What are values and beliefs worth?
Before analyzing these categories, it would seem necessary to understand what they are.
So I surf the Internet and come across: “Beliefs are ideological elements that give a person confidence in his views on the world, knowledge and assessments of reality. It is they who direct our behavior, it is on their basis that we perform conscious and unconscious actions.” Elsewhere: “Values are personally significant states of an object.” Blah blah blah. Some kind of moura, written for someone unknown. I will try to show that this is complete nonsense.
I also sifted through the literature on the relationship between the concepts of values and beliefs, but I never found a definitive answer. For some authors, values and beliefs are almost synonymous, for others one gives rise to the other, for others one is part of the other. But there are still a lot of related concepts: principles, attitudes, stereotypes, mores, morality, etc. In general, I gave up on searching for the “true meaning” of all these crap. For me, it's not that important. It is much more important to understand why we hold on to certain mental constructs of ours, and what this leads to. Therefore we will go a different way.
I also wanted to ask at the beginning of the post whether the world will collapse, whether civilization will perish, whether the sky will split open and whether all the toads in the world will croak at the same time if we do not adhere to any beliefs, values, principles, etc. But then I caught myself thinking, do these things even exist in reality? It is clear that the concepts given in the above paragraph are just words. As they say, terms are not argued about, they are agreed upon. And if you wish, you can agree on anything. The search in reality for phenomena that exist only in our heads is in itself sufficient to end up in the gentle hands of a public health orderly, and for a long time. Therefore, I decided to come from the other end, namely, to introduce some of you to reality, that is, to yourself. Drumroll…
Stanford prison experiment
As they say, a classic of the genre. It was in Pindostan. The point is that one guy named Philip Zimbardo, in 1971, in the dungeons of the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University, created something similar to a prison. The fake prison had everything you needed: cells, staff quarters and other surroundings. The only things missing were prisoners and guards. The matter turned out to be simple: Zimbardo hired student volunteers for financial compensation, some of whom played the role of prisoners, and some of whom played the role of guards.
He wanted to test how a person would behave under conditions of restriction of freedom, prison rules and behavior scenarios imposed from outside.
So, the prisoners and guards were so quickly imbued with the rules of the game that within a day situations that were truly dangerous to the life and health of the “prisoners” began to arise. Every third guard developed sadistic tendencies, and the prisoners were so depressed by what was happening that two almost immediately left the game. And the experiment itself ended before the scheduled two-week period.
There are some interesting details. Of the 70 guys who agreed to participate in the experiment, Zimbardo selected only 24 as the most physically healthy and psychologically stable, white, middle class. Indeed, they are all such good fellows, like perfect candidates for the elite of society. The division into “guards” and “prisoners” was random, by drawing lots.
The “guards” received military uniforms in khaki color and wooden batons, which they had chosen for themselves in the store the day before. They also received sunglasses with mirrored lenses, behind which their eyes were not visible. Unlike prisoners, guards had to work shifts and were allowed to go home on weekends, although in fact, as it turned out, many chose to stay for overtime.
As for the prisoners, they were given oversized dressing gowns, rubber slippers, and their underwear was taken away. Each of the prisoners was assigned a number sewn to their robe, by which they were called.
A day before the experiment, the guards were gathered for a briefing, at which they were instructed about the inadmissibility of physical violence in any form. Their tasks included only a systematic bypass of the prison. But Zimbardo also instructed them to take all possible measures to create in the prisoners a feeling of fear, melancholy, and a feeling of absolutely complete dependence on the prison system.
The experiment almost immediately got out of control: the guards mocked and insulted the prisoners. Already on the second day a riot broke out. The guards voluntarily worked overtime and suppressed the riot in complete chaos, even attacking prisoners with fire extinguishers.
The guards then divided the prisoners into two groups to pit them against each other, and also made them think that there were "snitches" among them. These measures had a huge effect, and then there were no major disturbances. Zimbardo used this tactic on the advice of consultants from among real former convicts serving sentences in American prisons.
At first, physical violence consisted of prisoners being forced to perform physical exercises for a long time. The right to wash and shower turned into a privilege, some prisoners were ordered to clean toilets with their bare hands, mattresses were taken away from offenders and they were forced to sleep on the concrete floor. Another punishment was deprivation of food.
Zimbardo himself became so involved in the experiment that, having learned on the 4th day about a possible escape, for reasons of “reliability” he tried to transfer the experiment to a real prison premises at the local police station, but was refused, which is why he was furious.
About a third of the guards showed real sadistic tendencies, beating the convicts at night while, as the sadists thought, the video cameras were turned off. Many of the guards were annoyed when they learned about the end of the experiment.
As the experiment progressed, prisoners were offered to leave prison on the condition that they refuse to pay for participating in it; almost all prisoners agreed to this. But it was a scam, since no one was released. As Zimbardo himself later explained, he did this only to show how the participants in the experiment got used to the role.
Prisoner No. 416 was horrified by what was happening and went on a hunger strike, for which he was placed in a punishment cell. Immediately after this, the other prisoners were given an ultimatum: either their blankets would be taken away for the night, or No. 416 would spend the whole night in the punishment cell. The prisoners preferred to sleep under blankets. True, immediately after this Zimbardo released No. 416.
Finally, the most important thing. Zimbardo interrupted the experiment ahead of schedule not for ethical reasons, but because his fiancée, Christina Maslak, a graduate student in the Faculty of Psychology, accidentally found out about the disgrace that was happening and gave Zimbardo an ultimatum: either the experiment will be over, or their engagement will be terminated . With great reluctance, the experiment was stopped on the 6th day.
Stanley Milgram experiment
This dramatic experiment was staged even earlier, in 1963. This event happened at Yale University.
Milgram asked the question: how much suffering is an ordinary person willing to inflict on another ordinary person, and a completely innocent person, if the very infliction of suffering is a job responsibility.
The organization of the experiment was as follows. On a chair, similar in design to an electric one, sat a man (who was supposed to experience the “suffering”; he was a decoy). The subject, the experimented person (the causer of suffering from among the students) was instructed to ask the sufferer completely innocent questions and receive answers from him. If the answer was correct, the next question was asked; if incorrect, the subject pressed a button and an electric current “passed” through the sufferer’s body (the subject did not know about the staging of this entire performance). An important detail: both the student and the sufferer were in different rooms and could not see each other’s faces. They communicated through loudspeakers. If there was no answer within 10 seconds, this was to be regarded as an incorrect answer.
At first the voltage passed through was small, but with each incorrect answer it increased by 15 volts, and the student who pressed the button knew this. As the tension increased, the “sufferer” more and more clearly indicated, including by knocking on the wall, that he was “hurt.” Therefore, even at a fairly early stage, a moment came when the experimented person refused to press the button further, justifying it with the words: “It hurts him!” However, the professor loudly ordered him to press the button every time he answered incorrectly. In case of any hesitation on the part of the experimented person, the professor made it clear in every possible way that he takes full responsibility for the consequences upon himself. Let me remind you that the experiment was organized in such a way that the student had no doubt about the reality of what was happening.
In short, 65% of the subjects “killed” another person by raising the voltage to the maximum 450V only because he gave incorrect answers to questions and because the professor demanded it. The subjects continued to follow the professor's instructions, despite remorse. Only 12.5% of the subjects stopped at a voltage of 300V when the “victim” stopped receiving answers and knocking on the wall, 10% stopped at 315V, 5% at 330V, 2.5% each at 345, 360 and 375V. It turns out that 100% of the subjects were ready to kill for incorrect answers, subject to the complete removal of responsibility for what they had done and demands from the authority of another person, although before the start of the experiment such a forecast from the students of the Faculty of Psychology was in relation to 1-2% of people, that is, in relation to the average number of sadists. Amazingly, the forecast of professional psychiatrists was even lower: they believed that only 0.1% were able to bring stress to the limit.
