There have been many attempts in the history of philosophy to understand what makes us behave ethically, why we should behave in such a way, and also to identify the principle on which our moral choice is or could be based. The ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant is one of the most notable such attempts.

Background of Kant's ethical theory

« Two things always fill the soul with new and stronger wonder and reverence, the more often and longer we think about them - this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me. » . - Immanuel Kant

In developing his ethical theory, Kant proceeds from two important premises. The first of them is characteristic of all world philosophy, up to the 19th century. It consists in the fact that there is such knowledge that is eternal, unchanging and universal.

The second premise is characteristic primarily of the medieval religious philosophy and it may seem very strange modern man. It consists in the fact that freedom is independence from any circumstances. Kant separates the world of nature and the world of reason or the world of freedom, just as medieval theologians separate the kingdom of the earth and the kingdom of heaven. In the world of nature, man is subject to circumstances and therefore not free. He can become free only if he obeys the dictates of reason (whereas in the Middle Ages freedom consisted in obeying the will of God).

At the same time, the mind is occupied with the knowledge of truth. Accordingly, everything that reason can prescribe to us is something eternal, unchanging and universal, that is, something that everyone should always do.

Three formulations of the categorical imperative

Proceeding from this, Kant develops an ethical system based on the categorical imperative, the requirement of reason to strictly follow the rules he has developed. This imperative has three following from each other and complementary formulations:

1. Act in such a way that the maxim of your will might be a universal law.

This formulation is very simple and follows directly from the premises used by Kant. In fact, he calls on us, when performing this or that action, to imagine what would happen if everyone did this all the time. Moreover, the evaluation of the action in this case will not be so much ethical or emotional: “I like it” or “not this situation”, but strictly logical. If, in the case where everyone behaves in the same way as we do, the action loses its meaning or becomes impossible, then it cannot be performed.

For example, before lying, imagine that everyone will always lie. Then the lie will be meaningless, because everyone will know that what they are being told is a lie. But at the same time, communication will be almost impossible.

Such a rule cannot serve as a guideline for the actions of all other rational beings, because it destroys itself - it is logically inconsistent.

2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, in the same way as an end, and never treat it only as a means.

This formulation follows much less clearly from the above premises, and yet it is both more trivial and more interesting than the first. It proceeds from the fact that the source of any purpose and value is the mind. And it is reason that is the goal of the legislation that it develops.

Accordingly, the goal of legislation is every bearer of reason, every rational being. If, on the basis of the first formulation of the categorical imperative, we made it a rule to use others as means to ends, and not as ends in themselves, we would be faced with a paradox in which no one and nothing can serve as a source of any end for which we could use one or the other means.

This imperative may seem trivial enough, since it is very similar to " Golden Rule morality: do what you want to be done to you. However, it is interesting in that, firstly, like the first imperative, it is based on logic, and not on desire or value, like the “golden rule”. Second, if the "golden rule" suggests looking at own desires and act towards others as if they were us, then the second formulation of the categorical imperative suggests realizing the value of someone else's life and desires, without replacing them with our own.

From the "golden rule" it can be deduced that if you are, for example, a masochist, then you should hurt other people. Then, due to the clumsy universality of prescriptions, it looks more like the first formulation of the categorical imperative. The second calls us to think about the good of another person. Rather, she advises to replace oneself with another, while the "golden rule" suggests replacing the other with oneself.

3. The third categorical imperative is not as explicitly expressed in the text as the first two. It is formulated by Kant as follows: the idea of ​​the will of every rational being as the will that establishes universal laws».

Here, in a non-obvious way, the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative are combined. The first requires the establishment of universal objective laws. The second requires making the subject the goal of these laws. The third actually repeats the premises and previous formulations.

The meaning of the third formulation is that the will of every rational being must serve as a source of legislation for itself. Only then will it be free to follow this legislation. At the same time, only behavior dictated by reason is free. That is, any rational being must establish laws for itself (and the world) and, by virtue of its rationality, desire these laws, since they are aimed at realizing the goals of these beings dictated by reason.

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.

