Ethical Dimensions of the Existence of Personality

Basic Categories of Ethics

Good and Evil
The examination of ethical categories should begin with the concepts of good and evil. These notions are among the most fundamental in moral consciousness, representing diametrically opposed characteristics of social phenomena and embodying the core principles of moral awareness. Throughout history, different peoples have continually reshaped their understanding of good and evil, leading to a rich legacy of classical philosophical and ethical thought.

A generalized definition of "good" refers to positive, meaningful conditions essential to human life, often associated with harmony and well-being. The word itself holds various nuances: in everyday consciousness, good is the result of an individual's subjective evaluation of phenomena that bring them benefit in a given situation. There is also an absolute sense of good, where it is considered an expression of positive value in relation to a moral ideal. In this absolute sense, good is an ethical category.

From the perspective of humanistic ethics, the criterion for good is the promotion of the true human essence, manifesting in self-expression, self-realization, and personal development. The category of good embodies humanity’s perceptions of the positive in morality, encompassing values such as peace, love, mutual respect, and the humanization of relationships.

Conversely, the concept of evil reflects what stands in opposition to the moral ideal, hindering the attainment of happiness and humaneness in human interactions. Evil, by its nature, is the antithesis of good, representing what is immoral and contrary to moral imperatives. Examples of evil include qualities such as envy, arrogance, vengeance, pride, and malice.

In relation to the individual, good and evil manifest as virtues and vices. In behavior, good takes the form of kindness, while evil appears as malice. For instance, when we describe someone as "good," we mean that this person is empathetic, attentive, and capable of sharing our joys.

The categories of good and evil possess several unique characteristics. They are universal and all-encompassing, not limited to interpersonal relations but extending to humanity’s relationship with nature and the material world. These categories are also historical, evolving over time. For example, in traditional patriarchal societies, virtues like unquestioning obedience to elders and intolerance toward foreigners were common. In contrast, modern society considers many past virtues immoral; today, good is associated with independence, creativity, individuality, and tolerance. Cultural differences also influence the understanding of good and evil. In Western societies, qualities such as self-expression, individualism, and active engagement with the world are praised, while in Eastern cultures, a moral person is seen as a harmonious part of the collective, emphasizing humility and the Taoist principle of non-action.

A significant aspect of good and evil is their subjectivity, their connection to human consciousness. In nature, no phenomenon is inherently good or evil without reference to human beings. People classify things and events as good or evil based on their needs, interests, and life conditions. Thus, the concepts of good and evil are evaluative, bearing an element of human subjectivity, personal bias, and emotionality. Different people may have differing views on good and evil, and what may be good for one person might be considered evil for another. The simplistic dichotomy of good versus evil begins in early childhood and, unfortunately, often persists throughout life. In the real world, absolute good and evil do not exist; they are possible only in abstraction or in the supernatural realm.

The relative nature of these categories is evident: under certain conditions, evil may appear as good, and what was once good may transform into evil. People's perceptions of good and evil are not straightforward. In some cases, evil may even be regarded as a benefit. For example, violence is unquestionably a sin, as life and human freedom are the highest values. However, killing can be morally justified and nearly regarded as good in the case of killing an enemy (especially in a just war), in self-defense, or in executing a brutal criminal. The moral imperative of "thou shalt not kill" becomes "do not kill unless absolutely necessary." Yet, even when justified, killing remains evil. Another example is technological progress, undoubtedly a boon for humanity, but it also brings ecological disasters, technological accidents, and the threat of nuclear and biological weapons, leading one to view it as evil from a certain perspective.

There is an inseparable unity and connection between good and evil. They cannot exist independently, much like the north and south poles of a magnet. Good derives its significance through comparison with evil and is affirmed in opposition to it. Good and evil form a unity of opposites, whose continual struggle defines their existence, and this struggle cannot end with the absolute victory of either side. If good were to triumph entirely and evil were eradicated, good itself would generate new evil, as in a world of total goodness, even a lesser good might be perceived as evil. The most challenging moral choice, that of the "lesser evil," is often experienced as tragic, requiring wisdom and responsibility, and its outcome is always, in some form, evil.

However, the mutual invincibility of good and evil does not render their struggle meaningless or futile. If evil is not resisted, it will dominate and bring suffering to people. Therefore, the purpose of humanity's fight against evil lies in the necessity of reducing the "amount of evil" and increasing the "amount of good" in the world. Yet this raises a profoundly complex question that human culture has long sought to answer: by what means and methods should good be increased? Different answers have been offered, ranging from the ethics of non-violence to the view that "good must have its fists."

Freedom and Responsibility
One of the most complex moral issues is the problem of freedom. As previously mentioned, an action is moral when it is based on a choice between good and evil; such a situation presupposes human freedom, the ability to choose. From a moral perspective, my action has value only if I could have chosen otherwise.