The most interesting thing was that the experiment was repeated in Austria, Germany (only 18 years had passed since the atrocities of the German fascists), Holland, Jordan, Spain, Italy, and everywhere the results were the same. The experiment was also conducted not only on students, but also separately on men and women, and on other categories of people. The results were similar everywhere. In other words, no social characteristics influenced the outcome. We would do the same.
By the way, here are some more interesting facts:
- the subject refused to obey a person of the same rank as himself;
- the subject stopped actions when there was a conflict of authorities (one said “Press!”, the other said “Enough!”);
- when the professor and the subject, as well as the troubled and the sufferer, were in the same room, the degree of obedience decreased, when in different rooms it increased;
- if the sufferer was a woman, then the number of those who agreed to inflict severe suffering was reduced.
The moral of these experiments is this: a person does not feel remorse for any of his actions if he can justify them by values and beliefs that are supported by society and the state, and by the authority of his superior. If you think that you are not like everyone else or, at worst, that you have some kind of moral brakes, then you are very mistaken. In general, it doesn’t matter whether we consider ourselves bearers of any values, what is more important is what rules of the social game are mandatory for us, what example the authorities and environment show us. It doesn’t matter how much time is devoted to preaching values on federal television channels. Much more important is how much money the state allocates for medicine, pensions, food for convicts in colonies, etc.
Value guidelines of modern society
Modern civilization identifies its priorities and system of standards, which give rise to a new culture of thinking that allows us to formalize the attitude towards reality.
Technocrats believe that the concept of value only introduces subjective chaos into human activity. Existence becomes irrational, disordered and uncontrollable. The identification of clear laws of social development and human behavior, their true knowledge can, in their opinion, be more useful than vague discussions about certain values, the truth of which, due to their subjectivity, is almost impossible to establish. Socio-historical time is the criterion that establishes the vitality of certain values and produces their “natural” selection. Such values are fixed in the public and individual consciousness as the “truth of life” or, in other words, as a social truth.
The loss of value guidelines that occurred as a result of the crisis of Christianity in the New Age, believes G.S. Kiselev, ultimately led to the formation of a mass society. It is characterized, first of all, by the dominance of mass culture, i.e. displacement of genuine culture to the periphery of life and preference for the technical achievements of civilization. “Irreligious value systems for a person are not absolute, but relative and therefore, at best, ineffective. Today, high culture is being replaced by mass or pseudoculture, which in fact does not recognize the need for a value system at all, as a result of which moral relativism easily turns into nihilism” [1]. It is pseudoculture that plays the main role both in the socialization of a person and in the further formation of personality. The family and school in our time do not fully realize the function of educating a real culture; they are unable to compete with mass culture for a number of reasons. Modern mass culture is the main source of values for modern youth. The lack of focus of social institutions on moral education produces its results - the spiritual emptiness of a person. Moral disorientation creates a person open to evil. Such a person can be turned in any direction, including crimes against life. A man of mass culture is a spontaneous materialist-sensualist. Since he lives primarily with material concerns, the question of the meaning of life, if it arises, is resolved by him in a prosaic manner: raise a son, plant a tree, build a house, have more money in order to more fully satisfy the sensual needs of the flesh.
Mass culture has another definition – “consumer”. One of the main values is the cult of consumption, presented as the only possible lifestyle. The cult of materialism, pleasure, and the desire to “possess” have become the meaning of life for the masses of people. As scientific, technological and information progress progresses, a person becomes despirited, and, consequently, a philosophical and anthropological crisis is formed. A creative person turns into a consuming person, and being, as a creative existence, becomes a sphere of consumption. Human life acquires a clearly oriented material status. People not only invent new ways of satisfying their actual physical needs, they also invent new “needs”—things not essential to physical survival but strongly desired. They are convinced that they cannot live without them. Cars and televisions have become as important to many as food, clothing and shelter - things that satisfy their real needs. People have become infected with material life. Today, materialism, utilitarianism, denial of morality, cruelty, and lack of spirituality are flourishing.
Today there is a risk of cultural unification, “Americanization” and “Westernization”, i.e. the establishment of the value system of American and Western European culture as universal cultural universals, which are actively being introduced through the widespread dissemination of the media. Television colonizes people's minds and instills false values such as hedonism and permissiveness. The entire structure of advertising is based on the deceptive availability of goods and services offered, which unconsciously leads people to imagine life as a fantasy world where everything can be obtained without much effort. Millions of human robots buy certain products, obeying subconscious information introduced into their brains by advertising. Many completely lose morality and become criminals, imitating the heroes of cinema and television, repeating crimes relished by the press. Often in films and television shows they clearly show how best to steal, deceive, rob. People are losing their understanding of what a person should be. Attention is paid only to image, appearance and the presence of material wealth. There is a substitution of values when people are judged by what they have, and not by who they are. People are increasingly acquiring the quality of “having”, while losing the quality of “being” people with a capital letter. The danger of looking to the West lies not only in the fact that new life and moral models are being imposed on Russians, but also in the fact that the historical socio-cultural system of Russia, which has developed over centuries, is being artificially destroyed. Instead of our native speech, rich in proverbs and sayings, our language is clogged with foreign words and thieves' jargon.
What the intellect, spirit and talent of the nation has been creating for centuries is under threat of destruction - ancient cities are being destroyed, books, archives, works of art are perishing, folk traditions of craftsmanship are being lost. We live in a society of values, where the principle of “cultural” nihilism and denial of culture is presented almost as an ideal.
Modern society is also marked by an active process of style formation, characterized, on the one hand, by the emergence of cultural styles new to Russians, penetrating both from the West and from the East, and on the other hand, by the desire of modern man to identify himself with a particular lifestyle. Today one can observe such a phenomenon as the imitation of the life styles of hierarchically other social groups. The peculiarities of style formations within Russian culture are identified by Russians, forcing them to reconsider their attitudes, norms, traditions, which generally leads to the emergence of new values, ways and styles of life, the language of art, fashion, and the language of “speaking.” Speech manifestations in everyday life today are a symbol, a sign, a unique image of a person in mass society. Strong intonations, a certain vulgarity, common expressions and invective form the essence and meaning of everyday oral conversation, which, of course, differs from the written language and from the requirements of the personally established terminology of everyday practical activity.
Thus, E. Toffler argues that the means of communication of industrial society have created a large number of samples - images. The individual has one main function left - to choose from the available samples. The unprecedented pace of innovation, which has given rise to the interpretation of the information society as innovative, is so great that it leaves no chance for a person to master the information supplied. He loses his orientation and cannot make a choice, and therefore settles on disposable consumer goods, starting with clothing samples and ending with objects of art [2].
Today, a new viewer is being born, a reader who, exposed to the influence of mass culture, demands a different art, which should evoke in him not aesthetic, but social emotions. “The phenomenon of fashion in the context of mass culture becomes “a kind of weapon of violence, forcing us, along with advertising, to follow it regardless of desires and financial capabilities” [3]. One cannot but agree with W. Beck that in class societies being determines consciousness, while in a risk society consciousness determines being. [4].
