Psychology of good and evil. Sukharev V.A.

I must confess that I always face difficulties when discussing this topic with philosophers or theologians. I get the feeling that they are not talking about the object itself, not about the essence of the matter, but only about words, concepts denoting this object. We so easily let ourselves be carried away by words that they replace all reality. They talk to me about good and evil, assuming that I already know what it is. But I don’t know that. When someone speaks of good or evil, he means what he calls good or evil, that he feels good or evil. He then speaks of them with ever-increasing confidence, not knowing whether what he calls in reality good or evil, whether his words cover reality. Perhaps the speaker's image of the world does not fully agree with the real state of affairs, and the objective is replaced by an internal, subjective image.

In order to agree on such a complex issue of good and evil, we need to proceed from the following: good and evil are in themselves principles, and one should think that these principles extend beyond the limits of our existence. Speaking of good and evil, we are conducting a specific conversation about an entity, the deepest qualities of which we do not really know. If something is experienced by us as evil or sinful, then this experience depends on subjective judgment, as well as the measure and severity of sin.

Where did we get this faith, this outward confidence that we know what good and evil are? "Eritis sicut Deus, scientes bonum et malum" (I.Mose 3, 5) ( Genesis 3, 5: ".. and you will be like gods who know good and evil"). Only the gods know, we do not know. This is extremely true psychologically as well. If you have this attitude, "This may be very bad, or it may not," then you have a chance that you will do the right thing. But if you know in advance whether it is bad or not, then you behave as if you are the Lord God himself. However, we are all only limited people, and in each particular case, in essence, we do not know whether we are doing good or evil. We know them in the abstract. To see a specific situation through and through, in all its fullness, is feasible for the Lord God alone. We can only form an opinion, even though we do not know whether it is competent. We can be supremely forward-looking: this or that is good or evil, given such and such a scale. What our people think is evil, other people can consider it good.

Looking closely, we noticed that good and evil are principia. The principle comes from prius ( walking in front (lat.)), from what was before what lies in the beginning. The last conceivable principium is God. Principia are, in the last analysis, the faces of God. Good and evil are the principia of our judgments but in the last ontic their root they are the essence of the beginning, faces, names of God. When in excessu affectus ( in excess of passion (lat.)), in an emotionally excessive situation, I am faced with a paradoxical state of affairs or an event, then I eventually come across one of the divine faces. I am not able to logically assess or master the divine face, for it is stronger than me, i.e. has a numinous character. Thus, I met the tremendum et fascinosum ( awe inspiring and enchanting (lat.)). I cannot “master” the numinous, I can only open myself to it, let it shake me, trust its meaning. The principle is always something extraordinary, powerful in comparison with me. I am not even able to master the last physicalistic principles, in their pure reality they stand much higher than me, above me, they have power. There is something irresistible involved. If in excessu affectus I say: "This is bad wine" or "This type is a mean dog", then I do not know whether this judgment makes sense. Another may have a completely different opinion about the same fault or the same person. We know only the surface of things, we know them only as they appear to us, and therefore we should be very humble.

When considering the question of good and evil, the therapist also can only hope that he sees things correctly, but he should never be completely sure of this. As a therapist, I cannot approach the problem of good and evil in this particular case theologically or philosophically, but I can only deal with it empirically. This does not mean that, with an empirical approach, I do good and evil. in themselves relative... I clearly see: this is evil, but the whole paradox is that for a given person in this particular situation, at a certain stage of his path to maturity, this evil can turn out to be good. The opposite is also valid: at a false moment in the wrong place, good will turn into its opposite. If it were not so, everything would be simple - too simple. When I do not judge a priori, but listen to a concrete given, then I no longer know in advance what is good for the patient and what is evil. Although many things are present, they are not transparent to us, like their meaning, they are revealed to us in umbra ( In the shade (lat.)), hidden and shrouded in darkness. Only with the passage of time does a ray of light penetrate the secret until then.

This is also true psychologically. It would be arrogant of us to think that we can always say what is good or bad for the patient. Probably, something for him is really evil, he still creates it and as a result experiences pangs of conscience. But it can be a great blessing for a given person - looking both therapeutically and empirically. Perhaps he must survive and endure evil and its power, for only in this way can he finally overcome his pharisaism in relation to other people. Perhaps he should have received a click on the nose - call it what you want - from fate, either unconsciously, or from God: to fall into the mud, because only such a powerful experience can "push" him, at least one step to take him out of infantilism and make him more mature. How can a person know that he needs liberation if he self-confidently thinks that he has nothing to free himself from? He sees his shadow, the lower levels of his being, but turns his gaze away from them, runs away from them, does not enter into battle with them, does not risk anything. He then boasts before God, before himself, before other people with his white and spotless clothes, but to this angelic likeness and all-perfection he truly owes his cowardice, his regression. And instead of being ashamed, he stands in front of the temple and says: “ Thank you that I am not like other people ..."(Luke, 18, 9-14).

