Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Этика и эстетика в туризме (на английском языке) = Ethics and Aesthetics in tourism (in English). Конспект лекций для обучающихся 3 курса образователь.pdf
21
the Fathers had no occasion to treat moral questions from a purely philosophical
standpoint, and independently of Christian Revelation; but in the explanation of
Catholic doctrine their discussions naturally led to philosophical investigations. This
is particularly true of St Augustine, who proceeded to thoroughly develop along
philosophical lines and to establish firmly most of the truths of Christian morality.
The eternal law (lex aterna), the original type and source of all temporal laws, the
natural law, conscience, the ultimate end of man, the cardinal virtues, sin, marriage,
etc. were treated by him in the clearest and most penetrating manner. Hardly a single
portion of ethics does he present to us but is enriched with his keen philosophical
commentaries. Late ecclesiastical writers followed in his footsteps.
Ethics: History of Middle Ages Ethical Philosophy
A sharper line of separation between philosophy and theology, and in particular
between ethics and moral theology, is first met with in the works of the great
Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, especially of Albert the Great (1193-1280), Thomas
Aquinas (1225-1274), Bonaventure (1221-1274), and Duns Scotus (1274-1308).
Philosophy and, by means of it, theology reaped abundant fruit from the works of
Aristotle, which had until then been a sealed treasure to Western civilization, and had
first been elucidated by the detailed and profound commentaries of St. Albert the
Great and St. Thomas Aquinas and pressed into the service of Christian philosophy.
The same is particularly true as regards ethics. St. Thomas, in his commentaries on
the political and ethical writings of the Stagirite, in his "Summa contra Gentiles" and
his "Quaestiones disputatae, treated with his wonted clearness and penetration nearly
the whole range of ethics in a purely philosophical manner, so that even to the present
day his words are an inexhaustible source whence ethics draws its supply. On the
foundations laid by him the Catholic philosophers and theologians of succeeding ages
have continued to build. It is true that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, thanks
especially to the influence of theco-called Nominalists, a period of stagnation and
decline set in, but the sixteenth century is marked by a revival. Ethical questions,
also, though largely treated in connexion with theology, are again made the subject of
22
careful investigation. We mention as examples the great theologians Victoria,
Dominicus Soto, L. Molina, Suarez, Lessius, and De Lugo. Since the sixteenth
century special chairs of ethics (moral philosophy) have been erected in many
Catholic universities. The larger, purely philosophical works on ethics, however do
not appear until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, as an example of which we
may instance the production of Ign. Schwarz, "Instituitiones juris universalis naturae
et gentium" (1743).
History of Ethical Philosophy 1500 - 1700's
Far different from Catholic ethical methods were those adopted for the most
part by Protestants. With the rejection of the Church's teaching authority, each
individual became on principle his own supreme teacher and arbiter in matters
appertaining to faith and morals. True it is that the Reformers held fast to Holy Writ
as the infallible source of revelation, but as to what belongs or does not belong to it,
whether, and how far, it is inspired, and what is its meaning -- all this was left to the
final decision of the individual. The inevitable result was that philosophy arrogantly
threw to the winds all regard for revealed truth, and in many cases became involved
in the most pernicious errors. Melanchthon, in his "Elementa philosophiae moralis",
still clung to the Aristotelean philosophy; so, too, did Hugo Grotius, in his work, "De
jure belli et pacis". But Cumberland and his follower, Samuel Pufendorf, moreover,
assumed, with Descartes, that the ultimate ground for every distinction between good
and evil lay in the free determination of God's will, a view which renders the
philosophical treatment of ethics fundamentally impossible. Quite an influential
factor in the development of ethics was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). He supposes
that the human race originally existed in existed in a rude condition (status naturae) in
which every man was free to act as he pleased, and possessed a right to all things,
whence arose a war of all against all. Lest destruction should be the result, it was
decided to abandon this condition of nature and to found a state in which, by
agreement, all were to be subject to one common will (one ruler). This authority
ordains, by the law of the State, what is to be considered by all as good and as evil,
23
and only then does there arise a distinction between good and evil of universal
binding force on all. The Pantheist Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) considers the instinct
to self-preservation as the foundation of virtue. Every being is endowed with the
necessary impulse to assert itself, and, as reason demands nothing contrary to nature,
it requires each one to follow this impulse and to stive after whatever is useful to him.
