The moral responsibility of the individual is directly related to the specifics of the implementation of moral freedom. The right to possess freedom is given by the morally responsible behavior of a person in society.
Personality and moral responsibility
Moral responsibility expresses the ability of an individual to independently regulate his activities and be responsible for his actions and their consequences. This type of responsibility has had weight at all times, but in the context of the transformation of society and in crisis conditions, moral responsibility acquired special significance for each person and for society as a whole.
Moreover, moral responsibility is of great importance for all spheres of an individual's life - cultural, family, political, economic. First of all, any kind of responsibility entails an awareness of compliance with the moral standards of their actions and the consequences of their actions.
If we talk about a narrower understanding of moral responsibility, then it is defined as a responsibility independently accepted by a person, which acts as a duty and the fulfillment by a person of norms of behavior in society. Personal moral responsibility is directly proportional to the level of personal capabilities in the measure of freedom and moral choice.
It can be said that moral responsibility largely depends on the ability to understand a person, on her ability to act and on the correct interpretation of requirements. Thus, a person's moral responsibility includes correctly understanding other people, helping them and respecting them, as well as helping oneself and the ability to understand one's needs. This is the guidance of your own needs, desires and actions.
What is personality?
A person can be called a system of socially important qualities of each individual and the measure of his mastery of social values. The concept of personality is directly related to the concept of individuality, since personality includes individual abilities social interaction.
The personality characteristics are influenced by the level of development of a person's consciousness and the ratio of his consciousness with public consciousness... Many consider the level of personality as the ability to interact with society and show their qualities and abilities in it. Personality includes attitudes toward people and society, toward oneself and toward social responsibilities. But not only this is essential for the personality.
This is the ability to realize their relationships, which largely depends on the creative capabilities of a person and their level of development. It also depends on his skills and knowledge, on his intellectual and emotional-volitional qualities.
It is important to note that a person is not born with ready-made interests, with a certain character and personality. All this is formed during a person's life, under the influence of his natural basis and the conditions of his growing up and upbringing.
The biological nature of a person also affects the level of mental development of a person, but still the decisive factor is social heredity. The experience, which is fixed in the objects of spiritual and material culture, in the system of values and knowledge of society, in the system of social relations, has a tremendous impact on the development of the personality of each person.
1. The concept of responsibility
2. Conditions of moral responsibility
3. To whom is the person responsible?
Freedom is the engine of morality. Morality through freedom of choice becomes the source of the historical activity of man and society. Moral values become a stimulus for human activity and are implemented in his practical activities... Freedom implies the necessity of human responsibility for the result of his activities. Responsibility is the awareness of compliance (or non-compliance) with the moral norms of a person's actions, the results, the consequences of his actions. A person must foresee the consequences of his actions, try to prevent the negative results of an action.
Responsibility can be considered at the level of:
* personality: a person's fulfillment of the norms established by society;
* society: compliance with the requirements of morality of action social groups... The degree of responsibility of an individual (or group) needs to be considered in the light of opportunities and specific conditions.
A person's moral responsibility depends on:
* his legal capacity;
* ability to understand and correctly interpret the requirements;
* the influence of external circumstances on the result of actions.
A person's personal responsibility is directly proportional to the level of his capabilities in moral choice and measure of freedom.
The problem of personal responsibility is related to the problem of a person's guilt for Negative consequences his actions.
Moral responsibility also means responsible behavior towards other people: respect for the personality of another person, helping people, etc.
The sense of responsibility comes in two forms.
* positive - a sense of significance, influence on what is happening;
* negative - lack of confidence in the ability to achieve positive results.
Irresponsible behavior - actions performed without regard to their consequences. It is associated with inadequate self-esteem, indifference, etc.
The expression "be responsible" means voluntarily accepting responsibility.
2. Important conditions moral responsibility:
* freedom of the performed action (an act committed not of a person's own will does not imply responsibility for it);
* premeditated action (unintended action only mitigates responsibility, but does not remove it completely);
* sanity of a person, awareness of what is happening, the ability to stop an action that will have negative consequences at will. The mentally ill are recognized as insane. From a legal point of view, artificially induced insanity (alcoholic, narcotic) aggravates guilt.
During historical development of the human community, the level of personal freedom of a person, his moral responsibility for himself and his family is increasing.
The philosopher E. Fromm argued that many people are burdened by this responsibility and try to evade it (sometimes unconsciously). Fromm identified the mechanisms that allow a person to relinquish freedom and responsibility at the social level:
* a totalitarian regime headed by " strong personality", a leader who has assumed full responsibility for the life of society and its members;
* "Automating conformism" - uncritical acceptance of other people's opinions (mass media, etc.), transformation of public opinion into one's own.
3. There are different points of view on who the person is responsible to. A person is responsible to other people because he is dependent on them:
* human freedom in society is not absolute, it is limited by the freedom of other people;
* a person is naturally dependent on other people (communicative, sociocultural, psychological);
a person finds moral guidelines in society.
Religious point of view:
* God is the supreme judge, moral legislator;
* a person is responsible, first of all, before God and secondly - before people, society.
Individualistic concepts contain the assertion that a person is responsible primarily to himself. He is unique, alienated from other members of society, free from outside influence.
