Ethical foundations of communication.

4. Modern etiquette

1. Communication as one of the forms of human social activity. Communication culture

All moral problems arise and are resolved in the communication of people with each other, which is the most important need of the individual and society. Today, interpersonal communication has become an independent moral value in the spiritual life of society.

The essence of communication is expressed in the fact that it is the most important aspect of human activity, consisting in the subject-subject relationship of one person to another on the basis of mutual recognition of “self” and self-worth.

Main features and properties of communication:

Communication is an activity that is active and procedural in nature;

The essence of this activity is to establish the relationship of one person to another;

These relationships must be of a subject-subject nature, in other words, equal subjects enter into them,

I and You here are a goal for each other and never a means (at least that’s how it should be);

The condition for communication is recognition of the other person’s uniqueness and originality, his right to be himself;

It is assumed that the creative and improvisational nature of communication will manifest itself, revealing the deep qualities of the subject - his free activity, the ability to generate new meanings, and overcome behavioral stereotypes.

Thus, communication is an interaction based on a person’s need for a person, therefore it is not only (and not so much) a “luxury” (A. de Saint-Exupéry), but rather a necessity, the primary condition for a person’s existence as a person and his inclusion in society and culture.

The most important distinctive feature of communication is its dialogical nature—informative and personal-subjective interaction between communicating parties, the purpose of which is to establish understanding between them. A full dialogue requires compliance with the following conditions:

Fundamental equality, autonomy of partners;

Their recognition of each other’s uniqueness, “otherness”;

Inability to predict the partner’s position in advance;

Difference and originality of points of view, willingness to hear from a partner something that is not part of our ideas or plans;

The focus of each partner on understanding and interpreting his point of view;

Expectation of an answer and its anticipation in one’s own statement, complementarity of the participants’ positions;

The ability to perceive another as a person of the same level as myself.

Currently, the problem of a culture of dialogue is acute, requiring partners to have broad erudition, evidence-based reasoning skills, the ability to listen and be heard, and knowledge of cultural traditions. Ideal communication is inseparable from such moral values ​​as freedom, justice, equality, love. At the same time, equality in communication is, first of all, the equality of human dignity of the subjects of communication, an orientation towards maintaining the honor and dignity of a person. It is also trust, goodwill and respect for the other subject and for everything connected with him (his friends, interests, even his clothes and things).

The value of interpersonal communication is determined, firstly, by its multifunctionality and, secondly, by its global significance in human life and society. A number of “role” functions of communication can be identified.

1. Communication as a condition for the formation and existence of a person. The phylogeny of humanity and the ontogenesis of each person confirm that the formation of personality is impossible without communication, which is “a unique condition of human existence” (K. Jaspers).

2. Communication as a way of self-expression of the human self. For the first time, the rationale for this phenomenon was given by JI. Feuerbach, who showed that human essence is manifested only in communication, which allows a person to identify all facets of his personality, make them significant for others, and assert himself in his own value.

3. Communication is the main means of communication, which manifests itself:

a) in the informative nature of communication, thanks to which accumulated knowledge is transmitted in the process of communication and thereby social inheritance is carried out;

b) in generating new ideas, revealing his creative nature;

c) in the exchange of ideas, which determines the praxeological value of communication.

4. Communication is the main means of control - a means of manipulating the consciousness and actions of people in all spheres of the economy, politics, professional and personal life - both in negative and positive terms.

1. Communication is a vital need and a condition for human happiness. This function is most significant for an individual’s sense of self, because it reveals the intimate nature of communication, which is an internal, often unconscious need of each person, a hidden motive for his actions and actions. At the same time, such features of communication as selectivity and focus on a specific object, the presence of feedback, reciprocity of choice and mutual understanding come to the fore in importance. This need is most fully realized in such higher forms of human communication as friendship and love.

The identified role functions of communication allow us to consider its value in at least two aspects:

As utilitarian-pragmatic, focused on achieving socially significant results;

As an intrinsic value - communication for the sake of communication, the meaning of which is self-expression and spiritual unity of people who join the spiritual values ​​of their partner and thereby multiply their own.

This gives grounds to highlight the levels of importance of communication:

For myself - I am significance,

For another - You are significance,

For a group or society as a whole - We are significant.

2. Friendship as a form of relationships between people. The role of friendship in the development of personality

There is hardly a person who would not think about the essence of friendship. This usually happens for the first time in early youth, when school debates about friendship, camaraderie and love are expected not only to provide absolute clarity, but also to provide practical solutions to life’s problems. But even experienced people are concerned about the problems of the psychology of communication, the social and psychological reasons for lack of communication, and ways to strengthen neighborly and friendly ties.

People of all times and nations consider friendship to be the greatest social and moral value, but a very rare value, usually belonging to the past.

We often hear that intimate, deep friendship among modern youth is being replaced by superficial friendly relationships, that the telephone is replacing personal contacts, and television is a live exchange of opinions. These arguments, supported by references to the scientific and technological revolution, urbanization and the rationalism of modern life, seem quite convincing.

So when was “true friendship”, and did it ever exist at all? In the European cultural tradition, ancient Greece has long been considered the kingdom of true friendship.

The ancient Greek word philia, often translated as friendship, does not have an exact correspondence in modern European languages, denoting not only “friendship”, but also “friendliness”, “favor”. We owe this word to Pythagoras, who called friendship the unity of everything with everything, including man with man. In some ways, the Confucian “ren” (humanity) is similar to Pythagorean friendship: this is that property of human nature, thanks to which he finds himself connected with everything - with people, animals, nature.

