Ogurtsova on the line
Primavera, Sandro Botticelli, 1477
Moral qualities are found in connection with intention.
Nature has given man a weapon - intellectual moral strength, but he can use this weapon in the opposite direction, therefore a person without moral principles turns out to be the most wicked and savage creature, base in his sexual and taste instincts.
Aristotle
It is difficult to overestimate the relevance and practical significance of moral criteria of analysis precisely at a time when a moral assessment of what is happening is required. It is easy to be “moral” by talking about the past, condemning those who are no longer able to answer you. But only the decisions made by an individual every day, in full accordance with his “moral law within” (p. Immanuel Kant), not only characterize a person’s personality, but also the level of democracy of the entire society.
Many (not without external pressure) believe that the naked “mind” in analysis is capable of something without taking into account a priori moral criteria. As a rule, these people are unable to formulate any of their own conclusions, which they came to on their own, and long before others voiced it.
Just today it is possible to give a completely objective assessment of the “conclusions” that can be reached as a result of the complete denial of the moral principle. However, statements about the prevalence of bare facts in the analysis without their preliminary moral assessment lead not only to the fact that as a result the entire society receives immoral conclusions.
The trouble is that these conclusions turn out to be incompatible with the life of society itself.
But we should begin to consider moral criteria... with art, which, it would seem, does not at all relate to the sphere of social survival.
It is strange that everyone who claims that “real art” can be created without being guided by any moral criteria, that art is “created for the sake of art”, and that one can write novels “for the table”, is terribly outraged as soon as such an approach spreads and in relation to themselves. With all the overwhelming cynicism of someone’s personal position, the public figure himself passionately wants that any analysis regarding the activities of public figures of recent years who participated in the destruction of the previous morality of Soviet society would be based on the highest moral criteria, by which we mean the highest standards of universal human values.
But one has only to try to create their images through the means of art, and everything falls into place, since the very fabric of the literary basis, reflecting real life, immediately absorbs diverse personal assessments of their activities, accumulating the most important thing.
And this process is far from the political situation, where, on the contrary, today the “response from below” - public opinion - is not taken into account. Art is not perceived by the human soul if it does not reflect moral principles... which everyone knows from birth.
Art is the very “voice of the people,” an expression of their spiritual aspirations, which people usually don’t like to listen to, because it is more convenient to replace it with popular opinion, convincing oneself that “the people are sleeping.” But the opinion of the people is expressed in a nationwide commitment to individual works, and not at all in the roar of a faceless crowd at rallies. And if a period comes when people do not read books in Russian, preferring genre literature that does not claim to have an ideological level, if they openly despise Russian cinema, which does not have a good literary basis, this is the “voice of the people”, testifying that the quality of “spiritual food” does not meet the needs of society.
Perhaps the main moral conclusion from the history of Russia in the twentieth century can be the conclusion that the life of an individual and humanity as a whole can be significantly improved and raised above the bustle of everyday life only through the means of art .
Therefore, today the interest in Russian classical literature and classical ballet remains unchanged, and the interest in opera, which Richard Wagner considered “the synthesis of all arts,” is constantly growing. People are constantly drawn to beauty, at least at the level of Hollywood blockbusters, which are much higher quality films. Moreover, “mass love” here is very demanding and selective. In a word, the constant craving for art, satisfied today, due to its inaccessibility, and through the Internet, proves that this is the most important human need, reflecting a qualitative change in an individual’s life for the better.
Art is created only in order to capture in modern images a system of moral values - those beacons that everyone tries to adhere to in analysis. It is unlikely that such things are subject to reason, where to take into account the entire complex of moral goods, without which it is impossible to achieve the fullness of... human happiness.
You should not cringe at the phrase “moral criteria”, since this is not at all “reading morals” and, moreover, not “moral obligations”, where ideology (or corporate interests) try to defeat... conscience. Human morality is a necessary, but, unfortunately, not always sufficient condition for human happiness .
We all want to love and be loved, but not because we have money or power. We want material well-being and contentment, but achieved through labor, and not as camp servants in a crematorium.