Teachings that combine the principles of individualism and orientation towards other people (E. Fromm and others):
* a person is not subject to dictate from the outside, is responsible to his conscience;
* a person's conscience is focused on the benefit of his own and other people;
protecting the interests of other people is a natural aspiration of a person, a manifestation of the highest principle in his soul. A person's thoughts and feelings determine his behavior. A person is responsible for the unity of the spiritual and behavioral sides of his personality.
Moral responsibility
Moral responsibility is a measure of moral freedom. It is customary to distinguish between moral responsibility, which objectively arises from the nature of the actions and deeds performed, and moral responsibility as the ability and ability of an individual, on the basis of a free choice, to accept any important decision, deliberately commit an act that meets social and moral requirements, contributing to the implementation of public goals and objectives. In the first case, responsibility manifests itself when a person endowed with moral consciousness, knowing the norms, principles of moral behavior, the laws of the society in which he lives, at the same time violates them. As a result, in his act, personal and public interests are opposed. In this case, society determines the punishment for violation of public duties, norms and rules of conduct. Basically, this form of responsibility extends to negative actions and deeds of a person, caused by the social need to be responsible for violation of laws, rules of conduct, for failure to fulfill a public task, entrusted to the case. V scientific theory this form of moral responsibility is called negative and is the subject of study not only of ethics, but also of law. Negative form of liability with legal specificity and sanctioned government agencies, laws, differs from negative moral responsibility.
Conclusion
Morality refers to extra-institutional forms of regulation, while law refers to institutional forms. There are no organizations or institutions that create morality.
Morality regulates human behavior in all spheres of reality: in work, in everyday life, in law enforcement, in science, in family, intragroup and other relationships.
It sanctions and supports certain social foundations, the way of life, or requires them to change. Morality regulates the behavior of both the individual and society.
Since the function of regulating behavior is carried out not only with the help of moral requirements, but also the norms of law, administrative regulations, technical, social and hygienic rules, etc., moral regulation should be distinguished from any other, and, above all, from legal.
The main ethical requirements governing the selection process itself are: steadfast ideological positions, from which he must consider all issues of combating crime; irreconcilability to any violations of the law; implementation of professional duty as a moral imperative (the highest moral requirement); avoidance of formalism, negligence, indifference and haste in decision-making, indifference to the fate of a person.
A conflict is an understanding, imagination or fear by at least one party that its interests are violated, infringed upon and ignored by the other party or parties. At the same time, the parties are ready to fight for the seizure, suppression or destruction of the interests of rivals for the sake of satisfying their own interests.
Moral responsibility is a measure of moral freedom. It is customary to distinguish between moral responsibility, which objectively arises from the nature of the actions and deeds performed, and moral responsibility as the ability and ability of an individual, on the basis of a free choice, to make any important decision, to consciously commit an act that meets social and moral requirements, contributing to the implementation of social goals and objectives. ... In the first case, responsibility manifests itself when a person endowed with moral consciousness, knowing the norms, principles of moral behavior, the laws of the society in which he lives, at the same time violates them. As a result, in his act, personal and public interests are opposed. In this case, society determines the punishment for violation of public duties, norms and rules of conduct. Basically, this form of responsibility extends to negative actions and deeds of a person, caused by the social need to be responsible for violation of laws, rules of conduct, for failure to fulfill a public task, entrusted to the case. In scientific theory, this form of moral responsibility is called negative and is the subject of study not only of ethics, but also of law.
moral law enforcement extra-institutional
2.4 Moral and ethical aspects of responsibility
Countless speeches and articles have been delivered and published on the subject of business and entrepreneurial ethics. However, most of these publications have nothing to do with business and almost nothing to do with morality and ethics.
Basic honesty remains one of the most important questions. We are constantly being told that businessmen should not lie, steal, cheat, give or take bribes. But the same can be said to any other person. It is impossible to violate the generally accepted rules of behavior in society only by virtue of the specifics of the work. The vice president, mayor or university rector never ceases to be ordinary people after receiving a high position. At the same time, there are always people who are ready to cheat, steal, lie, receive or give a bribe at any time. Thus, we are talking about the moral values and upbringing of an individual, about the models of behavior that are laid down in the family and school. Therefore, there is no need to establish any special business ethics.
You just need to develop a system of harsh penalties for all officials (in commercial firms or other institutions) who succumb to the temptation to violate generally accepted ethical standards.
Another common topic of discussion about business ethics has essentially nothing to do with ethics at all. Of course, it would be just wonderful if all our leaders became crystal honest and decent people. Alas, the so-called "top of society" - kings and aristocracy, clergymen and military leaders, even "intellectuals", whose prominent representatives were famous artists and humanists of the Renaissance, were never distinguished by special righteousness. A decent person usually avoids actions that offend his sense of taste and infringe on his dignity.
Recently (especially in the United States of America), one more thing has been added to the good old "skates" of moralists - the question of the "moral responsibility" of managers for their performance of an active and constructive role in society. This role is to serve the cause of the community, to devote all of your time to work for the good of the community, and so on. etc.
It should be noted, however, that such a role cannot be imposed on managers by force, just as it is impossible in any special way to encourage their participation in activities for the benefit of society. Forcing managers to do this is an abuse of organizational power that is inherently illegal.
Indeed, the voluntary participation of managers in public benefit activities has nothing to do with ethics and almost nothing with responsibility. This is nothing more than the feasible contribution of a private person - a conscientious citizen and an exemplary member of society - to the development of his society. Moreover, it has nothing to do with his main work and his responsibility as the head of the institution.