So what is freedom? Traditionally, some philosophers have addressed this question through the relationship between freedom and necessity. In this context, there are at least two extreme viewpoints: ethical fatalism and ethical voluntarism. Fatalism absolutizes necessity, placing the individual in complete dependence on external circumstances, turning them into a programmed entity, acting according to a preordained scheme—whether by God, fate, or cosmic forces. In this view, the person is not free in their actions; everything in their life is predetermined, and they can change nothing. In such a case, the individual bears no responsibility for their actions, leading to the principle: "What will be, will be."

On the other hand, ethical voluntarism denies any necessity, asserting that a person is entirely free in their moral decisions and should act solely according to their will. This understanding of freedom ultimately leads to the rejection of moral norms, allowing personal arbitrariness to be established as the standard of behavior. Thus, both the fatalistic and voluntaristic conceptions deny true moral freedom: the fatalist, by absolutizing necessity, becomes its slave; the voluntarist, by rejecting necessity, falls victim to personal caprice.

The idea of necessity as a condition of human action finds expression in the moral law. Immanuel Kant articulated this principle as: "Act so that the maxim of your will could always hold as a principle of universal legislation." Adherence to the moral law does not demand automatic obedience, nor does it strip a person of their moral independence; rather, it teaches the discernment of good and evil. Thus, this law leaves the individual with the freedom to choose good and follow it.

Modern humanistic ethics, like the Christian moral law, gives preference to actions stemming from free choice rather than those dictated by orders. Free, creative virtue surpasses mere obedience to commandments. Christianity teaches, in fact, that a person is virtuous when they consciously and lovingly accept the Divine moral law. Thus, the true transition from moral law to virtue occurs through the desire for goodness, not through fear of punishment. One is truly free when they reject evil, not because it is forbidden, but because it is inherently evil (this is what is called qualitative freedom).

The moral law is a decisive factor in shaping the spiritual and psychological climate in which free moral activity takes place. The moral law is a call for cooperation and self-realization. It does not exclude freedom; rather, it presupposes it, meaning that human behavior depends on personal actions, consciousness, and will.

What constitutes the mechanism of freedom, and how is it realized? The manifestation of freedom takes the form of choice made by an individual. This choice, in turn, is facilitated by the will, a spiritual motivating force, and by reason. Therefore, choice depends on the level of awareness and consciousness of the individual, for decisions are primarily made by the mind, which forms the foundation for free choice. A choice is free when all intellectual and volitional faculties are engaged. However, it is constrained and not free when fear or duty, caused by external coercion, supplants reason.

Among the various situations of choice that a person encounters, one of the most pressing, especially in childhood and adolescence, is the choice between "can" and "cannot." A still more complex problem is the conflict between inner "want" and external "ought." Depending on how easily one chooses between "want" and "ought," one can judge the strength of will and the degree of internal freedom or lack thereof. If moral demands are perceived as external coercions, it indicates the absence of freedom. If they are understood as duty—internal coercion—this also deprives a person of freedom. Only when moral demands align with the internal needs of the individual can one speak of free choice.

Thus, moral freedom is not merely the selection of behavioral options but the transformation of moral demands into internal needs, into personal convictions. A person attains freedom to the extent that they can consciously make decisions, consider the consequences of their actions, and control them. Moral freedom is expressed in the ability to make informed choices about actions and deeds, to evaluate them morally, to foresee their consequences, and to exercise rational control over one’s behavior, feelings, passions, and desires.

Closely linked to the problem of freedom is the issue of moral responsibility, which manifests as the reverse side of freely made decisions, as a natural consequence of freedom of choice. To be free and independent means to be responsible. It is evident that, without freedom, a person could not be held accountable for their actions. However, if a person can choose a course of behavior, they must bear responsibility for the choices and actions they have made. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between freedom and responsibility: the broader the freedom, the greater the responsibility. This connection leads philosophers to describe freedom not as a blessing, but as the weighty fate of humanity.

In some ethical concepts, the link between freedom and responsibility is broken. For instance, Freudianism denies personal responsibility, arguing that most human actions are unconscious. Existentialists claim that the individual is responsible only to themselves, to their own essence. Frequently, these concepts are similarly divided in our own consciousness: freedom is associated with individual rights, while responsibility is perceived as one of the burdensome and unpleasant duties. Often, people confuse the desire for freedom with the wish to evade responsibility, justifying their actions by claiming them as personal matters.