Such a person thinks that he is righteous, because he knows what is unrighteous, and avoids it. But it has never been the concrete content of his life, and he does not know from what he needs to be saved. Only a partial guarantee is given by the words of the Apocrypha: “ Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed, if you don’t know, you are damned". A person who knows what he is doing when he does evil has a chance for bliss, but at first he is in hell. For evil done, even done deliberately, remains evil. If a person does not take this path, does not take this step, then this may turn out to be a spiritual regression, a retreat in internal development, infantile cowardice. Anyone who thinks that with the help of the words of the Apocrypha, “knowing deeds,” he can be saved from sin or be saved from it, is mistaken, because he is rather drowning in sins.

Unwittingly, as people we are put in a situation where the "principia" entangle us in something from which it is left to us to extricate ourselves. Sometimes, with the help of God, a clear path is shown to us, but sometimes there is a feeling that we have been abandoned by all good spirits. In critical situations, the hero always loses his weapon, and at such a moment as before death, we are faced with a bare fact, not knowing how we came to that. Thousands of intertwining destinies unexpectedly lead to this situation. This is symbolically represented by Jacob's struggle with the angel. Then a person has no choice but to stand up for himself. These are situations where you need to react entirely. And it may turn out that here you will not be able to hold onto the paragraphs of the predetermined moral law. Here begins the most that neither is personal ethics: in the most serious collision with the absolute, in paving the way, which is condemned by the generally accepted paragraphs of morality and the guardians of the law. And yet, a person feels that he has never been so faithful to his deepest essence and vocation, and thus to the absolute, for only he and the Omniscientist simultaneously look at a specific situation from the inside, while those who judge and condemn see it only from the outside.

Even the one who performs any action often does not see his deep moral motives, the sum of conscious and unconscious motives that lie at its foundation, and even more so when judging the action of another, perceived from the outside, and not in his deep being. Kant rightfully demanded that the individual and society move from an "ethics of deeds" to an "ethics of principles." In the last and deepest foundation, only God is able to see in full the principles that are behind the work being done. Therefore, our judgments about good or evil are in concreto ( in fact (lat.)) should always be circumspect and hypothetical, and not so apodictic as if we are able to see the last reasons. Views on morality are often as divergent as ideas about delicacies among us and the Eskimos.

When we observe how people are faced with the same ethically significant situation, a kind of double effect arises: both sides suddenly become visible. These people notice not only their moral inferiority, but automatically their better side. They rightfully say: "I'm not that bad after all." To oppose a person with his shadow means to show him the bright side. Having experienced it once, finding myself between opposites, a person inevitably feels his own self. The one who perceives his shadow and his light at the same time sees himself from two sides, and thus takes the middle.

This is the secret of the East: the contemplation of opposites teaches the Eastern person to see the characteristics of maya. It endows reality with the character of an illusion. Reality itself is manifested behind opposites and in opposites, visible and embraced whole... The Indian calls this whole Atman. Self-awareness allows us to say: “I am the one who speaks good and evil” or even better: “I am the one through whom good or evil is spoken. He who is in me, speaking principia, uses me to express them. He speaks through me. " This corresponds to what the Eastern person calls Atman, that which, figuratively speaking, “breathes through and through” (atmet durch). But not only through me, but also through everything, in other words, it is not only the individual Atman, but also Atman-Purusha, the universal Atman, the Spirit that permeates everything. In German we use the word "Selbst" for it, "self", as opposed to the small "I". It is clear from what has been said that this self is not only something more conscious or a higher ascended "I", which suggests itself in such expressions as "self-conscious", "independent", etc. That which is here called "selfhood" dwells not only in me, but in everything, like the Atman, like the Tao. it psychic totality.

This "self" never and nowhere takes the place of God, but is probably vessel for the grace of God.

L. M. Popov, O. Yu. Golubeva, P. N. Ustin

Good and evil in ethical personality psychology

© Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008

Introduction

"Ethical psychology of personality" is an independent branch of knowledge, which over time may become on a par with pedagogical, social, clinical and other areas of psychological science.

We begin our conversation about this new branch of psychology with the elaboration of one of the central questions of human behavior - the question of understanding good and evil.

On the basis of dictionary sources, about 80 words were identified that characterize the personality traits of a person from two extreme sides: from the side of virtuous and vicious behavior. The task of assessing personality traits was set before the students of one of the Kazan universities.

As a result, a fairly definite picture was built, the students identified, for example, groups of traits that, from an ethical point of view, characterize the qualities, mental state of the individual, interpersonal relationships, which could definitely be attributed to positively perceived (virtuous) and negatively perceived (vicious) personality characteristics.