A manager-specific moral-ethical problem arises from the fact that the heads of institutions become - collectively - the leading group of the community of organizations. But individually, the manager remains an ordinary worker - just like other workers.
Therefore, it is not entirely correct to speak of managers as leaders. They are just "members of the leading group." However, this group occupies a prominent, prominent place in our society. In addition, she has certain powers of authority. And therefore, she has a certain responsibility.
But what is this responsibility? What is the ethics of an individual manager as a representative of a leading group?
In essence, a person belonging to one or another leading group is traditionally designated by the word "professional". Belonging to such a group gives a person a certain status, position in society, fame and authority. However, this status imposes on a person and certain responsibilities. Relying on every manager to be an effective leader is, to say the least, frivolous. In any developed society, there are thousands, if not millions, of managers, while an "effective leader" is quite rare. But as a representative of the leading group, the manager must meet the requirements of professional ethics - the requirements of the ethics of high responsibility.
2.5 The problem of social responsibility in modern domestic organizations
In the early 2000s, after the release Russian economy out of the crisis, the issue of the social responsibility of Russian business came to the fore.
At this time, on the one hand, large Russian business initiated a number of social programs... With another, Russian government presented her bill to the business, demanding from him more active participation in the decision social problems.
At the regional level, the social responsibility of organizations takes on a slightly different meaning. The federal government has taken the path of distributing social benefits to various groups of the population that mitigate the burden of the acute transformational crisis. At the same time, the obligation to finance these benefits was dropped onto regional and local budgets. Solving the problem of balancing the state budget, the government moved more stable taxes to the center and reduced the share of regional and local budgets in the consolidated budget.
In the 1990s, the federal government gave city governors and mayors the freedom to set taxes. As a result, exotic targeted fees began to be introduced: for the maintenance of schools and hospitals, police and firefighters, the city football team, taxes on the construction of bridges and the arrangement of city parks.
Currently, the social responsibility of business is being revived in Russia in different forms, among which two main ones can be distinguished.
Formal social responsibility is based on the fact that the purpose of a business is to generate profit within the framework of current legislation. The obligations of business to society are to comply with the legislation (labor, environmental, fiscal, etc.) in the process of conducting entrepreneurial activity aimed at producing competitive goods and services. In this aspect, it is very important to try to switch Russian business to "white" schemes of doing business, to refuse to widely use even legal methods of reducing the tax paid to the state.
Informal social responsibility is based on the civic and ethical position of an entrepreneur and the voluntary diversion of business resources to social programs in the form of charity, patronage, sponsorship. In addition, voluntary-compulsory informal social responsibility is widely practiced, based on the diversion of business resources to infrastructure and social programs initiated by the authorities. Such costs are inherently investments of firms in stabilizing the external business environment: in improving infrastructure, relations with the local community and with the authorities.
Among entrepreneurs, a unified approach to the problem of social responsibility before society and the state has not yet been formed. Thus, the vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs I. Yurgens sees the social responsibility of Russian business in fulfilling formal obligations to consumers (in terms of the quality of goods and services, in fair pricing); before society - for the state of the environment and attitude to human rights (non-discrimination, forced labor, respect for human rights in the activities of the organization). Informal obligations of business - "business complicity in the socio-economic development of territories in areas affecting the main activities of companies or not related to the main activities (including charity, social and cultural development); in supporting public initiatives, civil society institutions. "3 However, the emphasis is placed on the implementation of programs for the socio-economic development of territories that affect the interests of business itself, on the development of civil society structures.
The President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation E.M. Primakov believes that the fulfillment of formal social obligations by business consists in solving the problems of labor relations, counterfeit and falsified products, taking responsibility for the overall environmental situation. Informal social commitments: participation in the fight against poverty and targeted support of the poor, including through the use of the mechanism of targeted social funds; active
Models of Effective Cooperation ", published in October 2003 on the website of the Association of Managers of Russia www.amr.ru). In this context, an example of one of the companies well known to the author of this message suggests itself, in which social responsibility is implemented not only at the level of each of the functional strategies but it is also an integral part of the general corporate development strategy. This is OJSC "SJSC" TONAR "(the abbreviation stands for" goods for the people "), in its practical activities aimed at the production of consumer goods and advanced technologies, at solving social problems of the Moscow region. In fact, all projects developed and implemented by the corporation are socially, including ecologically, oriented in nature (one of them is the creation of a complex for the processing and disposal of solid household and industrial waste in the village of Timokhovo).
Specific elements of the social responsibility strategy carried out by "GOODS" and the resulting (planned) effects from it deserve, I think, a special analysis and a special publication. However, it should be noted that the manifestations of social responsibility of the named corporation to its personnel - the provision of the latter with packages of social services and the creation of its own (corporate) pension system - have already led to a significant increase in labor productivity.
Deciding to take care of environment, the management of a large corporation ordered the closure of one of its factories. However, the local population was strongly opposed, since in such a situation many people were deprived of jobs. Social responsibility turned out to be a double-edged sword ...
Any company strives for maximum efficiency, which allows it to produce and sell quality products, pay dividends to shareholders, etc. However, the activities of commercial organizations also have a pronounced social component. The social responsibility of business in the economy is the proper quality of goods and services, high level production safety, normal conditions staff work, etc.
