were the foundation of the Ukrainian mentality, according to G. Skovoroda. It is emphasized, that G. Skovoroda undoubtedly remained entirely within the traditional morality framework, which was based on the religious commandments and guidelines. It is also stated that, in his opinion, the ethics embodied the practical side of philosophy. Skovoroda’s contemporary I. Kant tried to give a rational justification of the morality and stated the so-called categorical imperative as the law of moral life. However, the European culture faced the process of moral “decay” which manifested in the blurring of the traditional moral standards and the weakening of the reliance on the religious commandments that led to the spread of the amoralism (F. Nietzsche). Thus, while Kant attempted to justify the morality by appealing to the theoretical and practical mind, Nietzsche criticized this concept up to denying the value content of the existing moral standards. This version of morality has been implanted in Europe and modified into the “universal” morality, the “general morality”. In the XIX century the rejection of the traditional moral principles originated from the various kinds of the socialist and the communist doctrines, which no longer relied on the individualistic platform (like F. Nietzsche), but demonstrated the collectivist attitude and class morale of the proletariat. Nevertheless, in either case there could have been observed the denial of the moral principles and generally accepted norms of the social behavior as well as the nihilistic attitude towards the moral regulations. In this case, some norms were considered rather relative, conditional and changeable, while the others were absolutized, declared eternal and constant. The amoralism has arisen and existed as a phenomenon of the social life and a theoretical point alongside the morality since the latter came into existence. This phenomenon has been traced since the moment when the morality separated from the automatically operated customs, traditions and behavior patterns at the stage of the decomposition of the tribal relations, to the active spread of the immoralism in XX century. It is concluded that any attempt to “abolish” the principles of traditional morality, to declare the concepts of conscience, philanthropy, respect for the individual as prejudicial and substitute them with the surrogates (class or national superiority, personality cult of the leader or the Fuhrer etc.) leads to the amoralism. While considering the modern ethics, the position of the Russian philosopher M. Epstein is being analyzed. The article studies his theory of the stereoethics, which Epstein himself presents as a voluminous vision of the moral prescriptions, provided by the combination of the different moral projections of the same deed. The authors agree with M. Epstein’s opinion on the fact that the ethical doctrine generated by the duality and incompatibility of virtues, by the blurring of the traditional values and by the impossibility of the sole moral choice, combines two different projections of the object thus leading to the three-dimensional perception of the world. The authors wonder what the next stage of the moral and ethical relations sphere is going to be like.