And each individual possesses power and virtue just in so far as he obeys this
impulse. Freedom of the will consists merely in the ability to follow unrestrainedly
this natural impulse. Shaftesbury (1671-1713) bases ethics on the affections or
inclinations of man. There are sympathetic, idiopathic, and unnatural inclinations.
The first of these regard the common good, the second the private good of the agent,
the third are opposed to the other two. To lead a morally good life, war must be
waged upon the unnatural impulses, while the idiopathetic and sympathetic
inclinations must be made to harmonize. This harmony constitutes virtue. In the
attainment of virtue the subjective guiding principle of knowledge is the "moral
sense", a sort of moral instinct. This "moral sense" theory was further developed by
Hutcheson (1694-1747); meanwhile "common sense" was suggested by Thoms Reid
(1710-1796) as the highest norm of moral conduct. In France the materialistic
philosophers of the eighteenth century -- as Helvetius, de la Mettrie, Holbach,
Condillac, and others -- disseminated the teachings of Sensualism and Hedonism as
understood by Epicurus.
History of Ethical Philosophy: Kant, John Stuart Mill, Altruism
A complete revolution in ethics was introduced by Immanuel Kant (1724-
1804). From the wreck of pure theoretical reason he turned for rescue to practical
reason, in which he found an absolute, universal, and categorical moral law. This law
is not to be conceived as an enactment of external authority, for this would be
heteromony, which is foreign to true morality; it is rather the law of our own reason,
which is, therefore, autonomous, that is, it must be observed for its own sake, without
regard to any pleasure or utility arising therefrom. Only that will is morally good
which obeys the moral law under the influence of such a subjective principle or
24
motive as can be willed by the individual to become the universal law for all men.
The followers of Kant have selected now one now another doctrine from his ethics
and combined therewith various pantheistical systems. Fichte places man's supreme
good and destiny in absolute spontaneity and liberty; Schleiermacher, in co-operating
with the progressive civilization of mankind. A similar view recurs substantially in
the writings of Wilhelm Wundt and, to a certain extent, in those of the pessimist,
Edward von Hartmann, though the latter regards culture and progress merely as
means to the ultimate end, which, according to him, consists in delivering the
Absolute from the torment of existence. The system of Cumberland, who maintained
the common good of mankind to be the end and criterion of moral conduct, was
renewed on a positive basis in the nineteenth century by Auguste Comte and has
counted many adherents, e.g., in England, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick,
Alexander Bain; in Germany, G.T. Fechner, F.E. Beneke, F. Paulsen, and others.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) sought to effect a compromise between social
Utilitarianism (Altruism) and private Utilitarianism (Egoism) in accordance with the
theory of evolution. In his opinion, that conduct is good which serves to augment life
and pleasure withut any admixture of displeasure. In consequence, however, of man's
lack of adaptation to the conditions of life, such absolute goodness of conduct is not
as yet possible, and hence various compromises must be made between Altruism and
Egoism. With the progress of evolution, however, this adaptability to existing
conditions will become more and more perfect, and consequently the benefits
accruing to the individual from his own conduct will be most useful to society at
large. In particular, sympathy (in joy) will enable us to take pleasure in altrusitic
actions.
Ethics: The New Time.
The great majority of non-Christian moral philosophers have followed the path
trodden by Spencer. Starting with the assumption that man, by a series of
transformations, was gradually evolved from the brute, and therefore differs from it
in degree only, they seek the first traces and beginnings of moral ideas in the brute
itself. Charles Darwin had done some preparatory work along these lines, and
25
Spencer did not hesitate to descant on brute-ethics, on the pre-human justice,
conscience, and self-control of brutes. Present-day Evolutionists follow his view and
attempt to show how animal morality has in man continually become more perfect.