Innovations also influence the value orientations of modern people. Radical innovations that transform modern reality are associated with the latest information technology revolution. These include mobile telephone communications, e-mail, the global information and communication network Internet, various reforms in politics, education, the production of new goods, services, etc. And a person adapts to them. This is a very non-trivial transformation of social reality. It entails changes in various spheres of human life. Many researchers, including T.A. Bondarenko, are confident that, for example, “in the conditions of the ever-increasing virtualization of society, a personality is being formed with fundamentally new social traits and behavioral manifestations” [5]. Culture and art acquire features of dehumanization and demonization. The historical process of cultural continuity is disrupted. The conflict between generations is transformed into their disunity and loss of national traditions. Young people are faced with a huge stream of mass propaganda every day, absorbing far from humane information. For the most part, this negative information zombifies the individual, develops specific negative attitudes, and does not develop positive thinking in her, which subsequently affects her actions and actions.
All this leads to an apocalyptic mood, a feeling of the completion of history, and being lost in a world that is perceived as alien and hostile. Modern man, confused in values or unable to find them, finds himself in an existential vacuum. This condition is especially characteristic of modern youth. Traditional and deep-rooted values are being destroyed, and not every individual is able to recognize new ones: whether they bring positive or negative to society. The existential vacuum is associated with meaning-forming values: the meaning of life, self-realization and the moral development of life. The new generation is faced with the renewal of cultural meanings and rule-making. The loss of values leads to a search for something new, and more often to an escape from reality. Young people, as well as the whole society, are characterized by confusion and lack of understanding of what is happening. The younger generation is often credited with such traits as tough pragmatism, social immaturity, infantilism, and aggression. The dominant of their life values and behavioral priorities is material well-being. Success in life is associated with entrepreneurship and the ability to earn money, and not with talent, knowledge and hard work. The transition of society to market relations requires new models of behavior. Such life principles as “it is better to be honest, but poor”, “a clear conscience is more important than well-being” were replaced by “you - to me, I - to you”, “time is money”, “success - at any cost”, etc.
As for family values, independence, career, and position in society come first. The family moves into the distant future after creating a successful career. As you grow older, communication values change. The attitude towards loved ones is becoming more and more selfish and commercial in nature. The selfish individualistic attitude (for oneself) is placed above humane relations, mutual understanding, and mutual assistance. The orientation of young people is aimed at the individual art of living, which does not involve caring about the homeland, parents, and children.
Western culture is inherently dehumanistic. It forms the basic values of neoliberalism: lack of spirituality, selfishness, success and profit at any cost, cruelty and aggressiveness in relations between people and social communities. This culture is also destroying the national social consciousness. It is obvious that it is impossible to oust this culture from the general cultural field today. The most appropriate thing is to use its achievements in a constructive direction, develop the national entertainment industry with its humane spiritual orientation, and minimize the damage to national spiritual values from American expansion.
In modern conditions, it becomes clear that humanity is able to survive only by recreating and placing a system of absolute values at the center of its existence.
Literature:
- Kiselev G.S. Meanings and values of the new century.//Questions of Philosophy No. 4. – 2006. – P. 3-12.
- Toffler E. Metamorphoses of power: trans. from English / E. Toffler. – M.: LLC “AST Publishing House”, 2002. – 669 p.
- Motroshilova N.V. Ideas of a united Europe: traditions and modernity. //Questions of Philosophy No. 11, 12. – 2004. – P. 3-18.
- Beck U. Risk Society. On the way to another modernity. /Trans. with him. - M.: Progress - Tradition, 2000. - 384 p.
- Bondarenko T. A. Personality transformation in virtual reality. – Rostov n/a: Publishing center of DSTU, 2006. – 51 p.
There is no human personality
Our behavior depends on two components: psychological experience (what’s in the head) and the situation (what’s outside):
BEHAVIOR = PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE + SITUATION
Moreover, the experiments of Zimbardo, Milgram and many other psychologists show that the situation influences behavior much more than psychological experience. True, with age, a person increasingly relies on his own experience in his behavior, which is a double-edged sword: 1) the likelihood of making a mistake decreases, 2) the ability to adapt to new situations decreases. Although the determining factor in behavior still remains the situation, not life experience.
A person who considers himself a bearer of certain values and principles adapts much worse to life in new conditions, communicates worse with other people, has difficulty getting along in a team, etc. But the most interesting thing is that constantly receiving signals from the environment that force him to give up his own beliefs, he inevitably becomes more aggressive! On my own. This is why we don’t like “too correct” people so much. As Alexander Glebovich Nevzorov said, “beliefs are a sure sign of stupidity.” I also like the proverb: “Principle is the highest degree of unprincipledness.” In times of defense of some values, much more blood was shed than when no one gave a damn about these values.
Our historical experience is heavier than the historical experience of Europeans
In your opinion, do Russians have their own value system - something that fundamentally distinguishes us from the Germans, French or British?
Eduard Ponarin: First, let's clarify what values are. Simply put, this is what you strive for and with the help of which you evaluate what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong. For example, are we open to the new and unusual, are we ready to give up our personal preferences and habits in favor of other people or, for example, for the sake of preserving the environment. In these two dimensions, Russians differ from Europeans quite strongly. Although, of course, Europeans are different, there are also egoists and conservative people there. But what really makes a big difference is that there are 20 percent of people in Europe who are open to change and not focused on themselves, and 2 percent in Russia. Russians are conservative and tend to protect themselves; they are not very moved by what is happening with other people, and what happens to the world around us.
You think so?
Eduard Ponarin: This is confirmed by many years of research that is carried out regularly. By the way, Russians are not alone in their conservatism. In Kosovo, for example, only 1 percent of the population is open to new things and not self-centered. There are also differences within Europe. Let’s say there are more such people in Northern Europe, fewer in Southern Europe, and closer to Russia and Ukraine in Eastern Europe.
Why are Russians more wary of any changes than Europeans?
Eduard Ponarin: Because our historical experience is heavier than the historical experience of Europeans. In World War II, on the territory of the USSR, in contrast even to Central and especially Western Europe, the civilian population was massacred. And before that there were terrible losses during the Civil War, during the years of collectivization and mass repression. And more recently, in the 1990s, banditry flourished. That is, the attitude towards human life and its value in Russia was not the same as in a well-fed and safe Europe. This is why Europeans are more willing to change - they are not afraid that things will get worse. For the same reason, it is sometimes easier for them to neglect their own interests in favor of other people, the environment, or even pets.
How are values and beliefs formed?
Once again, experimental data will come to the rescue. This time Solomon Ash.
We are talking about an even earlier time - 1951. Students were asked to participate in an “eye test.” In reality, it was necessary to test the reaction of one student to the erroneous behavior of most other group members. All group members, except the subject, were decoys. In total, there were 7 people in the group (together with the subject). They were shown two cards in order: the 1st showed one vertical line, the 2nd - three, of which the outermost (C) was the same length as the line on the first card.
The subject had to answer the question which of the lines on the 2nd card was the same length as the line on the 1st card. The student was shown 18 pairs of cards, that is, he gave 18 answers. Moreover, he was the last in the group to give answers. All group members answered the first two questions correctly. But starting from the third, all the decoys (6 out of 7) gave the same wrong answer. The subject immediately became confused and nervous. However, while the whole group got to the 18th pair of cards, the decoys gave the correct answers 3 more times. That is, in total they gave 12 out of 18 correct answers.
According to the results of the experiment, 75% of the subjects agreed with the erroneous opinion of the majority on at least one issue. The overall rate of incorrect answers was 37%.
