the main essential goal of socialism is to ensure the emancipation of the man of labor, the satisfaction of his needs and interests. So life itself “inverted” the essential connections between the goal and the means, changed their places, gave means in the minds of people a halo of purpose, gave them a central place. While the Leninist guard was still alive, they tried to explain the essence of the matter. So, the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars A. Rykov said in 1929: "Questions concerning things and technical issues quite rightly occupy a huge place in our life, but we must not forget that all this exists for people - for workers and peasants." The real reversal of the balance of ends and means of necessity was long-term. Based on this objective-subjective premise, J. Stalin and his entourage made a second attempt to “build socialism at any cost”, embarking on the path of overshooting, began to profess and implement the formula “the end justifies the means”, which was an open justification of subjectivism and voluntarism, official agreement with the impatience of the masses, who, despite the conditions, wished real opportunities and the means to achieve the ultimate goal - socialism, to get the benefits associated with socialism, or rather, their propaganda image, because society did not yet have the means necessary for real socialism. So a monster society, or barracks pseudo-socialism, arose, swearing in its service to the working people, but which was in fact the realization of the social ideal of the party-state bureaucracy.

Experience shows Soviet Union and not only him, if an attempt is made to build socialism at any cost and at the same time inhumane means incompatible with the nature of socialism are used, the goal will not be achieved. The use of means incompatible with the chosen goal changes the direction and nature of the development itself, and leads to very unexpected results. This is the whole perniciousness of inadequate means of solving revolutionary problems, achieving a socialist goal, those means that Stalinism, Maoism, polpotism, etc., imposed on society. They break

PURPOSE AND MEANS

shawls are not what should have been destroyed and created something different from what they promised.

Purpose and means *. But what, then, is the actual relationship between ethics and politics? Is there really nothing in common between them, as it was sometimes said? Or, on the contrary, should it be considered correct that “the same” ethics is valid for political action as well as for any other? It has sometimes been assumed that these are two completely alternative statements: either one is correct or the other. But is there any truth in the fact that at least some kind of ethics in the world could have put forward substantively identical commandments in relation to erotic and business, family and work relationships, relationships to a wife, greengrocer, son, competitors, friend, defendants? Should the ethical requirements for politics really be so indifferent that it operates

* This article is an extract from great work Max Weber "Politics as a vocation and profession" (Weber M. Selected Works. M., 1990, pp. 644-706). With the help of a very specific means - the power behind which there is violence?<...>How, apart from the personality of despots and dilettantism, distinguishes the rule of workers 'and soldiers' Soviets from the rule of any ruler of the old regime? What is the difference between the polemics of the majority of representatives of the supposedly new ethics against the opponents they criticize from the polemics of some other demagogues? Noble intentions! - the answer follows. Good. But we are talking here about the means, and the nobility of the ultimate intentions is claimed with complete subjective honesty by the enemies hurt by the enmity.<...>

If the conclusion of the acosmic ethics of love reads: “Do not resist evil with violence,” then the exact opposite is valid for a politician: you must violently resist evil, otherwise you are responsible for the fact that evil prevails ...

We must understand to ourselves that any ethically oriented action can obey two fundamentally different, irreconcilably opposite maxims: it can be oriented

PURPOSE AND MEANS

either the "ethics of persuasion" or the "ethics of responsibility." But in the sense that the ethics of persuasion would be identical with irresponsibility, and the ethics of responsibility would be identical with unprincipledness. This, of course, is out of the question. But a deep opposition exists between whether convictions act according to the maxim of ethics - in the language of religions: “A Christian acts as he should, but in relation to the result he trusts in God” - or whether they act according to the maxim of responsibility: one has to pay for the (foreseeable) consequences of his actions ...<...>

The main means of politics is violence, and how important the tension between means and ends is from an ethical point of view, you can judge about this by the fact that this side (revolutionary socialists - AB) morally rejects the “despotic politicians” of the old regime because of their use of the same means, however justified the abandonment of their aims may be.