These different approaches are explained by the fact that responsibility exists on different levels and to varying degrees. Responsibility is defined by whom (or what) a person is accountable to, and for what. Several types of responsibility are distinguished:

• Responsibility to oneself: I make a choice, and ultimately, I "choose myself," my life, my fate, and therefore bear responsibility for this. This form of responsibility is expressed in our doubts, feelings of guilt, and horror. Often, a person tries to shift the responsibility for their mistakes and failures onto fate, circumstances, family, and close ones.
• Responsibility for one's specific actions and deeds towards others. Here, moral responsibility (remorse, fear of public opinion) often coincides with legal or administrative responsibility. It is based on the fact that our actions always affect those around us. We must take this into account and therefore bear responsibility for every action that impacts other people. For example, a careless decision made by an engineer could lead to a catastrophe for the enterprise.
• Responsibility to the world and humanity, which, in existentialist terms, takes the form of concern for the world, imbued with anxiety for its fate. This responsibility is summed up in the phrase: "I am responsible for everything." Such responsibility arises from the individual's multifaceted connections with society. Often, this responsibility takes an indirect form. For example, a teacher's responsibility to society is conditioned by the fact that they (or their colleagues) poorly taught or failed to properly raise future politicians, economists, engineers.

The degree of responsibility varies from person to person and depends primarily on the significance of the action and its impact on others. In extreme situations, when immediate decisions are required that may affect lives, the degree of responsibility is far higher than in ordinary conditions. The scale of responsibility is also determined by the scope of decisions: it varies depending on whether the decision concerns the fate of an enterprise or the fate of a state (e.g., the decision to engage in warfare). Moreover, the degree of responsibility is influenced by the authority or position of the person making the decision: the responsibility of the director of a large enterprise is much greater than that of a worker.

Duty and Conscience

These two categories transform general social and moral demands into the moral dilemmas of an individual. They form a moral-psychological mechanism of self-control, which is closely linked to personal responsibility.

Moral duty is the internalization of societal moral requirements as a personal imperative and their voluntary fulfillment. The source of duty lies in the public interest. In duty, it acquires a commanding character, forming the individual’s moral obligations toward others and toward themselves.

It is important to note that duty is not only a moral obligation imposed by external demands but also an inner moral impulse. A key feature of duty is its voluntariness. However, different levels of voluntariness exist: from coercion or fear of public opinion to a genuine internal need to follow duty. True moral duty is the voluntary adherence to socially necessary requirements or personal commitments, independent of external or internal pressures.

People of duty are active and highly sensitive to injustice, asserting goodness in their lives. Moral duty compels such individuals toward an active civic stance. However, there exists another type of person who is well aware of societal duty but indifferent to it, perceiving it as distant and external. Such individuals are unconcerned with anything; they feel no obligation to anyone.

There is a hierarchy of duties: duty to society, to one’s community, to one’s family, specifically to one’s mother, children, friends, and finally, duty to oneself. These duties often conflict, such as the duty of a son to his mother and his duty to his wife. In such cases, the decisive word belongs to conscience.

Conscience is the capacity for active self-awareness and self-evaluation of one’s personal attitudes toward the surrounding world, including the moral norms that govern society. It serves as an internal regulator of human behavior. The diversity of situations that a modern person encounters makes it impossible to foresee a specific course of action or to provide a ready-made formula for every circumstance. In all these situations, conscience acts as the moral self-regulator of behavior. It operates as a force that drives us to adhere to moral imperatives, and it can also act as a prohibitive factor, correcting our actions. Conscience always carries a moral evaluation of our deeds, triggering appropriate moral emotions. This point is particularly crucial. Although conscience is shaped by the moral demands of the world around us and reflects their objective nature, it remains, above all, a personal assessment of events, expressing our subjective attitude toward morally evaluated phenomena.

The German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach linked the concept of conscience with compassion, a heightened awareness that it is you who is the cause of another's suffering. Sigmund Freud, on the other hand, perceived the nature of conscience differently. In his view, it is a particular kind of neurosis, a burdensome yoke that turns human life into a series of torments. Humanistic ethics, however, assesses the nature of conscience with less pessimism. Analyzing conscience within the broader context of human relations, it establishes its organic connection with the notions of duty and responsibility, and through them, with good and evil.

The interplay between conscience and duty forms a unified moral-psychological mechanism that regulates personal behavior, wherein conscience serves as the basis for fulfilling one’s duty. It is worth noting that conflicts can arise between conscience and duty, often caused by the divergence between individual goals and societal interests. The contradiction between duty and conscience is a pressing issue, one that remains relevant to this day. (Here, it would be useful for students to independently provide examples of such conflicts.)