At the second stage of the experiment, control groups were created where there were no decoy ducks. There, only 1 out of 35 people gave an incorrect answer.
Even for the purity of the experiment, the conspirators gave different answers, in which case the subjects were much more likely to be confident that they were right (they were indeed right). Agree, it’s very similar to Milgram’s experiment (or vice versa, given the year the experiment was conducted). When there were two independent subjects in the group, the number of errors dropped by 4 times.
What does this all mean? We believe something is true not because we have verified it in our own experience, but because “everyone says so.”
By the way, have you ever seen paintings by Rubens that depict naked female bodies? If you haven't yet, Google it. After all, all the women depicted there are not even in the first stage of obesity. At that time, women with measurements of 90-60-90 were considered skinny and therefore did not attract as much male attention as they do now. In the 19th century in Russia, in some merchant cities, a girl was considered very beautiful if she had teeth black from caries, since this indicated that she consumed a large amount of sugar, that is, it confirmed her high property status (sugar was very expensive at that time).
Here, after all, is the main thing to understand. This is not just about some aesthetic preferences. In Asch's experiment, the subjects actually began to believe that the “crowd” was right; they refused to believe their own eyes. Contemporaries of Rubens and those merchant girls experienced sexual arousal from folds of fat and rotten teeth. That is, we absorb all the principles, values and beliefs from society to such an extent that they even change our reflexes.
So, values and principles are not given to us from birth, they are of an exclusively subjective nature.
Here it is necessary to make one more clarifying point. There are two types of attitudes (values, beliefs):
1) those that do no harm at all, do not bring good to other people (sexual orientation, taste, aesthetic and cognitive preferences);
2) those that influence other people.
As for the first group of attitudes, in any healthy society no one should care about them. As they say, every glitch has the right to life if it is life-affirming. This is the area of privacy, personal life, personal preferences of each person, intrusion into which should be qualified as rudeness, and in some cases even as a crime. What is beautiful for us, what is ugly, society doesn’t care. It is much more interesting to discuss another group of values. Let's start our research with the question of why we need them.
Values and psychological state of modern Russian society
As is known, the values of any society are traditionally associated with its mentality - a deep layer of social consciousness, a set of collective ideas contained in the consciousness of values, behavior patterns and stereotypical reactions characteristic of society as a whole. A special study identified dozens of significant values of the Russian state, characteristic, among other things, of the Russian mentality, grouped into 12 universal value blocks. Work, soul (spirituality), collectivism, intangible values, love (family, children), innovation, altruism, tolerance, the value of human life, empathy, creativity, striving for excellence (Table 1).
At the same time, it was revealed that the listed basic values for the Russian state are of a universal nature for all humanity. Let us note that these values are generally characteristic of Russian society both in the past and in the present. For example, the majority of the population declares collectivist values (Fig. 1), predominantly non-material motivation for activity (Fig. 2) and expresses a desire to help others (Fig. 3).
Rice. 1. The value of collectivism Fig.
2. Life goals and plans of Russians Fig. 3. The value of altruism (Source: World Values Survey, 2005–2008)
As for the attitude of Russians towards traditional values, the majority are inclined to support them (and their share is gradually increasing), rather than to the values of initiative and enterprise (Fig. 4).
Rice.
4. Attitude to traditional values (2011) Moral values rooted in the national mentality are traditionally associated with religion. The majority of Russians consider themselves believers and belong to the leading confession - Orthodoxy. According to Levada Center surveys conducted in 2009–2012, the number of people who consider themselves Orthodox is on average 77%. For Russians, religion is more of a national tradition and a set of moral rules than faith itself (Fig. 5).
Rice. 5. Religion for Russians (data from VTsIOM surveys in 2006 and 2008)
At the same time, the religiosity of Russians is superficial: only 11% of Russians attend church in order to participate in a religious service; in order to confess and receive communion - 7% (Fig. 6).
Rice. 6. Religion for Russians (data from a Levada Center survey in November 2012)
Thus, among those people who call themselves believers, there are not many who actually practice this or that religious tradition. According to the Levada Center in 2012, 73% of Russians surveyed believed that many people want to show their involvement in faith and church, but few truly believe. The majority of Russians (54%) trust the Russian Orthodox Church, but according to sociological surveys, only a small number of respondents (18%) consider religious institutions responsible for the moral and spiritual state of society. At the same time, 48% of those surveyed in 2012 agree that only by turning to religion and the church can society now find strength for the spiritual revival of the country. 58% agree that during difficult periods in Russian history, the Orthodox Church saved the country, and now it must do so again. The expert community “Russian Network Intelligence” is generally critical of the real influence of the Russian Orthodox Church on Russian society: 37% believe that the Orthodox Church influences only its parishioners, while 31% assess the influence of the church as insignificant (Fig. 7).
Rice. 7. Assessment by the expert community “Russian Network Intelligence” of the real influence of the Russian Orthodox Church on Russian society
At the same time, 24% of respondents believe that the Russian Orthodox Church has a great influence on Russians. Thus, the church, after a period of forced alienation, has not yet been able to take on the role of spiritual guide of Russian society. What is the attitude of modern Russians towards moral norms and rules? Quite a large number of people continue to consider moral standards as unshakable: 55–60% (according to 2007 data). However, this is primarily what middle-aged (those over 35) and older people think this way. The opinions of those who consider the highest goal to achieve personal well-being (50.5%) and those who consider moral traditions and faith to be more important (42.5%) are divided approximately in half. Ideas about the most important qualities of a worthy person have not undergone significant changes over the course of ten years (1997–2007). These are decency, devotion to family and tolerance (Fig. 8).
Rice. 8. Qualities of a worthy person (data from VTsIOM surveys in 1997 and 2007)
Rice. 9. Immoral actions (data from a 2007 VTsIOM survey)
In 2007, respondents to VTsIOM indicated that they considered drug addiction, poor parenting, cruelty to animals, and drunkenness to be the most immoral actions (Figure 9). Opinions on adultery are roughly equally divided: 48% see no justification for it, and 44% disagree. Among these actions there are those that every third or fifth respondent considers acceptable in some cases or requires leniency. This is drunkenness and alcoholism, 19% consider them sometimes acceptable, and 4% call for lenient treatment of them. Getting rich at the expense of others (18 and 4%), prostitution (13 and 9%), rudeness, rudeness, obscene language (23 and 3%), public display of hostility towards people of a different nationality (22 and 7%), business non-obligation (22 and 7%), giving and receiving bribes (29 and 4%). According to a Levada Center survey (August 2012), alcohol abuse is considered morally unacceptable by 64% of respondents; smoking marijuana - 78% of respondents; passion for gambling - 56% of respondents (of which 24% believe that this is not a moral issue); tax evasion - 53% (of which 24% also believe that this is not a moral issue); adultery is considered unacceptable by 58%, polygamy - 73%, sex outside marriage - 23%; abortion - 36%; receiving a bribe - 63%, giving a bribe - 56%. Despite a fairly tolerant attitude towards homosexuality, the share of those who negatively evaluate the idea of allowing same-sex marriage has increased significantly over the period 1995–2005. from 38 to 59%. According to VTsIOM in 2012, 74% of Russians consider homosexuality a vice, and already 79% are against the legalization of same-sex marriage. At the same time, 86% of those surveyed by VTsIOM in 2012 support the introduction of a ban on the propaganda of homosexuality among minors. According to a Levada Center survey (August 2012), homosexuality is considered morally unacceptable by 81% of respondents. Obscene language has become widespread in Russia, where, according to a 2008 VTsIOM survey, 61% of citizens use it. 42% of Russians are forced to listen to obscene language in their inner circle (data from VTsIOM 2012). At the same time, the absolute majority of Russians (80%) consider the use of swear words in a wide audience unacceptable. But at the same time, swearing has become a “working discourse” for a significant part of young people, although in this regard, students are still perceived as behaving in a more civilized manner than the bulk of the younger generation. Thus, the values of Russians remain quite traditional and conservative. In Russian society, the value of security, order and law-abidingness is increasing, which is why these issues, including psychological safety, are so actively discussed in society. Despite the desire for moral values, judging by the indicators of many sociological studies, Russian society is experiencing a value and moral crisis. Thus, the family remains the last value point of support for Russian citizens and is nominated as the main value (Fig. 10).