As far as the consecration of means by end is concerned, the ethics of persuasion in general seems to be falling apart. Of course, logically she only has the ability to reject any behavior that uses morally dangerous means. True, in real world we again and again come across examples when the ethicist of persuasion suddenly turns into a chiliastic prophet, as, for example, those who, while preaching “love against violence” in the next moment, call for violence - the last violence that would lead to the elimination of all violence, just as our military men told the soldiers at every offensive: this offensive is the last, it will lead to victory and, consequently, to peace. The practitioner of the ethic of persuasion cannot stand the ethical irrationality of the world. He is a cosmic-ethical “rationalist”. Of course, each of you who knows Dostoevsky remembers the scene with the Grand Inquisitor, where this problem is presented correctly. It is impossible to put one cap on the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility, or ethically decree which end should sanctify which means, if any concessions are made to this principle at all.< ... >

PURPOSE AND MEANS

The ancient problem of theodicy is precisely the question: why was this force, portrayed at the same time as omnipotent and good, was able to create such an irrational world of undeserved suffering, unpunished injustice and incorrigible stupidity? Either she is not one, or she is not another; or life is ruled by completely different principles of compensation and reward, such that we can interpret metaphysically, or those that will forever be inaccessible to our interpretation. The problem of the experience of the irrationality of the world was the driving force behind every religious development... Indian doctrine of karma and Persian dualism, original sin, predestination and Deus absconditus all grew out of this experience. And the early Christians knew very well that the world was ruled by demons, that the one who associates with politics, that is, with power and violence as means, makes a pact with devilish forces, and that in relation to his action it is not true that good can follow only good, and out of evil only evil, but often the other way around. He who does not see this is, politically, a really child.<...>

Thus, the problem of political ethics is by no means raised by the modern disbelief born of the Renaissance cult of heroes. All religions have struggled with this problem with the most varied success, and because it was said, it could not be otherwise. Exactly specific remedy legitimate violence exclusively as such in the hands of human unions and determines the peculiarity of all ethical problems of politics.

Whoever, for whatever purposes, blocks himself with the indicated means - and every politician does this - is also subject to its specific consequences. The fighter for the faith, both religious and revolutionary, is particularly susceptible to them. Let's take an open-minded example of modernity. Anyone who wants to establish absolute justice on earth by force needs an entourage: a human “apparatus”. He must promise him the necessary / internal and external / reward - heavenly or earthly bribes - otherwise the "apparatus" does not work. So, in the context of the modern class struggle, internal

Political ethics is a special component of public morality, social ethics. It began to take shape at the turn of the New Age, when, as a result of the disintegration of a previously cohesive society and the emergence of functional subsystems, politics emerged in the form of multi-level specialized activity with its own goals, institutions, norms and values, certain connections and personnel.

Etymologically, the term "morality" comes from lat. mos - "disposition". Another meaning of this word is law, rule, prescription. In modern philosophical literature, morality is usually understood as morality, a peculiar form public conscience and the type of public relations; one of the main ways of correcting human actions in society with the help of norms.

Morality arose and develops on the basis of the need of human society to regulate the behavior of its members in various spheres of their lives. Morality is one of the most available ways people's awareness of complex processes of social life. The main problem morals consider the regulation of relationships and interests of society and the individual. The concept of morality includes: moral relations, moral consciousness, moral behavior.

It should be noted that in history philosophical thought the problem of the relationship between morality and politics was treated differently. It developed from a complete denial of any connections between them (N. di B. Machiavelli and T. Hobbes) to the recognition that morality and politics can be equated with each other (moralizing approach). The interaction of morality and politics is diverse and multifaceted.

The political struggle is inevitably accompanied by a clash of moral attitudes. Politics is characterized by certain tactics and strategies, as well as laws that cannot be violated with impunity, but at the same time, politics includes moral values ​​in its strategic goals, thus an internal moral orientation.

Politics in tactics, in the choice of means and goals, proceeds from their effectiveness and availability, but should not neglect their moral justification. Morality influences politics through moral assessments and directions. Politics also has an effect on morality, but as many facts from national history, towards her trampling.

All forms of social consciousness, reflecting a single social being and having internal specifics, interact with each other. The interdependence of these two phenomena is that Political Views determine the formation and implementation of moral norms, just like moral relations, these norms contribute to the formation of political consciousness.

Thus, the orientation of the individual to social needs, which is expressed in political consciousness, is reinforced by the concept of duty, honor, justice, conscience, happiness, etc., that is, it has a moral connotation. At the same time, moral convictions become more effective if they are comprehended by a person from the standpoint of politics.

The problem of the interaction of politics and morality can be solved in different aspects from different angles. For example, A. Obolonsky's concept explores the history of Russia within the framework of two fundamental traditions, two mutually exclusive points of view on the world, in which all the various forms of human civilization are displayed: system-centricism and personocentrism.

On the personocentric scale, the individual is considered the highest point, the yardstick of all things. All phenomena in social world viewed through the prism of the human personality. The system-centered scale is characterized either by the absence of an individual, or by considering him as something auxiliary. The individual is a means, but by no means an end. Russia, in particular, belongs to systemic centrism.