The word philos - friend also had the meaning of possession - “one's own”. So, for example, everyone who lived in Odysseus’s house, whom he could consider “his own,” was called. A stranger turned out to be “one of our own” if he was accepted into a family or tribe.

The first outline of the theory of friendship as an independent relationship that does not coincide with other types of social connections and emotional attachments was created by Aristotle, who subjected friendship to philosophical, aesthetic and psychological analysis. Friendship, according to Aristotle, is the greatest value, the most necessary thing for life: no one chooses life without friends, even in exchange for all other benefits.

Perfect, true friendship is selfless. But, at the same time, friendship is nurtured towards a friend “for the benefit of oneself,” for “if a virtuous person becomes a friend, he becomes a benefit to the one to whom he is a friend.” Therefore, the attitude towards a friend is no different from the attitude of a person towards himself. Thanks to this, friendship is also a necessary means of self-knowledge: “Just as, if we want to see our own face, we look in the mirror and see it, so if we want to know ourselves, we can know ourselves by looking at a friend.” A person has no one closer than a friend, Aristotle believes, therefore the number of friends has limits: close friendship is friendship with a few.

In fact, Aristotle formulated everything critical issues psychology and ethics of friendship, considering it as a special type of emotional attachment.

So, friendship is an ancient concept, to which each era brings something new. One thing remains unchanged: at all times, friendship has been considered one of the highest values ​​in human life. What is the reason for this attitude? The answer should be sought in the very definition of friendship.

Ethics defines friendship as a close relationship based on mutual trust, affection, and common interests.

Unlike business relationships, where one person uses another as a means to achieve his goal, friendship is a valuable relationship in itself, a good in itself; friends help each other selflessly, “not for service, but for friendship.”

Unlike consanguinity, where people are bound by ties of blood or family solidarity, friendship is individually selective and based on mutual sympathy.

Finally, unlike superficial friendship, friendship is a deep and intimate relationship, presupposing inner closeness, frankness, trust, and love. It’s not for nothing that we call a friend our alter ego (another self). Thus, friendship presupposes the closest personal relationships between people, based on deep personal affection and sympathy, on the unity of views, interests and life goals, which are expressed in the desire for long-term, diverse communication.

3. Love, its attractive power and mystery

One of the most powerful human experiences that you need to learn to recognize among other feelings, be able to nurture and preserve is the erotic love of two adults for each other. This feeling can manifest itself in a wide variety of forms and situations, including at different ages, between people who are very similar and very different. First of all, we must learn to distinguish love from the stormy experience of falling in love, with which it is often confused, - this “sudden collapse of the barriers that existed until that moment between two strangers,” says E. Fromm. Falling in love is most often an “I-centric” feeling, a feeling “for oneself.” It may be hotter than love, it may burn a person more strongly, but it does not affect his spiritual depths so much and therefore changes him less and fades away faster. Love strikes a person deeper than falling in love, it penetrates into the most hidden corners of his soul, fills it entirely - and therefore lives longer and changes a person more.

At the core of both is passion, which unexpectedly pushes two almost strangers towards each other. Without any high idea. Without any preliminary preparation. Reason aside, deeds aside, fears aside. And this is not respect, not a community of interests, not a unity of life principles, this is passion! But in true love, besides passion, there is something else. After a stranger becomes close, the barriers to overcome disappear, the surprise of rapprochement disappears, this impulse can become either a fleeting crush or an all-consuming love. The fate of passion depends not only on sexual attraction.

According to many philosophers, love in its essence is a spiritual state, which alone gives a person the right to physical intimacy. The fire of love can burn slowly, gradually. But the flashes of love at first sight are amazing, revealing the deep side of her essence.

In fact, why do a man and a woman, who recently did not know each other at all, suddenly become imbued with such ardent feelings for each other? The very first admiring glance connects Romeo and Juliet into a single whole. Onegin became Tatiana's ideal before she was able to appreciate his spiritual qualities. The love of these literary heroes turned out to be tragic. But there are other literary and everyday examples that tell us that if there are no external obstacles, then love at first sight can become happy and long-lasting.

And then a natural question arises: why do people love each other? A question in the solution of which there is eternal ambiguity and reticence. To admit that love is a mutual attraction to each other’s mental and physical qualities, or that they love only for the highest manifestations of humanity in a person, means either reducing the explanation to commonplaces, or telling a deliberate lie. World literature described and studied thousands of options for love, but was able to identify only their only common feature - demanding selectivity.

Still, some ordering seems possible. They love by difference, by contrast, even by antagonism of inclinations, when the qualities of one are complemented, neutralized or corrected by the qualities of the other. But they also love by likeness, by the identity of characters and interests, which increases the steadfastness of those who love in the harsh circumstances of life. Before us is an antinomy that outlines a deep contradiction and points to a certain law of love that has yet to be revealed in its countless manifestations.

Literature and art show that love does not tolerate any violence, any external dependence or dictate. It is quite possible to force someone into marriage or cohabitation or to buy them. Love is incorruptible. She finds thousands of ways to escape from captivity; she is the sphere of a special kind of freedom. Indeed, in addition to material considerations, it is not the sobriety of choice, but the sincerity of feeling, sanctified by intellectual understanding, that constitutes the highest moral dignity of love.

