Customs and traditions of primitive people. Primitive customs and traditions

Morality, like all other social phenomena, has historically formed and developed. The emergence of morality is associated with the formation of society, especially social labor. The social labor activity of people, no matter how primitive it may be in the initial stages, presupposes more or less stable relations between people. In primitive society, zoological egoism was curbed by the forces of the collective. The criterion of good and evil was determined by what was for the benefit or harm of the clan and tribe. Europeans who got acquainted with peoples who stood at the level of primitive society were struck by such traits as courage, justice, and truthfulness. Rousseau spoke of a golden age in the past, and Voltaire said that he wanted to run on all fours into the forest.

However, one should not idealize primitive society. The low level of production put forward two requirements for a person: physical strength and the ability to endure suffering. The rite of passage (initiation), the tattoo (when, for example, salt was put into deep incisions) were aimed precisely at the formation of these qualities. When a person is weak, he is a burden for the team. It is no accident, therefore, that the old people were left at the abandoned site of the clan and tribe, which actually led them to death.

The regulation of the relationship between personal and public interests was initially carried out through a system of prohibitions on certain actions - taboos. There is a differentiation of actions into positive and negative, that is, actions that should be performed and actions that are prohibited. Morality becomes a means of orienting a person in a social environment.

14. Slaveholding and feudal morality.

Morality in a slave-owning society was based on two main theses - slavery was sent by the gods, it is fair and unshakable, and also that a slave belongs to the category of things that speak tools for work and pleasure. A slave could be bought, exchanged, killed, his life was of little value. Slaves were ordered by the gods to engage in hard physical labor, this was considered their lot and punishment, the masters were forbidden to work physically in order to avoid the curse of the gods.

Courage, steadfastness, love for one's city, military prowess were considered the highest moral virtues. Morality justified warfare, looting, cruelty to enemies, ambition and lust for power.

The morality of the slaves did not develop into a single system of views. Slaves, as a rule, were taken from people of other nations captured in wars, they spoke different languages, belonged to different faiths, and were engaged in different types of work. The only thing that united them was hatred for their oppressors.

Along with the prevailing morality justifying slavery, movements arose that protested against it. The morality of the value of each human personality, its uniqueness and uniqueness begins to take shape. At first, the masters were ordered to keep their slaves well-fed and in good health, and then currents appeared that forced the masters to talk with the slaves on an equal footing, to arrange their lives, in accordance with diligence. A hardworking and complaisant slave urgently needed to find a worthy wife and provide for their lives.

The slave era was very controversial. Along with the prevailing morality, glorifying in man the master, the lover of power, who cares exclusively about satisfying his needs and the needs of his city, there were many philosophers, scientists, artists, poets who raised the theme of good and evil in their works. They considered the virtues of kindness, love and justice to be beautiful for a person, deceit, cruelty, debauchery, slander, greed for profit were considered disgusting vices. Such topics were raised by Aristophanes, Tacitus, Plutarch, Seneca. They considered the achievement of moral perfection to be moral freedom.

The morality of feudal society was the exact opposite of the morality of ancient society. Its emphasis has changed from the individual as a bearer of morality to external factors that do not depend on the will of man. This morality justified the spiritual oppression of people dependent on the will of the master.

Morality justified the divine origin of "higher" and "lower" people. Justice attributed to the "higher" the possession of power and wealth. At that time, the status position in society was of great importance.

The dominant place was occupied by religious morality, which fixed certain norms, traditions and rituals, according to which society was ordered to live. Religious dogmas were protected by the state by a system of laws.

Wealth was a status accessory, a gift from God. Only the upper strata of society could have it. For the rest, the desire for material values ​​was seen as greed, which, according to church standards, was a deadly sin.

In feudal society, among the categories of morality, obedience to the pater, on whom a person was dependent, was most valued. In addition, class honor and loyalty were attributed to the virtues. Class moral traditions were fixed in knightly codes, shop charters, codes of members of the order. Military prowess, courage, nobility, glory were highly valued among all classes. Members of the estates had to take care of their surroundings, provide assistance to other members of the estate if necessary, take care of estate honor. Class morality was built on such qualities as hospitality, generosity, mutual assistance. A particularly revered virtue among all classes was piety. Morality was considered the fruit of the Holy Spirit, which had to be earned through the rituals of worshiping God.

Physical labor was considered the prerogative of the lower classes and was despised by feudal lords and others who were endowed with wealth and power.

Morality and moral categories of feudal society were built on the justification of their belonging to God. It forms the virtues of a person, based on the position that he occupies in society and the efforts that a person spends to worship the patron and perform divine rituals.