These two forms define two ethical genotypes. The main difference between them lies in the opposite of approaches to the solution of moral conflicts.

In the main branches of the Russian nationality, the dominance of the system-centered ethics throughout most of the centuries of its historical existence is unlimited. The opposition “society - personality” did not even arise, not for the reason that there was harmony, that there were no contradictions, but because all issues were resolved in favor of the whole.

The system all the time had an excellent instinct for self-preservation. In Russia, any opportunities that sought to lead the country out of despotism immediately came into conflict with the national traditions of political behavior and the oral foundations of social relations.

Only at the beginning of the 19th century. personocentrism began to represent a noticeable social value in Russia, and the entire 19th century. passed under the sign of development, improvement, strengthening of this breed, expansion of its social base.

Each civilization has its own moral problems, determined by specific historical conditions, but all of them, in one way or another, are different facets of the general moral problems of man. Politics, on the one hand, is a sphere of increased moral risk, where one can easily be seduced by power over people, the advantages of moral cynicism, hypocrisy, dirty politics, indiscriminate choice of means to achieve even very moral goals.

But on the other hand, this is an area where moralizing the beautiful also very easily shows its utter uselessness.

As soon as a politician wants to educate his erring subjects in the spirit of high moral principles, reward the virtuous and punish the vicious, she will perceive herself as the highest moral authority, and here sooner or later she will be threatened by failures, traps of utopianism or even the bait of totalitarianism.

2. Ethics of a political leader

With the development of political ethics, its sub-branches were gradually formed. This is, first of all, a system of norms and rules that regulate the implementation of human rights in political life, as well as parliamentary ethics of parliamentary behavior, political rivalry and cooperation; ethics of a political leader and voter, which regulates the behavior of the electorate, and he is not at all indifferent to whose hands the power falls, and which cannot be satisfied only by imitation of the electoral process.

Ethics of party activity, norms and rules of various professional ethics were also developed: legal, journalistic, scientific, expert advisory activities - to the extent that they are involved in political power.

The norms of ethics induce a political leader to be successful in business and life, but in such a way that, pursuing his own interests (popularity, career, fame, desire for power, playful motives, etc.), he could correlate such an orientation with his own responsibility for actions. He must make sure that they contribute to the public good and benefit others, rejecting the motives of political hedonism, as well as the desire to revel in power over people and situations, demonstrating their power potential. The ethics of a political leader, undoubtedly, aims him at comprehending his political activity, professional vocation, his perception of his work as loyal service to society (which must be distinguished from fanatical service to any idea).

The prescriptions and prohibitions of the ethics of a political leader include those that ensure the natural course of fair play in the political field. They imply the leader's ability to withstand both success and defeat in a struggle with dignity. And also a politician should be able to work in contact with other politicians, opponents or partners in political coalitions.

It is assumed that he has such moral qualities as truthfulness, fidelity to written and oral obligations, regardless of whether it is profitable or unprofitable to do it in each particular case, the absence of political cynicism in his statements and actions, persistent dislike for scandals, behind-the-scenes intrigues, demagoguery, business relationship as well as outright corruption.

At the same time, the ethics of a political leader is by no means ego-true. It does not prohibit intricate combinations and fraudulent actions in complex, intricate political games, and also does not condemn various kinds of political maneuvering, behavioral and verbal harshness, the desire of public politicians to show themselves in a favorable light.

Political ethics is based on the leader's ability to combine adherence to principles with the need to make forced compromises, on a realistic, by no means romantic understanding of the interests and objectives of politics, on the fullest possible understanding of the consequences of his decisions and actions.

As a result, it bears the signs of consequentialism. Moreover, in an “open society” a politician cannot ignore the requirements set by the canon without risking irreparable compromise, without condemning himself to political isolation, loss of respectability as a special kind of political capital, and refusal of confidence in the political line being pursued.

Regular deviation from the norms of ethics, from the rules of decency in the political arena can lead to the fact that society takes root dangerous myth about engaging in politics as a deliberately "dirty business".

This state of affairs can only deflect orderly people from getting involved in politics, from fulfilling their civic duty. Also dangerous is the myth about the likelihood of a radical moralization of politics, which shows it as a deliberately "clean business."

At present, all political institutions, formations, primarily state ones, are called upon at the right time to suppress the negative aspirations of certain figures, and in case of need - to replace them with other leaders whose actions meet the needs of society, as well as the requirements of laws and morality.