The past twentieth century has made it possible to consider the indissoluble connection between human happiness and moral satisfaction - in various social cataclysms. And the fact that the best examples of art constantly resonate in the soul of the reader, listener, and viewer just testifies to the high moral needs of “our people.”
If a work of art contains moral accents that are correctly placed when creating artistic images, the result of its impact on the human soul will have a cleansing and ennobling character. In his doctrine of tragedy, Aristotle called this effect catharsis. According to Aristotle, tragedy, evoking compassion and fear, makes the viewer empathize, thereby purifying his soul, elevating and educating him. From his point of view, catharsis is the purification of the spirit through emotional experiences/empathies.
Since the time of Aristotle, humanity has seen so many mass tragedies, and visual means have become so close to documentary that most will consider the methods he proposes ... “black stuff.”
And this places ever-growing demands on the moral apparatus of the “cultural figure” himself, who must unmistakably determine what storylines and technical details art can reflect, and what facts of our existence, even presented in an indirect form, will forever lower the work to the level of “kisch.” , pseudo-art.
In contact with real art, human thought and feelings are not divided, they flow together, as one energy flow, where all the past, present and predicted future are collected together. It is like the genetic code of the eternal quest of the human spirit.
It is interesting that since ancient times we have been judging the life not of a flock or a herd, but of human society, not so much by the remains, but by rock paintings, decorations and other cultural monuments. And this “craving for beauty”, inexplicable in other conditions, can only be understood from a moral position; the rational principle here will be absolutely useless.
What forced the unknown Paleolithic artist to leave rock paintings for centuries, taking time away from food, everyday goods, and the “struggle for power”? These paintings cannot be sold or taken with you, they can only be given with a piece of their soul to all people. But if we can still assume some personal motives of the artist, far from pure altruism (the desire for fame, worship, etc.), then none of the spectators was obliged to look at them.
The Lascaux Cave in France is an important Paleolithic site in terms of the quantity, quality and preservation of rock art. The picturesque and engraved drawings of the cave do not have an exact dating. For a long time they were attributed to the ancient Magdalenian culture, but recent research has shown that they most likely belong to the earlier Solutrean culture.
Of course, the author of these paintings, starting the labor-intensive process of creating them, had no guarantees that it would reach his descendants, that it would not be destroyed by vandals from a neighboring tribe, that his fellow tribesmen would like it. He created because he could not do otherwise. And today it is impossible to take your eyes off fantastic paintings. But we can be absolutely sure that in every success of ours, in the need for creativity, in all the achievements of mankind - this rock painting is already inscribed in the “gene” unknown to us.
* * *
In Cicero’s well-known exclamation “O times! Oh morals! the norms of established social relations at the “decent/indecent” level are tied to a certain time period. However, time does not determine the morals themselves, but the complexity of demonstrating the best human qualities, the totality of the risks of maintaining human dignity.
The value of a moral position lies precisely in the immutability of ideas about good and evil - regardless of the conditions in which human life takes place. Even today we fully understand the spiritual aspirations and actions of people of the distant past. Moral criteria remain unchanged, without changing with place and time, so we easily enter the prosaic fabric of a historical novel, navigating among the characters at least at the bad/good level. And Cicero’s saying turned into an aphorism, since people often used it to characterize their contemporary reality.
Antiquity generally provided a diverse basis for the definition of morality as a set of generally accepted social mores, i.e. what is accepted in modern society and what cannot be a generally accepted norm in a specific time period.
Oh times, oh morals! The Senate knows everything perfectly well, the consul sees it, and he is still alive! Alive? Moreover, he appears in the Senate and wants to be a participant in the discussion of state affairs; with his gaze he marks and destined one of us for death - first one, then the other. And we, just think, are brave people! — we imagine that we are doing everything to save the state, if we are trying to evade his crazy antics, his attempts! You should have been sent to death, Catiline, long ago by order of the consul, to turn this death that you are plotting against us on your head.
There was, once upon a time, such glorious valor in our state that determined people dared to tame a harmful citizen with more severe measures than the most cruel enemy. And now, Catiline, we have against you a Senate decree of enormous force and importance; the state has the wise guidance of the Senate; we, we, I say openly, we, the consuls, are delaying!