Rice. 10. Values of Russians (data from the FOM survey in 2000 and 2011)
Rice. 11. Level of value destruction in Russia (“0” – complete destruction) (data from World Values)
At the same time, the majority of the population not only fears the onset of a value crisis (Fig. 12), but also believes that it has already occurred, or assumes a high probability of its occurrence in the near future (Fig. 13).
Rice. 12. Concerns of the population regarding the loss of moral values, etc. (data from a 2010 VTsIOM survey)
Rice. 13. Probability of loss of moral values, etc. (data from a 2010 VTsIOM survey)
This indicates the population’s feeling of moral degradation in society and its concern about the loss of moral traditions. According to Levada Center surveys, the majority of respondents consider the crisis of morality, culture and morality to be an acute public problem. In 2010–2011 This problem worried 28 and 29% of respondents, respectively. This is confirmed by data from the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2011), according to surveys of which the moral state of society in the 2000s. received a leading position among spheres of social life in which the state of affairs has deteriorated over these years, overtaking such areas as the standard of living, the state of the social sphere (health, education, culture), the fight against corruption and the state of law and order. At the same time, moral decline is characterized as the main vector guiding and determining the development of society in the last 20 years. When carefully studying modern Russia, one can see a process of mental dynamics based on the borrowing of “Western”, American values, on appealing to historical heritage through “Russian” and “Soviet” value patterns, and also based on innovation through the formation of new, so-called “Russian” values. » cultural samples. All these values and patterns coexist in Russia and form a polystylistic mosaic of modern Russian mentality. However, as a result of top-level political transformations, it is borrowing that dominates over other elements. Imposed values that are not perceived by the bulk of the population give rise to a crisis between existing mental models and new stereotypes. The upper and lower strata of society and numerous marginal groups of the population are most susceptible to this situation. However, from the point of view of mental deformations, these two levels of Russian society are initially the most vulnerable. Since such social diseases as alcoholism and drug addiction can be considered significant indicative characteristics of society, let us consider in more detail the available data on these diseases in Russia. According to Rosstat, consumption of recorded alcohol per capita in the country increased from 5.38 liters of absolute alcohol in 1990 to 10 liters in 2008, or 1.8 times. However, according to WHO data, the level of alcohol consumption in liters of pure ethanol per capita (aged 15 years and older) is higher. In 2005, it amounted to 11 liters of recorded consumption and 4.7 liters of unaccounted consumption. According to other sociological data, the level of alcohol consumption per capita in 2010 was about 18 liters. Despite a significant reduction in reported cases of morbidity, the level of alcoholism and mental disorders in Russia still remains high. According to Rosstat, in 2008, the number of patients with alcoholism taken under dispensary observation with a diagnosis established for the first time in their lives amounted to 173.4 thousand people (24% less than in 2003); and in 2011 - 138.1 thousand people (20% less than in 2008). In total, in 2011, there were 2 million people diagnosed with alcoholism in Russia. The number of drug addicts taken under dispensary observation with a diagnosis established for the first time in their lives, according to Rosstat, in 2003 was 22.9 thousand, but in 2007 it increased to 30 thousand people. However, starting from 2008, their number decreased and in 2011 amounted to 21.9 thousand people. In total, 342 thousand people were recorded as drug addicts in Russia in 2011 (in 2003 - 349 thousand people). As can be seen from table. 2, against the background of other countries, including the western area, Russia occupies a leading position in terms of indicators of the state of society, indicating its degradation and, as a consequence, a drop in the level of morality.
Returning to the question of the value characteristics of the state of Russian society, it should be noted that there is evidence that in our country a larger number of respondents, compared, for example, with the United States, answer affirmatively to the question of whether a person can break the law and at the same time to be right. And the number of people who believe that laws cannot be broken under any circumstances, that is, truly law-abiding, at least in words, has remained virtually unchanged over the past 15 years and amounts to 10–15%. There is a noticeable deformation of the value foundations of young people’s worldview. According to a survey by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, already 55% of young people (i.e., the majority) are ready to cross moral standards in order to achieve success. A significant portion of young people consider prostitution, enrichment at the expense of others, rudeness, drunkenness, giving and receiving bribes, abortion, and adultery acceptable. The most acceptable of those indicated in the table. 3 immoral practices for Russians is the practice of deliberately deceiving someone in order to achieve their goals.
At the same time, among young people only a little more than a third are its opponents, and 41–45% of young people (and 27% of Russians over 35 years old) have resorted to it. Thus, deception for the sake of profit is considered the norm among young people. This is very significant, since this area is regulated only by moral standards and is not supported by legislative restrictions and prohibitions. More than half of respondents under the age of 36 are not opposed to giving bribes, and 18–22% of representatives of different age cohorts admit that they themselves have given bribes. Thus, young people are actively involved in the field of illegal and socially disapproved interactions, and their tolerance for such practices is higher than that of the older generation. Russian youth for the most part have a rather negative attitude only towards drug use, although in this regard their tolerance to the corresponding practice is 19% higher than in the group over 35 years of age (Fig. 14).
Rice. 14. The share of opponents of immoral actions in various age groups (data from ISPI RAS, 2011)
In general, the proportion of opponents of immoral actions has been increasing over the years. The share of those who oppose drug use increased from 79 to 90%, the use of sexual relations for personal gain - from 71 to 77%, and tax evasion - from 45 to 67%. The value orientations of most Russian youth have changed. Wealth (59%) and success (40%) are preferred to family (29%) and dignity (18%) (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Hierarchy of value orientations of Russian youth
Rice. 16. The choice between morality and success (data from ISPI RAS, 2003 and 2011)
The proportion of the population that prefers success to any moral norms and principles, equality of income, status, living conditions to equality of opportunity, is increasing (1.5.17).
Rice. 17. Dynamics of value orientations of Russians (data from ISPI RAS, 1993, 1995, 2003 and 2011)
In general, it can be stated that the value preferences of Russian society are constant, however, modern ideas promoted in the information space have largely influenced the consciousness of young people as having less psychological stability and a flexible moral core, and therefore primarily subject to their influence . So far this has not changed the overall picture of society’s value guidelines. The first choice in the alternative answer to the question of what a person should strive for (spiritual harmony or income) is favored by the overwhelming majority of respondents of all ages—a level of 85% and above (see Figure 17). Moreover, even among young people this level does not fall below 75%. Regarding the question of what is more important - equality of income or equality of opportunities for the manifestation of human abilities, the majority gives preference to equality of opportunity (60% of respondents in 2011), and among young people under 30 years old - 67-68%. The isolation of the younger generation from its national and cultural identity is also evidence of a moral crisis. 73% of young people and 80% of the older generation believe that modern youth have little interest in the history and culture of their country and are focused primarily on Western values. The idols for young Russians are rock and pop stars, successful businessmen and heroes of television series. By the beginning of the 2000s. A generation has entered adulthood whose mentality is largely determined by asocial guidelines (Table 4).