So, positively perceived personality traits included: tenderness, mercy, kindness, justice, disinterestedness, honesty, wisdom, benevolence, nobility, politeness, loyalty, spirituality, modesty, conscience, honor. Negatively perceived (vicious) qualities include: cruelty, greed, rudeness, arrogance, self-interest, meanness, stinginess, harm, stupidity, sycophancy, indifference, selfishness, backbiting, insidiousness, intolerance, tyranny, sarcasm, stubbornness, callousness.

Positively perceived states with the status of "good" were: joy, laughter, freedom, hope, well-being, pity, calmness, confidence, luck, energy; negatively perceived (status "evil") - fear, anger, grief, loneliness, inaction, hostility, misunderstanding, disgust, devastation, curse, sadness, boredom.

Among the virtuous concepts that characterize interpersonal relationships are: love, peace, friendship, affection, care, respect, sympathy, trust, forgiveness. The number of vicious concepts included: hatred, envy, betrayal, violence, murder, lies, treason, aggression, lawlessness, terrorism, abuse, enmity.

The results of this survey demonstrate that the usual well-known personality traits and interpersonal relationships are perceived in the student environment of a large Russian city unequivocally: some as positive, virtuous (mercy, spirituality, love, care), and others as vicious (cruelty, arrogance, lies, treason) ...

Interesting, in our opinion, is the problem of a set of concepts that convey what is created by civilization and which, according to the authors of the study, should also be categorized into two columns (good - evil):

1) what causes a positive reaction: music, church, garden, theater, knowledge, democracy, book, religion, etc .;

2) what causes a negative reaction: drugs, weapons, prison, fascism, money, vodka, power, explosion, cigarettes, army, official, crisis, TV, school, etc.

There is already something to think about when such concepts as power, army, TV, school, and an official entered the minds of young people with a negative attitude.

Finally, the real moral problem was revealed where the students faced the need to classify the most famous Russian politicians as those with whom "good" is associated and with whom "evil" is associated. It is difficult to categorize a number of politicians from the general set by columns: Peter the First, Nicholas II, V.I. Lenin, V.V. Zhirinovsky, V.S. another historical turning point in the social life of Russia and in relation to which there was no unambiguous assessment.

The distribution of politicians into two groups revealed a deep moral problem of Russian society: young people who unexpectedly found themselves in a position of moral choice had to decide for themselves: which of the politicians was really guided by good intentions and did good deeds, and who was guided by vicious intentions and did so, which in the minds of the people is assessed as unpleasant, vicious, negative.

It should be agreed that this survey shows: in our society there is a crisis of values, “when morality loses its evidence, cannot be supported by the power of tradition, and people, torn apart by conflicting motives, cease to understand what is good and what is evil. This usually happens when different cultures and cultural eras collide, when, for example, new generations break sharply with traditional foundations. "

From a psychological point of view, it can be stated that there is a steady formation of people with a low level of tolerance for violence, death - for evil. This is manifested in a lowering of the threshold for perverse behavior. If, according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, a person is a body, soul and spirit, then vicious behavior is, first of all, behavior aimed at satisfying bodily needs. The more interest in the bodily, the further away from the spiritual.

It is necessary to turn to the understanding of man as a spiritual being, a bearer of moral consciousness, as a being responsible for everything that is done on our planet. It is necessary to find a common language with each other, to understand where we are coming from and where we are moving in our evolutionary development. It is necessary to understand that people who lived earlier on Russian soil have gone a long way of development, in which, along with intellectual and economic achievements, certain customs, traditions, a system of stable values ​​have developed, which are long-term guidelines from the past to the future.

Since the period of the first manuscripts, a person has been interested in what is considered good and what is evil. In religions, ethical works of Aristotle, Seneca, Spinoza, I. Kant, G.V.F. Hegel, Z. Freud, E. Fromm, S.L. It is impossible to explain a single act of a person without understanding his true motives, which are formed in society. Each person is forced to take into account what will cause approval and support from other people (family, community, labor collective, country, state), and what will cause condemnation and rejection.

Ethics more than other sciences gives an idea of ​​the moral development of a person, of his moral consciousness. However, the problem is that personality psychology as a branch of scientific psychology has not yet mastered the huge layer of data accumulated in connection with the study of religion, spiritual sources, ethical works of classics, philosophical and religious sources. And here, in domestic psychology, a large detachment of domestic psychologists (B.S.Bratus, V.P. Zinchenko, V.V. Znakov, V.A.Ponomarenko, V.I.Slobodchikov, V.D.Shadrikov, etc.) moved in that direction. But once again I would like to say that the efforts of scientists will be more productive if we define ethical psychology as an independent branch of psychology as the vector of this research and applied activity.