Primitive people lived in small communities, with difficulty extracting meager means of subsistence from lakes and forests and making bone and stone tools for this. But already in such a life, primitive man had to learn to identify his "I" with the social "we" and thus worked out the initial foundations of morality. He got used to thinking of his family as something of which he was only a part, and not at all the main part, since he saw how insignificant everyone would be in the face of a formidable, harsh nature if he ceased to be a part of the family. As a result, he became accustomed to limiting his will to the will of others, and this is the basic principle of all morality. Indeed, we know that the most primitive people of the glacial and early post-glacial, i.e. lake period, already lived in societies - in caves, in rock crevices or under overhanging rocks, and that they hunted and fished together with their primitive tools, and cohabitation and cooperation already presuppose the development of certain rules of social morality.

P.E. Kropotkin notes that such "education" of primitive man lasted tens of thousands of years and, thus, the instinct of sociability continued to be developed and it became stronger over time than any selfish reasoning. A person got used to thinking about his "I" only through the idea of ​​his group. Once there is a communal life, certain forms of life, certain customs and mores, inevitably take shape in it, which, being recognized as useful and becoming habitual ways of thinking, pass first into instinctive habits, and then into the rules of life. This is how their own morality, their own ethics are formed, which the old people - keepers of tribal customs put under the protection of superstitions and religion, i.e., in essence, under the protection of dead ancestors.

But once we are convinced that such an identification of the individual with society existed, albeit to a small extent, among people, it becomes clear to us that, if it was useful to mankind, it inevitably had to be strengthened and developed in a person who had the gift of speech, which led to the creation of a legend; and in the end it must have led to the development of a firm moral instinct.

The rules of life for different modern wild tribes are different. In different climates, the tribes, surrounded by different neighbors, developed their own customs and customs. Of course, there are no tribes that completely preserved the life of that time. But more than others, it was preserved by the savages of the Far North - the Aleuts, Chukchi and Eskimos, who still live in the same physical conditions, in which they lived at the very beginning of the melting of the huge ice sheet, as well as some tribes of the extreme south, i.e. Patagonia and New Guinea, and small remnants of the tribes that survived in some mountainous countries, especially in the Himalayas.

Just about the tribes of the far North, we have detailed information from the people who lived among them, especially for the Aleuts of Northern Alaska - from the remarkable everyday writer missionary Venyaminov, and for the Eskimos - from expeditions that wintered in Greenland, and Venyaminov's description of the Aleuts is especially instructive.

First of all, it should be noted that in the Aleutian ethics, as in the ethics of other primitive tribes, there are two divisions: the observance of certain customs, and consequently, ethical decrees, is unconditionally obligatory; the fulfillment of others is only recommended as desirable, and for their violation the perpetrators are only ridiculed and reminded. Among the Aleuts, for example, they say that it is "shameful" to do this and that.

So, for example, it is shameful, wrote Veniaminov, to be afraid of inevitable death, it is shameful to ask for mercy from the enemy; ashamed to be convicted of theft; the same capsize with his boat in the harbour; ashamed to be afraid to go to sea during a storm; the first to weaken in the long journey and show greed in the division of booty (in this case, all the others give their share to the greedy to shame him); ashamed to blurt out the secret of one's kind to a wife; it is a shame, if you went hunting together, not to offer the best prey to a friend; it is shameful to boast of one's deeds, especially fictitious ones, and to call another with contemptuous words. It is a shame, finally, to beg for alms; caress his wife in the presence of strangers or dance with her, as well as personally bargain with the buyer, since a third person must set the price for the good offered. It is shameful for a woman not to know how to sew and dance, and not to know how to do at all what lies in the duty of women; ashamed to caress her husband or even talk to him in the presence of strangers.

One of the expeditions wintering in Greenland described how the Eskimos live in several families together in one dwelling, separated for each family by a curtain of animal skins. These houses-corridors sometimes look like a cross, in the middle of which a hearth is placed. During the long winter nights, women sing songs, and in them they often ridicule those who have done something wrong with the customs of good manners. But next to this there are rules that are unconditionally obligatory; and in the foreground, of course, is the complete inadmissibility of fratricide, i.e. killings among his tribe. It is equally unacceptable that the murder or injury of someone from one's own tribe by a person from another tribe should remain without tribal vengeance.

Then there is a whole range of actions, so obligatory that for failure to perform them, the contempt of the entire tribe falls upon a person, and he risks becoming an "outcast", i.e. to be expelled from one's kind. Otherwise, a violator of these rules could bring on the entire tribe the discontent of offended animals, such as crocodiles or bears, which I spoke about in a previous article, or invisible creatures or ancestral spirits patronizing the tribe.