Negativism, accusations, and scourging of "enemies" are also dangerous for the political leader. Historical facts confirm the need to nominate political leaders of a new, democratic type who are capable of waging a genuine struggle for influence in the society of citizens, proving their ability to govern both in word and deed. The most common mistake of modern leaders is the substitution of a goal by means of achieving it. This has happened in history more than once, but this phenomenon is also encountered in modern conditions. Both at the macro and micro levels.

The conducted research has shown that not only to the qualities of a leader, but also to the means of agitation that he uses, the people have different reactions. Students, in particular, show the attitude of leaders towards competitors.

In this case, it should be borne in mind that politics is not only the relationship between classes, national and social groups about power, but also the relationship on the effective use of all forms and types of power, about the expedient management of primary social processes.

It is possible that many problems would not have been tied up between leaders of different ranks if both sides did not suspect each other of their tendency to usurp power. For this reason, here it is necessary to be guided not by the question: "Are you not claiming power?", But by the question: "What are your abilities, awareness in social and political affairs?" More often than not, a leader who opposes his competitor by unauthorized methods and means breaks down. George W. Bush clearly noted this in his autobiography, highlighting four basic rules of leadership.

1. No matter how fierce the struggle over any problem may be, never resort to personal attacks.

2. Do “ homework". You will not be able to lead if you do not know in advance what you will be talking about.

3. Use your power as a leader primarily for persuasion, not intimidation.

4. Be especially attentive to the needs of your colleagues, even if they are at the very bottom of the totem pole.

Leadership and leaders are a delicate and delicate area. It is very easy to violate the border, fall into the area of ​​bad luck, and also go to extremes: either over-exaggerate the role of a leader, or seriously underestimate his actions, his capabilities, abilities, and not use them himself. In this case, a lot also depends on the immediate environment, the so-called “team”, or the circle of assistants, advisers, consultants, experts, etc. authorities.

In our time, the transition to the democratization of political life does not at all insure the leader against the same possibility of slipping into the cult of the individual. We know that Stalin's personality cult taught the Russians a lot. But one cannot say with complete certainty that all the conclusions have already been drawn and that all the lessons have been learned by us.

Leadership problems have become aggravated today in connection with the general politicization of life, increased political rivalry, as well as political struggle. Unstoppable political ambitions, claims, populism can cause significant damage. The issues of forming a leader's "team" and involving young leaders in active political activities are becoming increasingly important in our time. The goal of a political leader today is the well-being and free development of the people, and the acceptable means are de-mocratization and the market. Without a doubt, it is clear that the deep development of mechanisms to achieve the set goals is essential element all activities of a political leader. Moreover, it is completely unacceptable for them to mix goals and means.

In Russia, in the first years of perestroika, the sympathy of society was often attracted by people of the word, who thought figuratively and mastered the art of oratory. At present, the views of the society have turned to people of action, practical deeds - the true spokesmen for the political interests of the people.

3. Democratic system and the problem of the formation of a new ethics

At a time when the institutions of civil society, representative democracy, the rule of law began to form, when profound changes took place in the political culture of society, the government began to lose the aura of sacrality and paternalism, new methods of its legitimization, unknown in the past forms, appeared. mobilizing the masses, a need arose for the professionalism of politicians in the exercise of their powers of power. This ultimately caused a new relationship between the masses and the political elite, as well as within this elite itself. Such circumstances in their historical development and served as a general prerequisite for the emergence of a new ethics.

The rudiments of such ethics can be considered the rules, establishment, sayings of public competition in the exercise of the right to state power, to defend their interests and views, which were developed in the ancient polish system and to some extent in a number of urban communes of the Middle Ages.

The content of political ethics is expressed by the moral demands of citizens to the professional political leaders vested with power, to those involved in politics, social management officials, as well as everyone who, of their own free will or against it, was involved in the whirlpools of political life, had to do with its façade and backstage sides.

Democratic principles presuppose to attract to power politicians who are rationally thinking, moderately inclined, capable of well-thought-out decisions. The political ethics of a democratic society calls for the implementation of the principle of division of power and the responsibility of politicians for it. And it also presupposes self-restraint of power, tolerance in relation to other-mindedness, sensitivity to the interests of allies, different minorities, loyalty to obligations, honesty, and partner reliability.

Political ethics in a democratic society requires the rejection of the confrontational political behavior wherever possible, from the rules of political radicalism. Political leaders are obliged to give preference to compromises, dialogue, negotiations, cooperation, the achievement of a balance of interests of rivals. Ethics reinforces the norms of the activity of various institutions of power by moral means.

Political ethics considers the issue of the acceptability of the combination of morality and politics for society, about which policy has the quality of morality.