In the Ukrainian language, the word "conscience" comes from the Old Slavic phrase "to know oneself." We are obligated to know what we are preparing ourselves for in critical situations, what we were in the moment of action, and what we became afterward. It is well known that in conversation with one's own conscience, a person is alone with themselves, allowing for complete honesty. One can deceive others, overlook inconvenient truths, but it is impossible to deceive one’s conscience—it is a witness that is always present, one from whom there is no escape. As Alexander Herzen aptly put it: "There is no more ruthless inquisitor than conscience."

At the same time, conscience as a means of self-evaluation is not absolute; it can be lenient, precisely because it is "mine." While it cannot be deceived, it can at least be "negotiated" with. There exists a familiar array of excuses aimed at striking a bargain with conscience: "I meant well," "everyone does it," and so on. Therefore, it is equally dangerous to rely entirely on conscience. There is a phenomenon of substituting conscience with cold rational calculation, which can lead to blasphemy. A society founded entirely on rational principles may become "supra-rational" but at the cost of ceasing to be humane.

The challenge lies in activating conscience, making it the supreme judge of our lives. We are all familiar with the notion of remorse, that is, the shame felt for past actions, for what one intended to do, and for the consequences that could or could not have followed. Remorse, the pangs of conscience, is the recognition of one's guilt, the reflection on the immorality of one’s deeds. In any case, the intensity of such feelings, the "pangs of conscience," depends on the nature of the act and the level of consciousness of the person, on their capacity and habit to fairly and critically assess both their own and others' behavior. The moral outcome of these emotions is repentance, the essence of which lies in harmonizing the relationship between duty and conscience. Repentance is an act of profound self-revision, prompted by the work of conscience. It attains moral value as an act of free spiritual self-determination; if coerced, it loses its moral significance.

In theological and philosophical literature, repentance as an inner act involves the combination of several elements: the acknowledgment by the subject of certain actions or thoughts for which they bear responsibility; the explicit condemnation of these thoughts or actions; and the readiness to endure just punishment for them.

Repentance is always a difficult undertaking for the human soul. The person who repents must atone for their guilt—by working it off, by suffering for it. Throughout the millennia, the theme of repentance has held a significant place in various cultures and religions, and in modern culture, the concepts of repentance and penance do not appear outdated. During the period of societal restructuring and liberalization in our country, the issue of repentance has come to the forefront with particular urgency. Of course, it takes spiritual courage to take on the duty of repentance. But such "labor of the soul" is never in vain: it relieves the tensions of bitter memories, eradicates the seeds of future misunderstandings and conflicts, and guides the soul toward the creative pursuit of goodness within itself and the world around it.

Alongside conscience, one of the most complex phenomena of moral self-awareness is shame. Shame is the feeling that one does not measure up to the accepted norms and expectations of a given environment. It is experienced both in the case of actual non-conformity and imagined non-conformity. The stronger the importance and significance of the opinions of those who may express disapproval of the violation, the more intense the feeling of shame. The classic formulation of shame was given by G.W.F. Hegel in his Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, where he remarked that shame represents "a reaction to the contradiction between my outward manifestation and what I ought to be, thus a defense of my inner being against its improper externalization." Thus, one ought to feel ashamed of that which diminishes their moral dignity.

Honor and Dignity

A person cannot be indifferent to what others think of them, to the judgments passed on their actions and their life as a whole. One cannot avoid reflecting on their place among others. In other words, there is a spiritual bond between a person and the surrounding world (society, other people), which is expressed in the categories of "honor" and "dignity." These terms reflect the moral worth of the individual and represent the evaluation of their moral qualities and actions.

Honor, as a moral phenomenon, is primarily an external recognition of a person's actions and merits, manifested in respect, authority, and fame. The feeling of honor, inherent to the individual, is associated with the desire to achieve a high appraisal (praise, popularity) from others. Dignity, on the other hand, is an internal confidence in one's own worth, a sense of self-respect that manifests itself in resistance to any attempts to infringe upon one's individuality and certain independence. Only after this does a person’s dignity receive societal recognition. Thus, the mechanism of honor functions as a movement from external recognition to an inner desire for such recognition, while dignity moves from the inner world toward societal acknowledgment.

The concept of dignity is more universal. Honor is the evaluation of a person from the standpoint of a particular social group or historical community. For example, when we speak of military, professional, or feminine honor, we refer to certain moral qualities characteristic of members of these environments. Dignity, however, underscores the significance of the individual as a representative of the human race—it is an evaluation from the standpoint of humanity: every individual possesses dignity simply by virtue of being human.

Historically, the concepts of honor and dignity developed in close connection, complementing and presupposing each other—they are complementary. If honor is something one must earn and strive for, dignity belongs to a person by right of birth. The notion of honor is tied to a person's social status and their conformity to the expectations and demands of the group to which they belong, while dignity remains indifferent to these factors. The human dignity of a homeless person is no less than that of someone from higher social strata, though their awareness and sense of dignity may differ. These nuances are particularly important when discussing the evaluation of individuals and the protection of their rights and freedoms: I may choose not to bestow honor, respect, or esteem upon someone, but I am obligated to acknowledge their human dignity. The impermissibility of degrading and trampling on human rights stems from this principle.