So, for example, Veniaminov says that when he was leaving from somewhere to the ship, on the shore they forgot to take a bunch of dried fish brought to him as a gift. When he returned to the same place six months later, he learned that during his absence the tribe had experienced a severe famine. But no one, of course, touched the fish given to him, and the bunch was brought safely. To do otherwise would mean to bring all sorts of misfortunes to the whole tribe. In the same way, Middendorf wrote that in the tundra of northern Siberia, no one will touch anything from a sleigh left by someone in the tundra, even if they had provisions. It is known that all the inhabitants of the Far North are constantly starving, but to use any of the food left behind would be what we call a crime, and such a crime can bring all sorts of hardships to the whole tribe. Personality and tribe are identified in this case.

Finally, the Aleuts, like all primitive savages, have a number of decrees that are unconditionally obligatory - sacred, one might say. This is all that concerns the support of tribal life: its division into classes, its marriage regulations, concepts of property - tribal and family, customs observed in hunting and fishing (jointly or alone), migrations, etc., and, finally, there are a number of tribal rites of a completely religious nature. There is already a strict law here, the failure to comply with which would bring misfortune to the entire clan or even to the entire tribe, and therefore its failure to comply is unthinkable and almost impossible. If, for once, a violation of such a law by someone happens, then it is punished as treason by exclusion from the family or even death. It must be said, however, that the violation of these regulations is so rare that it is even considered unthinkable, just as Roman law considered patricide unthinkable, and therefore did not even have a law to punish such a crime.

Generally speaking, all the primitive peoples known to us developed a very complex way of tribal life. There is, therefore, its own morality, its own ethics. And in all these unwritten "codes" protected by tradition, three main categories of everyday rules appear.

Some of them protect the forms established for obtaining the means of subsistence for each individually and for the whole clan together. They define the basics of using what belongs to the whole genus: waters, forests, and sometimes fruit trees- wild and planted, hunting areas, as well as boats; there are also strict rules for hunting and roaming, rules for keeping fire, and so on.

Then personal rights and personal relations are determined: the division of the gens into departments and the system of permissible marriage relations - again a very complex department, where institutions become almost religious. This also includes: the rules for educating youth, sometimes in special "long huts", as is done among savages Pacific Ocean; attitude towards the elderly and newborn children and, finally, measures to prevent acute personal conflicts, i.e. what should be done if, with the appearance of separate families, acts of violence within the clan itself become possible, as well as in a collision with neighboring clans, especially if the strife leads to war. A number of rules are established here, of which, as shown by the Belgian prof. Ernest Nees, subsequently worked out the beginnings of international law. Finally, there is a third category of sacred regulations concerning religious superstitions and rituals associated with the seasons, hunting, migrations, etc.

To all this, the elders of each tribe can give definite answers. Of course, these answers are not the same for different clans and tribes, just as the rituals are not the same; but the important thing is that every clan and tribe, no matter how low the stage of development it is at, already has its own, extremely complex ethics, its own system of moral and immoral .

The beginnings of this morality lie, as we have seen, in the feeling of sociability, herding, and the need for mutual support, developed among all sociable animals and further developed in primitive human societies. At the same time, it is natural that, thanks to language, which helped the development of memory and created tradition, a person developed much more complex rules of life than animals. With the advent of religion, even if in the crudest form, a new element entered human ethics, giving it some stability, and subsequently introducing spirituality and a certain idealism.

Then, with the development of social life, the concept of justice in mutual relations was to appear more and more. The first rudiments of justice, in the sense of equality, can already be observed in animals, especially in mammals, when a mother feeds several cubs, or in the games of many animals, where certain rules of the game are necessarily observed. But the transition from the instinct of sociability, i.e. from a simple attraction or need to live in a circle of kindred beings, to the conclusion about the need for justice in mutual relations, it was necessary to take place in a person in order to maintain the most sociable life. In fact, in any society, the desires and passions of individuals inevitably collide with the desires of other, similar members of society, and these collisions would fatally lead to endless strife and to the disintegration of society, if people did not develop simultaneously (as it already develops in some sociable animals) the concept of equality of all members of society. From the same concept, the concept of justice was to develop little by little, as the very origin of the words Aequitas, Equite, which expresses the concept of justice, equality, indicates this. No wonder in ancient times justice was portrayed as a blindfolded woman holding scales in her hands.

Let's take a case from life. Here, for example, two people quarreled. Word for word, one reproached the other for offending him. Another began to prove that he was right, that he had the right to say what he said. It is true that by doing so he inflicted an insult on another, but his insult was a response to the insult inflicted on him, and it was equal, equivalent to the previous one, by no means more.