Kant: "the starry sky above me and the moral law in me"

German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) was born in a small provincial town Koenigsberg (East Prussia; currently - Russian city Kaliningrad) and spent his whole life there. A big homebody, he nevertheless liked to lecture on geography. Over time they became famous and always attracted crowds of non-university people. Lectures were given for thirty years, Kant was given the title of the best university teacher of physical geography, despite the fact that he had never seen mountains and, perhaps, never saw the sea, which was only thirty kilometers away. The regularity of his life eventually became a local legend. According to the poet Heinrich Heine, Kant “got up, drank coffee, wrote, lectured, dined and dined, walked – all at the same time. And when Kant, in his gray cloak, with a cane in his hand, appeared at the door of his house and strolled along a narrow street planted with lindens, the neighbors knew that it was exactly half past four. And so he walked back and forth in all seasons ... ". With age, Kant became more and more self-absorbed misanthrope. "Life burdens me," he admitted, "I'm tired of it." In particular, he wrote that he was surprised that "a reasonable person could proclaim happiness as a universal practical law"; happiness and morality basically have nothing in common.

Before getting to know philosophical ideas Huma Kant wrote interesting but not outstanding articles. He was one of those who tried to develop a hypothesis about the origin solar system from the nebulae.

Having become acquainted with the ideas of Hume, Kant, as he himself admitted, "awakened from a dogmatic sleep." He came to the idea that it is possible to create a philosophical (metaphysical) system that provides an answer to Hume's destructive skepticism, which threatens to destroy metaphysics forever. Kant published his treatise "Critique of Pure Reason"(1781), which is his most important work. He agreed with Hume and empiricism that there is no such thing as innate ideas, but at the same time he denied that all our knowledge without exception comes from experience. Kant put forward the idea of ​​the existence before experienced knowledge, moreover, such knowledge as is necessary and to which our experience itself must correspond.

Space and time, says Kant, are subjective. These are our ways of perceiving the world, a kind of glasses that we cannot take off and without which we are not able to understand the experience. In addition to space and time, there are also various categories, which we know only by the powers of our mind and completely independently of the senses. These categories include such fundamental concepts as quality, quantity, causality, existence, relation, etc. They are also a kind of glasses that cannot be removed.

We are unable to see the world except in terms of quality, quantity, causality, and so on. However, through these glasses we can only see the phenomena of the world, but never the world itself.

Time, space and categories can only be applied to phenomena of experience. If, however, they are applied to objects that are not perceived, the appearance of antinomies is inevitable - statements that contradict each other, with equal force provable by the means of reason.

All judgments that we make, says Kant, are divided into analytical and synthetic. The former are true independent of experience, inasmuch as the knowledge they assert is already contained in antecedent concepts; the latter give new knowledge that does not follow from previous concepts, and therefore depend on experience. For example, the sentence "The ball is round" is analytic, since the concept "round" is already contained in the concept "ball": the ball cannot be non-round. But the sentence "The ball shines" is synthetic: it says something more about the ball than the meaning contained in the original concept of "ball". The judgments "This horse is gray" and "This horse won the prize" are also synthetic. A priori judgments are general and necessary; they cannot be denied without a logical contradiction. They must exist before any experience.

The distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments was known long before Kant, but he used the distinction in an innovative way. He put forward the idea that there are synthetic propositions that are a priori true, i.e. true to any experience. How is this possible, however?

The question of the possibility of synthetic a priori knowledge is the main question of Kant's philosophy. In essence, the possibility of such knowledge obliterates the initially clear distinction between analytic and synthetic truths. Like all scientific judgments, synthetic a priori judgments must be irrefutable general truths. In other words, they must have the same force as analytic sentences, even though they are synthetic. And they must be compatible with experience, although they precede it.

Kant asks his main question in relation to mathematics, physics and metaphysics, i.e. knowledge that is “above physics”. Mathematics deals with space and time. But space and time, unlike phenomena, are actually a priori, i.e. are not part of our experience. They are the necessary antecedent conditions of all experience. It is impossible to have any experience without these "forms of sensibility," as Kant calls them.

The propositions of physics are also a priori judgments. They classify empirical judgments and are therefore synthetic, but they use concepts that are given before experience and are therefore a priori. Kant calls these concepts "categories of our understanding." They are very similar to space and time in mathematics. "Categories" represent the basis of our knowledge. They consist of classes such as quality, quantity, relation (including causation), and modalities (such as existence and non-existence). They are not part of our experience, and yet no experience is possible without them.

In metaphysics (philosophy), however, the opposite is true. It has nothing to do with experience (after all, it is “after physics”). We cannot apply categories like quality and quantity to metaphysics, since they are the condition of experiential knowledge. In this sense, metaphysics is impossible, and Kant denies it.