For all the controversy of this issue, as the main argument, it should be recognized that the term "ethical" comes from ethics - the science of morality (morality), in the center of which is the study of customs, habits, morals, developed over a long time acceptable ways of communication between people inside communities of various levels: from the family to the unification of nations. As soon as we take a step in psychology on the way to its new branch, the tasks of defining the subject, categorical apparatus, research methods, that is, the entire attributes of an independent branch of psychology, will immediately arise.

This book is the first attempt in this direction. Some theoretical substantiation of the ethical psychology of personality is presented here, research methods are presented, including the positively proven test of good and evil, which has passed the assessment procedure for representativeness, test reliability and validity.

Since, in our understanding, ethics is a practical philosophy, we believe that ethical is a practice-oriented psychology of a person, which not only explains the presence of moral guidelines, but also helps to form them, to realize practically, and subsequently to move in life, having them. as motives and value orientations.

The authors of this work are Doctor of Psychology, Professor L.M. Popov (author and scientific editor of the project, introduction, conclusion, chapters 1 and 2), PhD in Psychology P.N. Ustin (Chapter 3) and PhD in Psychology O. Yu. Golubeva (chapter 4).

What kindness is in people's understanding is the desire to help without expecting or demanding reciprocal gratitude. This view of the essence of kindness is not entirely complete, since this very abstract concept can be viewed from different points of view.

What is goodness and kindness?

The concept of "kindness" is directly related to the word "good", although the second has several meanings and can, for example, mean any material objects belonging to a person. Good in the moral sense is deeds aimed at good. Kindness is a quality inherent in a person who does good. To explain to a child what kindness is, you can tell the selfless act of a stranger who transferred funds to a sick child, about the mercy of people helping stray animals.

Kindness - psychology

In psychology, human kindness is seen among. It is believed that a small child does not know what kindness is, with rare exceptions, egocentricity prevails in him. And if kindness is not brought up in a baby, he will have serious problems with socialization. In adults, the kindness of people often causes mistrust and doubts about sincerity. In addition, many individuals believe that a kind person is weak, and he is often used.

How is kindness shown?

It cannot be said about an inactive person that he is kind, this quality must necessarily be confirmed by actions. How is kindness manifested and what does it mean:

• care;
• Attention;
• support;
• unselfishness;
• responsiveness;
• kindness.

This list is far from complete, and it is very often difficult to understand whether it is a good deed or not. Ideally, kindness is a combination of an active life position, morality, strength, high moral qualities, as well as perceptions and emotions. In its highest incarnation, kindness is extremely rare, the most common examples of which are saints, ascetics, patrons of the arts.

What are good and evil?

Good is selfless help, the desire to make the world a better place, evil is the deliberate infliction of pain and damage. The qualities of the antagonists - kindness and evil - are present in any person. Even the noblest and most beneficent people recognize that the fight against evil motives has to be waged almost constantly. The Church gives this phenomenon the following definition: if a person asks whether good and evil exist, he is on the way to realizing the need for a constant struggle with the dark forces that live in everyone.

It is unrealistic to completely eradicate the evil that lives in a person due to the duality of his nature. Yes, and probably not necessary. Without evil, darkness, cowardice and other negative qualities, it is unrealistic to understand what love and kindness, light and courage are. For this reason, many people come to goodness and kindness only after overcoming some, becoming older and wiser, highlighting new priorities.

Is there absolute goodness?

To understand what absolute kindness is in a person's life, one should turn to religion. For example, Christianity. We can say that God is an example of absolute kindness, but he can deliberately send diseases and trials to a person. Their goal is to lead a person to faith. As an example of absolute kindness, you can recall Jesus, who brought people only good and forgiveness, regardless of the evil caused to him.

True and False Kindness

The manifestation of true kindness in modern society is extremely rare. It is much more common to encounter false kindness when good noble deeds are performed with the expectation of reciprocal gratitude or out of fear. Most people believe that if you help those in need, they will be helped at the right time. Someone is afraid to refuse a request from a colleague or manager. Often, kindness is done for show - as a rule, politicians and other public figures “sin” with this.

Do people need kindness?

Unfortunately, people value the kindness that is directed at them more, but often they avoid doing good deeds themselves, so the question of whether it is necessary to become a kind person arises more and more often. Yes, a kind person can be considered a "weakling", "a sycophant", etc., but the use of kindness can be found. To shelter a homeless puppy, bring bags to an elderly person, help a disabled person, do not pass by if they offend the weak - all this is not just kindness, these are priceless manifestations of the best qualities of a person's soul.

What is kindness for?

Much more than to those in need, the kindness of the soul is important to those who do good deeds. Having done something selfless and good, a person feels a rise in the emotional level, rises in his own eyes. After a while, he will most likely want to re-experience these sensations and will consciously seek out someone who needs his kindness. Through good deeds, the soul will become better and cleaner. The main danger in this case is not to become proud.