If such a dispute has led to a quarrel and it has already come to a fight, then both will prove that the first blow was delivered in response to a serious insult, and then each subsequent blow was a response to a completely equal blow of the opponent. If the matter has come to wounds and to judgment, then the judges measure out the magnitude of the wounds, and the one who inflicted a large wound will have to pay the penalty in order to restore equality of insults. This has always been done for many centuries, when it came to the communal court.

In this example, not fictional, but taken from real life, it is clearly seen how the most primitive savages understood "justice" and what more educated peoples to this day understand by the words truth, justice, Justice, Aequitas, Equite, Rechtigkeit, etc. They see in them the restoration of violated equality. No one should violate the equality of two members of society, and once it is violated, it must be restored by the intervention of society. So the Pentateuch of Moses said, saying “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a wound for a wound”, but no more. This is what Roman justice did, this is what all savages still do, and many of these concepts have survived in modern legislation.

Of course, in any society, at whatever stage of development it may be, there have always been and will be individuals who seek to use their strength, dexterity, intelligence, courage to subjugate the will of others; and some of them reach their goal. Such personalities, of course, were encountered among the most primitive peoples, and we meet them among all tribes and peoples at all levels of culture. But in contrast to them, at all stages of development, customs were developed that sought to counteract the development of an individual to the detriment of the whole society. All the institutions developed at different times in mankind - tribal life, rural community, city, republics with their veche system, self-government of parishes and regions, representative government, etc. - in essence, had the goal of protecting societies from the willfulness of such people and their nascent power.

Even among the most primitive savages, as we have just seen, there are a number of customs developed for this purpose. On the one hand, custom establishes equality. Thus, for example, it struck Darwin among the Patagonian savages that if one of the whites gave something to eat to one of the savages, the savage immediately distributed the piece given to him equally among all those present. The same thing is mentioned by many researchers regarding various primitive tribes, and I found the same even in later forms of development, among the shepherd people - among the Buryats living in the more remote places of Siberia.

There are a lot of such facts in all serious descriptions of primitive peoples. Wherever they study them, researchers find the same sociable manners, the same worldly spirit, the same willingness to restrain willfulness in order to maintain social life. And when we try to penetrate into the life of man at the most primitive stages of his development, we find the same tribal life and the same unions of people for mutual support. And we are compelled to admit that in the social qualities of man lies the main force of his past development and further progress.

Primitive man is not at all an ideal of virtue and not at all a tiger-like beast. But he has always lived and still lives in societies, like thousands of other living beings, and in these societies he developed not only those qualities of sociability that are characteristic of all sociable animals, but, thanks to language and, consequently, a more developed mind, he has even more sociability developed, and with it the rules of social life, which we call morality, developed.

In tribal life, a person first learned the basic rule of any community: do not do to another what you do not want them to do to you, and restrain different measures those who did not want to obey this rule. And then he developed the ability to identify his personal life with the life of his kind. When studying primitive people, starting with those who still retained the way of life of the glacial and early post-glacial (lake) period, up to those in whom we find the later development of the tribal system, it is precisely this feature that strikes us most of all: the identification of a person with his kind. It runs through the entire history of the early development of mankind, and it has been preserved the most among those who retained the primitive forms of tribal life and the most primitive adaptations for combating their stepmother-nature, i.e. among the Eskimos, Aleuts, inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego and some mountain tribes. And the more we study primitive man, the more we become convinced that even in his insignificant actions he identified and now identifies his life with the life of his kind.

The concept of good and evil was developed, therefore, not on the basis of what constitutes good or evil for an individual, but on what constitutes good or evil for the whole race. These concepts, of course, changed in different places and at different times, and some rules, especially such as, for example, the offering of human sacrifices to propitiate the formidable forces of nature - volcanoes, seas, earthquakes - were simply ridiculous. But since certain rules were established by the clan, the person obeyed them, no matter how difficult their implementation was. In general, the primitive savage identified himself with the whole family. He became positively unhappy if he committed an act that could bring on his family the curse of the offended, or the revenge of the "great crowd" of ancestors, or some tribe of animals: crocodiles, bears, tigers, etc. "Customary law" for a savage - more than religion for modern man: it is the basis of his life, and therefore self-restraint in the interests of the family, and in individuals self-sacrifice for the same purpose is the most common occurrence.

In a word, the closer primitive society is to its most ancient forms, the more strictly the rule “everyone for all” is observed in it. And only as a result of complete ignorance of the actual life of primitive people, some thinkers, like Hobbes, Rousseau and their followers, argued that morality arose for the first time from an imaginary "social contract", while others explained its appearance by suggestion from above, visiting the mythical legislator. In fact, the primary source of morality lies in the sociability characteristic of all higher animals, and even more so of man.