There is still no classical definition of business social responsibility in foreign management theory. The meaning of this concept is in many cases perceived very subjectively, but its main characteristics can be distinguished. Unlike legal responsibility, social responsibility does not imply strict norms. It is a voluntary duty of businessmen to pursue such a policy, make such decisions and follow such directions of activity, which are desirable from the point of view of the goals and values of society. In other words, it is a kind of social contract between entrepreneurs, the population and the state, the purpose of which is to contribute to the good of the whole society.
The administration of the Kemerovo region has concluded agreements on social and economic cooperation with all large organizations, in which their obligations to workers (to preserve and create jobs, wages, social guarantees, etc.), to the local community (to finance housing and communal services, social facilities), before the authorities (investment programs).
The agreement on social and economic partnership between the administration of the Kemerovo region and OJSC Coal Company Kuzbassrazrezugol is indicative. The company took over the maintenance of housing and communal services in the villages of Bachaty, Kedrovka, Krasny Brod. The agreement provides for investments in the development of the company and secures the participation of Kuzbassrazrezugol in social programs, including in the construction of housing, completion of the construction of a school in Krasniy Brod, provision of coal at discounted prices, health improvement of employees, organization of children's recreation, etc. objects social sphere in 2004 the company should allocate 105 million rubles. The average salary of employees should be 10 thousand rubles.
In addition, the regional administration periodically turns to large companies with requests for help in solving certain problems. Sudden additional spending may be associated with the elimination of the consequences of natural disasters, problems with the supply of housing and communal services with fuel, and so on.
Infusions from large businesses make the main contribution to solving the problems of additional financing of territories. For example, the 2004 agreement on cooperation and social partnership between the regional administration and SUEK not only establishes the company's obligations to finance social programs (in the amount of at least 30 million rubles), but also provides for the signing of an additional agreement on the city of Kiselevsk.
Agreements with the administration essentially fix the unilateral responsibility of large organizations.
In Tatarstan, there is an off-budget housing fund under President M. Sh. Shaimiev, where all legal entities must transfer at least 1% of the proceeds on a monthly basis. In Petrozavodsk, private carriers are obliged to transfer 150 rubles from each "minibus" monthly. for road repair and installation of road signs.
In general, the study shows that entrepreneurs have modern performance about the directions of social responsibility. The need for stable "rules of the game" is also emerging, which must be satisfied by the state. First of all, it should ensure a clear delineation of functions and responsibilities between government and business, between the levels of government - federal, regional and local. As long as there is a problem of insufficient financing of territories, voluntary and compulsory diversion of funds for these purposes by organizations will be reproduced, relegating more mature forms of social responsibility of Russian business to the background.
Conclusion
Summing up in my work, I want to draw several conclusions.
1. Social responsibility - the commitment of an organization to benefit society through the use of profits from private business.
2. In addition, the main economic problems, solved in the production of social aspects of these problems, depending on the motives and intentions of the person responsible for making decisions. For example, some managers argue that by maximizing profits and creating large quantity jobs, their firms participate in the process of social transformation, reducing the level of unemployment. Thus, these firms are involved in the sphere of social responsibility, since there are different, and sometimes mutually unacceptable, approaches to the essence of the concept of social responsibility.
3. Managers must be clear about which approach is acceptable to their firm. And when will it be determined main idea, which the firm will adhere to in its activities, then the manager will be able to calculate his own actions in accordance with this idea.
4. The problem of the development of social responsibility of business in Russia is especially urgent today. This is due to the fact that we have a very peculiar process of the initial accumulation of capital.
5. Privatization was carried out simultaneously with the formation of the state, when the laws of a market economy were not yet in force. All this was accompanied by the growth of corruption and the criminalization of society. The consequence of this was that domestic business acquired a negative image both in the West and in Russia. As a result, due to the extremely low valuation of intangible assets Russian companies turned out to be undercapitalized.
6. Unfortunately, there are very few studies in Russian on the topic of business social responsibility. The concept of it is still vague and requires serious clarification, and the history of the development of social responsibility of business in Russia has not been sufficiently studied. The accumulated Russian experience has not yet been generalized, which, although not advertised, is already in sufficient quantity for analysis.
7. Obviously, it would be very useful to study foreign experience in this area. However, in this case, it should be correlated with Russian realities... Western economic institutions need to fit into completely dissimilar historical and cultural environments. It can be assumed that the most complex implementation process can facilitate a comprehensive study of the social responsibility of business.
List of used literature
1. Fundamentals of Management: Textbook for Universities \ D.D. Vachugov, T.E. Berezkina, N.A. Kislyakov et al ..; Ed. D.D. Vachugova. -M .: Higher school, 2002.-364 p.
2. Cohen S. The art of negotiations for managers / Stephen Cohen - Trans. from English A. Uspensky, - M .: FAIR-PRESS, 2003.-288s.
3. Bolshakov A.S., Mikhailov V.I. Perfect management theory and practice - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000. - 416 p.
4. G.B. Polyak, I.A. Akodis, T.A. Kraeva et al., Financial management: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. G.B. Polyak. - M .: Finance, UNITI, 1997.-518 p.
5. Drucker, Peter, F. Encyclopedia of Management .: trans. from English. - M .: Publishing house "Williams", 2004. - 432 p.
6. introduction to the specialty "Management of the organization" Tutorial for universities / S.D. Reznik, I.A. Igoshin, V.S. Reznik Ed. EM. Korotkov and S.D. Reznik. "Logos", 2004.- 320s.