Human dignity is expressed in what are called "natural rights" (John Locke): the right to life, liberty, and property. In the twentieth century, these and other rights were enshrined in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," which proclaims the conditions necessary for a dignified human existence. Sadly, the state often violates these rights, and people may be unaware of them. For example, the requirement of residency permits or permission to leave for another country is a violation of human rights, constituting an affront to human dignity.

The highest manifestation of human dignity is commonly regarded as nobility. Nobility represents the moral grandeur of the human personality. It can be inherent in anyone capable of honestly and conscientiously fulfilling their duty and living according to high moral standards.

If the right to dignity is granted to a person from the moment of birth, simply by virtue of being human, then honor is something earned throughout the course of one's life. When it is said, "Guard your honor from youth," the implication is that a person begins to earn a good name from the earliest steps of their conscious existence. However, honor is not merely a good reputation for possessing qualities like responsibility, integrity, sincerity, and reliability. Honor must be deserved through personal actions. Different circumstances and spheres of activity compel us to consider honor not abstractly, but in relation to specific situations, giving rise to concepts such as professional or familial honor.

There exists a certain connection and complex correlation between honor and dignity. First, one cannot claim that the higher a person's sense of dignity, the more developed their ambition. A proud individual, one who possesses a strong sense of personal dignity, may be so modest that external recognition not only fails to excite them but repels them as vanity. Incidentally, excessive modesty is not always beneficial. It hinders ambition, and healthy ambition is essential for success in almost all spheres of life. A dignified person must "love honor," that is, be ambitious.

Suffering and Compassion

In various religious and philosophical teachings, the concepts of "suffering" and "compassion" are defined more or less similarly. Suffering is understood as physical or moral torment, pain. Compassion is defined as pity, aroused by the suffering and pain of another person.

In ancient thought, suffering befell a person due to the whims of fate or chance. In Christian teaching, the primary source of suffering is the torment of the body and soul due to external violence, bodily afflictions, and the anguish of the spirit as a consequence of sin. From a Christian perspective, death and suffering exist in the world as the result of humanity's fall from grace; prior to this, they did not exist. Suffering enters the world through human sin, which destroys the individual through evil. Only Christ, by voluntarily taking upon himself the sins of the world, transforms suffering into the price of salvation. Christianity asserts that the ultimate form of all suffering, which leads a person to salvation, is love—compassionate love for all that perishes as a result of sin.

In Western philosophy of the modern era, suffering and compassion have been evaluated in various ways. While philosophers like Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel sought to exclude compassion from ethics, Arthur Schopenhauer, by contrast, made it the cornerstone of his ethical system, extending it even to the relationship between humans and animals. He wrote, "...The more a person suffers, the sooner they reach the true goal of life; the happier they live, the further they are from this goal."

Nietzsche evaluates suffering and compassion ambiguously. He rejects compassion as a depressive state that diminishes the value of life, considering it an "expression of bad taste": "Compassion is called virtue among all little people; they do not know how to respect great misfortune, great ugliness, great failure." For this reason, Nietzsche views a morality that exalts compassion as a morality of slaves. Yet at the same time, Nietzsche praises suffering as a condition for the formation of spiritual greatness. Justifying the role of suffering, he writes: "Suffering makes a person an aristocrat: it separates them from others."

According to Søren Kierkegaard, human existence implies and necessitates constant spiritual tension and suffering, thus suffering is considered an inherent attribute of existence.

Similarly, the Ukrainian-Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev views suffering as a condition for the formation and existence of personality. In his opinion, the proposition "I suffer, therefore I exist" is far more accurate and profound than Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." The most important question of human existence, according to Berdyaev, is how to overcome suffering, how to bear it, and how to reduce suffering for all people. Berdyaev distinguishes two kinds of suffering: one caused by social factors, which can be alleviated through social reform and scientific progress; and another rooted in the tragic essence of life, which cannot be eliminated by any social transformation. Suffering in this world is not purely evil; without it, humans would devolve into animals. Humanity can overcome suffering through love and creativity, and personal suffering is alleviated when one begins to empathize with the suffering of others.

The twentieth century, with its natural and social cataclysms, introduced into the world what Erich Fromm called the "universal nature of suffering": "It must not be forgotten that suffering is perhaps the only emotional state common to all people."

The causes of universal suffering typically lie not within the individual but in the surrounding world. A person lives in a specific historical period, in a particular society and state, and from childhood absorbs the culture and religion of their people. Everything that happens in society affects their life and resonates in their soul. Often, this resonance is suffering: wars, revolutions, poverty, the rise of terrorism—all of these cause suffering to millions of people.