Political ethics is a teaching about the penultimate goals and values ​​of politics, as well as about political virtues.

The goals of politics are peace, freedom, justice. This means that the policy of parties, associations and states should be aimed at achieving these goals. The implementation of these goals occurs through the creation of an appropriate institutional order and the implementation of actions that comply with this order. Even in a well-organized democratic, legal welfare state there is no way to directly enforce peace, freedom and justice, but it can have institutions for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Everything politically characters are obliged, and within certain limits are even forced to respect the activities of these institutions.

Political ethics in the West has long history... The father of ethics, as you know, was Aristotle. Ethics of Stagirite is the science of management. Ethics of Aristotle was part of politics as a predominantly practical activity.

Among the ancient Greeks, practice differs from theory and means the way of life of people as individual and social creatures, mainly the organization of existence in the house and in the polis. It is to this area that the moral virtues of Plato and Aristotle (justice, courage, wisdom, moderation) belong. - Ethics of Stagirite is a theory of moral virtues. It is only needed for practice. Philosophy is the doctrine of the first principles, ethics is the doctrine of the last goals of being. Ethical virtues are tools for achieving basic goals (values). The ethical question - what should I do as a moral being - arises under the assumption of my ability to freedom and responsibility. Therefore, ethics is part of practical philosophy, and political ethics is part of social ethics.

Practice cannot be guided only by theoretical knowledge based on contemplation. It has its own form of truth. Practical truth is that which is proportionate and useful to people in the organization of their lives. It has a communicative structure, meaning that it is to be found in the intelligent coexistence of people. Achieving mutual understanding in matters of political practice has its own difficulties associated with the need to overcome the competitive and conflicting dimensions of human existence.

Politics has essential in a system such as society as a whole, its goal is to ensure the coexistence of many groups, interests and beliefs.

In the literature on political ethics, it is customary to distinguish between the following concepts: politics in the broad sense of the word, which constitutes the meaning of the word politics - political action, a political process defined by interests and conflicts, power and efforts aimed at achieving compromise and implementation; politics in the narrow sense - polity and policy.

Polity: political order, constitution, basic rules, institutions and settlement procedures.

Policy: political goals, scope of tasks and programs, representation of the organization about its mission.

Policy as action has its source in polity and policy. Political order, rules and institutions are historically based on political action, but they become long-lasting and durable, and also passed on from generation to generation. All three dimensions of policy are subject to the question of what needs to be done and for what is responsible. Political ethics is the ethics of political goals (policy), political orders and institutions (polity) and political action (politics).

Political order is the ultimate goal (the highest common good) of politics. It's about ensuring external order life together people, about law and peace as conditions for a decent human life... For the sake of these goals, you have to put up with a lot.

Politics for the most part is the orderly resolution of conflicts. It is impossible to avoid them - there is always a ground for conflicts in society. The challenge for politicians is to take precautions against the use of force to resolve conflicts and to develop rules for the peaceful treatment of people with each other in conflict situations.

The political order presupposes the ability to participate in resolving the conflict of all interested parties. The political order concerns primarily the problem of an even distribution of power in society. This is all the more difficult problem in relations between states, since there is no superior authority for states to which they could obey.

The political order is a reflection of how politicians think about conflicts: should they be suppressed, freely resolved, or completely excluded, and what should be expected or demanded of people in doing so.

Since conflicts are inevitable, the task of politics is to find an ethical compromise, that is, one that would not cause moral objections.

In Roman law, this word denoted a mutually binding promise of two parties to obey one jointly chosen judge. Georg Simmel called compromise the greatest invention of humanity.

Today, a compromise is understood as an agreement between competing individuals or groups, which is achieved by mutual partial concessions.

In politics, compromises are inevitable.

The determinant of the compromise is the third party acting as the intermediary. It could be social institution, organization, party, committee, court, etc.

Conflicts give rise to compromises, which, in turn, contribute to the improvement of the normative framework of culture.

Compromise is not a cheap equalization between the material interests of the parties in a convenient middle, but free mediation between groups of people, which connects their differences and competition with the necessary minimum community. Therefore, compromise is the highest ethical achievement and the expression of political art.

In politics, peace is more important than truth. The ethical boundary of a political compromise lies where such beliefs and actions are included that under no circumstances can be justified, for example, torture, murder of innocent people, propaganda of misanthropy, class hatred.

Politics is an activity in conflict situations aimed at compromise.

A reasonable rule is to avoid conflicts as much as possible, look not for dispute, but for cooperation. In politics, this rule may be wrong. It is important here that conflicting interests are exposed and ordered.