7. N.V. Kolchina, Enterprise Finance: Textbook for universities: -2nd. ed .; revised and enlarged. - M .: UNITY DIANA, 2001 .-- 448 p.
8. Enterprise finance: Textbook for universities / Ed. V. Kolchina. - M .: Finance UNITI, 2000.- 414 p.
9. Kreikina MN: Financial management / textbook. - M .: Publishing house "Business and Service", 1998. 304 p.
10. Utkin E.A .: Financial management. Textbook for universities.-M .: Publishing house "Zertsalo". 1998-272 p.
11. Balabanov I.T. Fundamentals of Financial Management .: Textbook - M .: Finance and Statistics, 1997. - 480 p.
12. Financial management: Textbook for students. wednesday prof. study. head / N.I. Benzon, V.I. Gorely, V.D. Gazman and others; Pld ed. N. and. Benzone. - M .: Publishing center "academy", 2003.-336s
13. Zaitseva O.A., Radugin A.A., Radugin K.A., Rogacheva N.I. Fundamentals of Management: Textbook for Universities \ Scientific editor A.A. Radugin. - M .: Center, 1998 .-- 432p.
14. L.M. Andronov. On the concept and strategies of corporate business responsibility. \\ Russian economic journal. - 2004, No. 11-12. - 119 p.
15. Yakovlev R. How to target policy wages to overcome poverty? // Russian economic journal. - 2001. - No. 8. - P. 50.
The fact that Procter & Gamble received legal advice regarding the possibilities of prosecution nevertheless demonstrates social responsibility. Ethics and Modern Governance At the heart of the problem of social responsibility are personal values, shared beliefs about right and wrong. People who believe that “organizations should maximize ...
Indicators. A key aspect of working on a social report is its assessment and verification by an independent auditor, as well as the use of the results obtained during the creation of the report in the further development of the organization's social responsibility. The implementation of this procedure gives the company a third party guarantee that the information published in the report is accurate and it is not an advertisement. ...
It’s like an internal code of laws that determines how you can behave, and how you can’t, what decisions can be made and which not, where is the border between good and evil. Management ethics is associated with internal values, and they, in turn, are part of the corporate culture and affect the decisions made, determine their social acceptability within the external environment. Ethics...
3.1. Moral and ethical responsibility from the point of view of religious ethics.
Religious ethical theories postulated "divine given" and immutability of moral norms. Initially, representatives of Western religious ethics referred the concept of "responsibility" to the religious experience of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, where it meant the ability of people to listen to or reject the word of God. In this interpretation, which is often mentioned in liturgical practice, the concept of "responsibility" "clearly did not play any noticeable role" 2 (142, 108).
Since the middle of the twentieth century, both Catholic and Protestant religious leaders have begun to pay more and more attention to the topic of responsibility. This is eloquently evidenced by the materials of the Second Vatican Council, where one of the cornerstones proclaimed the strengthening of the responsibility of individuals and human communities, caused by the growth of human power 3, and the first meeting of the World Council of Churches, where the traditional order of love to God and neighbor was replaced by an appeal Be responsible before God and their neighbors 4.
In the Catholic interpretation of responsibility, the subjects of public administration appear special subjects moral responsibility, for in a "responsible society" they are responsible for the fulfillment of their duties to God by people and for their well-being.
Expanding the scope of managerial practice, increasing power and increasing the scale of the consequences of managerial influences from the state necessarily led to the fact that religious philosophers and theological moralists were forced to turn to the theoretical foundations of the concept of "responsibility" in the new socio-historical conditions. The most significant here are the works of M. Buber 5, K. Barth 6, R. Niebuhr 7.
3.2. Moral and ethical responsibility from the point of view of philosophical ethics.
Let us now turn to the study of the moral and ethical responsibility of the subjects of management from the point of view of philosophical ethics. All "discussions on the theory of morality are determined by the delimitation of three points of view: the argumentation unfolds from Aristotelian, Kantian, or utilitarian positions. All other theories can be characterized as attempts to synthesize these three approaches ”1.
Differences in approaches to the introduction and substantiation of moral and ethical norms will be determined by the position from which - expediency, good or fairness - the assessment of actions and actions will take place. The article of the author 2 reveals the concept of a moral norm from the standpoint of expediency (utilitarian ethics), good (Aristotelian ethics) and justice (deontological ethics).
3.2.1. Moral and ethical responsibility from the point of view of utilitarian ethics.
Since the concept of benefit (good) in utilitarian ethics is associated only with the result, and moral norms have the nature of a relative obligation, then the subjects of management can bear moral and ethical responsibility only for the result certain actions, based, for example, on a specially developed for this analysis of "profit and cost". They do not bear any moral and ethical responsibility for preventing someone's damage or for promoting those, and not others, goods and services. They are only responsible for a rational choice of funds to achieve certain goals. The question of purpose here remains outside the bounds of ethical responsibility. Even for Max Weber, who put forward the idea of rational responsibility in Politics as a Vocation, responsibility ultimately remains hostage to irrational goals.
The first representatives of utilitarianism, who raised the problem of responsibility, should be recognized as J.S. Mill and A. Hamilton. Both the one and the other practically did not distinguish between the terms “responsibility” and “following the law” (accountability). The difference in their views on responsibility was as follows. Hamilton attached paramount importance to institutional factors in responsibility, considering in fact responsibility only within the framework of law and fixed rules. Mill, on the other hand, expands such a narrow understanding of responsibility as punishment on the part of subjects external to the individual, pointing out that external punishment is not yet responsibility. Responsibility for him is primarily an internal characteristic of the subject, a kind of internal punishment or self-punishment of the individual, which corresponds to his awareness of the legitimacy of external punishment.