The freedom of love is expressed in the richness of its manifestations. Admiration, pity, admiration, even vanity, which give love a variety of individual colors, are such forms of selectivity of love feelings that, in essence, are alien to mistakes and blindness. It is precisely the rational assessment of the mental and other qualities of another person that can lead to error. And if passion, physical attraction in themselves do not exclude rationality, then true love rejects it. The direct intuitive feeling is aimed primarily at the potential spiritual capabilities of the loved one - even if they are never destined to be realized.

The author of the wonderful book about love “Three Attractions,” Yu. Rurikov, believes that one of the main mysteries of love is a kind of optical illusion: it increases the advantages of a loved one, and reduces the disadvantages, like binoculars.

Sometimes it is not even clear who we love - the person himself or our own “optical illusion”, a pink likeness of our chosen one, which we ourselves invented. This placing of a loved one on a pedestal is one of the most dramatic, most mysterious mysteries of love. It is not for nothing that in ancient myths Cupid had his eyes covered with a bandage, and he struck lovers blindly with his arrows. Once Stendhal, in his book “On Love,” tried to explain this riddle. If you leave a simple branch in the salt mines, he wrote, then it will be completely covered with crystals, and no one will recognize the former inconspicuous twig in this shining miracle. The same thing happens in love, when a loved one is endowed with thousands of perfections, like crystals. Therefore, “in love we enjoy only the illusion generated by ourselves.” True, this “illusion” is a stage of the ardent, “spring” season of love, a stormy, hot feeling. When the ardor of feelings subsides, the romantic prism of feelings begins to crowd out the realistic prism of consciousness.

“Ocular illusion” may not exist at all among rationalists; it may not exist even with a weak desire. It may not arise even in a person with an inferiority complex: he seems to want to equate the person he likes with himself.

Along with “optical illusion,” love has such a property as clairvoyance, which, perhaps, no other feeling has. The lover sees depths in his beloved that he himself often does not know about. Clairvoyance of love is both the feeling of a person’s hidden depths and the unconscious sensation of his hidden peaks. This is, as it were, a foretaste of his undeveloped virtues, which can manifest themselves thanks to love - and raise a person to his inner heights.

Love is not just attraction to another person: it is also understanding him, understanding him with all his soul. This very often amazes lovers, especially girls: how deeply he understands me, how accurately he guesses my desires, how he grasps at a glance what I want to say. Such superintuition that love gives birth to, such sympathy with the feelings of another person is one of the highest peaks of love, giving an amazing state - complete human intimacy, the “merging” of two souls. The harmony of “I” and “not I”, which occurs with true love, the desire for the complete fusion of lovers is one of the most ancient and beautiful properties of love.

Love is surrounded by many prejudices and half-truths, often contradicting each other. Here are quite common competing opinions: love is selfish - men often think this way; love is altruistic - women say.

It is traditionally believed that the main thing in love is altruism, self-denial. But the fact is that altruism is just as “one-centered” as egoism, only the center is not in oneself, but in another person. Therefore, altruistic love quickly becomes a kind of “illness” of the soul, similar to unrequited love: the “composition of feelings” in it is shifted, truncated, a person here lacks the joys of reciprocal care, approval, support, affection. It undermines the soul, poisons the feeling.

It is probably more correct to see love not as “one-dimensional”, but as consisting of two streams. The first is our feelings “for the other”: a strange, almost physical feeling of being one with him; the ability to feel what is happening in the soul of another; a restless desire to do everything for a loved one, to sacrifice oneself in order to protect him. For such love you need a “talent of feelings,” and not everyone has it.

The second, oncoming flow is “for yourself”: love can stir up all the amazing richness of sensations, through its prism the world is perceived cleaner, more acutely, and finally, it gives a person’s life meaning, because awareness of the absolute value of another person gives meaning to your own existence.

In ethics, the concept of love is associated with intimate and deep feelings, a special type of state and actions that are directed toward another person.

Thus, love can be accompanied by embarrassment, curiosity and fear, ecstasy and indifference, selflessness and selfishness, delicacy and cynicism, arrogance and modesty, apathy and inspiration. Tenderness is very often accompanied by embarrassment, respect and admiration. Ecstasy is almost always inseparable from violent passion and from an unquestioning readiness to surrender, while indifference is often the result of premature exhaustion and vulgarization of relationships.

Analyzing the phenomenon of love, we can distinguish two aspects in it: internal, psychological - the ability to emotionally experience the feeling of love - and external, social - real relationships that arise between lovers. In practice, they are closely interrelated and have a mutually shaping effect on each other.

Love - and this is where its unique role is manifested - is one of the few areas in which a person is able to feel and experience his absolute indispensability. In many social roles and the functions of a particular person can be replaced, replaced, changed, but not in love. In this area of ​​life, the individual has the highest value, the highest importance compared to everyone else. Here man is not a function, but a “self.” That is why only in love can a person feel the meaning of his existence for another and the meaning of the existence of another for himself. Love helps a person to manifest himself, revealing and increasing everything that is good, positive, and valuable in him.

Another really significant problem of love is the problem of power. Love can be compared to a small but complex state. All kinds of relationships are possible here: democracy, anarchy, enlightened absolutism, and even, unfortunately, despotism. But on one condition: if this form is accepted voluntarily. There is nothing sadder and more hopeless in love than a long, exhausting struggle for power.

In the initial, most festive time of love, each of us gladly submits to the whims of our beloved being, sincerely and inspiredly playing at being a slave. The counting of grievances has not yet begun; the question is “who will win?” not worth it yet. We happily give in to each other, but another quarrel and the holiday ends. And now everyone resentfully demands what was not given to them.