Peace and stability are threatened by the one who refuses to express his opinion, does not enter into an argument, because he believes that he alone possesses the truth.

Max Weber defined power as the ability to exercise one's will within the framework of social relations, even in spite of resistance.

Hannah Arendt distinguishes between power and strength: “Power is that which each person naturally possesses to a certain extent and which he can call his own. Power, in essence, no one possesses, it arises between people when they act together, and disappears as soon as they dissipate again. " Power is a phenomenon of human communication, it is formed from joint thoughts and desires and disappears when the community is lost. However, in social life, it acquires structure and is concentrated in social institutions.

In any power there is a communicative moment that does not arise from power. Therefore, all rulers strive to legitimize power. Public opinion is the foundation of democratic government. If the confidence of the population is lost, the entire political order is destroyed.

The ethics of power justifies the institutions of power control in order to avoid abuse. This control should be exercised not out of the motives of friendship or the favor of politicians, but only according to the rules of justice. The ethics of power substantiates the institutions of power control, such as freedom of public opinion, suffrage, separation of powers, majority decision, and the right to sue in independent judiciary. The main principles of the ethics of power are the principle of reciprocity (for long-term human communication is impossible without reciprocity) and moderation in the use of power, because its opposite destroys the minimum of trust.

Anyone who constantly and fundamentally destroys the minimum of reciprocity and solidarity among people, using power, soon loses the credit of trust, and therefore power. Then he has only the path of violence.

Thus, reasonable, controlled by rules Reciprocity activities of power are necessary in order to prevent violence.

Political power is based on recognizing others as neighbors and recognizing their interests as legitimate.

Therefore, ethics, in addition to correctly understood self-interest, introduces into the field of vision the fundamental solidarity between people as the strongest justification for rationality and justice.

"Discursive Ethics" (1992) by Jurgen Habermas is one of the variants of social ethics, the object of which is the ethics of controversy, which has common values ​​and goals for all participants, but does not have a metaphysical foundation.

Discursive ethics proceeds from the statement of the phenomenon of human interaction and establishes the rules of discourse between people and between institutions that are necessary condition successful interaction... Habermas explores the prerequisites on which interaction must be built so that it does not end in conflict or damage. He sees these premises in the rules of discourse, when the participants meet as free and equal. Actions that follow these rules, he calls communicative, in contrast to actions that are strategic, rational, calculated for success.

The main rule of discourse can be designated by a communicative-theoretical version of the categorical imperative: “Each current norm must satisfy the condition that the consequences and side effects that

Civil society is an area of ​​cooperation and a clash of many private interests. The question arises of how to achieve compatibility of heterogeneous and conflicting interests of all members of society, their common will and moral and ethical principles. The ability to ensure this interoperability is what makes politics the “art of the possible”. In life, especially in political life, there are often cases when a literal, uncompromising adherence to a principle that dictates to always and everywhere adhere to it without taking into account possible consequences, can lead to unpredictable and irreparable consequences.

For an experienced politician, there may be exceptions to any rule or principle. For example, at all times the rulers and political thinkers have defended the permissibility of a lie in the name of strengthening the existing system, considering a lie for the good of a perfectly acceptable means of politics. German Chancellor O. Bismarck once remarked: "A politician can lie with a clear conscience on three occasions - before elections, during a war and after a hunt." Would the purest water slyly the assertion that such and such a completely respectable large politician or statesman(for example, W. Churchill, F. Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle) never resorted to deception, distortion or distortion of facts when it was dictated (or so believed) by the supreme interests of the nation and the state.

Any capable political programs must adapt to changing realities, something must be abandoned, something must be borrowed from the programs of others political forces etc. In other words, “the art of the possible” requires all parties involved in politics to be capable and willing to compromise. Therefore, politics can also be characterized as "the art of compromise." Achieving a compromise acceptable to all parties requires intuition, imagination, discipline, experience, and skill.

However, in a moral and ethical context, compromise can often be seen as a sign of a departure from principles. As historical experience shows, people, as a rule, are impressed by the wrong government and politicians, who were famous for their ability to reach compromises, and those who firmly and uncompromisingly implemented their ideas and designs.