Representatives of the older generation have also become primarily interested in material interests in choosing a future profession for their children. To the question “Who would you like your son (daughter, grandson) to be?” respondents answered as follows (Table 5).
A comparative analysis of the preferences of young Russians with the preferences of their peers from Western Europe reveals a higher degree of depravity among Russian youth (Fig. 18).
Fig. 18. Data from surveys of Russian and British youth on the subject of intolerance towards sexual promiscuity (% of people with a negative attitude towards various manifestations of sexual promiscuity)
It is impossible not to mention extremist sentiments among young people. According to an analysis conducted by the Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, extreme moods are clearly visible in their life orientations. This can be judged by young people’s ideas about modernity. The importance of one's own superiority over others was seen as an extreme manifestation. This idea of modern criteria for social advancement is shared by two-thirds (59.8%) of young people. A high level of radical extremeness according to this indicator is manifested among 15.5% of young people. The disrespect of today's youth for their elders is also regularly noted. The phenomenon of ageism has become widespread, covering negative stereotypes regarding old age and aging, as well as corresponding discriminatory practices, which aggravates relationships between age generations. With all the diversity of such phenomena, as well as processes characterized by the above statistical data, they can be brought under a common denominator, which is the complex and systemic moral degradation of modern Russian society, which, however, has stable traditional values. How do Russians themselves assess the change in the moral climate over the past 10–15 years? The majority of respondents (60–80%), according to a VTsIOM survey, believe that it has changed for the worse. It is noteworthy that, according to VTsIOM data for 2005, Russians evaluate their own environment significantly more positively than society as a whole, which means that society prefers to see the problem somewhere outside, rather than within itself. At the same time, 66% of Russians surveyed in 2008 were not satisfied with what was happening in the country in the field of morality and ethics. Levada Center polls conducted in 2009–2010. also show that since 2001, about 75% of Russians are not satisfied with what is happening in the field of morality. At the same time, 44% of respondents believe that over the past 10 years the level of morality in society has decreased; 26% of respondents named the crisis of morality, culture, and ethics among the most pressing problems of our society. According to Levada Center surveys (2006–2011), concerning the most pressing social problems in Russia, the crisis of morality, culture and morality is classified as such: in 2006 - 26% of respondents; in 2008 - 30%; in 2010 - 28%; in 2011 - 29%.
How exactly does the moral climate change? According to Russians, cynicism (57%) and aggressiveness (51%) have sharply increased, and camaraderie (52%), unselfishness (59%), sincerity (62%), goodwill (63%), and patriotism have weakened. (65%), trust (65%), honesty (66%) and sincerity (67%) (Figure 19).
Rice. 19. How have the moral qualities of the people around you changed over the past 10–15 years (data from a 2005 VTsIOM survey)
Among the main reasons for immorality in post-Soviet Russia, one can note the destruction of the usual ideological and social system, which led to a crisis of public morality and the popularization of crime, a pseudo-liberal understanding of freedom as non-compliance with any rules and prohibitions, as unbridledness and irresponsibility, as well as ignoring the traditional Russian unity of education and education of the younger generation. This affects the psychological state of society. According to a Levada Center survey (December 2012), the following feelings emerged and became stronger among Russians: fatigue, indifference (37%); hope (30%); confusion (19%); bitterness, aggressiveness (18%); resentment (13%), envy (12%); despair (12%), fear (12%). At the same time, according to a VTsIOM survey conducted in 2010, the loss of moral values, immorality, the spread of drug addiction, pornography, prostitution, gambling, etc. are considered probable in our country in the near future by 63% of respondents. 83% of respondents are worried about this (even to the point of severe fear).
Fragment of the 1st chapter of the monograph “State policy for the protection of morality and the media”
Go back to the main page
*Extremist and terrorist organizations banned in the Russian Federation: Jehovah's Witnesses, National Bolshevik Party, Right Sector, Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Islamic State (IS, ISIS, Daesh), Jabhat Fatah al-Sham", "Jabhat al-Nusra", "Al-Qaeda", "UNA-UNSO", "Taliban", "Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People", "Misanthropic Division", "Brotherhood" of Korchinsky, "Trident named after. Stepan Bandera", "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" (OUN), "Azov", "Terrorist Community "Network", AUE ("Prisoner's Way of Life is One")
Why are values and beliefs needed?
We need them only to use them as a kind of tool to satisfy our various needs.
Imagine the situation. The husband came home from work, took off his outerwear and went to the bathroom to wash. At this time, the wife picks up the mobile phone he carelessly left behind, reads the incoming SMS messages and, horror of horrors, because of some incoming revelations, she begins to suspect her husband of cheating. She can throw a scandal at him right away, she can continue observing, it doesn’t matter. The main thing is that she will begin to condemn him, such a dog. And most women will support her: “All men are assholes, they only need one!” Is it okay to spy on someone else’s correspondence? You can, of course, go into long discussions about how the husband has a sin and the wife has a small sin, but this is all rhetoric. What if a man really fell in love, if he didn’t marry for love or if his wife annoyed him with her scandals? What if she really gave him the best years of her life, pulled him out of the abyss of alcoholism, and gave birth to children? In short, do not try to find the truth here, even if you are dealing with a specific life situation.
Morals, morals, values are just a cudgel that we use to punish, insult or even destroy another person. This is a remedy that is usually used when there are no other ways to satisfy one's own needs. If the same woman had a man she liked in mind, she most likely would have taken everything much more calmly. She could call her husband for a frank conversation, or she could let him go on all four sides. In any case, I repeat, not a single moral norm, not a single value, even the most universal, is capable of taking into account all the nuances of a specific situation.
There is this interesting thing called the fundamental attribution error. The author of the concept, Lee Ross, is again a professor at Stanford University. In essence, we are talking about double standards in relation to ourselves and others. Its essence is quite simple: if we have committed a bad deed, then almost all of us will find an excuse for ourselves, and if the other person, especially if he is unpleasant to us, then we will see the cause of the sin in him. That is, again, this indicates that any morality, values, beliefs are a drawbar that justifies our needs, which are not always conscious. There is no value in values themselves (sorry for the tautology); they are only good for clarifying relationships.
If not values, then what?
But there’s nothing to think about here: we are kind (moral, spiritual, ethical, etc.) only when it benefits us.
The Good Samaritan Experiment
1973 The seminarians of the Theological Academy (the States again) are told the parable of the Good Samaritan. Let me remind you that its moral is that there can always be a person next to us who needs to lend a helping hand. You can philosophize about virtues for a long time, but they need to be confirmed by real deeds, and not empty chatter.
Following this, the group of seminarians was divided into two parts. The first part was tasked with making a report on the parable of the Samaritan. The second part was to read an essay on the topic of advantages when applying for a job. The reports and essays were to be read to students in another building of the university. But on the way to another building, each seminarian individually came across a person with whom an epileptic seizure “happened” (a decoy actor). An important point: the experiment was organized in such a way that the seminarians had a time limit: they had to rush to the students to read the report.
As a result, only 10% of the subjects stopped in front of the “unfortunate” to provide assistance. The remaining 90% did not do this, citing lack of time as an excuse. Moreover, the results were the same in both groups. When the subjects did not have a time limit (they were simply walking around the university grounds), the percentage of those who provided assistance was several times higher.