And finally, love is one of the manifestations of human freedom: no one can force one to love either another or oneself. Love has no external incentives; it does not come down to conclusions, nor to natural drives and instincts. Through love we realize and learn the meaning of life in general and our own autonomy. Love is the criterion of our abilities, our art of being human. Love does not fall under any standards or stereotypes; it is a completely original life, where, as in creativity, there are no rules or authorities.

In this sense, love is a breakthrough from the temporary to eternity, a transition to a state where there is no death, no apathy, no despondency, but there is a constant tension of the spirit, true creativity. Such a state to a person who is not in the element of love seems either an otherworldly miracle or madness. And, apparently, both genuine creativity and genuine love are quite rare.

True love opens a person’s eyes, freeing him from cliches and stereotypes of vision, lifts him above utilitarian interests and everyday existence, introduces him to the mystery, which, like creativity, is comprehended not through abstract knowledge, but through a specific way of life. Love develops a personality, makes it wise and courageous precisely because of the paradoxical nature of its embodiment in life, and this paradoxicality is often tragic.

Perhaps this happens because true love arises when circumstances and prohibitions interfere with it, and therefore it develops through overcoming various obstacles. Such love is often associated with death - either because the obstacles to its implementation turn out to be insurmountable, and life without love becomes unnecessary, or because loving person, feeling an unusually acute need to protect his love, considers non-existence, death, to be the main enemy.

4. Modern etiquette

The culture of communication is based on the observance of certain rules that have been developed by humanity over thousands of years and have been called etiquette since the late Middle Ages. Etiquette regulates what is permissible and acceptable in a given society or situation and what is not. However, it determines only the forms, “techniques” of communication, therefore knowledge of the rules of etiquette in itself is not enough to be considered cultural, well-mannered person. Behavior in society should be based on general principles and moral standards, demonstrating the connection between ethics and etiquette.

However, every problem related to etiquette must be resolved in the light of ethical standards. Our manners are a reflection of our ethical ideas. Politeness and consideration for people, empathy and the ability to understand others reflect the desire to act in accordance with the highest ethical standards, contributing to the establishment of more moral behavior.

Etiquette is a set of rules of behavior accepted in society. Etiquette applies to all areas of life: specific rules they prescribe how to maintain hygiene, talk, dress, behave at the table, in a team, in the family, in public places, in the theater, on the street, etc. Without observing the norms of etiquette, interpersonal, cultural, business and even political relationships are impossible, because you cannot exist without respecting each other, without imposing certain restrictions on your behavior.

Etiquette carries within itself universal human norms of communication that have been preserved for thousands of years and are characteristic of many nations. Therefore, they are observed (or must be observed) by representatives not only of some a certain society, but also all sociocultural formations existing at this stage of civilization development.

Of course, different nations make their own amendments and additions to etiquette, due to the specifics historical development of your culture. Therefore, etiquette also reflects a specific system of national signs-symbols of communication, positive traditions, customs, rites, and rituals that correspond to the historically determined conditions of life and the moral and aesthetic needs of people.

In addition, as the living conditions of mankind change, education and culture grow, some rules of behavior are replaced by others. What was previously considered indecent becomes generally accepted, and vice versa. Thus, the requirements of etiquette are not absolute, they are relative, and their observance depends on place, time and circumstances. Behavior that is unacceptable in one place and under some circumstances may be appropriate in another place and under other circumstances.

The norms of etiquette - in contrast to the norms of morality - are conditional; they seem to have the nature of an unwritten agreement about what is generally accepted in people's behavior and what is not. The conventions of etiquette in each specific case can be explained. Aimed at uniting people, it offers generally accepted forms, stereotypes of behavior, symbols of the manifestation of thoughts and feelings that make it easier for people to understand each other.

One more aspect of etiquette should be specially addressed: it can be considered as an aesthetic form of manifestation of moral culture. This understanding contains indications of a number of important features of etiquette. Firstly, that etiquette is one of the phenomena of culture, for good manners are an external reflection of a person’s internal culture, his intellectual qualities.

Secondly, this contains an indication of the direct relationship of etiquette to morality, to the moral character of a person. Finally, it is emphasized that etiquette is the aesthetic side of human behavior. Beautiful manners, beautiful behavior, beautiful gestures, poses, facial expressions - what speaks about a person, his feelings and thoughts without words; speech addressed to elders, peers, younger ones at meeting and farewell, in anger and joy; the manner of moving, eating, wearing clothes and jewelry, celebrating sad and joyful events, receiving guests - to all these types of communication a person tries to give not only a moral, but also an aesthetic character. The aesthetic form of manifestation of a person’s moral culture accepted in society is called etiquette.

Every cultured person should not only know and observe the basic norms of etiquette, but also understand their necessity. The ability to behave in society is very important: it facilitates the establishment of contacts, promotes mutual understanding, and creates good, stable relationships.

So, etiquette is a very large and important part of universal human culture, ethics and ethics, developed over many centuries by the combined efforts of people in accordance with their ideas about goodness, justice, humanity, beauty and order, improvement and everyday expediency.

5. Ethics of behavior on the Internet

Internet Ethical Principles

The purpose of this document is to provide an ethical standard by which government and corporate regulations regarding the Internet and related multi-user communications networks can be assessed. This document is not created with the intention of being used as legislation; it was created for the purpose of assessing legislation.