In doing this, Kant does not seem to notice that he is creating his own, alternative system of metaphysics. The very method by which he considers the "forms of sensibility" (space and time) and the "categories of the understanding" (existence, necessity, etc.) is essentially metaphysical. The arguments against metaphysics apply to themselves: it is impossible to make synthetic a priori statements about them.

According to Kant, we will never be able to know the real world. Everything that we perceive is only phenomena. But what gives rise to our perceptions turns out to be thing-in-itself, always remaining unknown. It remains unclear why this thing-in-itself corresponds in some way to our perception. The phenomenon is perceived through categories, but they have no connection with the thing-in-itself. It remains beyond quantity, quality, relation and other categories.

Kant built an ethics of duty based on the belief that every person is an end in itself and should never be considered as a means. The basic law of ethics is, according to Kant, a formal internal command, a categorical imperative. He requires: act only according to such a rule as you can wish it to become a universal law. As an example of the operation of the categorical imperative, Kant gives the rule: one should not borrow money. If everyone borrowed, there would simply be no money left to borrow.

The categorical imperative seemed to Kant an a priori principle of all moral actions, a rule that defines the framework of all our ethical thinking (practical reason), while a rule not endowed with any specific moral content. One should act in accordance with duty, and not in accordance with feelings. It should be noted that there is no single moral principle from which all ethics would follow.

In aesthetics, Kant follows approximately the same path as in ethics: he is looking for a general a priori principle, independent of experience, which makes possible the same sense of beauty for all people.

Kant dealt a lot with the problems of social philosophy. He considered the achievement of a universal legal civil status to be the greatest task of the human race. In his declining years, he wrote the treatise "On Eternal Peace", which defends the federation of free states, bound together by a treaty prohibiting war. After 1933, in Nazi Germany, the ideas contained in the treatise and the name of its author were ostracized.

Kant rejected all reasonable arguments both for and against the existence of God. All the so-called "proofs for the existence" of God contain obvious errors. God is not given to us in experience, and we have no right to apply the category of existence to him. Since the concept of God is metaphysical, it is impossible to express the scientific, i.e. tested, judgments about him: all categories refer only to experience. Talking about the existence or non-existence of God is the result of a misapplication of categories. The government accused Kant of maliciously using his philosophy against the Bible when he was found to deny any evidence for the existence of God. Kant had to take an oath that he would not write or lecture on religious topics. He even wrote a letter to the king, giving his word that he would obey this order. After the death of the king, Kant, it seems, no longer considered himself bound by this oath.

In his ethical theory, Kapt nevertheless introduces not only the postulate of the existence of God, but also the postulate of immortality. human soul. The task of God is to give everyone what they deserve (to implement the principle of justice), but not in this, earthly imperfect world, but in another, perfect world, where everything reasonable and impossible in the earthly world is realized.

Kant said that he was surprised by two things:
starry sky above us
and the moral law within us...

We cannot change the starry sky, but we are quite capable of helping Kant formulate the moral law, and everyone should do this for themselves.
And, of course, the moral law of one person will be somewhat different from another.

1. A bit of history.
Moral laws have been developed by man for a long time and they were very different.
They are usually based on the laws of religion, like commandments that came from God.
The most famous is the Decalogue of Moses.

But studying such laws, one finds contradictions and voids in them - some
practical and important situations are not spelled out at all, and some, by their writing, reinforce the inequality of people (commandment 10 of the decalogue), and this gives rise to doubt about their impeccable origin.

2. Cinderella conscience.
"The moral law within us" is also called the voice of conscience.
Let us first analyze the practical and simple situation of choosing shoes.
There are many types of shoes in the store and we cannot do without the problem of choice.
When we buy shoes in a store, what is the main evaluation criterion for us, besides price, color and country of origin?
That's right, as in Charles Perot's fairy tale: does it fit on the leg?

Our foot here acts as a standard - a censor.

3. "Evry time" or every day.

When we do something every day, we consciously or unconsciously measure it against several categories of choice: desire, necessity, time, place, result or consequences.
And there is another important category that we are talking about according to Kant, which makes people out of us, and which we sometimes forget about - this is the moral law - as an imperative and an answer to the question: is it suitable for us?

There are many human situations. And there are even more moral laws that apply to them. But there are the main ones - from which the rest grow and those without which the rest - lose their meaning.
Some of them are set out in the same decalogue.