[From Cicero's speech against the freedman Catiline]
Cesare Maccari (1840 - 1919) “Cicero denounces Catiline” (1882-1888)
Cicero gained wide fame for his speeches against the freedman Catiline, a favorite of the dictator Sulla, and during the trial against the governor of Sicily Veres. He made speeches in defense of social mores - against people who took advantage of their proximity to power for their own personal interests. On his part, participation in these cases was initially a hopeless step, but public support in these processes was entirely on his side, since he acted from a moral position, demanding justice.
His speeches have reached us along with monuments of literary creativity, which in itself proves how important moral criteria of behavior in society are for human civilization.
I see, I am a judge, no one doubts that C. Verres, in front of everyone, robbed all the buildings in Sicily - both sacred and profane, both private and public, and that, committing all kinds of theft and robbery , he not only did not feel fear of the gods, but did not even hide his crimes. However, a special kind of defense is being put up against me, magnificent and magnificent: I should think in advance, judges, by what means to repel it. The situation is put in such a way that the province of Sicily, thanks to his valor and exceptional vigilance in troubled and alarming times, was kept safe from runaway slaves and, in general, from the dangers of war. What should I do, judges? Where should I focus the basis of my accusation? Where to go?
Opposed to all my onslaughts, like some kind of barrier, is this glory of a good commander. I know this technique, I see at what point Hortensius [Famous Roman orator, opponent of Cicero, who defended Veres] will triumph. He will describe the danger of war, the difficult times of the state, the lack of commanders, then he will beg you, and then make a supposedly fair demand that you do not allow the Sicilians, by their testimony, to take such a commander-in-chief away from the Roman people, so that, by your will, the accusation of greed does not eclipse his glory a good commander.
[From Cicero's speech against Verres]
In Cicero’s speech against the famous commander Veres, his unconditional merits in “troubled and troubled times” are listed, which his defender Hortensius repeatedly reminded those present, noting that neither accusers nor judges have such personal merits before the Fatherland.
Instead of denying well-known facts, Cicero, speaking against the powerful official defense of Veres, himself lists the merits of the accused, showing the depth of his moral decline precisely against the backdrop of his impeccable reputation as the “commander-in-chief of the Roman people.” Cicero proves that previous impeccable service for the benefit of the Fatherland did not give the famous commander the moral right to rob and ruin the Sicilians, i.e. doing what their military opponents and fugitive slaves, from whom Veres protected his fellow citizens in his time, could not do.
Cicero is the first to say that it is much easier to defend against an external threat to society than from a person in power who displays an immoral attitude towards his own citizens, believing that they owe him a lot for their previous services.
The biography of Cicero, with his life's ups and downs, may in itself justify the special importance of moral choice for a public figure. Unfortunately, an absolutely correct moral understanding of the affairs of Catiline and Veres did not protect Cicero himself from the same mistakes. He begins to painfully perceive the fact that his fellow citizens take many of his moral actions for granted, not noticing that in many ways this happens under the influence of his speeches, where he proved how natural it is for a person to be moral, and not vice versa. Nevertheless, his career takes off, and Cicero's fame and influence reach their peak so that, praising his decisive actions, Cato publicly calls him "the father of the fatherland."
However, at the same time, Plutarch writes: “Many were imbued with hostility and even hatred towards him - not for any bad deed, but only because he endlessly praised himself. Neither the Senate, nor the people, nor the judges managed to gather and disperse without hearing once again the old song about Catiline... he filled his books and writings with boasts, and his speeches, always so euphonious and enchanting, became torment for the listeners.”
Plutarch notes that Cicero did not do anything wrong; he put personal interests above public interests in a different way, not by “cutting up the budget” or robbing the civilian population with exorbitant extortions. But in every speech he allowed himself to reproach the entire society for the “old song about Catiline,” just as his opponent Hortensius tried to reproach society for the merits of Veres.
From a literary point of view, Cicero’s oratorical activity during this period follows an initially immoral path, since he himself tries to create his own image in his speeches - outside of public criticism, excluding any third-party assessment of his own personality, in essence, imposing his own cult on society.