How to become a kind person?

Developing qualities such as kindness and compassion are easier than you might think. Kindness does not at all mean constant self-sacrifice, which leads to the fact that a person begins to be used, manipulated. You need to open the source of kindness in your soul, learn to see those who need help and kindness. This is what kindness is:

1. Looking with a caring gaze is the first condition of kindness. This is the only way to see someone's hopes, needs and fears.
2. To give and forget is the second condition of kindness. Goodness should be remembered by the one to whom it was directed and, ideally, continue the chain of kindness by helping another person in need.
3. Distinguishing true needs from manipulation is the third condition for kindness. Only by learning to distinguish between the needy and the consumer can frustration and burnout be avoided and true soul-healing kindness can be created.

You can start doing good small things. Where to start to understand what kindness is:

• self-knowledge - by understanding oneself, one can understand others;
• an example of kind people - remembering individuals who are good, you need to learn from them how to treat yourself and others;
• - it is a source of mental, mental and physical health;
• habit - having developed the habit of doing kindness, a person will notice many positive changes in his life;
• lack of condemnation - it is easiest to judge a person and gossip about him; in order to cultivate kindness in yourself, you need to learn to sympathize and compassion for him;
• learning from mistakes - all people are imperfect, you need not to self-flagellate, but to learn lessons;
• life in the present - a person in need of help needs not only to sympathize, but to offer real support;
• optimism, friendliness - these qualities help to see the best features in people.

It is easy to agree that all human values ​​are conditional. You agree, right? Even a schoolchild can understand this intellectually. But there is one subtle but extremely important point that usually escapes attention.

Watch your hands! If all values ​​are conditional, then how do we choose what to call good and what is evil? What is the criterion by which we divide neutral objective reality into light and dark, good and evil, right and wrong?

By honestly answering this question, we will knock out from under our feet the main support that allows us to maintain a position of sincere delusion and innocently avoid any responsibility for our lives.

By assigning the right things to be “right” and even agreeing that it is more correct to be “right”, we always keep an ace up our sleeve, which leaves us with a loophole to commit any “wrong”. After all, even doing something very wrong, we always get out of the water, because we easily find an opportunity to turn the scales of internal justice in our favor.

How does this happen? Let's figure it out.

Rationalism

The main line of defense in a world that proudly calls itself civilized is belief in the human mind. What is the very first thing we do when life presents us with a choice? We are thinking! We are trying to use our memory, our experience, our intellect to judge which of the choices will be “wiser” in a given situation.

We will not even discuss here the question of the extent to which reason has power over our real behavior and our experiences. Let's assume that we are truly capable of acting based on decisions made by our reason.

But how do we reason? Isn't it so that under the seemingly logical thinking we hide something that is not logical?

For example, we rely on memory. First, we believe that remembering similar situations in the past can somehow help us assess the current situation. But do you know what they say about experience? Experience is knowing how to deal with situations that will never happen again. And these are not just nice words.

In fact, trusting experience, we rely on the laws of statistics, which tell us which of the choices will be more correct with some degree of probability. And that would be quite satisfactory if our mind did not then do a trick with us, turning probability into certainty. Who cares about the theory of probability when a plane crashes and all passengers die, even though statistically it's the safest form of transport? To whom should I present the invoice later? God of statistics?

That is, life experience is not such a convincing support for the unambiguous separation of right from wrong. Even if a hundred times in a row the situation developed in the same way and it was more correct to go to the right, nothing prevents the same situation from going according to a different scenario for the first time, where it would be more correct to go to the left. And experience here will hurt us rather than help us.

Second, we generally tend to trust our memory as if it were carefully guarded archives of life experience. But in practice, memory in the performance of its direct duties turns out to be very, let's say, flexible. All psychological science arose exactly at the very moment when Freud convincingly proved that we remember only what we want to remember, easily and thoroughly forgetting what we do not want to remember.

“I did it,” my memory says. “I couldn't do it,” my pride says and remains adamant. In the end, memory gives way.

And if this is the case, if memory is not an impartial mechanism for storing and providing useful information, if it tends to find and produce exactly the result that we expect from it, then how can we rely on it? It turns out that personal memory is just as unreliable an ally as life experience.

In the third case, in our reasoning we rely on certain ideas about life, which have always seemed to us axioms that do not require proof. However, if the scientific axiom is really something completely obvious, then the psychological axiom, although it seems just as convincing, has no objective basis at all.

Parents need to take care of children. Men should look after women. Children must respect their parents. Women must get married and have children. The state should take care of its citizens. Everything in the world should be fair. Promises must be kept. You cannot steal and kill. It is necessary to protect the weak. And so on and so forth…

Take any point that seems most convincing to you, and ask yourself the question - “How do I know that the world works this way? Who said that I owe it, or that I have the right to do it? " Answer honestly and you will inevitably run into ... emptiness.