“The art of the possible” does not mean rejection of the moral, ethical, value principle, but the fact that political ethics itself should be realistic in the sense of taking into account the real social and structural prerequisites of political activity and the possibilities of implementing a particular political course. Taking these premises into account assumes that K.G. Ballestrom calls "moral compromise." Such a compromise by no means “does not mean abandoning one's own beliefs or discrediting them, it means recognizing the priorities of what is most acceptable to the majority in a particular situation; he reserves the right to use his own convictions to conquer this society. " Everything that is consistent with this concept of justice and willingness to compromise is a denial of the possibility of determining the truth of moral beliefs, the imposition of one's own moral beliefs, the desire to eliminate, in the words of K.G. Ballestrem, "scandalous pluralism through the dictates of virtue and upbringing."

Here morality as one of the essential manifestations of the human dimension is one thing, and abstract moralizing is another. It is often impossible to take the word of politicians who make their careers posing as bearers of the highest morality and ethics, expressing moralistic judgments and expressing indignation at the cause of the injustice of others. The morality they preach is false morality.

In the field of international political system strength plays a central role as it enables a country to defend and pursue its interests. Of course, here too, to an ever-increasing extent, non-military and non-violent means and methods are used in the settlement of interstate disputes. However, when they prove ineffective, the state shows a willingness to use force. There are times when the leadership of the state demonstrates a lack or lack of will to arm and prepare for a worthy rebuff to a potential enemy. This could stimulate him to cross the Rubicon and start a war.

It was precisely the lack of such will on the part of the governments of Great Britain and France in the second half of the 1930s, which relied on the policy of appeasing Hitler in the context of a large-scale arms build-up by Germany, Italy and Japan (with the policy of isolationism of the US leadership) that largely served as an incentive for the aggressors to unleash the Second world war. In this particular case, the positions of those who in the name of morality and ethics called for disarmament and peace can be considered immoral, and not those who, in the face of the inexorably impending war, demanded to build up weapons in order to stop Hitler and his henchmen.

In general, the contradiction between the transitory and the eternal, ideal foundations and earthly imperfection, ideal and real, constitutes the ineradicable law of human existence. But the essence of the issue in the considered plan is that it is impossible to allow a metaphysical opposition of the world of existence and the world of the proper, to draw sharply defined boundaries between them, between the sphere of morality and the sphere of politics. One cannot but agree with those authors who, not without reason, argue that the principles of justice are inherently inherent in any legal system.

As the topic unfolds, it is worth asking the question "Why politics exactly as the art of the possible?" The essence of every political task lies in its originality and uniqueness. Whether it is a task of an internal or foreign policy nature, the features of its solution should be no less unique than the task itself. This means that when developing political decisions, it is not enough just to analyze the information received and compile a new solution, but it is also necessary to show creative initiative, to create new political decisions that go beyond the limits of modern knowledge. It should be noted that not all people involved in political activities, but only politicians by vocation, with a professional or ideological interest in this kind creativity. It is worth noting that a very small part of such people are capable of creative development and implementation even in authoritarian and totalitarian societies, narrowing the creative initiative of subordinates, but revealing a relatively wide scope for creativity to the sole ruler. “It is fundamentally important creativity to develop a solution. Without it, the problems arising in society will not only be resolved, but will not even be identified. With regard to this narrow problem, creativity can be viewed not only as the ability to combine existing knowledge and experience in a new way, but also as the ability to overcome familiar, and therefore outdated, approaches and create qualitatively new ideas necessary to solve emerging problems. This is also important because, in essence, political problems are essentially always unique. This makes it fruitless to try to find solutions to new problems in the past. The ratio of a scientific, objective attitude, on the one hand, and on the other hand, a creative, subjective approach, including an intuitive one, in a political decision is changeable. Although quantitative parameters are hardly applicable in this matter, some researchers believe that this ratio can reach 1: 9 or, conversely, 9: 1. "

The perpetrators must be punished. François de La Rochefoucauld emphasizes that we can do good to our neighbors only when they believe that they cannot harm us with impunity. We cannot leave unpunished the evil that has been committed in relation to us, but also the evil that has been committed in relation to other people. Whether it is peacetime crimes or war crimes, it is our responsibility to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice. The main reason why we should do this, in my opinion, is the right of the victim to universal recognition of the injustice that took place in relation to her, and, if possible, justice should be restored. In addition, the offender himself has the right to be included in a community where moral laws are in effect, and this implies the need to answer for the crime committed. I believe that this is more important than the possible preventive component of punishment, which, perhaps, is implemented for an individual and society as a whole. In other words, for me justice is more valuable than practical benefits.