But by completely excluding public opinion from the moral assessment of his own personality, Cicero suffers a real collapse of all his hopes.
In the struggle for power between Mark Antony and the young Octavian, Caesar's heir, he took the latter's side not out of moral considerations or state interests. He decided that he could manipulate the young man and with his help achieve personal undivided power.
In order to weaken Anthony’s position, he made 14 speeches directed against him, which he called “philippics” by analogy with the speeches of Demosthenes, in which he denounced Philip of Macedon. However, when Octavian, thanks to the support given to him by Cicero, came to power, he immediately included Cicero’s name in the proscription2 lists of “enemies of the people.”
But at first, listeners and readers began to remain indifferent to his speeches, excessively filled with morality and teachings beyond personal modesty, ignoring public opinion, due to an immoral decrease in demands on oneself.
Speaking about socially significant things, Cicero could use his personal experience, but not as self-justification and self-praise, pushing himself beyond the framework of public criticism and, ultimately, beyond the framework of society - but only in order to more fully reveal the thought, explain , what exactly prompted him to come to such conclusions.
His public activity at a certain moment, when Cicero could already consider that “life was a success,” began to collapse due to the lack of elementary empathy, which his brilliant speeches “a little about himself” could no longer evoke in his fellow citizens. Although, given his fame and fame, his brilliant career, he could consider it a trifle that... they stopped hearing him.
He did not understand that the attempt to rise above society in speeches showed the same level of moral decline that he noted in the commander Veres, when he became deaf to the opinions of his fellow citizens.
Plutarch only reflects the prevailing dual opinion about the life of Cicero, repeating the assessment already given to him, entrenched in public opinion. It is especially interesting here that Cicero’s most risky actions, dictated by his moral position, “get away with it” and contribute to the widespread fame that he so strived for. Moreover, they are the ones who perpetuate his name. But the very calculating “philippics” in support of Octavian lead him to death.
From then on, the word “philippic” has a derogatory character in relation to a set of pompous, worthless epithets that not only do not correspond to reality, but are said without moral assessment, “for the sake of a catchphrase.”
* * *
...Art is not life, but its reflection. It is this that will remain when none of us are left. Before him, everyone is equal and, by the way, both moral and immoral are equal, because the moral choice underlying each work is the same for everyone. In addition, everyone feels quite equally... injustice, since the main idea of art is always about justice, about how things should be under some ideal set of circumstances.
It is easier for a person to come to moral conclusions through the example of others, in art, where the plot of a work and artistic images can help restore a naive childhood faith in justice, as a natural measure between action and retribution.
At the basis of such artificial reflection, the image of time will remain imprinted, in this case, “our immoral time.” And everyone, absolutely everyone, remembers this “trifle” only when it is already very late to change anything. In particular, it is too late to do this in words or other methods of art.
However, this is precisely why many works of art caused a sharply negative reaction from those in power and even persecution. Since ancient times, fairy tales about animals have appeared, and then fables, in the heroes of which people can easily recognize themselves and their contemporaries, despite the allegorical “Aesopian language”.
The image of time in a work of art is manifested precisely in the morals of the heroes, in the moral choice to which they are inclined during the development of the plot - their dreams and aspirations, how they judge the actions of other people, showing the morals inherent in their image by the author. And what human qualities are revealed by the author in the image that has come down to us solely thanks to the closed aesthetic triad of author-image-(reader/viewer/listener) that has been closed for centuries—is best characterized by the image of time.
Open morals and notations, which include the late speeches of Cicero, indicate that works of art in their moral level do not solve the problems of his contemporary society.
Since the time of Cicero, human civilization has made tremendous strides in the process of technical support for the dissemination of information, but also in new technologies for the process of creating new and “digitizing” classical works of art. However, a technically developed society is not free from attempts to read morals and moralizing maxims, from methods of “education of morals” ... repressive measures, when power and law are used as a kind of proscription2 to dissidents.
The main role of art is a kind of moral mediation between society and government. It acquires particular significance in those moments when people in power are exposed to an acute crisis of the legitimacy of power. Usually they try to justify the legitimacy of being at the top by past merits, open morality to the whole society, trying to give their image the necessary charisma at the level of tribal relations, from which humanity has long grown.
