Human actions: good deeds, heroic deed. What is an act: the essence

An act is a certain action motivated by the inner world of a person formed at that moment. Acts can be moral and immoral. They are committed under the influence of a sense of duty, conviction, upbringing, love, hatred, sympathy. Every society has its own heroes. There is also a certain scale, according to which the actions of a person are evaluated. According to it, you can determine whether this is an act of a hero, which will serve as an example for future generations.

Ancient philosophers also pondered the concept of feat. Reflections on this subject have not passed and modern thinkers. The whole human life consists of a continuous chain of actions, that is, of actions. It often happens that the behavior and thoughts of a person are different. For example, a child wants only good for his parents. However, their actions often upset them. With certainty, we can say that our tomorrow depends on today's action. In particular, our whole life.

Socrates search for the meaning of life

Socrates was one of the active seekers of the meaning of this concept. He was trying to figure out what a real heroic deed should be. What is virtue and evil, how a person makes a choice - all this worried the ancient philosopher. He penetrated into the inner world of this or that personality, its essence. I was looking for the ultimate purpose of actions. In his opinion, they should be motivated by the main virtue - mercy.

At the core of the act is the goal of learning to distinguish between good and evil. When a person can penetrate the essence of these concepts, he will, according to Socrates, always act courageously. Such a person will necessarily perform a heroic deed for the sake of the highest good. Socratic philosophical reflections were aimed at finding such an incentive, a force that will not need recognition. In other words, the philosopher talks about self-knowledge, when a person will have inner motivations, replacing centuries-old traditions.

Sophists against Socrates

The philosophy of Socrates tried to explain the essence of the concept of "act": what is it? The motivating component of his action is the opposite of the position of the Sophists, who learn to find out their hidden motives, giving them the status of conscious ones. According to Protagoras, who was a contemporary of Socrates, the meaning of a person's life as an individual is a clear and successful expression with the ultimate satisfaction of personal desires and needs.

The Sophists believed that every action of the selfish motive must be justified in the eyes of the relatives and other people, since they are part of society. Therefore, the environment must be persuaded, using sophist technologies of speech construction, in that it is necessary for it. That is, a young man who took sophistic views, learned not only to know himself, but also having set a definite goal, to reach it and prove his case under any circumstances.

"Socratic dialogue"

Socrates departs from the earthly. He rises higher and in considering such a thing as an act. What is it, what is its essence? That's what the thinker wants to understand. He seeks the meaning of the whole existence of man, starting from the corporeal and selfish. Thus, a complex system of methods is developed, which was called "Socratic Dialogue." These methods lead a person along the path of knowing the truth. The philosopher brings the interlocutor to an understanding of the deep meaning of masculinity, goodness, valor, moderation, virtue. Without such qualities an individual can not consider himself a person. Virtue is a developed habit of always striving for good, which will form the appropriate good deeds.

The vice and the driving force

The opposite of virtue is vice. He forms the actions of man, guiding them to evil. In order to establish itself in virtue, a person must acquire knowledge and gain discretion. Socrates did not deny the presence of pleasures in human life. But he refuted their decisive power over him. The basis of bad deeds is ignorance, and the moral is knowledge. In his studies, he analyzed a lot of human actions: what is his motive power, motive, impulse. The Thinker comes close to the later Christian views. It can be said that he deeply penetrated the human essence of man, into the concept of the essence of freedom of choice, knowledge, discretion and the origin of vice.

Aristotle's view

Socrates criticizes Aristotle. He does not deny the importance of knowledge in order that a person always does good deeds. He says: actions are determined by the influence of passion. Explaining this by the fact that often a person who has knowledge is acting badly, because wisdom dominates feeling. According to Aristotle, the individual does not have power over himself. And, accordingly, knowledge does not determine its action. In order to do good deeds, you need a moral stable position of the individual, her willful orientation, some experience acquired when she experiences grief and enjoys herself. It is sorrow and joy, according to Aristotle, the measure of human actions. The directing force is the will that is formed by the freedom of choice of a person.

Measure of actions

He introduces the concept of a measure of actions: lack, excess and what is between them. It is through the mid-level patterns that the philosopher thinks that a person makes the right choice. An example of such a measure is masculinity, which lies between such qualities as reckless courage and cowardice. He also divides actions into arbitrary ones, when the source lies within the person himself, and involuntary, forced by external circumstances. Considering the act, the essence of the concept, the corresponding role in the life of man and society, we draw some conclusions. We can say that both philosophers are right to a certain extent. They considered the inner man rather deeply, avoiding superficial judgments and being in search of truth.

Kant's view

A great contribution to the theory, considering the concept of an act and its motivation, was made by Kant. He says that it is necessary to act so that you can say: "Do as I do ...". This he emphasizes that the truly moral can be considered an act when the motivation is a free morality, sounding in the person's soul, like the alarm. The historians of philosophy consider: the actions of a person, their motives are determined by Kant, from the point of view of rigorism.

For example, considering the situation with a drowning person, Kant states: if a parent rescues his child, this act will not be moral. After all, he is dictated by a feeling of natural love for his own heir. Moral action will be in the event that a person saves an unknown person drowning him, guided by the principle: "Human life is the highest value". There is one more option. If the enemy was saved, this is a truly moral heroic deed worthy of high recognition. Later Kant softened these concepts and united in them such human motives as love and duty.

Actuality of the concept of an act

The concept of good deeds does not cease to argue today. How often society recognizes the moral actions of great people, whose motive was not really good at all. What in our days is heroism, courage? Of course, to save a person or an animal from death, feed the hungry, dress the needy. A real good deed can be called even the most simple action: advice to a friend, help a colleague, call a parent. Translate an old woman across the road, give alms to the poor, pick up a piece of paper on the street - deeds that also fall into this category. As for heroism, it is based on sacrificing one's life for the sake of others. This is primarily the defense of the Motherland from enemies, the work of firefighters, police, rescuers. A hero can become even an ordinary person, if he took out of the fire a baby, neutralized the robber, closed his chest with a passer-by, on which the muzzle of the machine gun was aimed.

According to many psychologists, philosophers and theologians up to the age of seven, the child is not able to distinguish between good and evil in full measure. Therefore, appealing to conscience is useless, because the concept for it has very fuzzy boundaries. However, since the age of seven - this is a fully formed personality, which can already consciously make a choice in one direction or another. The actions of children at this time should be skillfully directed by parents in the right direction.