4. Moral decalogue.
Let's try to state the basic moral laws without pretending to be true and complete.

4.1. A person should never be deprived of life (killed) under any circumstances and for any reason. There are no reasons, rules, beliefs, obligations or benefits that would justify killing a person. (decalogue sixth commandment.)
4.2. No life can be taken creature having living soul and mind.
(For a person, this is already from the moment of conception.)
It can refer to animals, birds, fish, insects, and plants.
4.3. It is forbidden to use dead animals, fish and birds in food and kill them for the purpose of eating them. For eating it is better to use natural products: milk, fruits flora or to synthesize organic food from another or from energy.

This refers to a certain level of personality development.
We proceed from the fact that a person, in general, is endowed with the right and property for himself to choose and establish the norms of what is permitted, corresponding to the level of development of his consciousness, and to have all the results of such a choice.

4.4. You can't use violence.
Violence is not acceptable in any form. Society happy people it is a society in which there is no violence.
Our society is at such a level of development that it is forced to single out a group of people who have the right to use violence against those who violate the rights of people set forth in the basic law.
The first thing to say here is that you cannot use parental violence against your child.
And in all cases: The child must not be beaten. The child should not be scolded, frightened and deceived. A child should not be locked up, put in a corner, allegedly for educational purposes, forced to commit actions that are unacceptable to him, humiliate him physically and morally, call him names.
It is impossible for a child to be denied food and care from the parents.
You can not forcibly excommunicate a child from the parents of the mother and father.
It happens that a parent is first deprived of the right to be such, and then excommunicated from the right to raise his child.

4.5. Theft. Any thing, object, clothing, utensils, product is usually in someone's property. She can be taken over by him. different ways: Made, purchased, or received as a gift.
Some important attributes life have a certificate, stamp, logo, ex-libris, signature - establishing the owner. Others, such as pocket money, are a means of payment with a variable right of ownership - they pass from hand to hand.

In any case, the primary, established procedure for determining ownership and the right of possession at the place of location applies: in whose hands (also in an apartment, car, pocket, bank, etc. legal zone) is a thing - he is the owner.
The transfer of ownership from hand to hand can only take place voluntarily.
Changing the right of possession or ownership without the will of the primary owner is theft, embezzlement or robbery.
Coercion is not free will.
It is said: do not steal (decalogue eighth commandment)

4.6. Do not lie.
Man lives in the world of information. There are many ways, means and situations of information transfer, and sometimes its reliability becomes vital.
None of the information, nothing that is said or written (including the authorship of God) should not be spared from the verification of authenticity.
Lovers of sophistry and demagogy are looking for such cases when "lying for good."
We do not find such cases. But the information must correspond to the time, place and conditions.
Lies, untruths, lies, as well as the concealment of information that should be accessible and public, makes our life not only uncomfortable, but also unsafe and equates to an attempt on life and health.
Lies encroach on our other fundamental rights and freedoms.
Do not lie. (Commandment Nine)

4.7. Keep out.

Everything in nature and human life should occur freely, naturally - without the interference of some in the lives of others. This also applies to relationships between people and
relations between peoples and countries and, especially, relations between man and nature.
The principle of non-intervention does not negate assistance and complicity.

4.8. Do no harm.
The life and activity of man should take place under this primary motto.

4.9. Do not turn over.
Do not deprive or restrict free will and freedom of choice. This can apply to both humans and animals. It's not about who it applies to.
First of all, it is within oneself - the daily observance of this moral law.
"Turn over" here in the sense of limiting along the perimeter.

4.10. Don't commit adultery.

Man is created, born and lives in an atmosphere of love.
The seventh commandment does not explain what has been said.
The feeling of love is boundless and free. The foregoing says that a person is triune - he consists of a body, soul and spirit.
"Adultery" refers only to bodily - physical love.
Love is primarily spiritual. And the emergence of physical love, more precisely, hormonal attraction, without spiritual love, this is the disharmony of relationships.

5. Moralisms.
And, of course, moral laws are set out here that have the nature of prohibitions and restrictions, but the basic laws of morality are those that encourage actions.

Related terms
1. Rigorism
- moral principle, which characterizes the way the requirements are met
morality, which consists in strict and unswerving observance of certain moral norms, regardless of specific circumstances, in unconditional obedience.
2. Principle - a formulated general thesis, meaning the concept of good and bad.

3. The talion law is the imposition of punishment for a crime, according to which the punishment should reproduce the harm caused by the crime (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”).

