Сокольская Л.В. Диалектика взаимодействия права, морали и нравственности

Аннотация: The article states that the process of studying the problem of interaction of morality, morals and law was not linear; it was complicated and depended on political realities. However, despite of the apparent mastermindness of the issue it is necessary to mention that the dispute on differentiation of such categories as the morals and morality still goes on. In the modern scientific literature when considering the categories of “morals” and “morality” two opposite positions were generated. Some authors believe that these two categories are synonymous and there is no need to oppose them. Others attempt to differentiate between these concepts. According to the latter position, morality is something permanent, generic, belonging to all mankind, which arises simultaneously with the human society becoming and exists in all socioeconomic structures. The morals appear at rather later stages of the human society development. In the basis of differentiation of morals and morality lie differences between specific historical and general historical interests and purposes. Morals are seen as morality adapted for preservation of a specific environment. It not universal, and always socially caused; and in relation to these two categories morality dominates over morals. Being an integral part of any system of morals, morality has relative independence, what is testified by the fact that it is preserved in its basis during the entire history of human society as those elementary moral requirements which developed at the dawn of human history and ever since then invariable are included in all systems of morals, both classless and class, being universal by content. The dialectics of interrelations of the law, morals and morality is well traced during the influence of social-normative system on a person. In the opinion of the author, the distinction between them is in the following: – The legal regulatory system necessarily is subject to “recording”, i.e. it is the result of law-making activity of the state bodies or people; – The moral regulatory system is not always “recorded” in certain moral codes. It is kept in a certain environment and supported by the opinion of this environment, formally established instructions; – The system of morality principles cannot be expressed through specific, existing norms at all, cannot be subject to “recording”. The morality does not seek accommodation of social regulatory functions; it always has them. The dialectics of morality, morals and law, representing a dialectic contradiction, is a unity of contrasts. In fact the law, morals and morality are forms of an integral whole – a universal culture. The morals and law are the transformed forms of morality and as those express the morality-based content in the form adapted to the limited actual genesis of an individual as member of a social group. The author believes that morality develops a human opinion of what it can and should become in the upward tendency. Tracing the interrelation of law, morals and morality it is necessary to emphasize the primate of the moral origin in the human activity genesis. It may be explained, first, by the morality (customs) historically preceding moral and law rules and was one of their sources. Second, morality, and later morals, is much richer and wider than the law rules by its regulatory functions. Third, within the framework of moral requirements a person is much wider than in legal framework, shows freedom of choice of a behavior version. And, at last, the highest form of consciousness of a person is observance legal and moral standards at the level of a moral control. The consciousness of a person simultaneously is environment based, i.e. reflects certain standards of a certain environment, and universal, i.e. expresses universality of an individual as an in-situ generic being and is aimed at its preservation. These elements are in close interaction with each other by virtue of a specific person integrity and unity.

Abstract: The article states that the process of studying the problem of interaction of morality, morals and law was not linear; it was complicated and depended on political realities. However, despite of the apparent mastermindness of the issue it is necessary to mention that the dispute on differentiation of such categories as the morals and morality still goes on. In the modern scientific literature when considering the categories of “morals” and “morality” two opposite positions were generated. Some authors believe that these two categories are synonymous and there is no need to oppose them. Others attempt to differentiate between these concepts. According to the latter position, morality is something permanent, generic, belonging to all mankind, which arises simultaneously with the human society becoming and exists in all socioeconomic structures. The morals appear at rather later stages of the human society development. In the basis of differentiation of morals and morality lie differences between specific historical and general historical interests and purposes. Morals are seen as morality adapted for preservation of a specific environment. It not universal, and always socially caused; and in relation to these two categories morality dominates over morals. Being an integral part of any system of morals, morality has relative independence, what is testified by the fact that it is preserved in its basis during the entire history of human society as those elementary moral requirements which developed at the dawn of human history and ever since then invariable are included in all systems of morals, both classless and class, being universal by content. The dialectics of interrelations of the law, morals and morality is well traced during the influence of social-normative system on a person. In the opinion of the author, the distinction between them is in the following: – The legal regulatory system necessarily is subject to “recording”, i.e. it is the result of law-making activity of the state bodies or people; – The moral regulatory system is not always “recorded” in certain moral codes. It is kept in a certain environment and supported by the opinion of this environment, formally established instructions; – The system of morality principles cannot be expressed through specific, existing norms at all, cannot be subject to “recording”. The morality does not seek accommodation of social regulatory functions; it always has them. The dialectics of morality, morals and law, representing a dialectic contradiction, is a unity of contrasts. In fact the law, morals and morality are forms of an integral whole – a universal culture. The morals and law are the transformed forms of morality and as those express the morality-based content in the form adapted to the limited actual genesis of an individual as member of a social group. The author believes that morality develops a human opinion of what it can and should become in the upward tendency. Tracing the interrelation of law, morals and morality it is necessary to emphasize the primate of the moral origin in the human activity genesis. It may be explained, first, by the morality (customs) historically preceding moral and law rules and was one of their sources. Second, morality, and later morals, is much richer and wider than the law rules by its regulatory functions. Third, within the framework of moral requirements a person is much wider than in legal framework, shows freedom of choice of a behavior version. And, at last, the highest form of consciousness of a person is observance legal and moral standards at the level of a moral control. The consciousness of a person simultaneously is environment based, i.e. reflects certain standards of a certain environment, and universal, i.e. expresses universality of an individual as an in-situ generic being and is aimed at its preservation. These elements are in close interaction with each other by virtue of a specific person integrity and unity.