But social causes are not the only sources of human suffering. The uncontrollable forces of nature—earthquakes, floods—take thousands of lives, leaving people without homes or possessions. And the so-called man-made disasters have caused, and may yet cause, immense suffering.

A crucial question tied to suffering is that of its meaning. Suffering is not terrifying if it has a worthy purpose. But strip a person of their belief in the meaning of their suffering, and they will fall into despair. The conclusion here is clear: the most unbearable aspect of suffering is its senselessness.

Equally important is understanding the cause of our suffering, which allows us to gain valuable life experience and prevent it in the future. The question of the cause of suffering, in its broadest sense, is connected to the problem of good and evil. The question of the meaning of suffering, in turn, is linked to the meaning of life itself and the calling for which a person lives. In this context, suffering can be viewed as the school of life. We know that the suffering we endure after committing a wrong deed teaches us justice. For instance, if I hurt someone and soon after experience the bitterness of being wronged by another, that suffering reminds me of the pain I caused. Such experiences often lead us back to the "golden rule" of morality: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

There is a belief that suffering purifies the soul. Aristotle once said, "Nothing good in life can be learned without suffering." Similarly, the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky affirmed throughout his works that the human need for cleansing sorrow is so great that people often seek punishment, suffering, or retribution to calm their conscience.

Suffering can ennoble a person, becoming a source of great moral values: it leads us to faith, love, and spiritual strength. Suffering makes us more sensitive to the pain of others and capable of understanding the human soul. More often than not, one emerges from suffering stronger.

It is clear, however, that suffering's influence on a person's moral character is not automatic. When suffering serves as an expression of self-realization or self-affirmation, it has meaning, and for such individuals, a life without suffering seems purposeless. As Alexander Pushkin wrote: "I want to live, to think and to suffer." Yet not everyone regards suffering in this way; many are crushed by it, and for them, suffering evokes terror and curses.

In ethics, there is a concept known as "pathosophy," meaning "the wisdom of suffering." Its essence lies not only in the analysis of suffering and the ability to explain its meaning and causes, but most importantly, in the ability to overcome it, to master it wisely. This is one of the central tasks of life, for as adherents of pathosophy believe, to accept life is to accept suffering, and to truly live is to know how to suffer.

Practically, we respond to suffering in a dual manner: we either flee from it or accept it. Our reaction to suffering depends on how we understand it and how we relate to it. If suffering is perceived as an inevitability tied to injustice and hopelessness, then escaping from it becomes a natural human inclination. The form this escape takes can vary: from immersing oneself in nirvana through inner self-improvement, as seen in Buddhism, to artificial and illusory paths of forgetfulness such as alcoholism or drug addiction, culminating in the ultimate escape from suffering through the cessation of life itself—suicide.

The question of whether a person has the right not only to life but also to death remains a contentious one. This question typically arises when life is filled with suffering—whether physical or spiritual—and when such suffering is viewed as unjust, devoid of meaning. It is precisely these forms of suffering that evoke a negative reaction and a desire to be rid of them.

Conversely, if an individual views suffering as deserved, as a just punishment for sins or crimes, then they may acquiesce to "suffering" with humility and submission. If suffering is perceived as an opportunity for atonement, then it is embraced with readiness.

We know that there are individuals who accept suffering in the name of faith or ideals. For such individuals, suffering takes on a special significance. To suffer, knowing that the suffering is not meaningless, is to conquer it. When Giordano Bruno was offered the chance to buy his life at the price of renouncing his ideas, he, already aware of the Inquisition’s verdict, responded: "I die a martyr willingly." Martyrdom is one form of voluntarily accepting suffering while simultaneously opposing it.

There is also the question of how suffering influences one’s attitude toward others. According to Erich Fromm, the general character of suffering in the 20th century has led to a syndrome of habituation to suffering—both personal and that of others—resulting in a significant decline in one’s capacity for compassion.

However, indifference to another's suffering is not the only negative reaction to personal suffering. An even more dangerous response manifests as bitterness, aggression, and cruelty, expressed in the sentiment: "If I have suffered, let others suffer too." Such an attitude toward suffering remains quite prevalent today. As many philosophers and writers have noted, a suffering person often finds solace in human solidarity, meaning they can alleviate their own suffering by empathizing with others. It is no coincidence that Mikhail Berdyaev believed that a new ethics should position compassion alongside freedom and creativity as one of its cornerstones. Today, compassion is more necessary than ever.