Thus, in the life of a person from the most ancient times, two types of relationships were developed: within one's own clan and with neighboring clans, and here the ground was created for clashes and wars. True, already in the clan life, attempts were made and are now being made to streamline the mutual relations of neighboring clans. When entering a hut, it is obligatory to leave your weapons at the entrance, and even in the event of a war between the two clans, it is obligatory to observe certain rules regarding wells and paths along which women walk for water. But in general, relations with neighbors from another clan (if they did not enter into a federation with it) are completely different than within the clan.

About the moral law. Properties of the moral law

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

federal state budgetary educational institution higher professional education

"TOMSK UNIVERSITY OF CONTROL SYSTEMS AND RADIOELECTRONICS" (TUSUR)
Department of Philosophy and Sociology

PRIMARY MORALITY AND NORMS OF ITS REGULATION

Abstract on the discipline "Culturology"

Completed by: 2nd year student, gr.z-51-u Kataeva Elizaveta Viktorovna

Checked by: Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Suslova Tatyana Ivanovna

Tomsk 2012
Content

1. 
   Introduction …………………………………………………………3
2. 
   Primitive morality ………………………………………………4
3. 
   Principles and features of primitive morality ……………...6
4. 
   Ways to regulate primitive morality ………………9
5. 
   Conclusion ……………………………………………………...14
6. 
   List of used sources ……………………………..15

Introduction
Morality is the leading spiritual regulator of the life of society. Morality is usually understood as a certain system of norms, rules, assessments that regulate communication and behavior of people in order to achieve unity of public and personal interests.

The norms and rules of morality are formed in a natural-historical way, arise from many years of mass everyday practice of human behavior, crystallizing as some samples only if society intuitively realizes their undoubted benefit to common unity.

Any morality is conditioned socio-historically. The specific appearance in a particular era is determined by many factors: the type of material production, the nature of social stratification, the state of state-legal regulation, the conditions of communication, means of communication, the system of values ​​accepted by society, etc. In other words, qualitatively heterogeneous types of society cause the emergence various types moral systems. Each of them is original, unique, bears the stamp of its historical time.

Primitive Morality
It was at the dawn of mankind, in primitive society, that morality arose.

We know that humanity has gone through many stages of development.

Along with the change in lifestyle, moral ideas changed and became more complicated, moving further and further away from the laws of the animal world. With regard to late paleoanthropes, we can confidently speak of a high level of team cohesion, of the emergence of collective care for its members. This is evidenced by a number of facts. For example, in one of the sites, the remains of an adult male were found, whose age is determined to be about 45 millennia. During his lifetime, this man received a severe head injury in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe left eye cavity and, obviously, was blind. In addition, probably due to an injury, his right arm was paralyzed, and perhaps the arm was underdeveloped from birth. This arm was amputated above the elbow, most likely intentionally - traces of its healing are obvious. But that's not all - the ankle of the right foot indicates severe arthritis, and traces of a healed fracture are visible on the foot of the right foot. However, this ancient man, an almost complete cripple who was not able to feed and protect himself, lived to a deep old age for a paleoanthrope - a number of researchers call 40 years old, and some researchers believe that he was even older. The only possible explanation for this is that the collective took care of the cripple. And this is not an isolated example - a number of facts of this kind are known.

This means that new principles of relations have finally taken shape: the collective protected its members - took care of the elderly and crippled, looked after the sick and wounded.

In addition, most researchers tend to think about the formation of totemism in the society of late paleoanthropes. In this form - the origin from a certain type of animal, less often plants - the collective was aware of its unity. Thus, totemism is not only a mythological fact, but also a social one: it speaks of the formation of the self-awareness of the collective and the opposition of oneself to other groups of people. The discovered finds without any doubt point to the formation of mythological consciousness in the later paleoanthropes.

Sexual instinct, like food, has undergone social regulation at the most early stages formation of human society. The uncontrolled satisfaction of these instincts led to intra-group conflicts and endangered the survival of the human collective. According to researchers, even in the ancestral community of paleoanthropes, there were prohibitions on sexual relations within the ancestral community at certain periods of time, for example, in preparation for hunting. Gradually, communication arose between men and women of neighboring ancestral communities as an outlet for an instinct repressed within one ancestral community. Gradually, spontaneously developing relations developed into systems consisting of two proto-communities entering into group marriage. Each of the pra-communities included in this system gradually became a clan.