The purpose of international military tribunals is to hold accountable for crimes individual, and not demonize an entire people, show individual and not collective guilt. Demonization of an entire group reinforces the opposition between "we" and "they", and it is this opposition, as was emphasized above, that is one of the reasons for the persecution of innocent people. International military tribunals implement the fundamental principle of international law, the principle that takes us back to 1648, to the Peace of Westphalia, that international law should reflect the interests of sovereign states, each of which is "busy with its own business", if the other country does not violate their territorial value ... By bringing to justice the soldiers, officials and leaders of another state, we embody the idea of ​​sovereignty, because we treat these people as individuals who must appear before an international tribunal.

Ethics of Belief and Ethics of Responsibility

Nevertheless, it happens that the situation requires immediate action and the subsequent criminal prosecution of the offender is not enough. Sometimes, in order to stop the encroachment, it is necessary to use violence. Prophet Micah writes that people "beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into sickles", and the prophet Joel writes "beat your plowshares into swords and your sickles into spears." We are obliged to follow the covenant of the prophet Micah, but in a world where not everyone honors and fulfills him, at times we have to act in accordance with the covenant of the prophet Joel. Using Max Weber's concepts of the ethics of persuasion and the ethics of responsibility, we can say that, in general, the ethics of persuasion prescribes to act in accordance with the covenant of Micah, and the ethics of responsibility calls in individual cases to follow the covenant of Joel. Weber writes that, according to the ethics of conviction, one cannot oppose force to evil, but according to the ethics of responsibility: “you should violently resist evil, otherwise for the fact that evil will prevail, responsible you". Weber reveals this thought:

We must understand that any ethically oriented action can be subject to two fundamentally different, irreconcilably opposed maxims: it can be oriented either towards an "ethics of persuasion" or an "ethics of responsibility." Not in the sense that the ethics of persuasion would turn out to be identical with irresponsibility, but the ethics of responsibility would be identical with unprincipledness. This, of course, is out of the question. But the deepest opposition exists between whether convictions act according to the maxim of ethics - in the language of religion: "A Christian acts as he should, but in relation to the result he trusts in God", or whether they act according to the maxim of the ethics of responsibility: one must pay for the (foreseeable) consequences of his actions .

This ethic of persuasion is characteristic not only of the New, but also of the Old Testament. In short, its essence is to lead an impeccably righteous life, and leave the rest to the Lord. Kant is perhaps the most prominent representative of this view in the modern era. According to this doctrine, the principles of morality of each person are absolutely valid and, for example, even in the name of saving the life of another person, it is impermissible to sacrifice them and lie. The full acceptance of the ethics of persuasion seems to be the safest position - you can always refer to the fact that he adhered to morality, but himself became a victim of circumstances. The simplest way out can often be to follow the dictates of conscience, the norms that a person has set for himself. However, the simplest is not always the best. Is it always right, choosing between peace of mind, a clear conscience and the suffering of the other, to give preference to the former? I do not think. The ethics of persuasion and the ethics of responsibility are not absolute antagonists, but complement each other, and sometimes the ethics of persuasion should give way to the priority of responsibility. Then we are faced with a problem - we can make a mistake, commit evil, unjustly causing another suffering that cannot be justified. Weber continues:

No ethic in the world ignores the fact that the achievement of “good” goals in many cases is associated with the need to accept both the use of morally questionable or at least dangerous means, and with the possibility or even the likelihood of bad side effects; and no ethics in the world can say when and to what extent an ethically positive goal "sanctifies" ethically dangerous means and side effects .

There are no "algorithms of morality" that would accurately tell us when the ethics of persuasion should recede into the background and what means are permissible in the event that it retreated. There is no other instance here than the application of moral criteria. This moral approach sometimes deceives us - and then we ourselves become champions of evil, no matter how good our intentions were. Should be guided by the following general rule- relegation to the background of the ethics of persuasion is possible only if necessary to prevent other evil, and not in order to embody the ideals of good. This will protect from the commission of idealistic evil - as happened in the twentieth century in totalitarian states. In addition, this evil must be so blatant that it could justify the means used to curb it, and all other possible methods have already been tried.

Assessments, say, in the issue of the status of human rights, given from the standpoint of ethics, convictions and ethics of responsibility, may differ. Human rights are not something imposed on oppressed people against their will. Confrontation begins when the authorities refuse to respect these rights, while the people want to have them. Human rights emerged as a normative response to violence, harassment and oppression, based on experience. They exist not only for people, but also created people those. are a product of history and should not be considered immutable and immutable. Nevertheless, I believe that in normal practice they should be absolutely accepted, i.e. they must be observed, even if this complicates the achievement of a certain good or prevents the suppression of evil. It is possible not to accept their priority only if they are incompatible with any other rights that we, judging wisely, consider more weighty.