Whether there can be a policy moral: a policy and morals parity

Dispute on morals and immorality of a policy has long history. The practical sense of a problem is reduced how the purposes should correspond, means and results of political activity. Whether it is possible to achieve the decision of the noble purposes violent methods? Whether it is necessary to sacrifice for the sake of achievement of happiness of the majority of a society life at least one person? These, it is possible to tell, "eternal" questions get a special urgency for the Russian society which carries out transition to democracy. Today for it similar questions concentrate in one: what price transition to freedom should be paid?

The policy as conscious activity on a management and management of processes of social development by means of the government can be focused on realisation of interests both all society, and separate group (a class, elite) or persons. Subjects of a policy in the actions are guided by representations available for them about good and harm, fair and unfair, fine and ugly. These ethical standards set an orientation to actions of participants of political life. In practice policy and morals interaction only very seldom is under construction on any one of these norms, say, good, justice and fine, - it would be possible to consider such variant ideal.

In real life frequently it appears, what even the most fair and noble people, getting to a policy, lose the better qualities, degrade and conduct to degradation of others.

To encourage morals displays in the politician it is possible, first, by means of the right, having established universal criterion of humanity of a policy and having fixed it in the constitution. Such criterion can be right only and freedom of the person and the citizen which should define sense of activity of politicians, a measure of its responsibility, and also the sanction for infringement of the proclaimed moral principles. Secondly, to raise value of the moral approach in the politician it is possible by means of control from a society behind activity of political institutes. In that case it is possible to hope that a policy and morals will be harmoniously combined in activity of the politicians responsible for destinies of a society.

Control questions to a theme

1. What reasons of occurrence of a policy as independent sphere of ability to live of the person and society? Why people did without a policy?

2. What is the policy, than it differs from economy, culture and other spheres of ability to live of the person? After all and in them people too satisfy the requirements.

3. What reasons of occurrence of a policy in the western countries and the East states?

4. In what essence of the directive approach to understanding of a policy? Whether it helps to open its social essence? In what of merits and demerits of a functional explanation of the nature of a policy?

5. What new in comparison with directive and functional approaches to a policy its communicative treatment gives?

6. How integration and interrelation of citizens within the limits of a society can be carried out?

7. In what a lack of understanding of a policy exclusively as spheres of submission of one classes others? Who and how in the politician carries out connection of the general and private interests of citizens?

8. Name distinctive signs of a policy as public phenomenon.

9. What structure of a policy? Its elements are how much equivalent?

10. Name kinds (versions) of a policy. What underlies their allocation?

11. What functions are carried out by a policy in a society?

12. What functions of a policy, in your opinion, are poorly developed in a modern Russian society? Give reason for the answer.

13. How you consider, it is good or bad, when the policy influences all aspects of life of the person?

14. Whether the sphere of political influence is limited to activity of the state or in it other political institutes are occupied also? Name, what.

15. In your opinion, it is possible to limit to what measures influence of a policy on life of the separate person?

16. It is possible to consider what problem political and what - is not present?

17. What the general and in what of distinction between a policy and morals?

18. Why a policy consider as dirty business?

19. Who, in your opinion, the rights: those who considers, what in the politician the morals should prevail, or those who believes, what in the politician the expediency should dominate? Give reason for the answer.

20. Than the principle of "smaller harm» is bad in the politician?

21. What, in your opinion, can limit destructive influence of a policy on a society, the person, the nature?

Logic tasks and problem questions

1. What of two points of view, in your opinion, establishes the reasons of occurrence of a policy more precisely:

Policy roots - in egoistical, animal human nature. Therefore the policy arises as means of bridling of blind sensual passions of the person, maintenance of domination of reason over low desires for achievement of the general advantage, happy life of people in the state;

Occurrence of a policy is a consequence of congenital nonsense of the person. Under the remark of the Netherlands philosopher-humanist, the writer and the seminary student, the author of the famous product «a nonsense Praise» Erazma Rotterdam (1469-1536), «nonsense creates the states, supports the power, religion, management, court»;

The policy grows out of division of a society into classes and serves maintenance of domination of one of them (a class rich) over another (a class poor). Therefore, by V.I.Lenin's definition, «the policy is first of all sphere of mutual relations between classes».

Give reason for the answer.

2. Despite negative attitude to a policy of a considerable part of the population in the various countries, without a policy any society cannot manage. How you think, with what it is connected?

3. What statement is closer to true:

The policy is a management skill people (Platon);

The policy is «most important of all sciences and arts» (Aristotle);

«The policy can be defined as art and practice of maintenance of the group purposes reached by overcoming of resistance of other groups» (modern American political scientist K.Right). So such a policy - art, a science or practice?

5. What of the points of view corresponds, in your opinion, to the validity: definition of essence of a policy through concepts "power", "state" or in terms "resources" (values) and «influence influential» groups. The second point of view is defended by the American political scientist G.Lassvell. He, in particular, writes: «Influential are those who has the most part of that it is necessary to have. Cash values can be defined as honour, the income, safety». Result arguments in favour of the chosen point of view.

6. What statement about essence and policy functions in a society, in your opinion, is closer to true:

The sense of a policy is a conflict, struggle in which those who possess the power, provide to themselves control over a society and reception of the blessings;

The policy is sphere of integration of all citizens in community, attempt to carry out order and justice board.

Result arguments in favour of the statement chosen by you.

7. How you think, whether should have the politician borders? Whether it is necessary to involve in it the population? Whether you agree with the point of view of modern Russian writer A.I.Solzhenitsyna which confirms: «Political life - at all a front view of ability to live of the person... Than размашистей there is in the country a political life, the sincere especially is lost. The policy should not absorb spiritual forces and creative leisure of the people. Except the rights, the person needs defending and to a shower, to release it for life of mind and feelings»?

8. How you think, whether interchangeability of a policy, morals and the right is possible? For the answer to this question comment on following statements:

«The morals in the politician are not present, and there is only an expediency» (V.I.Lenin);

«Who is invested by the power, that... (M.A.Bakunin) will by all means become the oppressor and the oppressor of a society»;

«Force grants the rights» (Platon);

«As the morals Christian mean realisation of a kingdom of Bozhija in the separate person so the Christian policy should подготовлять coming of a kingdom of Bozhija for all mankind as whole, consisting of the most parts - the people, tribes and the states» (B.C. Nightingales).

9. Whether the policy can to be based on the ethical standards formulated in precepts of the Christ from the Sermon on the Mount, in your opinion: «Love your enemies, благотворите hating you. Bless damning you and pray for offending you. Given you a slap in the face substitute also another; and taking away from you outer clothing do not interfere to take and a shirt... Do not judge and will not be судимы; do not condemn and will not be condemned; farewell also will be forgiven»? Result arguments in favour of this or that variant of the answer.