During this period, there is another fundamental change in the relationship of man with the world around him. The domestication of the dog opened the way to new possibilities. A person turns into friends and associates, attracts, so to speak, to his side those who were previously hostile to him, and sometimes acted as a competitor of a neighbor in obtaining food.

On the basis of several communities, a tribal community begins to take shape territorially, socially and ethnically. Probably, this is accompanied by the formation of tribal self-consciousness, a complex of common tribal myths and rituals, and possibly self-name.

Principles and features of primitive morality
One of the most important features of primitive morality is its "collectivist" character. Personal, individual relationships between people were practically not regulated - they were absorbed by the norms that determine relations between groups of people. The individual acted primarily as a representative of a particular group. As a rule, these groups were distinguished by gender and age.

Another essential characteristic of primitive morality is its belonging to a syncretic whole, which is difficult to divide into separate areas. The primitive norms of behavior are both morality, and etiquette, and the beginnings of law, and religious prescriptions.

An important principle of moral standards is seniority, i.e. subordination of the younger to the elders, and the majority - the ability to yield and not be persistent in speaking out against the opinion of the majority. The gradually formed leadership, which in principle did not contradict the basic norms of collectivist morality, led to the fact that the authority and influence of the leader played a decisive role in making certain decisions. The process of interaction of collectivist morality with the emerging system of power began.

For a long time, the morality of the late tribal community to a large extent prevented social stratification: it was impossible to have much more property than others, it was impossible to give more than the gifted can return, peers had to pass the main life milestones at about the same time, etc. . Despite the fact that with the increase in property, the concepts of wealth and property were formed, the attitude towards them differed significantly from the attitude in other, later societies. The accumulation of wealth in the late primitive community was impossible, it was required for active participation in social life: arranging feasts, organizing rituals, receiving guests. People who accumulated especially large reserves were somehow forced to share with others.

Among the norms of human relations in the late primitive community, an important place was occupied by the principle of compensatory punishment for the damage caused and the different attitude towards relatives and strangers. In the case of a kinsman's misconduct, the punishment was as mild as possible, the attitude towards strangers, as a rule, was completely different, even killing a stranger was not considered a bad deed. Family ties ceased to play a decisive role only with the decomposition of the communal-tribal system and the transition from the tribal to the neighboring community.

Thus, the social norms that existed in primitive society:

1. 
   regulated relations between people, which began to distinguish them from non-social norms - technical, physiological and others, which regulated and regulate human relations with natural, material objects, tools, etc. So, primitive people, knowing that the temperature in the dwelling drops at night, tried to keep the fire in the dark. In doing this, they were guided not by social norms, but rather by the instinct to preserve life and health. But which of the relatives at that time would watch the fire was already decided on the basis of the norms of the social primitive society.
2. 
   implemented mainly in the form of customs (i.e., historically established rules of behavior that have become a habit as a result of repeated use over a long time);
3. 
   existed in the behavior and minds of people, not having, as a rule, a written form of expression;
4. 
   provided mainly by the force of habit, as well as appropriate measures of persuasion (suggestion) and coercion (expulsion from the clan);
5. 
   had prohibition (taboo system) as the leading method of regulation as the simplest and most elementary method of influence; rights and obligations as such were absent;
6. 
   were dictated by the natural basis of the appropriating society, in which man was also part of nature;
7. 
   expressed the interests of all members of the clan and tribe.

If the very first moral norms include control over two basic instincts - food and sexual, then gradually, during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic, a whole system of norms begins to form. Quite often, the justification of norms is associated with certain mythological ideas.

There are three main ways - prohibitions, permissions and (in a rudimentary form) positive obligation.

Prohibitions existed mainly in the form of taboos and were based on the belief that the commission of prohibited actions by any member of the collective would bring danger, punishment not only to this person, but to the entire collective. As a rule, it is not known what the nature of the danger is, why these actions entail it. Such uncertainty and mystery reinforces the feeling of horror before the unknown danger and the mysterious forces associated with it.

Initially, taboos arose as a means of suppressing animal instincts, preventing the danger that threatened the human team from animal egoism. “The most characteristic feature of the human mind and behavior,” R. Briffo wrote, for example, “is the dualism of social traditions, on the one hand, and inherited natural instincts, on the other, and the constant control of the former over the latter.” The suppression and regulation of biological instincts is, in his opinion, the essence of morality. The prohibitions imposed on the natural instincts were to appear for the first time in a direct and categorical form. They had to be imposed on man as an inevitable necessity. Taboos are precisely those first prohibitions imposed on a person as an inevitable necessity.

The same opinion was held by S. Reinach. “... Taboo,” he wrote, “is a barrier erected against destructive and bloody aspirations, which are the inheritance of man, received from animals.”