We got our ideas about life from our environment and the pressure that it put on us. We were required to agree, and we agreed. But even when there are no more demands and we can no longer mask ourselves, we cannot stop. We have become so attached to our ideas that we ourselves are now ready to put pressure on other people to agree with us. We would rather change the world in accordance with our ideas about it, than admit that our ideas are an unfounded belief, fiction, a subject of whim.

We have an excellent computing system installed on our shoulders. The ability to think logically, rationality is the greatest achievement of evolution. But what is the use of the most powerful computer if we supply it with false data at the input? What is the use of the most accurate logic if the original premises are not true? It is possible to talk very nicely and smoothly about duty and honor, but if we look at where we got these concepts from, a very unpleasant surprise awaits us, which will not leave a stone unturned from all further constructions.

We say, “This is correct, because my experience tells me so,” and we believe that it really sounds convincing. We say - “This is correct, because I remember how it was last time,” and we believe that our memories are not biased. We say, "This is correct because it is reasonable," and we believe that our reflections rest on the solid ground of truth. And all this together creates in us a feeling of control over our life, while it is systematically sliding into complete chaos.

And even when our experience is really applicable to this particular situation, even when our memory is impeccably honest, even when our logic is irrefutable, the last problem remains - in our life there are too many examples of how we do wrong actions and experience wrong feelings contrary to requirements and logic. your mind. That is, even when we know that it is more correct to go to the right, we too often find ourselves going to the left.

What, then, governs our logic and reason? Why do they act like a bribed jury every time? And what if we can no longer justify our choices in life by their rationality? Where can one find support when the intellect, with all its accumulated knowledge about life, has demonstrated its weakness and unreliability?

Moral

When logic fails, morality enters the scene. If we cannot logically substantiate our position, we shrug our shoulders and move on to moral categories. It is worth destroying our beautiful logical constructions, as we find ourselves completely naked, and we can only hide behind a fig leaf of our ideas about good and evil.

When we can't say anymore - "This is correct because logic requires it.", We are speaking - "This is correct because morality demands it.".

Morality is a universal response to a child when a parent cannot justify his position. “You can't do that, because it's bad. It is necessary to do this, because it is good ”- this is the favorite trick of an irresponsible parent. By referring to morality, we get rid of the need for ourselves to answer slippery questions - after all, we so want to maintain faith in the authority and righteousness of our position.

The child must be obedient, the child must respect the parents, the child must obey the elders ... and so on. Why does he need all this? Because being obedient is good, obeying and respecting your elders is good, and being disobedient and disrespectful is bad.

One could say that morality reflects the natural laws of nature, and therefore does not require additional grounds. But this is not so! We could say that the child should eat, but by stating this, we understand the absurdity of such a requirement. The law of nature does not need such statements. The apple does not need to be explained that it should fall, the child does not need to be explained that it should eat. But you can change everything, as we do, and begin to convince the child that he should eat on schedule.

That makes all the difference. Moral laws always lack a natural foundation, which is why we constantly have to demand of ourselves to fulfill them. Morality is never natural, so a club is always attached to it - for persuasiveness.

Social morality is a universal self-sustaining self-deception. Parents believe in moral values ​​and teach the child that doing wrong is wrong. The child tests this hypothesis in practice and receives confirmation - they really stop loving him as soon as he starts doing something bad. And after several repetitions, the reflex is consolidated, and now in the mind of the child the moral law is on a par with the law of universal gravitation.

Do not drop heavy objects because they hurt your fingers. You can’t do bad deeds, because they hurt your conscience. Is it logical?

But we do understand that the requirements of morality are nothing more than a subject of agreement. And conscience is nothing more than a cancerous tumor that arose under the influence of radioactive parental "love". In nature, there is no morality or conscience - there are only laws of nature and basic survival instincts that do not need justification.

By and large, the trouble is that parents do not have the courage to admit what they are really guided by when they demand obedience and obedience from the child. It is only because of this weakness that rational social agreements take on the sinister form of a moral law, the violation of which is a sin. If parents were honest with themselves, their children would grow up to be exemplary citizens, and would be such by reasonable good will, and not under the threat of ostracism.

Now, pay attention to one more thing. If we take two children, place them in more or less the same conditions and teach them to the same moral values, then we will notice an interesting thing - over time, the ideas of good and evil in these children will be very different! And why?

Make a long list of commandments, show it to different people, and you will see that everyone will choose something of their own from this list. With some commandments, a person will enthusiastically agree, some will reluctantly confirm, some will be ignored, and the rest will be rejected. Why does this happen? Why do we easily agree to obey some laws and do our best to defend our freedom from the observance of others? What is the criterion by which we distinguish some laws from others?