4 MORALITY - Internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person, ethical standards; rules of conduct determined by these qualities (Ozhegov)
5. Hegel in the "Philosophy of Law" presented morality, in contrast to abstract law and morality, as the final stage in the development of the spirit in and manifested in the family and civil society.

Reviews

Everything is interesting, especially the idea itself - morality is within us

Additions.
A man does not know what he wants until it is given to him. It's about not getting involved.
In addition, if "Thou shalt not kill" is accepted, then one must intervene to prevent the killing.

Regarding lies. The problem is that people lie primarily to themselves.
In an expanded sense, this is a misunderstanding of oneself and one's desires.

Thanks Michael.
"Besides, if 'Thou shalt not kill' is accepted, then one must intervene to prevent the killing" - sounds like sophism.
Where will the "murders" come from if everyone keeps the Great Commandment?
And laws, including moral ones, work only when they are observed.

"Additions. A man does not know what he wants until it is given to him"
If a person does not know what he wants, he is not yet a person, but rather an animal.

"Regarding lies. The problem is that a person lies primarily to himself.
In an expanded sense, this is a misunderstanding of oneself and one's desires.

Well, while there is a misunderstanding and a lie to oneself about moral laws, it’s too early to talk

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant said: "Two things surprise me: the starry sky above our heads and the moral law within us."
Skeptics will wince, complaining that again about moral values, about "what is good and what is bad." Banality is an often repeated truth. Maybe so, only because of how often or rarely you repeat the truth, it does not cease to be the truth. Yes, and there will be a chance that after frequent repetition, the truth, perhaps, will reach those who are trying in every possible way to invent their own principles that are most convenient for personal use.

Have you ever wondered why moral laws apply even in extreme conditions why the instinct of self-preservation (egoism) recedes before the instinct of self-sacrifice (altruism)? Let the example seem textbook: the Nazis declared conscience a chimera, but they could not break it in a person - millions of martyrs passed through concentration camps, but very few became traitors and executioners. And, if you think about it, then everyone will find enough such examples in their memory.

Conscience is not a whim, but a vital necessity for the stable existence of society. Any civilization can exist for a sufficiently long time only if there are certain obligations that individual representatives of society take on. These obligations are called conscience. “Do not do what you do not want to receive from others” - again, a well-known truth that you can agree with or not. In other words, conscience is respect for the rights of others.

It can be said that a person’s conscience appears when he suddenly begins to understand that another person is just as happy, afraid, experiencing mental and physical suffering as he himself is - in other words, becomes able to sympathize, empathize.
A conscientious person is guided by principles that do not allow him to harm another person or other creature. Moreover, often in his actions he prefers to give up his own benefit or even agree to harm himself, so as not to harm his neighbor. So it should be both according to the logic of things, and according to the very conscience in question.
But, you involuntarily ask yourself the question, what does a conscientious person live in today's society? How often do you have to commit acts against your conscience in order to keep a job, get a lucrative order, make the right acquaintance - and the list goes on?

Having crossed the laws of conscience, the father abandons the children and arranges his life. Having crossed the same laws, the boss cracks down on objectionable and inconvenient subordinates, often to the detriment of the cause, but for his own personal benefit. And how many people are silent when injustice is happening nearby? I'm not even talking about "little things" like ticketless travel, cheating, optionality.
What happens: on the one hand, the development of civilization is impossible without the presence of conscience among its representatives, and on the other hand, just the presence of this very conscience prevents a particular representative from living in a particular society every day? The state of our Everyday life often makes us forget about principles, conscience, and morality, especially if the well-being of your children and family is on the other side of the scale.

However, these concepts are leveled even faster if money is on the other side of the scale. And than more money, the less moral torment - "to be or not to be." But the development of such situations leads to a dead end not only for individual representatives, but also for society as a whole. And in this society our children and grandchildren will live.
And I would like to end with the statement of another German philosopher, Wilhelm Windelband: “For a mature cultured person, there is not only a moral, but also a logical and aesthetic conscience. He knows duties, both for his will and behavior, and for his thinking and feelings, and at the same time he knows, feels with pain and shame, how often the naturally necessary course of his life violates these duties.

Having accidentally stumbled upon another opus from Latynina - “Voltaire’s relevance”, where she, without hesitation, tries to justify the militant hooligans with verbiage about Putin’s Russia, the Inquisition and her own fantasies on the topic of Voltaire, could not resist answering.