Conclusion: we are kind only when it benefits us. This benefit does not have to be material or anything else from the outside. It may be hidden in the depths of our psyche. In order, so to speak, of one’s own vanity: “Oh, how good I am!” But to be good in front of yourself or in front of a bunch of people waiting for you - here you have to make a choice, and it is most often in favor of being good for others. Why? Yes, because it is more important. I always have time to think well of myself, but other people won’t wait. The world is ruled not by values, but by profit.
What's under the hood of a machine of values?
Our behavior is determined not by values, but by the brake we have in our heads. More precisely, we are talking about a part of the brain called the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for our ability to plan the consequences of our actions, to look into the future, to plan it. It is not developed in children. The process of its development (myelination) is completed by the age of 23-25. This is the last zone of myelination of the cerebral cortex. Therefore, a person learns to calculate the long-term consequences of his socially significant actions at a relatively late age. Of course, children also have this ability, but it is very poorly developed: the child plans his activities first for a few minutes, then, as he grows up, for several hours, days, etc. forward, that is, he learns this gradually.
It is useless for many teenagers to explain the benefits for the future of doing well at school just because they do not see a good future. Even many of those children who study well do so not for the reason that they are laying the foundations for a future career, but because their mother (father, grandmother, etc.) will scold them for getting a C grade or Maryivanna for not doing their homework. Today or tomorrow, not in 10 years. In other words, such children very often study well because of fear, caused by an increased level of anxiety compared to other children, and this, as is already known, is determined by a certain level of hormones, that is, genetically. Such cowards in life. That is why the fate of many high school students is not going well.
At the age of 4-5 years, a child plans only a few minutes ahead, as evidenced by the marshmallow test, known to many psychologists. The child is told that there is a marshmallow on a plate. You can eat it right now, or you can wait 20 minutes. If the child endures these 20 minutes and restrains himself, then he will then receive another marshmallow; if he cannot bear it, call him, be content with the little. During this time, the children were left to their own devices, watched only through a hidden camera. Some children did all kinds of things to distract themselves: one boy walked in a circle and sang songs, another did a headstand, someone twisted his fingers. Not everyone passed the test. The matter did not end there. Scientists began to monitor the development of these children further. In total, the experiment lasted twenty years. And so, it turned out that those children who successfully passed the test in early childhood then studied much better at school, entered much more prestigious educational institutions and graduated better than those who failed the marshmallow test. That is, differences in the size and structure of the prefrontal cortex are observed in us already in childhood. The better it is developed, the higher the chances of accurately calculating the consequences of one’s actions with all the consequences, as they say.
We are free from all values, principles, morals and ethics, but any of our actions will have consequences. This is not a slogan or a call, it is a description of reality. Whatever we do, we create the consequences of our actions.
If we don’t take something into account when choosing an option, greatly simplify the situation, give in to emotions, we thereby lay a time bomb. There will definitely be such a consequence. It’s one thing if we notice these consequences. By making the consequences visible, we can at least learn something. For example, having unnecessarily offended a person, he can express everything to our faces, or even go to our faces and pull out our hair. Next time we'll think a hundred times before saying something like that. And it’s a completely different matter when we don’t notice the consequences of our bad actions. We offended a person for nothing, and years later, he, having become our boss and harboring within himself not even a grudge, but a slight annoyance from that very situation, may not offer us a higher position. We won't even know what we lost. Or this example: we didn’t say hello to our neighbor on the landing because we didn’t notice him, and tomorrow he won’t pay attention to the bunch of keys we dropped from our pocket, with all that it entails. Therefore, even mental inaction has consequences. He'll fuck it up, for sure. The worst thing is that we don’t know where.
Okay, another example. They yelled at a 3-year-old child for being naughty. Thus, we transferred our communication with him to the emotional level, especially if he entered the system. Neither we nor he agreed on this, that’s how our instincts worked. In addition, the child does not perceive those who yell as an authority. Leaders don't yell. Since we put pressure on his emotions, he will also communicate with us through emotional manipulation. How? But when he is about 13 years old, when we read morals to him again, he will slam the door of his room in our faces, leave the house, stay late on the street so that we worry. He has more than enough ways to play on our nerves, and it serves us right.
The same can be said about relationships at work. If a boss lashes out at a subordinate or starts having affairs, let him wait for problems. And they will arrive, it’s a matter of time.
There is no need to manipulate people, it is better to learn to manipulate yourself. This way you can make yourself whatever you want, set an example for others, and this is the best way to influence them.
Self manipulation
We need to learn to create situations that will condemn us to the behavior that we need. Strange? Not at all. For example, someone decided to start exercising: running in the morning or going to the gym. Experience shows that 80% of people give up on this business within a month, and 97% within the next two months. Why? Yes, because the consequences of all these efforts are not visible or they are very insignificant. To get more or less pumped up, you need to go to the gym for at least a year, while being on a fairly strict diet, not drinking, not smoking, etc. Therefore the question arises: why?
Therefore, it is necessary to create such a system that it would be unprofitable to refuse to train or go on the treadmill. How? But here you need to turn on your imagination. As an example, meet like-minded people who would not let you get caught. So that if you are not in the mood, they will drag you out of the house on a short leash. Yes, by the way, you will also have to perform the same function - to drag into the hall those who are “not worth it” today. As a result, a self-sustaining system can be created. We need to create situations that will condemn us to the behavior that we need.
Psychotherapists have long known that the higher the cost of treatment, the greater the effect of their procedures. Why? The same mechanism works: since I paid so much money, it means it needs to work out. And, oddly enough, it works. And for free there is no point in pushing.
Do you want to lose weight? Bet someone a large sum that you will do it. And if you don’t, then all the money will go to the person with whom you argued. Just don't waste your time on trifles. There are no 100% guarantees, but the probability increases sharply. Because it's the only thing that works.
Freedom as a value. The problem of freedom
Philosophical axiology, which deals with the analysis of values (from the Greek “axio” - value), defines the essence of man as a being that seeks and realizes meaning. A person is not just interested in objects, but also in their significance for him. A person not only studies them, he evaluates them from the point of view of necessity, use to satisfy material and spiritual needs. Significance is the essence of a value relationship. Consequently, value is everything that has a certain meaning for a person, personal or social meaning. Values do not exist in themselves, but only in connection with human activity, where the individual acts as a subject of spiritual and cultural existence. Values were born in the history of culture as certain spiritual postulates that help a person to withstand life’s ups and downs and trials, as ideas about what is desirable in a person and his way of life. One of these postulates is freedom.
Freedom is the highest spiritual value, a universal and universal concept of culture, the presence of which allows a person to act solely according to his own will, without external coercion. Freedom is a fundamental quality of a person that defines him as a person. It is thanks to freedom that a person acquires the ability not only to adapt to the surrounding reality, but also to transform it in accordance with his goals. The conditions of natural and social existence impose certain frameworks of behavior on the individual, therefore there is no absolute freedom of the individual and there cannot be in any society. A person can only gain relative freedom when he cognizes the conditions of his existence and masters them. Therefore, freedom includes multidimensional forms of manifestation: internal and external freedom, freedom of will, freedom of choice, intellectual freedom, creative freedom, moral freedom, etc.