The Meaning of Life and Happiness

Equally significant as the categories of good and evil are the categories of meaning in life and happiness. These questions highlight a fundamental characteristic of human existence. Since time immemorial, people have grappled with questions like: What do I want from life? Why do I live? Humans have sought and chosen, while various ethical teachings have proposed differing conceptions of life’s meaning and happiness.

There exists an opinion that the search for life's meaning is something we can do without—a "hunger of the well-fed" that only troubles us when there are no more pressing issues. However, many life experiences suggest that such a "hunger" is a very real matter, capable of unsettling a person even more than material hardships. And there are valid reasons for this.

First and foremost, the finitude of human existence directly concerns the fate of each of us. Our lives have a beginning and an end; each person, in one way or another, is aware of the inevitability of their own death and often bears the bitter experience of witnessing the death of those dear to them—friends, family, and so on. All this prompts reflection on the meaning of our lives as they inevitably approach death.

Experience shows that a person can meet the harshest trials with dignity and endure them better when they possess an awareness of a life purpose, a sense of meaningful existence and actions. In our times, this experience cannot be forgotten.

In general, within the European tradition of recent centuries, at least three approaches to understanding human existence stand out:

• The pessimistic approach denies the existence of life's meaning, perceiving life as a senseless series of sufferings, evils, and illnesses that ultimately culminate in death.
• The skeptical approach expresses doubt about the meaning and significance of earthly existence (as seen in religious ethics).
• The optimistic approach acknowledges the meaning of human life and the possibility of its realization as the highest value.

Even in antiquity, the meaning of life was equated with happiness and goodness. Accordingly, in ancient ethics, both ethical hedonism—considering pleasure the highest good—and eudaimonism emerged, reducing the meaning of life to achieving happiness, particularly through overcoming the desire for pleasure. The Cynics viewed the struggle against passions and the victory over desires as the meaning of life: bliss does not come from possessing things, but from liberation from the desires for them. According to Epicurus, serenity and freedom from the fear of death and suffering are the highest bliss, and thus the meaning of life. Medieval ethics regarded pleasure as sin and demanded renunciation of earthly delights, seeing the good as serving God for salvation, which became the meaning of a believer’s life.

During the Renaissance, the meaning of life was perceived as the pursuit of glory. It was believed that if a person attained glory, they would thereby not be forgotten by others, and their life would gain meaning through being preserved in the consciousness of others. The materialists of the 17th and 18th centuries continued the traditions of eudaimonism while advocating the idea of intellectual understanding of bliss and life’s meaning, which was seen in the very process of knowledge acquisition.

Other avenues for seeking meaning existed as well. For instance, Thomas Hobbes in the 18th century proposed the idea of power over others as the ultimate meaning of life. This notion was later developed by Friedrich Nietzsche in his doctrine of the "will to power." Nietzsche's moral ideal—the "Übermensch"—is a strong individual who opposes the crowd's "grayness" and exists "beyond good and evil." For such a person, moral limits and prohibitions should not exist; they are above them, and their life's meaning lies in their own realization, for they are the bearer of a new morality.

There is also a rather popular concept that views the meaning of life in possessing material goods, in wealth. The desire for possessions, comfort, and prestige becomes the goal of life, reducing the primary meaning of existence to the formula: "take from life all you can." This perspective sharply highlights the issue of life's meaning amid the division of society into the rich and the poor. It is evident that it would be absurd to deny the importance of material goods in modern life. Undoubtedly, a person must live with dignity. However, material comfort and possessions should not transform from means of life into its goal or meaning. Material well-being itself only acquires meaning when it serves to improve its owner, enables them to assist others (through charity), or contributes to the development of society and culture (through patronage).

According to another concept, love—particularly the love between a man and a woman—serves as the eternal meaning of life. Ludwig Feuerbach asserted that all people at all times have an unconditional and obligatory right to happiness, yet society cannot satisfy this right equally for everyone. Thus, only love, Feuerbach believed, is the sole means of fulfilling a person's yearning for happiness. Erich Fromm held a similar view in the 20th century. Undoubtedly, love is the most beautiful and elevated feeling that grants a person a fullness of happiness, although it is also a source of suffering and pain. Yet, despite the profound significance of love as a crucial element of personal life, it cannot be the sole meaning of life. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that this theme has been, is, and will always be a subject of debate.

Finally, there exists a pessimistic concept that outright denies the meaning of life. Thus, the French writer François Mauriac concludes that the lives of most people are a path to "nowhere."

And yet, people do not wish to reconcile themselves with the absence or loss of meaning in life—a phenomenon that has become a common indicator of a moral crisis in our time. The problem of losing life’s meaning and the struggle against this loss is addressed in logotherapy—the doctrine of life’s meaning established by the renowned Austrian philosopher and psychologist Viktor Frankl.

According to Viktor Frankl, the human drive to seek and realize the meaning of life is an inherent tendency that characterizes all individuals and serves as the primary motivating force behind behavior and personal development. He posits that to live and act with purpose, one must believe in the significance embedded in one’s actions. Frankl asserts that “even those contemplating suicide believe in meaning—if not in life, then in death; otherwise, they would not lift a finger to pursue their intention.” The absence of meaning engenders a condition that Frankl termed the existential vacuum.

Frankl contends that the meaning of life is fundamentally accessible to any individual. However, the quest for meaning is not a matter of knowledge but rather a calling. It is not the person who questions the meaning of life; rather, life itself poses this question to them, compelling individuals to respond daily not with words, but with actions. The meaning of life is not subjective; a person does not invent it but discovers it within the realm of objective reality. Thus, it presents itself to the individual as an imperative demanding realization.

Every situation carries its own meaning, which may differ for various individuals, yet for each person, there exists a singular truth. Frankl maintains that one must actively seek and uncover this meaning. Yet finding meaning is only half the battle; it must also be actualized. Individuals bear the responsibility for the realization of the unique meaning of their lives. In fulfilling the meaning of their existence, individuals simultaneously realize themselves. However, one can never fully know, until the very end, whether they have truly achieved the meaning of their life.

Objectively, the meaning of life manifests through the activities of individuals, which unfold across various spheres. Therefore, the meaning of life may not represent a singular goal but rather a spectrum of meanings and objectives. For instance, the meanings of personal life can encompass children, love, and vocation. Nonetheless, in every case, individuals must, as the saying goes, actualize themselves, meaning they must have the opportunity to present themselves to the world and, in doing so, express their essence.

Closely related to the understanding of life’s meaning is the concept of life purpose. The purpose emerges in the consciousness of individuals as an image of the future state of reality that aligns with their perceptions, needs, and ideals. Purpose is a certain threshold. In contrast, the meaning of life is not a final destination but rather the overarching direction of existence, its objective content, which defines life’s purpose.

Attaining genuine, rather than illusory, meaning in life is a complex process. Life’s meaning does not simply present itself as a ready-made concept; it cannot be taught. Ethical theory provides only guidelines for exploration. In truth, an individual must not merely recognize the meaning of life but must acquire it through the experience of their existence, wrestle with it during the process of self-assertion, and undergo difficult moral inquiries. Ultimately, knowing something about the meaning of life, defining it for oneself, and living a life of purpose are far from being the same. Perhaps M. Berdyaev is indeed correct in asserting that the meaning of life lies in the pursuit of that very meaning.

The category of “meaning of life” is intimately connected with the category of “happiness.” Since antiquity, the doctrine of humanity’s pursuit of happiness—hedonism—has emerged. Philosophers, poets, and sages have debated for millennia the nature of happiness, how to live a happy life, and what it means to be happy. In the history of philosophy, as well as in life practice, numerous definitions of happiness can be found; happiness is often correlated with certain goods.

It is crucial to discern what aspects of human happiness stem from objective conditions and what depends on the individual. There is no doubt that fulfilling basic needs is a necessary condition for happiness. Thus, the pursuit of material well-being is a norm of human existence. However, well-being should not be equated with happiness, as well-being is more accurately a characterization of the prerequisites for human existence rather than the essence of life itself. Happiness, above all, represents a moral satisfaction derived from experiencing the fullness of being.

The concept of happiness encapsulates notions of how human life should be and what constitutes a good life. Thus, this notion carries a normative and value-laden character. In the history of moral consciousness, this category has been evaluated in two ways. On one hand, it has been regarded, as L. Feuerbach suggested, as one of the innate rights of humanity: “The desire for happiness is inherent in man; thus, it should serve as the foundation for any morality.” On the other hand, morality has considered happiness as a reward for virtues. O. Wilde remarked on this point: “When a person is happy, they are always good, yet not all good people are happy.”

Despite the abundance of definitions for happiness, each of us perceives this state in our own way. It is no coincidence that I. Kant astutely observed that no imperative can dictate how one must act to attain happiness. Nevertheless, people persistently seek out universal “recipes” for happiness.

Yet there is something common that characterizes the happiness of each individual:

• Happiness is neither carefreeness nor tranquility; it cannot be found, won, or received as a gift; rather, it can be discovered in the process of self-realization.
• Happiness cannot be absolute; it is not a continuous state of joy; rather, it is a moment, a “starry hour” of a person’s life, the most vivid moments they experience.
• Happiness is linked to the subjectivity of its experience, meaning it may be based not only on certain moral values but also on anti-values—the pursuit of accumulation and possession.
• The degree of happiness correlates with the morality of the individual: satisfaction in life can be felt by anyone, yet true happiness is genuinely moral.