RIGHTS

This section represents the rights that belong to every adult Internet user. Laws or regulations that violate these rights threaten the individual freedom, property, safety, and ability to resist harassment for all Internet participants.

21.2. Communication and its moral foundations

Communication between people is the most important feature of human existence. Without it, activity, the formation and assimilation of spiritual values, the formation of consciousness, the formation and development of personality are impossible. Communication accompanies all these processes and contributes to their implementation. Communication is multifaceted because it is implemented at different levels - countries and peoples, groups and individuals can communicate. In addition, communication can manifest itself in different ways: be direct or indirect, vary in type and, finally, in the process, people can exchange thoughts, feelings, experiences, work skills, etc. Such versatility of communication is due to the fact that it is based on social relations. Since the latter cover different aspects of the functioning of society, they act as specific types of socio-economic, political, legal and moral relations for a given era. Ultimately, they are the content of communication. Communication is a directly observed and experienced reality, and the concretization of social relations, their personification, personal form. Since social relations appear in the form of communication, any of its manifestations, regardless of the subject (an individual or a social group), are more or less indirectly related to the content of these relationships. The degree of mediation is determined by social experience, psychological and social characteristics of the individual, and communication conditions. All this applies to interpersonal communication. Interpersonal communication is far from straightforward. Its range is quite wide. People meet on the street, in transport, in public places. These relationships cannot be carried out without any norms. There is a certain content behind them, they require certain skills and habits. The enormous importance of interpersonal communication is explained by the most important functions it performs. This is, first of all, the exchange of information between people. Information and communication function is in one form or another connected with all forms of human activity. Further, interpersonal communication performs the so-called regulatory and communicative function. In communication, rules of behavior, goals, means, and motives for behavior are developed, its norms are strengthened, actions are evaluated, a kind of hierarchy of values, a scale of human socialization, is formed. It is in communication that a person learns and experiences his significance. Therefore, its correct orientation becomes a source, one of the most important ways of forming a human personality. Finally, communication performs another function - affective-communicative, in which the level of emotional tension is regulated, psychological relaxation is created. It also creates the emotional background in which our activities are carried out and which to a large extent determines the very perception of the world. Each society and individual social groups develop certain regulatory principles of communication, which are not only enshrined in the norms of behavior adopted by it, but are also brought up in people with a greater or lesser degree of consciousness. This gives grounds to assert that there is one or another level of communication culture . Culture- a concept broader than communication; it includes, as already noted, all the material and spiritual values ​​that have been accumulated by people. Culture includes both methods of human activity and that range of forms, techniques and norms that characterize the peculiarities of the functioning of society and without which its existence is impossible. In this regard, we can talk about the culture of production, recreation, communication, and healing. Here, the normativity of culture is especially emphasized, which outlines exactly how one should act. Relationships between people are directly regulated by social norms, primarily legal and moral, which represent the most important elements of culture. The norms of morality and law that apply when people communicate are included in the culture of communication. They bring together the requirements for communication developed in society with its very practice. Moral norms are a generalization of collective experience and are passed on from generation to generation, from individual to individual in the form of certain practical rules. Usually they recommend, prescribe, prohibit, permit, warn, anticipate or evaluate various gestures, behaviors, inclinations, and actions of people . A norm does not simply indicate what is significant from the point of view of values ​​accepted in society, but presupposes their mandatory implementation and establishes the degree of what is permitted. Violation of these norms is unacceptable not only in terms of morality, but also in terms of cultural behavior. Communication, as a unique manifestation of people’s social life, is not something random or arbitrarily established. It is brought to life by the entire totality of human connections, the leading place among which is occupied by production and the relationships that develop in connection with it. Communication and its culture are an integral part of people’s life, but cannot be something unchanging, the same for all times and peoples. Each era of human development is characterized by a certain culture of communication. Communication between people occurs in various forms, which depend on the level of communication, its nature, and purpose. The most typical forms of interpersonal communication are anonymous, functional-role-based, in which a special place is occupied by service relationships, informal and intimate family communication. This classification is conditional and does not exhaust all possible forms of communication in which a person can participate. Anonymous communication represents an interaction between strangers or unrelated people. It is understood as any temporary connections between people in which they act as citizens, residents of a city or town, passengers of a train, plane or public transport, spectators of a cinema or sports match, visitors to a museum or exhibition, etc. This refers to their preliminary and, as a rule, subsequent unfamiliarity. They meet, enter into mutual relations with each other and separate, they are anonymous, nameless in relation to each other. Formal-role communication involves varying durations of communication between people who have certain roles. Participants in such communication perform certain functions in relation to each other: buyer - seller, passenger - conductor, waiter - client, doctor - patient, etc. Service relationships are also of a functional-role nature, but they are characterized by a significant duration; they, as a rule, are of great importance in people’s lives. Their participants know each other to a greater or lesser extent, at least as workers, members of the same team. Informal communication represents all kinds of contacts outside the official relations of colleagues and members of any organizations. Of course, informal communication is also possible with workmates, but only if it goes beyond the scope of work relationships. Examples could be non-official contacts with workmates, acquaintances, meetings with friends, comrades in sports and other hobbies. A special area of ​​informal communication is communication between close people or family members. In the sphere of informal communication, the role of the emotional moment changes. If in other forms of communication the emotional side accompanied its other functions (informational, regulatory), then with informalIn communication, emotional contacts become its content. Of all the relationships that develop in work collective, the most important are official. Their special role is determined, firstly , because the very nature of work activity makes them necessary, and in this sense they are independent of the will of their participants. Secondly , without them nothing is possible work activity, fulfilling the tasks facing the team. Thirdly, work relationships influence people’s moods and create that moral microclimate, without which the existence of a healthy team is impossible. the main objective team - the success of the business. That's why the criterion for the quality of service relationships is the interests of the business. Good work relationships develop when employees solve assigned tasks in a coordinated and friendly manner. In the same groups where “ a good relationship", its main functions are poorly performed, and the relationship itself ceases to serve the interests of the business and becomes unmanageable. Informal work relationships are formed on the basis of two fundamental requirements: responsibility for the work and respect for fellow workers. Responsibility- this is, first of all, demanding of oneself and of others, which is based on an understanding of the social consequences of certain actions. The latter is impossible without the correct attitude to the results of the team’s activities, to the moral and psychological climate that develops in it. A team only becomes a team when a sense of responsibility becomes natural and necessary, if not for everyone, then at least for the vast majority of workers. This means that team members in their work relationships are guided not by personal likes and dislikes, not by personal benefits, but by the interests of the common cause and its result. Only this criterion allows you to establish a successful working together different people. To others, no less important start culture of service relations is respect to comrades. If respect is built from relationships “horizontally”, i.e. between people occupying the same official position, then it is a direct expression of the principle of collectivism. It’s another matter when the issue of respect for an employee is viewed through the prism of “vertical” relationships, i.e. between a leader and a subordinate. Subordination relationships, i.e. leadership and subordination are also determined by moral requirements. We must not forget that subordinates are such only because of their service that they serve not the leader, but the interests of the team. And in this respect, all employees of the team are equal. This attitude of subordination and equality creates all the prerequisites for the fight against arrogance and conceit, on the one hand, and sycophancy and servility, on the other. It should be noted that both have an extremely negative impact on the moral and psychological climate of the team, breeding unprincipledness and mutual responsibility, protectionism and dishonesty. In a culture of vertical service relations, much depends on the leader. Responsibility, respect for subordinates, combined with exactingness towards oneself and towards them is the only reliable leadership style that ensures the successful solution of the tasks facing the team, the creation of a healthy moral and psychological climate in the team. A few words about the norms of official and business relations in medical institutions. In addition to generally accepted norms, a number of additional points are of particular importance for doctors: The environment in medical institutions should be as gentle as possible on the patient’s psyche, create an atmosphere of trust in the doctor, and be conducive to optimism and recovery of patients. Everything that negatively affects the course of the disease and the patient’s recovery must be eliminated. It is necessary to create a favorable regime. The environment in a doctor’s office should be conducive to creative work and conducive to a calm, intimate story from the patient. An immutable rule should be established: during the reception and examination of a patient, any interference that distracts the doctor is unacceptable. Relationships between health workers should be based on collegiality, mutual respect, mutual assistance and trust. Can't be discussed medical errors in the presence of the patient. It is unacceptable for a consultant to criticize the attending physician in the presence of the patient, as well as conduct a consultation without the attending physician. It is not permissible to address nursing and nursing staff on a first-name basis or make comments to nurses in the presence of patients. In turn, the patient must treat the doctor with respect, follow the internal rules, and honestly and conscientiously follow all the doctor’s instructions.

