The article focuses on philosophical and practical problems of social ethics in the context of “rehabilitation of practical philosophy” and the ethical turn in the philosophical knowledge. This turn war caused by the transition from the philosophy of consciousness of monologic and egocentric individual-focused paradigm to philosophy of communication, seen as development of dialogical communicative practices (discourses). The article examines social and historical changes which conditioned the new context of ethical reflection about norms and values. The article also underlines the importance of the linguistic-hermeneutic-pragmatic-semiotic turn in philosophy to constitute the content area of social ethics. Values and norms of this social ethics are implemented in social institutions of the contemporary information society. Such concepts are “ethos” are introduced into the consideration of this problem. Also the article discusses the correlative concepts Umwelt and Innenwelt, which are characterized by universality with regard to theoretical and practical discourses. The article examines the leading role of communication as a means of discussing and justification of validity of values and norms of common life and their engagement into the everyday practices, through the development of intersubjective connections. The article notes difficulties in implementation of ethical norms in the vivid fabric of social reality, which demands extension of the scope of applied ethics. The author discloses the functional aspect of social ethics on the methodological foundations of the principle of the universal mutuality. Based upon practical procedures of justification of the value-and-normative horizon of the work of social institutions, the article analyzes ways of implementing ethical ideals in them. It also stresses that mutual understanding in the social action is achieved through awareness of the basic values of freedom, justice, solidarity and tolerance. Development of the content of social ethics in the everyday practices is regarded based upon analysis of educational institutions, in the context of the leading trends of contemporary society. It is argued that ethical principle of the universal mutuality, as a regulative factor of human action, can efficiently work under conditions of specific social (discoursive) practices. Structural elements of these practices are: individual as a participant of intersubjective form of life, and language as an instrument of presentation of the the individual aiming at mutual understanding.
Berger P., Lukman T. (1995). The Social Construction of Reality. Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. Moscow: Academia-Center; Medium.
Bourdieu, P. Beginnings. (1987). Choses dites. Paris, Minuit. (N. Shmatko, Trans.) Moscow: Socio-Logos.
Wittgenstein, L. (1995). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Philosophical re-search. (E. Popovich. Trans.) K.: Fundamentals.
Habermas, Y. (2000). Structural transformations in the sphere of openness: a study of the category of civil society (А. Onyishko, Trans.). Lviv: Litopys.
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. (2020). Production of Presence. What Meaning Can-not Convey. (I. Ivashchenko, Trans.) Kharkiv: IST Publishing.
Civil society in Ukraine in the era of globalization: value-normative and in-stitutional support for its development. (2007). Kyiv.
Gur, W. (1997). Ethical concept of German social democracy (historical and philosophical analysis: Bad Godesberg, 1959-Berlin, 1989). K.: Tsentr sot-syalnykh issledovanyi іm. V. Starosolskoho. [In Russian].
Gosle, V. (2003). Practical philosophy in the modern world. (A. Yermolenko, Trans., notes and afterword). К.: Libra. [In Ukrainian].
Deely, J. Semiotics and social philosophy. Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series phyilosophical science, 21, 3-16. [In Russian].
Yermolenko, A. (2010). Social ethics and ecology. Human dignity – respect for nature. К.: Libra, 216. [In Ukrainian].
Yermolenko, A. (2021). Discourse. Communication. Morality. К.: Naukova dumka. [In Ukrainian].
Kebuladze, V. (2012). Phenomenology of experience (A. Loy, Ed.). K.: Duch i Litera. [In Ukrainian].
Kozhemyakina, O. (2019). Trust as a value basis of social interaction: a mon-ograph. Cherkasy: FOP Gordienko A. I. [In Ukrainian].
Krymskyy, S. (2003). Value-semantic universe of man (рр. 22-33). In Re-quests of philosophical meanings. К.: PARAPAN. [In Ukrainian].
Lukyanets, V., Kravchenko, O. & Ozadovska, L. (2000). Modern scientific discourse: Renewal of methodological culture. Kyiv. [In Ukrainian].
Malakhov, V. (2006). Ethics of communication: Textbook. manual. K.: Lybid. [In Ukrainian].
Austin, J. (1999). How to do things with words? In Austin, J. Favorites. (L. Makeeva, V. Rudneva, Trans. M.: Idea-Press, House of Intellectual Books. [In Russian].
Tour, M. (2006). Nonclassical models of legitimation of social institutions. Кyiv: PАRАPAN. [In Ukrainian].
Fromm, E. (1992). Man for himself (L. Chernyshova, Trans.) Мн.: Kolegium. [In Russian].
Foucault, M. (1994). Words and things. Archeology of the Humanities. SPb. [In Russian].
Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. "Ivory Tower": on the future of humanitarian educa-tion. (2016). In KOINONIA. Philosophy of the Other and the theology of com-munication. Special issue, N3. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University named after V.N. Karazina. Series "Theory of Culture and Philosophy of Science", 55. Kharkiv, 13-26. [In Russian].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.