With the aid of analogies taken from ethnology, they relate how mankind originally
wandered over the face of the earth in semi-savage hordes, knew nothing of marriage
or the familt, and only by degrees reached a higher level of morality. These are the
merest creations of fancy. If man is nothing more than a highly developed brute, he
cannot possess a spiritual and immortal soul, and there can no longer be question of
the freedom of the will, of the future retribution of good and evil, nor can man in
consequence be hindered from ordering his life as he pleases and regarding the weelbeing of others only in so far as it redounds to his own profit. As the Evolutionists, so
too the Socialists favour the theory of evolution from their ethical viewpoint; yet the
latter do not base their observations on scientific principles, but on social and
economic considerations. According to K. Marx, F. Engels, and other exponents of
the so-called "materialistic interpretation of history", all moral, religious, juridical
and philosophical concepts are but the reflex of the economical conditions of society
in the minds of men. Now these social relations are subject to constant change; hence
the ideas of morality, religion, etc. are also continually changing. Every age, every
people, and even each class in a given people forms its moral and religious ideas in
accordance with its own peculiar economical situation. Hence, no universal code of
morality exists binding on all men at all times; the morality of the present day is not
of Divine origin, but the product of history, and will soon have to make room for
another system of morality. Allied to this materialistic historical interpretation,
though derived from other sources, is the system of Relativism, which resognizes no
absolute and unchangeable truths in regard to ethics or anything else. Those who
follow this opinion believe that nothing objectively true can be known by us. Men
differ from one another and are subject to change, and with them the manner and
means of viewing the world about them also change. Moreover the judgments passed
on matters religious and moral depend essentially on the inclinations, interests, and
character of the person judgng, while these latter are constantly varying. Pragmatism
26
differs from Relativism inasmuch as that not only is to be considered true which is
proven by experience to be useful; and, since the same thing is not always useful,
unchangeable truth is impossible. According to Max Nordau, moral precepts are
nothing but "conventional lies"; according to Max Stirner, that alone is good which
serves my interests, whereas the common good, the love for all men, etc. are but
empty phantoms. Men of genius and superiority in particular are coming more and
more to be regarded as exempt from the moral law. Nietzsche is the originator of a
school whose doctrines are founded on these principles. According to him, goodness
was originally identified with nobility and gentility of rank. Whatever the man of
rank and power did, whatever inclinations he possessed were good. The downtrodden proletariat, on the other hand were bad, i.e. lowly and ignoble, without any
other derogatory meaning being given to the word bad. It was only by a gradual
process that the oppressed multitude through hatred and envy evolved the distinction
between good and bad, in the moral sense, by denominating the characteristics and
conduct of those in power and rank as bad, and their own behaviour as good. And
thus arose the opposition between the morality of the master and that of the slave.
Those in power still continued to look upon their own egoistic inclinations as noble
and good, while the oppressed populace lauded the "instincts of the common herd",
i.e. all those qualities necessary and useful to its existence -- as patience, meekness,
obedience and love of one's neighbor. Weakness became goodness, cringing
obsequiousness became humility, subjection to hated oppressors was obedience,
cowardice meant patience. "All morality is one long and audacious deception."
Hence, the value attached to the prevailing concepts of morality must be entirely
rearranged. Intellectual superiority is above and beyond good and evil as understood
in the traditional sense. There is no higher moral order to which men of such caliber
are amenable. The end of society is not the common good of its members; the
intellectual aristocracy (the over-man) is its own end; in its behalf the common herd,
the "too many", must be reduced to slavery and decimated. As it rests with each
individual to decide who belongs to this intellectual aristocracy, so each man is at
liberty to emancipate himself from the existing moral order.
27
The poem had appeared in 1705 and was intended as a commentary on
England as Mandeville saw it. Keynes described the poem as setting forth "the
appalling plight of a prosperous community in which all the citizens suddenly take it
into their heads to abandon luxurious living, and the State to cut down armaments, in
the interests of Saving".
A Spacious Hive well stock'd with Bees,
That lived in Luxury and Ease;
And yet as fam'd for Laws and Arms,
As yielding large and early Swarms;
Was counted the great Nursery
Of Sciences and Industry.
No Bees had better Government,
More Fickleness, or less Content.
They were not Slaves to Tyranny,
Nor ruled by wild Democracy;
But Kings, that could not wrong, because
Their Power was circumscrib'd by Laws.