Further development of the concept of responsibility within the framework of utilitarian ethics was undertaken by representatives of pragmatism. The American pragmatist philosopher William James in his book "Pragmatism" tries to expand the framework of defining responsibility through punishment, explaining the adherence to this position by the fact that people have not yet freed themselves from the old, legally and theologically generated, exclusive interest in crime, sin and punishment. James argues that the true grounds for recognizing free will and responsibility are in fact pragmatic and “have nothing to do with the pitiful right to punish those who played such a role in previous debates on this issue.” 1
From the point of view of philosophical pragmatism, the subjects of public administration act morally responsibly if they act prudently ... At the same time, pragmatism requires coordinating as many needs as possible, which means that when making a decision, a compromise should be built in such a way as to minimize the number of complaints.
James denies that the traditional way of looking at responsibility in terms of “imputation” and “following the law” is productive and calls for a pragmatic approach. He associates responsibility with violation of the norm... By itself, a violation of the norm cannot be considered “evil”. Moreover, improvement (goodness) is always associated with a violation of the norm. Therefore, it is the concept of responsibility, freed from the traditional fetters of "punishment" for the violation of the norm, that gives an individual the opportunity to live a higher ethical life. Each real ethical problem is a single one, for it there cannot be adequate rules in the past, within the framework of which it can be resolved, therefore, to resolve it, new norms must be created, which are always a violation of existing norms. It is responsibility that frees people from the paralyzing fear of "punishment" by providing them with a moral basis for the right to take risks in situations where the total amount of "good" can be increased by deviating from existing norms.
Thus, the notion of responsibility relieves James of the tension between "following the law" and "free will", which, like everything from the point of view of pragmatism, cannot be absolute. The relationship between them cannot be set a priori, it is always determined in accordance with each specific case, based on pragmatic grounds. The connection between "necessity" and "free will" is characterized by measure of responsibility subject of activity.
The existing legal systems and traditional ethical values in different countries draw the line between legal and moral assessment of certain actions in different ways. So, for example, the situation when certain government officials, thanks to confidential information of internal use about the upcoming increase in the price of shares, buy them in advance at a cheaper price, gets a different assessment in different countries. In the United States and Great Britain, such actions are punishable by law. In Switzerland, for example, these actions are subject only to moral condemnation. This suggests that the expansion and toughening of legislation in the field of violations of certain norms is by no means recognized by everyone as a kind of universal and constructive method of preventing violations of moral and ethical norms. Therefore, even on pragmatic grounds, moral responsibility cannot be replaced by legal responsibility.
In government, people operate within a complex organizational structure, and what seems morally unacceptable on a personal level may be acceptable on an impersonal level. The growth and complication of the social structure leads to the fact that it becomes outside of moral control. The gap is widening between the personal and even the group level, where the processes take place under the control of specific people, and the organizational level, where the collision occurs. different forces, many of which remain anonymous and not amenable to any kind of control.
Strong organized groups in society function at the expense of less organized groups. To achieve its goals, the administration of government bodies can establish personal control over its employees in order to ensure that employees correctly perform their duties.
The moral issue here is to what extent the pressures of the organizational structure match the needs of individuals. This problem does not have an adequate solution from the standpoint of utilitarianism, since its largest representatives did not consider the interaction of subjects within the framework of complex organizational structures... They also assumed that such structures can be understood within the framework of the totality of individual, personal, personal interactions. Therefore, their understanding of responsibility could only be applied to an individual action and did not apply to other subjects.
The presence, for example, of powerful multinational corporations, which many consider the only economic agents, shows the limitations of the traditional utilitarian understanding of responsibility. This gives grounds for today's representatives of business pragmatism to release civil servants from personal moral responsibility, since they are not subjects of activity. The ramified and multi-level structure of government bodies and the individual are not commensurate with each other. Therefore, the "benefit" of the organization always significantly "exceeds the" benefit "of individual individuals. Therefore, the moral responsibility should be borne not by individual civil servants, but by government bodies as a whole.
3.2.2. Moral and ethical responsibility in public administration from the standpoint of Aristotelian ethics.
Let's reveal the content of moral and ethical responsibility of subjects of state administration from the standpoint of Aristotelian ethics. First, here the individual is responsible for the implementation of his life project in the horizon of the usual ethos, responsible to himself. The fact that only the individual himself can be the instance of responsibility here is of fundamental importance. He cannot be replaced here by someone else, be it a person or an authority who is trusted. In this case, the individual individual acquires the distance necessary for reflection in relation to his own life only in the horizon of life forms in which he participates with others and which, for their part, form a context for very different life projects.
Regardless of whether they want it or not, the subjects of management should bear moral responsibility not only from the standpoint of "benefit", "goal rationality", i.e. from the standpoint of utilitarian ethics, but also from the standpoint of "good", which is characteristic of the Aristotelian ethical tradition. The Aristotelian position assumes that in realizing his own existential project, the individual correlates and subordinates it to some broader social project. Currently, the subjects of government are moral responsibility for maintaining social dynamics,inherent in democratic governance.