21.3. The concept of moral culture and culture of behavior. Information culture

an education system that determines the general level of intellectual development of people, their material and spiritual needs; the information infrastructure of society, which determines the ability of people to receive, transmit and use the information they need, as well as quickly carry out certain information communications; democratization of society, which determines legal guarantees for people to have access to the information they need, the development of mass media, as well as the ability of citizens to use alternative, including foreign, sources of information; the development of the country's economy, on which depends the material opportunities of people to obtain the necessary education, as well as the acquisition and use of modern information technology (TVs, personal computers, radiotelephones, etc.).

21.4. Moral progress, its criteria and directions

Morality is a social phenomenon that is in constant change and development. People's views about good and evil change, customs and traditions improve. While solving some moral problems, others arise in society. The process of moral development is complex and depends on both social conditions, and from changes in other areas of human activity. The processes of moral change were not always correctly understood. Controversial character morality and the lack of clear criteria contributed to the formation of negative or skeptical views regarding the progress of morality . The ancient Greek poet Hesiod noted that civilization went through several periods (centuries) in its development. The first was the golden age, the society was characterized by high morality, people were pious, lived well and without problems. Next was silver Age– people lived worse, as a result of the degradation of morality. The process of degradation of morality continues further, so the next century was worse than the previous one. However, reality proves morality develops in an ascending line, that morality has progressive tendencies. This is evidenced by the increasing possibilities of morality to influence social processes and the spiritual improvement of the individual. Morality is penetrating more and more into all spheres of society and plays a decisive role in the regulation of human activity. Morality is a way of self-expression and improvement of a person, its manifestation in the system of social relations. Being the totality of human experience, values ​​and ideals, morality contributes to the improvement of the moral consciousness of the individual. Moral progress as an integral part of social progress is determined by the same conditions. Accordingly, the criterion of moral progress is the universal human criterion of the same social progress– the degree of human freedom, humanization and democratization of social relations. In other words , moral progress can be judged by the extent to which the norms and principles of morality reflect objective conditions social development, correspond to the needs of the development of social relations and human personality. Social progress is the comprehensive qualitative and quantitative development of all spheres of society - productive forces, technology, natural and technical knowledge, material and spiritual culture, morality, art, etc. Without moral progress there can be no social progress. The content of social progress is the degree of development and freedom of man, his dominance over the forces of nature, over social and spiritual phenomena and himself. The content of moral progress is the degree of humanization of social relations, the resolution of contradictions between good and evil, the individual and society. It helps to expand objective opportunities for morally positive choices in behavior and the development of moral consciousness. Moral progress inevitably leads to an increase in the role and responsibility of each person in all spheres of society.