Permits (permits), defining the behavior of a person or associations of people in an appropriating economy, indicated, for example, the types of animals and the time of hunting for them, the types of plants and the timing of harvesting their fruits, digging up roots, the use of a particular territory, water sources, on the permissibility of premarital sex (in some societies), etc.

It was also allowed to hunt and gather food in the allotted areas, give carcasses of large animals for distribution among members of the community and for gifts to members of other communities, distribute the carcasses to the miners themselves according to the established procedure, and participate in collective actions of revenge for the harm caused to a member of the community.

It was forbidden: to violate the division of functions in the community between men and women, adults and children; murder; injuries; cannibalism; incest; witchcraft (only special persons - sorcerers could deal with it); abduction of women and children; illegal use of weapons in parking lots; theft; violation of the rules of matrimonial union, including equivalence between communities in the exchange of women for marriage; systematic lies; adultery, etc.

Positive obligation was intended to organize the necessary behavior in the processes of cooking, building dwellings, kindling and maintaining fires, making tools, vehicles (for example, boats). However, all these methods of regulation were not aimed at changing natural conditions, at separating man from nature, but provided only the most effective forms of appropriation of natural objects and their processing, adaptation to meet human needs.

The social norms of the appropriating economy found their expression in mythological systems, in traditions, customs, rituals, rituals, and in other forms.

The mythological normative system is one of the most ancient and very powerful forms of social regulation. In modern historical and ethnographic sciences, the attitude to the myths of primitive society as superstitions and delusions has long been overcome. The ideological and normative-regulatory function of myths is being increasingly singled out and studied, which “support and sanction certain norms of behavior” in the societies of hunters, fishermen, gatherers, implement the normative-informational function - as a set of good and bad examples, act as a kind of “guide to action”, demonstrating the ways of behavior that should be followed “in their relationship with nature and with each other” (W. McCoyel).

Accumulating and spreading social experience, myths, of course, were not only a normative, but also a certain ideological system, even a way of thinking of primitive man. It was in mythological rites and actions that he comprehended and fixed in his mind natural phenomena, social processes. Only with time, after the philosophers, after the works of Aristotle, and then Hegel, who developed the categories of logic, did humanity finally move from mythological to logical consciousness. But before this revolution in the structure and ways of thinking, it used a figurative mythological system of cognition of reality, which went through various stages of development, because the mythological consciousness of a person in an appropriating economy differs significantly from the mythological consciousness of a person in an early class society, operating with a different system of myths.

The myths of the person who appropriated the society contained deep knowledge about his environment, about the place of man in nature. It is very important to emphasize that, as a rule, a person in myths acted as a part of nature, and not as a “lord”, “creator”, “transformer”, etc. Along with ecological knowledge, myths, of course, also contained primitive, fantastic ideas about the formation of the Earth, the origin of man, they were a primitive form of social consciousness. But still, the main thing in them is their normative part, which accumulated thousands of years of practical experience of mankind and brought it to the attention of every member of society.

However, not only myths acted as a form of expression of social norms in primitive society. Classification kinship was also such a form, when specific people were included in certain specific groups (classes) of kinship relations. From these kinship relations, the basis of which were marriage and family norms, power relations (relationships of subordination of some groups, some individuals to others), distribution relations depended. Classification kinship, characteristic of the appropriating society, thus regulated the social ties of people, demographic processes, and even the use of land, in particular, hunting grounds.

In the society of the appropriating economy, there was no universal equalization of the use of plots of territory. This society knows the economic and "religious" ownership of certain territories, which followed from the association of members of the same community into economic and clan, totemic groups.

Spontaneously developing traditions and customs were also a form of expression, in connection with which these societies are called traditional societies in the literature. Following traditions and customs, which were also a useful generalization of collective or local experience, was carried out by virtue of habit, imitation - to act as others act, as everyone else does. The mechanism of imitativity (imitation) is one of the oldest psychological layers of social consciousness, and it is precisely this mechanism that underlies the appearance of traditions and customs, following them.

Although appropriating societies were characterized by voluntary compliance with the rules of conduct, here, however, various violators were known - marriage and family relations, the procedure for using plots of territories, totem systems, and, accordingly, severe, up to deprivation of life, punishment of such violators. At the same time, the sanctions were not very clearly differentiated into real and supernatural ones. Since the violations have always affected the religious side of the life of society, the sanctions have always been, as it were, sanctified, supported by religious, supernatural forces.

Sanctions had their own structure: public censure, expulsion from the community, infliction of bodily harm, the death penalty - their most typical forms.