Blatantly blaming everything christian church en masse in totalitarianism, Latynina could not resist mentioning Stalin, obviously without such "keywords" it is possible not to receive the second "Defender of the Word" award established by the US State Department, this time not from Condoleezza Rice, but from Hillary Clinton herself.

There is an alternative world in Latynina's head; there are no differences between the current Orthodox Patriarch, to whom she accuses the presence of some expensive watches, and, for example, the Catholic Pope Alexander Borgia, a seller of cardinal hats, a poisoner and a lover of his own daughter, putting an equal sign between such things and completely forgetting, or maybe on purpose not paying attention to some nuances, if we discard the difference in time epochs: A patriarch is a bishop, the first among equal bishops, presiding at a council and in a synod. The patriarch is administrative position, as well as the metropolitan and archbishop, while: in the Catholic Church on earth, the head of the Church, besides the Lord, is the Pope, and Catholics consider his decisions in matters of faith to be infallible (the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope). and the Pope is also considered the vicar of Christ.

It would seem that for Latynina the difference is small, but in fact, what a significant one.

Indulging in discussions about the difference between Christianity and Islam, mercilessly exaggerating and labeling, and ignoring the numerous currents in both teachings, the popular journalist is completely untouched by the feelings of believers, is it interesting for any confessions or just Orthodoxy?

In the strangest way, hanging the sins of the Inquisition on Orthodoxy, the sins of the popes on Orthodox patriarchs, let us keep silent about the allegedly “burnt Copernicus”, who was nevertheless corrected on Giordano Bruno, Latynina, nevertheless, did not begin to recall the so-called “black masses”, the practices of worship Lucifer inherent in Western civilization. Also, for some reason, she lost sight of the "Hammer of the Witches" - Malleus Maleficarum - a notorious product of Western Christianity, whose sins, with a slight movement of her hand, the well-known journalist deigned to attribute to Orthodoxy.

And maybe not by accident.

The aggressive atheist Voltaire cannot but impress Latynina, I even suspect that she knows what the heresy of the Albigenses, who were also called " kind people”and how the work of Voltaire, a graduate of the Jesuit school and a freemason, resonates with the dogma of the Cathars. It was not for nothing that at one time in France, de Sade, the same Marquis, was published in the same little book with Voltaire: it’s trite, at least they will read something ..

Freemason Voltaire knew for sure what exactly he did, destroying the foundations of the then society, smashing and spitting on the Church, and the French Revolution with millions of victims, and then the arrival of Napoleon and the Napoleonic wars confirm this ...

However, the same trick can be seen at the beginning of the 20th century in Russian Empire, ridiculing the Church, leaflets, moral decline, "everything is permitted, since there is no God" ..

Latynina would, but people like her actually, and a hundred years ago they printed under different names liberal newspapers have their own similar opuses, and now they all either died out in exile or are considered "victims of the bloody regime", although for some reason no one will say: "if you summon a dragon for a long time, then you should remember that you will become his first breakfast (with )"

Although, maybe Latynina believes that she will be in time for her cozy emigration for the next 30 pieces of silver...

Immanuel Kant wrote that two things amazed him: the starry sky above our heads and the moral law inside us, why does the starry sky shine on everyone, even the Latins, but, unfortunately, the “moral law” inside, it turns out, is in the form that it meant Kant, not everyone has.

How did Kant say it?

“All people have a moral feeling, a categorical imperative. Since this feeling does not always induce a person to actions that bring him earthly benefit, therefore, there must be some basis, some motivation for moral behavior that lies outside this world. All this necessarily requires the existence of immortality, the highest court and God ... "

Although Latynina, apparently, is closer to the homosexual Frederick the Great, whom Adolf Hitler called "the hero of genius from Sanssouci, and the ideologist of Nazism Alfred Rosenberg - the "ideal of Nordic beauty", there are so many real Western democratic values ​​​​in this .. and most importantly, no "Putinism" ".

In an amazing way, Ms. Latynina showed that the heresy of the Manicheans and the Albigensian Cathars did not disappear at all in the darkness of centuries, Voltaire, the Marquis de Sade and such Latins would take it out of oblivion - thirsting for only one thing - to bring confusion into souls, to confuse, to confuse and enchant with another heresy, hiding behind the “fight against the regime” or “freedom of speech”, forgetting that freedom is not a synonym for the word “permissiveness”.