21.5. Morality, economics, law and politics

Morality as a social phenomenon is determined primarily by the nature and content of social relations. In the system of these relations, economic activity develops, which is the basis of society and determines all forms of spiritual activity. Policy there is a way of interaction between classes and social groups directly or indirectly related to state power, management of social phenomena. Morality and politics as forms of social consciousness interact, are directly related to the economic basis, and reflect these economic relations in a specific way. The political relations of classes and social groups are determined by the basic economic interests of these classes. Politics is a concentrated expression of economics. Economic interests receive theoretical expression as political ideas. Expressing the basic interests of classes and social groups, politics cannot but have primacy over the economy and other spheres of public life. Politics has a powerful impact on the economic, social, and spiritual spheres. In this sense, it regulates the morality of society indirectly. Or, in other words, economics affects morality through the prism of political concepts. If politics reflects its subject primarily in political views, ideas and theories, then morality reflects reality through various norms, rules, prohibitions, principles, laws and categories of ethics. If While political concepts of classes are expressed in various programs and charters, moral views and concepts do not have such expression. Political ideology is formulated by certain individuals, party ideologists, while moral standards are formed in the process of joint activity of people. The difference between politics and morality is also manifested in the relationship between universal and class elements. In politics, class elements are formulated more clearly and directly, while in morality, universal human interests predominate. Moral relations are addressed to the interaction of the individual and the collective. Politics reflects more complex relationships and interests and is intended for a holistic system: classes - parties - state - society - individual. Since politics is directly related to the economic basis, it reacts faster and more strongly to changes in the basis than morality. There are two extremes in understanding the relationship between politics and morality, which are based on the idea of ​​their incompatibility. Even N. Machiavelli (1469-1527) argued that politics is immoral, that the end justifies the means, that any means can be used to achieve political goals, including deception and violence. And J. Locke argued that it is pointless to talk about morality in relation to the state and politics. If politics is exaggerated here and morality is ignored, then the other extreme absolutizes morality and ignores politics. The reality is that politics expresses various interests, both progressive and regressive. Morality is a sensory barometer that, in an emotional and evaluative form, captures trends and changes in society.Politics must be judged by morality. Many theorists consider it necessary to even formulate a political ethics that would unite liberal and democratic values ​​and combine the principle of political freedom with the principle of social protection 1 . Political ethics This is a general democratic principle of regulating freedom in political behavior. Such ethics is possible in a democratic society, when competing parties can come to an agreement, when there is a pluralism of values ​​and ideals, when universal human interests prevail in society. If state, party, and social policies are not based on morality, noted A. Solzhenitsyn, then humanity has no future at all 2 . Along with political ethics in society there should also be ethics of nonviolence 2 . Throughout history, all controversial issues have been resolved from the point of view of force. Whoever is stronger is right; strength was the ultimate truth. 95% of the blood and tears shed in history were done out of good intentions, out of blind faith in some sacred principles that must be implemented necessarily and immediately. Non-violence is the defining content of goodness and can be considered synonymous with ethics; it is an adequate means of implementing justice and legality. Non-violence, by changing people and inter-human relations, can positively change social institutions, parties, classes, states. The ethics of non-violence recommends resolving all controversial issues peacefully, through mutual trust, consensus, taking into account the opinion of the opponent (that he may also be right), trying to turn enemies into friends and fighting evil together. Force, by conquering and destroying the enemy, can only temporarily suppress the conflict, but does not eliminate its cause. Nonviolence can eliminate the basis of conflict and rebuild social relations on the basis of trust and mutual cooperation. Morality and law are forms of social consciousness that have general functions regulation of people's behavior. But people’s behavior is regulated not only by morality, but also by legal laws, administrative decisions, social and hygienic standards, etc. Morality and law also have their differences. Legal laws are formulated and adopted as various codes, sanctioned by the will of the state, moral laws are “unwritten” laws. Legal regulation is more stringent and is carried out through coercion, while morality is based on its voluntary implementation. Legal laws are addressed to certain categories of people, social institutions and are binding. Moral laws are intended for everyone, and their implementation depends on the desire of everyone. Violation of legal laws leads to personal liability and punishment, and violation moral standards, in the worst case, is condemned by public opinion. Law is the will of the ruling class (party) elevated to law; therefore, legal laws contain class and party elements and reflect the interests of certain social groups. Morality expresses more universal human aspects.

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….2
1. Communication and ethics……………………………………………………….3
2. Business etiquette………………………………………………………..10
3. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….19
4. List of references……………………………………20

Introduction
In modern humanitarian speech, such terms as sociology of communication, psychology of communication, philosophy of communication, aesthetics of communication, pedagogy of communication are increasingly encountered. And, of course, the legitimacy of the combination of words “ethics of communication” cannot raise much doubt; The ethical aspect of communication, probably the most significant and complex, undoubtedly involves its reflection in the appropriate term. Moreover, the special theoretical and practical significance of ethical issues of communication determine the feasibility of creating a specialized section of ethical knowledge called “ethics of communication.”
So, the essence of morality, as a real social phenomenon, the existence of which is associated with the first efforts of people to live and act together, first spontaneously, and then deliberately uniting, is that it is vital a necessary condition survival of people, streamlining their social way of life. This alternative gave rise to a number of theoretical justifications, according to which a moral person is strictly adapted to the conditions external environment(English philosopher Spencer), and nature can be called the first moral teacher for man (P.A. Kropotkin). G. Selye, the author of the generally accepted theory of stress, believes that it is biologically useful, and therefore moral standards should be based on biological laws, on the laws of human self-preservation.