It is necessary to distinguish between freedom “as a universal of culture”, the degree of its functioning in society, fixing the possibility of activity and behavior in the absence of external goal-setting (democracy and a non-totalitarian state) and freedom “as free will” - a person’s internal ability to self-determination in his actions. Since Epicurus, freedom in the history of philosophy has been interpreted in different ways. In antiquity, freedom was an attribute of the natural and cosmic order. In religious philosophy, true freedom is only with God; man is endowed with minimal freedom: his path of divine self-determination or sin. Since modern times (Spinoza, Hegel, Marxism), freedom has been viewed either as a “recognized necessity” or as the original autonomy of the human personality (Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Berdyaev, etc.).
One way or another, freedom is always located between two extreme poles: fatalism and voluntarism. Fatalism practically excludes freedom from human activity (Stoics, religious philosophy). Voluntarism expands the understanding of freedom to complete subjectivity, anarchy and arbitrariness. Starting with Kant and the irrationalist philosophy of the mid-19th century, two main aspects have been distinguished in the interpretation of freedom: freedom as “freedom from” and freedom as “freedom for.” The first can be defined as external freedom, and the second as internal freedom. The first (external) many thinkers (Schopenhauer, James, etc.) included physical, political, economic, social freedom; to the second (internal) - moral, intellectual, spiritual freedom.
Inner freedom is considered as the opportunity and ability of a person to be an independent, responsible and creative person, to have the will to make decisions, to make his own choices and to bear responsibility for everything. Responsibility is an integral companion of freedom, because our freedom necessarily affects the interests of other people. That is, while exercising our freedom, we must not forget that at the same time we are somehow limiting the freedom of others. The relationship between freedom and responsibility is directly proportional: the more freedom, the more responsibility. Being responsible is more difficult than being free. “Flight from freedom” (Sartre, Berdyaev, Fromm), as a fear of freedom, refusal of freedom, is associated, first of all, with the fear of responsibility, with the inability and unwillingness of the individual to bear it. Personal and social conformism (passive agreement with everyone and everything, lack of criticism and one’s own opinion, subordination of the will) is a manifestation of lack of freedom and, as a consequence, reluctance to bear responsibility and the desire to shift it onto other shoulders.
The most concrete expression of inner freedom is moral freedom. It is the result not just of will, but of good will. Moral freedom is associated with a situation of moral choice, with actions, with awareness of their consequences, with a moral assessment of one’s activities. An objective prerequisite for moral freedom is a high level of moral consciousness of the subject. The level of moral consciousness is based on such qualities as human self-sufficiency, spiritual aspiration, and personal maturity. Possessing these characteristics, a person becomes capable of independently, obeying his own convictions and will, to perform certain actions. The ability to make moral choices indicates the maturity of personal development.
Mature moral consciousness (ethical knowledge, personal beliefs, motives, ideals and self-esteem) allows the individual to control, internally motivate his actions, independently justify them, and develop an entire line of behavior. Moral choice is always a movement between various possibilities both within a norm and between following a norm or value and rejecting it. For an individual, the choice is not always easy and organic. It is especially not simple in so-called “borderline situations” (existentialism introduces this concept), when the choice is between values that are equally significant for a person, or when the choice is associated with a risk to health, to life itself.
Moral choice depends on both objective and subjective conditions. Objective conditions include those that do not depend on a person; they are created by the era, time, public interests, a specific situation, and the value systems of society. Subjective ones include the capabilities of the individual himself: maturity and level of moral consciousness, volitional characteristics, the degree of conviction and interest of the individual, the level of his spirituality in general. A number of ethical theories preached, as noted above, moral fatalism: goodness is “living unnoticed” - skeptics; live according to nature, without fussing and without trying to overcome what is intended by it - Stoics; evil can be overcome only by following the path predetermined by God - religious ethics, etc.
Moral fatalism absolutizes the fact of the objective conditionality of human behavior and ultimately asserts that neither good nor evil depends on man. Moral voluntarism, on the contrary, proceeds from the absolutization of freedom in moral activity. Voluntarists believe that in the creation of good or evil a person is not bound by anything and absolutely everything is in his will. Moral voluntarism is an extreme expression of ethical relativism and subjectivism. In philosophy, the position of ethical voluntarism was occupied by existentialists, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson and others.
Moral freedom is the will of a free spirit, aimed at good, for good. Therefore, it is no coincidence that spiritual and moral freedom are often used as synonyms. The state of the most complete spiritual and moral freedom occurs when awareness develops into conviction, into the need to follow the moral law (I. Kant), and spirituality and morality become the inner essence of a person.
You to me - I to you
Finally, one more point. If another person gets the maximum from a relationship with us, we also get the maximum. You can say: “Don’t yell at the children.” But if you don’t know why it’s necessary, sooner or later you’ll fail. But if you know about the consequences of these actions, you will not yell, not because a whim has come upon you, but because it will be unprofitable for you.
You can invent any social role for yourself, but if it is not supported by the situation, relationships with other people, it will break down. It's a question of time.
Conclusion: values, beliefs and principles prevent us from living because they are ineffective. You should always think about the consequences of your behavior.
And here, in fact, is the source of all this information:
For those who are not comfortable watching the video, read the text.
Let's go back to propaganda
Is it possible to promote values? As we see with the example of Family and Fidelity Day, it is possible. Is it effective? Yes, this doesn't work at all.
Values can be clarified. To know. Get it out of yourself. But they cannot be “infected” from another. Value is what was, is and always will be in you. This is why the propaganda of family and fidelity does not work - because these are values that you either have or don’t have.
Propaganda, it seems to me (let's leave aside its negative connotation and focus on the direct meaning - the spread of certain views), can only be effective in relation to certain behaviors or skills. In this sense, each of us experienced such parental propaganda when we were taught to brush our teeth and do our homework. But there are also examples of state propaganda.
For example, in the twenties of the last century, the authorities instilled in housewives the idea that they should wash dishes in hot water. This idea met with resistance (what kind of hot water is this? Our ancestors always washed in cold water! Why is it?), but, as you can see, it took root over time.
Or you can remember the propaganda of fish oil in the USSR. Now people over 35 years old, remembering fish oil, frown, but it was the propaganda of fish oil as a prevention of vitamin D deficiency that at one time saved the country from a total epidemic of rickets (in the post-war years it was difficult to find food, children did not receive all the necessary substances, and people fell ill with rickets almost every second).
However, not every behavior can be taught. But only what matches – tadam! – values. Why has the use of fish oil become so widespread? Because there was a value behind it: health.
We see the same thing in other areas. Why do some people start running and quickly give up, while others continue running and even intensify their training? Because the results of these actions do not lead the former to deep values (or even come into conflict with them, yes! For example, someone will perceive training as a threat to their freedom, and this value for him is deeper than good health), and the latter, on the contrary , feel the fullness of life.
This is not about the fact that the latter are right and the former are wrong, or vice versa. This means that values are different.
Now let's return to the issue of family and fidelity. It seems to me that when people talk about propaganda, they mean behavior, not value itself. The state needs strong families; married people need their spouse to be faithful to them. It's all behavior. But behavior is a consequence of value, not the other way around. If a person does not have the value of fidelity, he will not be faithful (or will be, but not for long).
Or the same “gay propaganda”. When they talk about the promotion of homosexuality, they mean behavior, not orientation, precisely because they perceive orientation as behavior. It looks very roughly like this: he starts doing this, which means he will become like this. Here there is a substitution of concepts, which I talked about in the article about language-prime: when we transfer the action to identification (example with Petya the poor student).
Propaganda can be effective if it concerns actions that relate to/lead to our values. If they are not connected, then at least promote yourself. You can hang the whole city with banners with Peter and Fevronya, but this will not result in more faithful wives and husbands.