3.2.3. Moral and ethical responsibility in public administration from the standpoint of Kantian ethics.
Let us reveal the content of moral responsibility based on the principles of Kantian ethics, which served as the foundation for the deontological approach in ethics. The deontological approach gives priority to the concept of debt. Although the broad deontological approach presented by a philosopher such as Kant does not separate the concept of duty from its associated consequences, nevertheless, “purely” deontological teachings leave a “gap” between duty (deontological obligation) and its consequences.
From the very beginning, the consideration of morality was included in the consideration of the opposites of "freedom" and "necessity." Related to this is the existence of three fundamental concepts of law: natural (natural), moral (moral) and civil (civil). Kant shared the moral law of freedom and the natural law of necessity. For Kant, "imputation of guilt" separates a person from a thing: a person can commit acts and he can be imputed for it, while things cannot be imputed for some action. “Imputation, in a moral sense, is a right by which anyone can demand freedom of action, which can then be regarded as a moral action, since he is subject to the law” 1.
One can agree, for example, with Habermas, who believes that proper moral position, in contrast to the pragmatic and ethical, is characterized precisely by the fact that the individual changes his egocentric position and begins to correlate with the interests of other people, trying to resolve possible conflicts impartially.
Only a maxim capable of claiming universality in the perspective of all those it concerns can be considered a morally binding norm. Based on this, any subject is responsible for the violation (or preservation) of this moral norm. The individual is responsible for not ignoring the autonomous will of the Other. whether they are privileged classes, oppressed nations, women enslaved by domestic labor, or marginalized. Responsibility understood in this way inevitably requires participation in social movements and political struggle, in the organization of those "forms of communication in which the conditions for a reasonable collective formation of will take the form of an objective formation" 2. Naturally, such responsibility is not dictated by legal or professional norms, or even ethical ones. Responsibility thus defined is a consequence of the existence of proper moral norms.
Can we demand from the subjects of public administration some kind of special moral responsibility in this sense, or is such responsibility universal in nature?
On the one hand, moral norms are universal and universal, individuals have equal autonomous will, therefore moral responsibility must be individual and universal in nature. On this basis, many defend the thesis that “only responsible citizens can have a responsible government”.
But, on the other hand, such a position is not active. It allows subjects of government to avoid personal moral responsibility on the grounds that the people who are under their control have not yet become such morally responsible people. Therefore, we, agreeing with MacKion 3, believe that this thesis should be reformulated: "Responsible government depends on responsible citizens, but people become responsible only by constantly exercising in this." This reformulation turns the attitude upside down. It is not people, guided by some motives, who must become responsible, and therefore the government formed from them will need to be responsible. On the contrary, it is the morally responsible subjects of management who must do everything possible so that people become responsible, constantly exercising in this, i.e. acting and receiving a moral assessment of their actions.
3.2.4. Moral and ethical responsibility in public administration from the ethics of responsibility.
Up to this point, we have been talking about the moral and ethical responsibility of subjects of public administration, based on the provisions of classical ethical theories. Despite their previously noted differences, many characteristic features they are one 1. At first, everything related to the "non-human" world, that which has the basis of "techne" (with the exception of medicine) - ethically neutral in relation to the subject and object of action. Those. actions with "inhuman" things did not constitute the sphere of ethics proper. Secondly, only direct human-human interactions, including with oneself, were subject to ethical assessment. Thus, all traditional ethics were anthropocentric. Thirdly, the essence of a person and his main characteristics were considered unchanged: a person could not be an object of "techne". Fourth, the concepts of "good" and "evil" in judgments about actions were established before the action itself and were not subject to change ... Fifth, traditional ethics dealt with cases that arose between people and were repetitive, typical situations of private and public life.
All statements and maxims of traditional ethics were constructed as one-time and valid during the period of one's own human life. These maxims were not scientific or expert knowledge. On the contrary, they were knowledge that would easily fit all people of goodwill. Kant argued that "there is no need for science or philosophy to know what a person must do in order to be honest and good, or to be wise and virtuous."
The current situation is fundamentally different from those that were governed by the norms of the old ethics. Modern technology has changed the very nature of human action, changed its scope, goals and results. Technology has challenged humanity. Until now, not a single ethical doctrine has had to proceed from the global scale of human existence, to take into account the perspective of the distant future or the problem of the survival of the human race.
The traditional ethical systems should be replaced by a new ethics - ethics of responsibility... In this ethics, “the presence of a person in the world should become the first axiom from which all other ideas about the obligatory nature of human behavior can be derived” 1. The new imperative, corresponding to new types of human actions and addressed to new types of agents of action, should, according to Jonas, should sound like this: “Act so that the consequences of your actions do not destroy the possibilities of such a life in the future” 2.
The new imperative makes it clear that we can only risk our own lives, not the life of humanity. From this, taking into account the significant dependence of the future on today's technological practice, it follows that it is necessary to cultivate a certain caution, which until now has not been and is not. hallmark development and use of modern technology, which should be controlled by the government and government bodies.