Such was the structure of the regulatory system of the appropriating societies, which, both in general in its content and in its elements, was of a completely different type than that which arose in the producing economy. This is the main thing and it should be emphasized.

Conclusion

The researchers of its history associate the emergence of morality with the primitive communal system. However, there are some differences in their thinking. Some researchers believe that moral norms appeared at the dawn of this system, others at the stage of its decline. Nevertheless, it can be said with certainty that morality arose in the process of development of primitive society because of the vital need to streamline collective, social relations, which ensured the survival of people in conditions of underdeveloped productive forces and the almost complete dependence of the existence of man and human communities on natural forces.

Together with traditions, rituals and customs in primitive society, moral principles and norms were born and established, which later acquired a universal character.

List of sources used

1. 
   Babaev, V.K. General theory of law: a course of lectures / V.K. Babaev. - Nizhny Novgorod: NVSh, 1993.-513 p.
2. 
   Boriskovsky, P.I. The initial stage of primitive society / P.I. Boriskovsky.-L., 2001.- 206 p.
3. 
   Culturology: textbook / L.N. Semenov [and others].-M.: MGUP, 2002.-122 p.
4. 
   Logvinenko, O.N. Business culture: Educational and methodological manual for students of economic specialties / O.N. Logvinenko.-Bobruisk: BF BSEU, 2007.- 162 p.
5. 
   Nagikh, S.I. Normative system of pre-state society and the transition to the state. Legal Anthropology. Law and life / S.I. Nagikh. - M.: ID Strategy, 2000. - 224 p.
6. 
   Nesruh, M. The origin of man and society / M. Nesruh.-M .: Thought, 2000
7. 
   Popov, E.V. Introduction to cultural studies: textbook for universities / E.V. Popov.-M.: VLADOS, 1996./336 p.
8. 
   Reinach, S. Orpheus/S. Reinach // General History of Religions. -1919.- Issue 1.- P. 16

The researchers of its history associate the emergence of morality with the primitive communal system. However, there are some differences in their thinking. Some researchers believe that moral norms appeared at the dawn of this system, others - at the stage of its decline. Nevertheless, it can be said with certainty that morality arose in the process of development of primitive society because of the vital need to streamline collective, social relations, which ensured the survival of people in conditions of poorly developed productive forces and the almost complete dependence of the existence of man and human communities on natural forces.

The original form of expression of moral principles and norms were customs. It was they, being the ways of behavior adopted in a certain human community in the primitive era, that were the main regulators of people's behavior in relation to members of the family, clan, tribe and foreigners. Primitive customs were based on prohibitions (taboos) and restrictions. Upbringing, which began in early childhood and ended with sexual and age maturity, was oriented towards submission to them. At the same time, obedience to customs was unconditional. Taboos were punished. It also happened that a person who realized sinfulness and guilt in violating primitive morality committed suicide. The dominance of customs in moral relationships held back the moral choice and moral perfection of the individual.

Taking on a stable moralizing character, the custom acquired the strength of tradition, i.e. it was passed down from generation to generation and carried out according to the principles "this has always been the case, this is how we should act"; "Our grandfathers and fathers did this, and so will we."

A peculiar form of expression and a way of intergenerational relaying of moral norms were rites. They manifested the moral meaning embedded in the customs in symbolic, conditional forms: theatrical performances, dances, songs, allegories. They accompanied various aspects of people's life: family, economic, social. Many of them turned out to be so tenacious that in their original, pagan form they have survived to our times. In class societies, rituals began to accompany official, state events in the form of festive elements, court, military and diplomatic rituals. Various genres of folklore, in particular, fairy tales, proverbs, sayings, and games, also performed a moral and educational relaying function.

Along with customs, rituals and traditions, moral principles and norms were born and established in primitive society, which later acquired a universal character. Among them: the cult of ancestors, veneration of elders, collectivism, expressed in close labor interaction and mutual assistance, patriotism.

In the relations between people of primitive society, public opinion played an important role, as well as the will of the leader of the tribe, the head of the clan and family. . At this time, perhaps, as never before, social justice triumphed. True, she had a rigid egalitarian character. All this gave rise to many philosophers, who comprehend the nature of relations under the tribal system, to consider it a "golden age" in the development of mankind. Considering primitive mores from a positive point of view, it would be wrong to idealize them. At least from the position that many moral norms existed only within the framework of the clan, tribe, family, but were not addressed to foreigners, with whom there was a struggle for the best natural conditions and lands for existence. This fight was tough and merciless. In the primitive communal period, as, indeed, in subsequent times, a person was not spared from many of his natural, including animal, instincts (destruction, aggression, selfishness, etc.).