Let us note that even in the Paleolithic, the art of rock paintings gives a person that degree of internal spiritual freedom that is necessary for the freedom of his moral choice. So, this choice must be made, first of all, freely, out of connection with the pressure of reality, in the course of a person’s thoughts about life. Most often, this becomes possible only within the illusory framework of art when the entire life experience of an individual is mobilized.
At the same time, real art must stand on the principles of absolute importance for the entire universe of every human life, insisting on the uniqueness and value of each individual reader/viewer/listener, since images created in co-creation can only gain the necessary strength of the human soul.
Art must release this powerful creative force so that, in the course of catharsis, a person can rise above the weight of mundane momentary thoughts and... feel the joy of being, often obscured by the material unfreedom of the real world, which pushes spiritual needs to the margins of human consciousness.
But art is also a person’s dream of immortality embodied. Art is capable of “preserving” times and customs in its images, and conveying images of bygone centuries through the centuries.
The saying of Ecclesiastes that has come down to us, “Everything was under the moon,” means that only the external conditions of moral choice change, but its essence remains the same. We believe that we live in a “new time”, the technical capabilities of which exceed the wildest fantasies of the authors of previous times, we believe that our problems are unique, and the feelings and thoughts we experience have never been visited by anyone before. But the moral choice underlying our actions puts us in front of the same dilemma: how to remain a decent person despite external conditions. Because no technical advances change up and down, black and white, and unpunished crime does not become valor.
Art brings to us the mental anguish of forever-gone generations who experienced similar feelings... of injustice, since the main idea of real art is the desire for justice, for a reasonable measure of action and retribution. And if a vice remains unpunished by contemporaries, it receives condemnation in art; everything that happened under the moon is brought to the reader/viewer/listener’s judgment so that one can simultaneously try on the role of both judge and defendant.
In art, the continuity of generations is carried out; the past remains a living figurative example of moral choice, and not a flawed step of the present. The repetition in a new round of similar situations of the past, which have already repeatedly received a moral assessment, in real modern art is carried out with the support of monuments of the past, the so-called classics. The moral assessment of descendants contains an extremely important connection between times for humanity, since it is also important for a specific individual to know how decent his parents were, so that, guided by their example, he can meet all the adversities of fate with a clear conscience.
This most important task of art, to act as Ariadne’s connecting thread in the labyrinths of history, is best illustrated by a phrase from the tragedy “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare (Act I, scene 5 of Hamlet’s meeting with the Ghost):
Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863) Illustration for the scene of Hamlet’s meeting with his Father’s Shadow
“The connection between times has been broken.” Shakespeare
The connecting thread broke for days. How can I connect their scraps! Boris Pasternak
The century has been shaken - and the worst thing is that I was born to restore it! Mikhail Lozinsky
It fell off its hinges. - Vile deceit! Oh, it would be better for me not to have been born at all, Than to correct you. Averkiev (1895)
Not a word more: the connection of times has fallen! Why was I born to tie her up? A. Kroneberg (1844)
The eyelid is dislocated. O my evil lot! I must set my eyelid with my own hand. A. Radlova
Oh my God! Time is in disorder and confusion, Is it really my lot to bring peace to it? V. Rapoport
The world is upset... The damned lot of life - Why should I accomplish this feat! P. Gnedich
Read on topic:
- Moral criteria of analysis. Part 1
- Moral criteria of analysis. Part 2
©2010 Irina Dedyukhova. All rights reserved.
The article was included in the book “Moral Criteria for Analysis”
Principles of moral behavior
Despite the fact that morality is a purely individual concept, there are still common principles in modern society. First of all, these include the equality of rights of all people. This means that there should be no discrimination against a person on the basis of gender, race or any other basis. All people are equal before the law and the court, everyone has the same rights and freedoms.
The second principle of morality is based on the fact that a person is allowed to do everything that does not contradict the rights of other people and does not infringe on their interests. This includes not only issues regulated by law, but also moral and ethical standards. For example, deceiving a loved one is not a crime. However, from a moral point of view, the one who deceives causes suffering to the individual, and therefore infringes on his interests and acts immorally.
