DOI: https://doi.org/10.21847/1728-9343.2018.2(154).132994

Comparative ideal-conceptological analysis of social-philosophical approach to social aspects of mercy

Yuriy Khodanych

Abstract


The article is devoted to the comparative ideological and conceptual analysis of the socio-philosophical approach to the social aspects of mercy. The phenomenon of mercy is studied by the author through the prism of a variety of Western social and ethical teachings (evolutionism, utilitarianism, hedonism, liberalism, neo-Marxism and post-Marxism). In the context of evolutionism, mercy receives the significance of altruism. Particular attention is paid to the concept of mutual assistance by P. Kropotkin. In utilitarianism mercy is viewed through the prism of individual and social benefit. In turn, in the context of liberalism, mercy loses its social value, since the focus is on a free personality with its own moral choices. The author analyzes the concept of rational selfishness in a separate way by A. Rand. Through the prism of social and applied research of neo-Marxism and post-Marxism mercy appears as a factor in the subject's activity in relation to its environment and its subsequent influence on the development of society. The ideological and conceptual analysis of the socio-philosophical approach to the social aspects of mercy through the prism of Western philosophical thought (evolutionism, hedonism, utilitarianism, liberalism) allowed us to determine that today mercy in the context of social practice receives a pragmatic orientation, which is associated with such factors as benefits, mutual assistance. In turn, the ideals of self-sacrifice and altruism are embodied in the context of the aspirations of the individual, but are no longer a "social" ethical imperative. All this puts mercy as a powerful integrative factor of society in a rather shaky situation. To a certain extent, the situation is "rehabilitated" due to modern socio-philosophical research of neo-Marxism and post-Marxism, where mercy should be considered as the basis for active complicity of the subject and object, the factor of the formation of civil associations for the implementation of social transformations.


Keywords


mercy; evolutionism; pragmatism; utilitarianism; law of mutual assistance; liberalism

References


Bennett, C., 2004. The Limits of Mercy. Ratio. Vol. 17, Issue 1, pp. 1-11 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2004.00232.x.

Meyer, L.R., 2010. The Justice of Mercy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 264 p. DOI: 10.3998/mpub.328658.

Murphy, J.G., Hampton, J., 1988. Forgiveness and Mercy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 194 p. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511625121.

Kesselring, K.J., 2003. Mercy and Authority in the Tudor State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 242 p. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511495854.

Apresian, R.G., 1995. The idea of morality and basic normative and ethical programs. Moscow, 353 p. (rus)

Spencer, H., 1997. Synthetic philosophy. Kyiv: Nika-Centr, 512 p. (rus)

Efroimson, V.P., 1995. Genetics of Ethics and Esthetics. St. Peterburg: Talisman, 288 p. (rus)

Logunova, E.H., 2012. To the question of two concepts of the phenomenon of mercy. Discussion, 3, pp. 21-24. (rus)

Kropotkin, P.A., 2011. Mutual assistance among animals and humans as the engine of progress. Moscow: Librokom. (rus)

Sushentsova, M.S., 2017. Utilitarianism of I. Bentham and J.S. Mill: from virtue to rationality. Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Economy, Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 17-35. (rus)

Serebrianskiy, D.S., 2011. Classical utilitarianism: the main theoretical problems. Ethical thought, Issue 11, pp. 90-104. (rus)

Gaydenko, P.P., 2000. The moral nature of man in the European tradition of the XIX-XX centuries. Ethical thought, pp. 88-106. (rus)

Burmistrov, S.L., 2011. Anthropology of American pragmatism. Human, 4, pp. 104-115. (rus)

Yarkova, E.N., 2004. Utilitarianism as a moral basis for the modernization of culture and society (based on the Western ethical and philosophical tradition). Europe, 4, pp. 159-180. (rus)

Nikiforov, A.L., 2016. The Individual of Liberalism and its Moral. Personality. Culture. Society, V. 18, Issue 1-2, pp. 161-177. (rus)

Denisov, A.A., 2006. Principles of moral regulation of society in liberal and traditional ethics. Omsk scientific Bulletin, 2, pp. 35-41. (rus)

Vissenburg, M., 2010. Liberalism and nature. Political science, 2, pp. 88-108. (rus)

Rand, A. Objective Ethics. In The Apology of Capitalism. Available at: http://www.urantia-s.com/library/rand/apologiya_kapitalizma/full

Kurenykh, K.A., 2017. The treatment of rational egoism in ethics of A. Rand. Social life and power, 4, pp. 122-126. DOI: 10.22394/1996-0522-2017-4-122-126.


GOST Style Citations


1. Bennett C. The Limits of Mercy. Ratio. 2004. Vol. 17. Issue 1. P. 1-11. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9329.2004.00232.x.

 

2. Meyer L. R. The Justice of Mercy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2010. 264 p. DOI: 10.3998/mpub.328658.

 

3. Murphy J. G.,HamptonJ. Forgiveness and Mercy.Camb­ridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1988. 194 p. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511625121.

 

4. Kesselring K. J. Mercy and Authority in theTudorState.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2003. 242 p. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511495854.

 

5. Апресян Р. Г. Идея морали и базовые нормативно-этические программы. Москва, 1995. 353 с.

 

6. Спенсер Г. Синтетическая философия. Київ: Ника-Центр, 1997. 512 с.

 

7. Эфроимсон В. П. Генетика этики и эстетики. Санкт-Петербург: Талисман, 1995. 288 с.

 

8. Логунова Е. Г. К вопросу о двух концепциях феномена милосердия. Дискуссия. 2012. № 3. С. 21-24.

 

9. Кропоткин П. А., Федоров А. Ю. (авт. предисл.); Гольдсмит М. И. (вступ. ст.); Рублёв Д. И. (прилож). Взаимная помощь среди животных и людей как двигатель прогресса. Москва: Книжный дом «Либроком», 2011.

 

10. Сушенцова М. С. Утилитаризм И. Бентама и Дж. С. Мил­ля: от добродетели к рациональности. Вестник СПбГУ. Экономика. 2017. Т. 33. Вып. 1. С. 17-35.

 

11. Серебрянский Д. С. Классический утилитаризм: основные теоретические проблемы. Этическая мысль. 2011. Вып.11. С.90-104.

 

12. Гайденко П. П. Нравственная природа человека в европейской традиции XIX-XX вв. Этическая мысль. М., 2000. С. 88-106.

 

13. Бурмистров С. Л. Антропология американского прагматизма. Человек. 2011. № 4. С. 104-115.

 

14. Яркова Е. Н. Утилитаризм как нравственное основание модернизации культуры и общества (на материале западной этико-философской традиции). Европа. 2004. № 4. С. 159-180.

 

15. Никифоров А. Л. Индивид либерализма и его мораль. Личность. Культура. Общество. 2016. Т. 18. Вып. 1-2. С. 161-177.

 

16. Денисов А. А. Принципы моральной регуляции общества в либеральной и традиционной этике. Омский научный вестник. 2006. № 2. С.35-41.

 

17. Виссенбург М. Либерализм и природа. Политическая наука. 2010. № 2. С. 88-108.

 

18. Рэнд А. Объективистская этика. Апология капитализма URL: http://www.urantia-s.com/library/rand/apologiya_kapitalizma/full (дата звернення 12.01.2018).

 

19. Куреных К. А. Трактовка рационального эгоизма в этике А. Рэнд. Социум и власть. 2017. № 4. С. 122-126. DOI: 10.22394/1996-0522-2017-4-122-126.







Copyright (c) 2018 Yuriy Khodanych

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

ISSN 1728-9343 (Print)

ISSN 2411-3093 (Online)