1. COMMUNICATION AND ETHICS
The interaction between communication and ethics is multifaceted. It covers the structural, functional and other aspects of ethics as a science of morality, as well as communication - as a complex process of establishing and developing contacts between people.
Since its inception, ethics has been in interaction with communication. Moral feelings and ideas about proper behavior arise in a person thanks to life together with other people, “through communication of thoughts and ideas, for in this sense the word “communication” is used in relation to people...”
Such psychological mechanisms, how imitation, infection, suggestion, persuasion, inherent in the process of communication, make it possible to introduce ethical thoughts and ideas into the minds of people and pass them on from generation to generation. Ethics must humanize and ennoble communication between people. Analysis of the interaction between ethics and communication presupposes first clarifying the content of morality studied by ethics as a science. She sought to answer these questions not in everyday understanding, but in theoretical form.
The word “ethics” comes from the Greek “ethos”, the word “morality” comes from the Latin “mos”. The meaning of these words is one - character, custom. The morals and customs of our ancestors constituted their morality, generally accepted norms of behavior. Since certain norms of behavior become stable, they form morals and customs, as well as moral traditions and habits.
Morals and customs are norms of behavior that are consistently manifested in people’s actions and that meet the requirements of a particular society. They constitute the traditional order of behavior characteristic of the mass of people of a given society, a given class. By morals and customs it is customary to understand not only the specified norms of human behavior, but also stable ones characteristic of of a given people forms or features of his life and communication: national cuisine, housing, greetings and clothing, holidays and much more.
The origin of many mores and customs dates back to distant times; their connection with the historical conditions of the development of a given society is often difficult to detect. They have very great stability; behind them is the powerful force of tradition. Having outlived their time, many customs and mores become unacceptable to new conditions. However, they are being eradicated very slowly precisely because they have the power of tradition behind them.
In every era in society, in its various social groups...

Communication, as the most important characteristic of human existence, is inextricably linked with morality. Morality is included in all spheres of human activity, and in principle it is impossible to imagine any sphere of human activity, including the sphere of communication, outside the action of morality: any phenomenon of communication carries one or another moral content.

What is the relationship between communication and morality? What role does morality play in the communication process?

Firstly, communication is the sphere of direct implementation of moral values ​​and norms, in which a person constantly faces a moral choice that determines his moral or immoral actions.

Secondly, the communication process itself is assessed from a moral point of view.

Thirdly, moral values, ideals, principles and norms, along with other social norms, regulate the process of communication.

Modern researchers in the field of ethics believe that the special theoretical and practical significance of ethical issues of communication requires the creation of a specialized section of ethical knowledge called "ethics of communication", the status of which may be similar, for example, to the status of such sections as: "applied ethics", "professional ethics" ", "bioethics".

What should be included in the competence of communication ethics? What should she teach? What is its subject?

The subject of communication ethics should be an analysis of the moral aspects of communication at the theoretical and practical levels. It includes an analysis of communication problems both at the level of what is and at the level of what should be.

At the theoretical level, communication ethics should study moral issues value orientation in communication, content and essence moral qualities subjects of communication, as well as problems of moral choice of methods, means, rules, forms of communication.

At the practical level, the subject of study of communication ethics is a set of specific practical techniques, norms (primarily moral ones), and rules of communication.

In addition to studying communication processes from a moral perspective, communication ethics is intended to influence real communication processes, to teach how one should and how one should not communicate.

Communication ethics is closely related to communication culture. K. Marx defined culture as the measure of humanity in a person. Developing this idea, we can say that the culture of communication determines the measure of humanity in communication.

The culture of communication, as an integral part of the individual’s culture, determines the quality and degree of perfection of communication. The concept of “ethics of communication” expresses the moral content of the broader concept of “culture of communication”. Culture of behavior, culture of speech, culture of non-verbal means of communication (facial expressions, gestures, vocal characteristics of the voice, etc.), culture of etiquette, speech etiquette, psychological culture of communication partners, all this is included in the culture of communication.

How are ethics and communication culture related? We can say this: what is not cultural is not ethical.

Imagine that a woman in a minibus is loudly discussing her business with a friend on her mobile phone. This is uncivilized; according to etiquette, loud conversation in the presence of strangers is not permissible. But this is also unethical, since, firstly, it demonstrates disrespect for other passengers, who are perceived as inanimate objects, and, secondly, other people’s affairs become the property of strangers. Another example. A person with impeccable manners begins to mock the mistake of his interlocutor. The ironic subtext is clear, it hurts, especially since it is difficult to defend against irony. Unethical? Yes. Can such a person be called cultured? Obviously not, since culture includes a spiritual component. It’s not for nothing that A.P. Chekhov wrote: “Good education is not that you don’t spill sauce on the tablecloth, but that you don’t notice if someone else does it.” Thus, the moral characteristics of a person, which include friendliness, attentiveness, generosity, nobility, altruism, etc., along with the technique and style of communication, determine the culture of communication itself.