Moreover, our personal moral values ​​are highly variable over time. Be honest with yourself, and you will find a lot of evidence of this. Yesterday's good today may seem to us to be evil in disguise, while yesterday's evil is an underestimated good. And at what point do we have these leaps in values?

When they beat us, aggression and cruelty are bad. When we hit, ruthlessness towards the enemy is good. When we are wronged, being an insensitive person is bad. When we offend, selfishness is the best of our qualities.

Morality has always been and will be a bargaining chip in our hands. When we lack the intelligence to justify our position logically, all of its computing power is used to justify it morally. There is no better lawyer in the world than the one that sits in our heads and juggles the letter of the universal law, subordinating it to the spirit of personal selfishness. And even when we give ourselves a guilty verdict, another part of us admires and takes pride in this ability to condemn ourselves. Confess your sin to prove your righteousness ...

Selfishness

So, when we pretend that we are guided by a sober reason, it often turns out that reason, under the guise of a logical choice, slips in convenient disinformation. When we are guided by moral values, it turns out that our values ​​are very unstable and somehow they also end up on our side all the time.

It turns out that both of our ways of separating right from wrong are discredited. The intellect is too clever at wielding information and is able to prove the validity of any of the alternatives. Morality is easy to interpret and allows enough qualifications to justify any sinner and to condemn any saint.

But if both instruments are not in themselves impartial, then whose will they execute, manipulating facts and bending morality in the direction we need? After all, in the end, we are constantly choosing something "reasonably"! Who is behind the stage of this theater and what is it guided by when making a real choice for us?

All rationalizations aside, why do we do what we do? Why do we go to the left and not to the right at the next crossroads of life? Why do we choose a pear over an apple in the store? Why do we choose to be lazy and not to plow around the clock? Why do we choose one person and reject the other? If we do not know how to live "correctly", then how does it turn out that day after day we are busy with one single thing - we live?

The answer is simple: the only guiding principle in our life is the principle of pleasure. Ovation to Freud. Everything we do in life is a constant striving to reduce inner stress in the simplest and most effective way.

This is exactly the same thing that happens to the physical body and the desire to get rid of physical discomfort, only in the case of the mental apparatus we are talking about mental discomfort - be it pain, desire, fear or any other emotional stress.

Simply put, the only real desire we have is for us to feel good, the comfort of the mind and body. And this is where the collision that we are talking about takes place. We are one hundred percent egoists, but since our internal tensions are, among other things, connected with the fact that we need approval, we have to either put our egoism in a stall, or find such an excuse for our egoism so as not to be responsible for it.

This is where all the power and ingenuity of our intellect and the virtuoso flexibility of our conscience come in. Imagine what a great job it is - for every purely selfish urge to find such an explanation so that you can say that I am doing it because it is so right, and not because it is my whim.

If, without any logical or moral justification, I admitted that I was just fulfilling my desires, heaven would not have collapsed, but it seems to me that as a result I will be rejected by other people - who cares about such an egoist. And here I do a feint - I still fulfill my desire (!), But I turn things around so that I have clear and clear reasons why I did this and why bribes are smooth from me.

It is this maneuver that parents do with their children. Based solely on their personal comfort, they explain to children why they need to be obedient and comfortable - because it is "right," because obedience is "good," because disobedience is "evil." And in the end, the set of moral values ​​that a child acquires is nothing more than a set of parental whims, clothed in the form of moral laws or pseudo rational explanations.

Children's ideas about good and evil are entirely a reflection of parental irresponsible selfishness. Only what is good and convenient for the parents is good and right. Bad and wrong is what is bad and not convenient for parents. That's the whole moral. No parent will teach a child any morality other than that which justifies his personal selfishness.

And then we grow up and adopt the same technique. We cannot stop being selfish - this is an invariable given, but we are now smart enough and cunning to begin to bend morality and logic to our own needs and desires.

Once again for clarity. The result of this mechanism is such that all our ideas about good and evil, about right and wrong are at the service of our egoism. We consider good what allows and helps us to maintain our comfort and convenience. We call evil what hinders our comfort and convenience. It's the same with logic.

Our strongest instinct, the tyrant in us, obeys not only our mind, but also our conscience.

Thus, we live in a state of constant and continuous self-deception - wholly and completely remaining selfish, we nevertheless maintain faith in our correctness, righteousness and kindness. And if you pay attention to your internal dialogue that accompanies you through life, you will notice that he is not busy with anything else, except for constant self-justification. This is the very self-hypnosis that allows us to believe in our own lies.

Selfishness squared

But this is not the whole picture. Selfishness itself is not a problem. Isn't it natural to strive for relaxation of inner tension and mental comfort? And if this mechanism were not put a spoke in the wheels, it would automatically lead a person to natural harmony in relations with himself and the outside world.