The "hive" is corrupt but prosperous, yet it grumbles about lack of virtue. A
higher power decides to give them what they ask for:
But Jove, with Indignation moved,
At last in Anger swore, he'd rid
The bawling Hive of Fraud, and did.
The very Moment it departs,
And Honesty fills all their Hearts;
This results in a rapid loss of prosperity, though the newly virtuous hive does
not mind:
For many Thousand Bees were lost.
Hard'ned with Toils, and Exercise
They counted Ease itself a Vice;
Which so improved their Temperance;
28
That, to avoid Extravagance,
They flew into a hollow Tree,
Blest with Content and Honesty.
Bare Virtue can't make Nations live
In Splendor; they, that would revive
A Golden Age, must be as free,
For Acorns, as for Honesty.
Questions for self-check:
1.What are the ethical doctrines of the antiquity?
2.Characterize the main ethical ideas of the Plato, Socrates and Aristotel.
3.What are the ethical doctrines of the Middle ages?
4.Enumerate main philosophers of this period and their ethical ideas.
5.What is the essence of Christian morality?
6.What are the main peculiarities of the ethics of the New Time?
29
PART II. THE PERSONALITY AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS.
Lecture 2.1. CORPORATE ETHICS. CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY.
1. The definition of the corporate ethics.
2. Origin of the social responsibility.
3.The Code of ethics and other ethical normative acts in business.
4. Informational security and the Code of ethics.
The definition of the corporate ethics.
Corporate Ethics is the culture of conduct of the company's employees, their
beliefs and values, traditions, level of relationship between line managers (managers)
and work between the company, its clients and partners.
One of the first moral and economic concepts of the company (Corporation)
was the concept of the famous American businessman G. Ford. Many of its
principles retain their practical importance now. Brief Code of ethics by G.Ford can
be expressed in the following main provisions.
1. Talking about the manufacturing process in general, he pointed out that the
product is not just implemented "business" theory, but more the theory, which aims
to create the world of things as a source of joy and money and possessions are useful
only insofar as they promote the vital freedom.
2. He proclaimed the primacy of production over consumption and above the
profit and trade. In other words, he insisted, that the quantity should not exceed
demand (market forces), and profits earned from its implementation (this means the
permanent attachment of additional production), in which he saw a three-fold benefit
to all participants of the production process: wages, low prices and a large amount of
profits through a huge mass of goods.
3. Ford believed that the company would be successful, if a worker knows that
something depends on him, that he is charged with direct responsibility for a specific
area of work and this work is adequately rewarded.
4. Ford defended the idea of a differentiated approach to different qualities of
people: work should be based on force and ability.
30
5. One of the most important laws of business ethics is saving, rational use of
natural resources.
One of the most important ethical problems that appear in the process of the of
economic institutions functioning is the problem of relationship between the
business and society. Social and economic interests can come into conflict.
The origin of the social responsibility.
The issue of social responsibility of the company. One of the common
ethical issues concerning the functioning of various economic institutions is the
problem of the relationship of business and society business opposition appeared
back in the 60-ies. 20th century in developed European countries manifested an
active interest in issues such as civil rights, women's equality, pollution Wednesday.
In the 70-80-ies. to the fore questions regarding the use of atomic energy, getting rid
of hunger in third world countries, protection of flora and fauna. Opposition arose
from the business community. A question was raised about the social responsibility
of enterprises for the society, which was the historical continuation of the doctrines
of capitalist philanthropy business leaders set out at the beginning of the 20th century
according to this doctrine, profitable organizations should donate a portion of their
funds for the benefit of society. For example, the 20th century entrepreneur Andrew
Carnegie invested 350 million dollars. in social programs and has built more than
2000 public libraries.
The issue of social responsibility, which acutely at the end of the 20th century,
may be summarized as follows. Any commercial organization (firm), relying on
production efficiency, aims at making a profit. For this it uses any valid (and
sometimes not valid). With a view to their own benefit, the company performs a
positive role for society, creating jobs, producing goods and services demanded.
However, it is believed that the commercial organization is more than economic
integrity. It is part of a multi-layered system (consumers, shareholders, unions and
associations, the media, etc.), which partly depends on its commercial success.
Therefore the Organization balance purely economic objectives with economic and
social interests of these components. According to this view, the firm is responsible