Naturally, the question of the need to build a "future-oriented" ethics was raised long before the publication of Jonas's work. As we noted earlier, W. James also paid attention to this issue, but he saw nothing other than God that would set such an orientation. Later, the American philosopher Fred Polak categorically stated that “responsibility to the future (for the future) is the most basic and primary condition for a person’s responsibility in the present (for the present). This function is seen as fundamental to human behavior precisely as human behavior "3. Polak cites anthropological, religious, philosophical and psychological grounds for this, although he notes that "all the great philosophers, from Plato to Plotinus and Augustine, from Kant and Hegel to Bergson, Husserl and Heidegger, were predominantly philosophers of metaphysical time." Polak acknowledges that the main difficulty in constructing such responsibility is related to what kind of image the future has and whether it can be rationally obtained. Here the philosopher takes a very optimistic position (after all, this is only 1957!) And believes that the successes of the natural and social sciences give reason to believe that we will get an objective image of the future.
The question of what forces should represent the future in the present is still open. Jonas addresses this question of political philosophy, although he argues that it can in no way be a state 5.
From the point of view of the ethics of responsibility developed by Jonas, the responsibility of politicians is of particular interest. Of course, political figure is not the creator of history, rather, history acts through him. Therefore, his responsibility cannot be made absolute, but it must not be belittled either. It is the recognition of the moral responsibility of a politician that allows politicians to sometimes be above existing law, as pointed out by W. James, and Jonas, and others. Acknowledging the moral responsibility of politicians and representatives of state executive power at the same time should protect them from their own self-deprecation.
The responsibility of a politician does not have a definite, fixed by the nature of the object. It is more influenced by the influence of causal aspects than factors of foresight. The consequences of single actions are immensely confused in the causal "factory" as a whole, which complicates the causal analysis already in the present, and this complexity grows exponentially in the future.
Nevertheless, in essence, the responsibility of a politician cannot be reduced to what he is formally responsible for (that is, only to legal and professional responsibility). It should be more than that. “Responsibility of a politician means demanding the possibility of politics in the future” 1.
Let us now highlight the significance of the structural elements of moral responsibility. By the subject responsibility here is the individual, although there are attempts to extend it to a group and even a social institution. Most researchers defend precisely individual responsibility, motivating it as follows. Even in the case when the individual action of the subject of public administration cannot be regarded as the cause of some consequence due to the involvement of this action in the joint activity of the group or social institution, nevertheless, in this case, too, he bears individual moral responsibility due to his own self-determination as a subject of state administration. Subject responsibility, following the imperative of responsibility, should be the preservation of the possibility of human existence in the future, which corresponds to a greater extent to the consequences of the action, although it does not exclude the result. Instance responsibility can be a transcendental entity (for example, God, as in the ethics of Kant, James, etc.), an ideal subject ("future humanity"), an individual and a group (which is considered simply as a collection of individuals). Time responsibility - infinite, continuous, past, present and future. Space responsibility is not localized.
Summary.
Summing up our research, we can conclude that there are sufficient philosophical grounds for the introduction of moral and ethical responsibility of subjects of public administration. Moral and ethical responsibility will be defined in different ways and have different meanings depending on from the standpoint of which ethical theory (utilitarian ethics, Aristotelian or Kant's ethics) we will consider moral and ethical norms. Since all traditional ethical theories were not essentially “future-oriented,” none of them in their pure form can serve as a foundation for building a new ethics - the ethics of responsibility. Nevertheless, there is a relative legitimacy to use all three areas of ethical theory, each of which attaches special importance to the problem of responsibility: pragmatic, ethical or moral, in accordance with the chosen points of view of expediency (utility), good and fairness.
In a situation where the development of technology has called into question the possibility of human existence in the future, traditional ethics, within which this question was not raised, should be substantially supplemented by a categorical imperative of responsibility, which affirms the primacy of human existence in the future in relation to all other goals.
The assessment of the subject of public administration from the point of view of responsibility is not limited to the application of deontological or utilitarian grounds to him. The responsible subject of public administration must act with awareness of a wider scale of factors than the person of duty or the person of benefit. Awareness of these factors is impossible outside the conduct of various discourses (both justification and application): pragmatic, ethical and moral. The development of normative content that serves for mutual understanding when conducting these discourses using linguistic means is, according to Habermas, the task of discourse ethics 1. But the very conduct of such discourses should be an act of moral responsibility of the subjects of government. They "must consciously go to the legitimization of ethical topics and discuss relevant problems not only in crisis situations, but also in everyday practice" 2.
Elements of psycho-gymnastics, and ... adolescents are law-abiding, successful and responsible behavior; implementation in educational ... important to do summary according to the results...
Curriculum and thematic plan of the Distance course of the additional professional educational program for teachers and masters of the highest category of industrial training of secondary and primary vocational education (2 session) Purpose
Academic-thematic planQuality work, conscientiousness, a responsibility, independence, criticality, ... competence ( the elements logical, methodological ... questionnaire, statement, summary, letter, congratulations ... learning) with modular. Questions for self-control: 1. What ...
B 796 Boltnev, Valentin Egorovich. Ecology: textbook for university students, training for example: "Automation of technological processes and production", "Prikl informatics" / Boltnev
DocumentProperties of radioactive elements... In ... presented summary, questions and assignments for self-tests, assignments for... the chapters are given questions for self-control and recommended ... sustainable development, questions social responsibility and environmental sustainability ...
Educational-methodical complex for students of the retraining specialty 1-08 01 71 "pedagogical activity of specialists"
Training and metodology complexServe questions for self-control, ... a responsibility and foreclosure, material a responsibility and penalties, administrative a responsibility ... elements required for ... for admission and registration for work in the institution: sheet on personnel records ( summary ...