If it seems to you that a person without morality will turn into a beast, that only triumphant evil will remain without warlike good in the world, then this is a great delusion, characteristic primarily of people who have devoted their whole lives to war with themselves and attempts to cope with their selfish nature. The stronger this inner conflict, the stronger this person's belief in the need for morality to curb inner evil.

But there is no evil inside. And the same pleasure principle will confront a person with the need to maintain polite, tactful, and honest relationships with others. When a person is not obliged to be kind under pain of punishment, he does not become angry because of this, he becomes tough, and it is this inner firmness that causes the greatest envy and respect of ordinary "good" people.

Natural selfishness leads to honesty, responsibility and harmony with the world. The only problem is that it also leads to a conflict with the world of habitual self-deception. And if one person takes the liberty of admitting and accepting his selfish nature, then this automatically leads to the severing of ties with all those people who, being the same selfish people, do not want to admit it in any way. An honest egoist will be thrown out of society in no time, precisely because he interferes with maintaining the stability of the general illusion.

That is, our psyche is reasonably arranged and, if nothing interfered with it, then universal happiness would come inevitably, but on the way of the natural flow of psychic energy there is a monumental dam called “Personality”. And here natural egoism turns into "square".

As soon as the survival instinct of the organism is replaced by the survival instinct of the individual, the whole world is immediately turned upside down. We shape our personality with our own hands in order to present it to the world around us and get the approval we so need. And this game engages us so much that very quickly we forget about how we sculpted a mask with our own hands, how we put it on for the first time, how we honed our acting skills. And after a while we forget the most important thing - how to remove this mask.

From this moment we become one with our mask-personality, and natural egoism is now replaced by personal egoism. If earlier all efforts were aimed at relieving general mental discomfort, now they are concentrated on the comfort of the individual. Where natural egoism demanded of me to act and live in harmony with myself, there false personal egoism forces me to live in harmony with my mask - with my fairy tale about myself, in which I so want to believe.

And now the concept of good and evil is undergoing the last and most disgusting transformation. They were conditional before, we used to twirl them as we wanted, but now everything is getting a hundred times worse. As soon as we have become “personalities” with an inexhaustible need to strengthen and maintain a sense of our own importance, so immediately we begin to transform our value system so that it also protects our importance.

We now call good what helps our self-assertion, and evil what hinders this strategic goal. Parents begin to demand obedience from children - because it supports their idea of ​​self-importance. Children talk about how their parents should love them (or leave them alone) because it supports their idea of ​​self-importance. Friends expect loyalty from each other - because this is a mutual recognition of importance. We expect and demand justice from the world - because we consider ourselves very important and significant.

All the time we are only busy with demanding respect from everyone around, and all our ideas about good and evil, right and wrong are now completely and completely subordinated to this goal.

It’s good for my wife to be faithful to me - because otherwise it will hit my importance. It's bad to cheat on my wife - because I chose to pose as a good man, because this image commands respect, and if I change, the image will collapse. It's good for people to keep their promises - because if they don't, then they don't respect. It is bad to cheat - because honest people are respected more than liars. Etc.

Each of us has our own set of these theses that correspond to our unique and precious personality. At the same time, we always pretend that it is OUR ideas about good and evil that are universal, and therefore we demand from others the recognition of our rightness - which will just give us the opportunity to confirm our own importance. After all, the sharpest and sweetest feeling of our own importance we get precisely when we manage to put another person on their knees in front of us - that is, to prove someone else's unimportance!

Any human conflicts, any disagreements between friends, any family quarrels are a clash of importance. Resentment or anger occurs when the other person has treated me “badly”. But if you look at this "bad" more attentively, then there is no other basis under it, except that I demand respect for myself and the fulfillment of my whims. I want to be respected, but since in reality I am no more important than my opponent, I have to substantiate my claims - and the easiest way to achieve this is by turning the barometer of good and evil in the direction I need and convincing the person that I am good, and he is - bad.

This desire to assert one's own importance at the expense of other people, supported and justified by moral values ​​bent in the right direction - this is the most real and irrelevant evil.

And when in books, films or in our lives there is an eternal and endless struggle between good and evil, it is always and without exception a struggle for our own importance, disguised by a sincere but false belief in the righteousness of some and the sinfulness of others. This is the very good that is the cause of all evil.

p. s.

Judging by the first wave of comments, not everything in the article turned out to be clear and understandable, although I already tried my best to chew on the main points. Therefore, a request and a recommendation: if this text touches you in one way or another, do not rush to agree and do not rush to argue - read it once, let your thoughts settle, and in a day or two come back and re-read carefully again. And only then, if you have something to say, leave comments.

Do not fall for an easy presentation. This topic is one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, discussed on the site.

Did you like the publication?

• Share the link with your friends. This is not a trifle at all!
• Leave a few words in the comments

Share your find!

You might also be interested in:

Let's talk about it!

Login with: