What does not belong to the moral category. Basic moral categories of ethics. Correlation between the concepts of morality and ethics

02.11.2019

Cargo tilting

To category:

Rigging work

Cargo tilting

Canting is turning over, turning the load from one position to another with special devices, mechanisms, cranes. Most often, tilting is performed when changing operations during the installation of structures or, if necessary, to place or lay the load in the required position: from transport to working or vice versa.

Cargo tilting is allowed to be performed only according to pre-compiled schemes, which should reflect the sequence of operations, methods of slinging and tilting of cargo.

Depending on the specific conditions of construction, tilting is performed in different ways: manually using the simplest devices, special tilting equipment, and cranes.

Canting is manually performed using a crowbar (mount) and pads, for which the bent part of the crowbar is brought under the load, lifted and a bar is placed, then the load is turned over with the other end of the crowbar to the required position. Large profile metal (angle, channel, I-beam, etc.) and pipes can be tilted using a special tool resembling a wrench.

Load tilting by a crane is a responsible and time-consuming operation, the execution of which is entrusted only to experienced crane operators and slingers.

The position of the center of gravity plays a very important role in the process of turning the load. If the center of gravity of the product is located within its support, then the load is at rest. At the moment of lifting, when the center of gravity goes beyond the support surface (position II), the load turns over and falls onto another plane (position III).

Kantirovka can be relatively smooth or with jerks, bumps. It depends on where the load is hooked and how many branches. The tilting of the load hooked at the upper point will be smooth, and the tilting of the load hooked at the lower point will be with a blow, since in the latter case the load is not held by anything and overturns freely.

Rice. 1. Load tilting manually (a) and with the help of a mechanical tilter (b); 1 - lining; 2 - tilted cargo; 3 - scrap or mount; 4 - tilting grip; 5 - counterweight; 6 - hinge; 7 - tilting platform; 8 - support frame tilter

Rice. 2. Scheme of cargo tilting by cranes a - general; b - tilting “to throw”; in - edging “on weight”; d - tilting “on emphasis”

In reality, even with smooth turning, jerks occur due to the fact that when the product is turned over, the lines are pulled obliquely. At the moment of overturning the load, they loosen a little, and then tighten again. When tilting large-sized products, the amplitude of the fall can be large, therefore, the jerks will be significant. It is almost impossible to eliminate them, since the speed of the fall of the load is much higher than the speed of movement of the mechanisms of any crane.

The choice of the tilting method depends on the mass and size of the cargo, its shape, the availability of grip points and the possibility of fastening with load gripping devices. The most common methods are kantirovka "on weight", "on emphasis" and "throw".

A smooth flipping of a load is called a tilting “on the weight”, and a flipping with a free fall is called a tilting “on a throw”. Turning “to throw” is not difficult, but it is not recommended for widespread use, as it is associated with some danger.

The load is turned over by the coordinated actions of the crane mechanisms: raising or lowering the hook, moving the bridge or trolley. The overturning itself is carried out by the movement of the bridge or trolley. The use of the bridge should be limited and careful, since the crane's cargo ropes under oblique tension jump out of the winch drum streams, rub strongly against their sides, which causes them to wear out and become unusable.

When tilting loads by cranes, special sections with a shock-absorbing surface are arranged - tilting platforms, which are necessary to soften the blows when throwing overturned loads and protect the product from breaking. The sites are plank, bulk, log, etc.

For tilting products of serial and mass production, it is necessary to use special tilters, as well as various auxiliary devices (clamps, squares, stands).

Cargo tilting by cranes is allowed only on tilting platforms or in specially designated places. The tilting platform during the overturning of the load must be guarded by a signalman.

The slinger and the signalman when tilting must be on the side of the load at a safe distance. It is forbidden to stand on the side of the linings on which the load rests during tilting. The slinger must know the arrangement of tilting mechanisms and devices used at the construction site. It should be remembered that tilting loads with mechanisms at the maximum load capacity is strictly prohibited.

To Category: - Rigging

BY DISCIPLINE

CULTUROLOGY

Topic: Essence and origin of morality. Main categories

morality

Completed by: student

Faculty of Economics

Morality.
The role of morality in human life.
moral progress.
Morality and propriety.

This word came from France, and to France - from Ancient Rome, but the concept of morality, i.e. about the rules of human behavior among other people, existed long before this word appeared. Explanation in the dictionary of V. Dahl: "rules for the will, conscience." But it can be said even more simply: morality is a generally accepted concept of what is good and what is bad. True, it is necessary to clarify: when and by whom it was recognized ... The mores of society and the concept of moral behavior, morality are formed in specific historical conditions.

Let's put it this way: our modern morality suggests that children should be treated carefully, kindly, and even more so - to children who are sick or have some kind of physical disability. It's shameful, just mean, to say "lame" to a boy who limps, or "bespectacled" to someone who has to wear glasses. This is generally recognized. In a transport flea market, even an elderly person, no matter how tired he is, will give way to a sick child. Such are the mores of today's society, such are the moral norms (that is, when taking care of a sick child, a person does not commit some act of exceptional kindness, but behaves normally, naturally, as he should). But have they always been like this? No. For example, according to the law of Lycurgus, according to which ancient Sparta lived for more than one century, children were subjected to a special examination, and if a child had a physical defect that prevented him from becoming a full-fledged warrior later, he was killed by dropping into Apothetes - a deep crevice in the mountains of Taygetus.

From books and films, we know about the feat of King Leonidas and the 300 Spartans led by him, who all died, blocking the way for the Persian invaders near Thermopylae. Grateful descendants immortalized their feat in marble, inscribed on it that the soldiers died, "honestly fulfilling the law." But the same law allowed the killing of children, not considering it something shameful.

Another example.

To shoot a man is a crime, murder. But during the war years, the sniper not only shoots at the enemy, but also counts those killed by his hand. In this situation, one person (sniper), as it were, pronounces a sentence on another person (enemy soldier) and carries it out himself. The morality of the war allows him to act as an accuser, judge and executor of the sentence, which is completely impossible in peacetime. There are other norms of relations between people. Only a court can pass a sentence on a criminal, and any lynching, no matter how fair, is punishable.

In the emergency conditions of the war and occupation, the Young Guards passed the verdict and executed the policeman Ignat Fomin. But, let's say, the traitor Fomin escaped retribution, and years later the young guard Radik Yurkin meets him on the street and recognizes him. To hit a scoundrel - and that is impossible: the measure of punishment is determined only by the people's court.

Consequently, public morality, moral norms are concretely historically conditioned: war can “allow” a person what the world categorically forbids.

However, morality is not only a concrete historical concept, but also a class one. Who is Herzen? From our point of view, a revolutionary democrat, publisher of Kolokol, a fighter against the autocracy. And from the point of view of the Russian tsar, the ruling classes of tsarist Russia, from the point of view of the layman? The reactionary journalist Katkov publicly called Herzen a renegade and a traitor. As you can see, the morality of Katkov and the morality of Herzen, two contemporaries and compatriots, are not at all the same.

From the point of view of official morality, the Russian officer Andrey Potebnya, a friend and like-minded person of Herzen, who went over to the side of the Polish rebels and fought against the tsarist punishers with weapons in his hands, committed the gravest crime - he violated the oath and betrayed the fatherland. From the point of view of the true patriots of Russia, whose voice was barely audible in 1863 and only resounded in full force decades later, Potebnya accomplished a civic feat in the name of saving the honor of Russia. Now his grave in the vicinity of Krakow is carefully guarded by the Poles - just as carefully as the graves of Soviet soldiers who died in the struggle for the liberation of Poland from the fascist yoke - and every Russian person, standing next to her, bows to the memory of this Russian patriot who fell from a bullet ... Whose bullets? The bullets of a Russian soldier who considered himself, presumably, the defender of the "Tsar, faith and fatherland" (otherwise he would not have fired at the rebels)...

Morality in words and morality in deed are not the same thing at all.

An object lesson in the misadventures of morality is taught by the history of fascism. In the book and film “Seventeen Moments of Spring”, characteristics from the personal files of the SS men are remembered: a good family man, an athlete, he is even with his workmates, has no discrediting ties ...

Of course, not a single fascist said about himself: I am a scoundrel, I am an executioner, I am immoral. Forming the ideology and morality of the "Third Reich", the Nazis tried to create the illusion of imitating the cruel and harsh customs of Ancient Rome, which they saw as the "First Reich". And the camouflage worked. Throwing out their hand in a fascist salute, the Nazis copied the famous gesture of Julius Caesar; the symbolism of their banners, orders, military emblems called to resurrect the times of the Roman legions, in a businesslike manner trampling foreign lands, the revival of barbarism was shrouded in grandiloquent phrases. But the very nature and logic of the savage system caricatured the manners and morality of the Nazis, gave rise to monstrous immorality and immorality, penetrating into all pores of society.

But our life consists of "data specific" cases. Oh, if morality were calculated as "twice two - four"! But no: each person develops the rules of moral behavior on his own, also personally for himself.

2. THE ROLE OF MORALITY IN HUMAN LIFE AND SOCIETY

Philosophers argue that morality has three tasks: to evaluate, regulate and educate.

Morality puts marks. All our actions, as well as all social life (economy, politics, culture), morality evaluates from the point of view of humanism, determines whether it is good or bad, good or evil. If our actions are useful to people, contribute to the improvement of their lives, their free development - this is good, this is good. Do not contribute, hinder - evil. If we want to give a moral assessment to something (our own actions, the actions of other people, some events, etc.), we, as you know, do this with the help of the concepts of good and evil. Or with the help of other close, derivative concepts: justice - injustice; honor - dishonor; nobility, decency - meanness, dishonesty, meanness, etc. At the same time, evaluating any phenomenon, action, deed, we express our moral assessment in different ways: we praise, agree or condemn, criticize, approve or disapprove, etc. d.

Evaluation, of course, affects our practical activities, otherwise we would simply not need it. When we evaluate something as good, this means that we should strive for it, and if we evaluate it as evil, we should avoid it. This means that when evaluating the world around us, we change something in it, and above all ourselves, our position, our worldview.

Morality regulates the activities of people. The second task of morality is to regulate our life, the relationship of people to each other, to direct the activities of man, society towards humane goals, towards the achievement of good. Moral regulation has its own characteristics, it differs from state regulation. Any state also regulates the life of society, the activities of its citizens. It does this with the help of various institutions, organizations (parliaments, ministries, courts, etc.), normative documents (laws, decrees, orders), officials (officials, employees, police, police, etc.).

Morality has nothing of the kind: it is ridiculous to have moral officials, it is pointless to ask who issued the order to be humane, just, kind, courageous, etc. Morality does not use the services of departments and officials. It regulates the movement of our life in two ways: through the opinion of the surrounding people, public opinion, and through the inner convictions of the individual, conscience.

The person is very sensitive to the opinions of others. No one is free from the opinion of society, the collective. A person is not indifferent to what others think of him. Consequently, public opinion can influence a person and regulate his behavior. Moreover, it is based not on the force of the order, the law, but on moral authority, moral influence.

But there should not be a conviction that public opinion, as the opinion of the majority, is always true, more true than the opinion of individuals. This is not true. It often happens that public opinion plays a reactionary role, protecting obsolete, obsolete norms, traditions and habits.

In the comedy Woe from Wit, Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov showed that the opinion of all these rock-toothed, famous, silent, Princess Marya Alekseevna can be a dark, gloomy force directed against all living and intelligent, that one person can be right, while all those around are in the power of prejudices, ignorance, stupidity, self-interest. “Evil tongues are worse than a gun” - these words of the great writer express his feeling of the merciless power of such public opinion and at the same time his deadly stupidity and narrow-mindedness.

Man is not a slave of circumstances. Public opinion is, of course, a great force for moral regulation. However, it should be remembered: one person can be wrong, and the majority can be wrong. A person should not be a naive lumberjack, blindly and thoughtlessly obey someone else's opinion, the pressure of circumstances. After all, he is not a soulless cog in the state machine and not a slave to social circumstances. All people are born equal, have equal rights to life, liberty and happiness. Man is a free, active, creative being, he not only adapts to the world in which he lives, but this world itself adapts to itself, changes circumstances, creates a new social environment. Without personalities, humane and courageous, just and courageous, disinterested and independently thinking, society would simply stop developing, would rot and die.

A person, living in society, must, of course, listen to public opinion, but he must also be able to correctly evaluate it. And if it is reactionary - protest, fight against it, go against it, defending truth, justice, humanism.

Inner spiritual beliefs of the individual. Where does a person take strength when he opposes outdated public opinion, against reaction, prejudices?

He takes them, as it was well said before, in his soul. A person relies on his inner spiritual convictions, that is, on his understanding of moral duty, moral ideals. The spiritual convictions of a moral person are guided by universal moral values and ideals. A moral person subordinates his activity, his actions, his whole life to them.

Spiritual beliefs constitute the content of what we call conscience. A person is under the constant control of others, but also under the self-control of his inner convictions. Conscience is always with a person. Every person has in life successes and failures, periods of ups and downs. You can free yourself from failures, but never from an unclean, tarnished conscience.

And a person constantly criticizes, remakes himself, as his conscience tells him. A person finds in himself the strength and courage to speak out against evil, against reactionary public opinion - this is what conscience commands. To live according to conscience requires great personal courage, and sometimes self-sacrifice. But the conscience of a person will be pure, the soul is calm, if he acted in full accordance with his inner convictions. Such a person can be called happy.

The educational role of morality. Education always goes in two ways: on the one hand, through the influence of other people (parents, teachers, others, public opinion) on a person, through a purposeful change in the external circumstances in which the educatee is placed, and on the other hand, through the influence of a person on himself, t .e. through self-education. The upbringing and education of a person goes on virtually all his life: a person constantly replenishes, improves knowledge, skills, his inner world, because life itself is constantly updated.

Morality has its own special position in the educational process. The fact is that morality is present everywhere: it is an integral part of all types of education - mental, physical, aesthetic - and is the highest benchmark for them: it puts forward moral ideals before them.

From the special position of morality in the educational process follows its special task in society: to give education the right orientation - to promote a harmonious combination of personal and public interests, i.e. the ability of a person to care for others as well as for himself. A person's concern for himself, from the point of view of morality, is quite normal. True, when a person does this at the expense of trampling on the interests of other people, this is already immoral. Morality teaches us to see the value in every person and calls for a humane attitude of people towards each other.

3. PROGRESSMORALS

There are two views on morality - scientific and religious. More precisely, the first of these is usually understood as the views of “strict”, materialistic science. It is based on the postulate that morality develops along with human nature and society. As a rule, such development is understood as progressive, progressive, from the lowest to the highest.

The figures of the Enlightenment, who created the very theory of progress, were the first to speak about the progress of morality. They believed that an increase in the education of society, scientific achievements would contribute to the improvement of morals. Medieval morality did not suit the enlighteners: it seemed to them that it was full of fanaticism and prejudice. However, they imagined the new morality differently. For Marie Francois Voltaire (1694-1778) or Charles Louis de Montesquieu (1689-1755), this morality differed little from the traditional one. A person needs to be freed from prejudices - but not so much that he loses his former ideas about good and evil in general, about law and decency.

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) thought differently: a person who has returned “back to nature”, who has abandoned the laws and norms of decency imposed on him from outside, is truly blameless. For such a person there are no rules - he simply satisfies the necessary needs, without thinking about good and evil. Another well-known educator, Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784), did not doubt that it is necessary to limit the element of human feelings to the enlightened law. But at the same time, the law and the new norms of behavior are supposed to be certainly enlightened, free from prejudice and false shame. They, according to Diderot, should not interfere with the natural desires of man.

The ideas of Rousseau and Diderot were popular with the French enlighteners, and later with the revolutionaries. These ideas were adopted by the Jacobins, who began to build a new society during the Great French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. They dreamed of the brotherhood of all people - in reality, they unleashed cruel terror. The Jacobin leaders justified it by saying that the time for fraternal morality had not yet come, and for the sake of the future, for the good of the revolution, any morality would have to be neglected. Thus, for the first time, the principle of revolutionary morality was formulated. Revolutionary morality left a terrible trace in the history of Russia after the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917.

4. MORALITY AND PROPERTIES

Along with moral ideas common to different peoples, there are a huge number of rules of decency. And here the differences are so great that they can be insurmountable. The sphere of decency covers the whole life of a person, down to the smallest detail. Decency most directly affects, in particular, the manner of dressing, behaving at the table, communicating with people younger or older than themselves in age and position. Under the influence of certain external causes, propriety is most often the first to change. It is not so easy for changes to penetrate into the deep layers of morality.

Some rules of decency can be considered as a necessary accessory of morality. For example, respect for elders. One of the biblical "Ten Commandments" says: "Honor your father and your mother." Specific forms of respect for parents and for elders in general are different in different cultures. Somewhere, when the elders appear, they stand up, somewhere they bow or kneel. In some cultures, the elder's word is an immutable law. Others allow the opportunity to listen - even the parental will - with humility, reverence, and yet act differently. Until recently, the veneration of elders was not disputed by almost anyone. Differing in details, this decency, in essence, refers to the general.

But some, albeit fundamental, rules of decency do not apply. For example, European Christian culture, with its predominant attention to the spirit, rejected the admiration for the beauty of the human body, characteristic of antiquity. Moreover, in traditional European culture, it is considered shameful to flaunt a naked body, and the relationship between a man and a woman is surrounded by a certain veil of secrecy. On the contrary, among primitive peoples they are completely open - defiantly open, in the eyes of a European. There is no ancient admiration for physical beauty - but there is also no desire to hide the body from prying eyes. A similar approach to the ancient one is found in the developed cultures of Southeast Asia and the Far East: India, partly China and Japan. And in the Islamic world, it is indecent for a woman to show any man, except for her husband, father and brother, even her face.

A number of private propriety has a religious content. So, in Christianity, the New Testament instructs a woman to cover her head in the temple, while men - to expose her. This is done as a sign of respect for the angels, who, according to Christian doctrine, are invisibly present at the service in the church. Undoubtedly, for a believer, this rule is no less important than for any well-meaning citizen to be decently dressed at an official reception. And yet, developed religions are not inclined to give paramount importance to private decency, since rules of this kind are formed by time and environment, they are different for every people, for every social stratum.

There were, of course, exceptions. For example, in Florence at the end of the fifteenth century. and Geneva XVI to local religious leaders declared not only indecent, but even sinful passion for music, theater, painting. Sinners were punished for singing, bright clothes, loud laughter. True, these innovations aroused hostility and ridicule among the majority of educated Christians of that time, because they did not reflect the truths of faith, but the views of the layer to which the reformers appealed - ignorant and alien to high art workers from the medieval cities of the West.

Often the rules of decency are generally difficult to somehow connect with moral principles, and even more so with religion. No matter how indecent a violation of such rules may seem, it will not be considered either criminal or sinful. Such rules are the most limited in application and cannot have eternal value. For example, in many countries where they do not know the fork, the European-American rule looks strange to put the fork to the left when setting the table, and the knife and spoon to the right of the plate. Men's clothing such as a tailcoat, jacket or tuxedo appeared in the 19th century. Then it became the only possible one in a "decent" society, whether at a state celebration, at a wedding, or simply at a solid job. Now this obligatory uniform of a “serious man” is gradually becoming a thing of the past.

Many rules of decency seem temporary and superficial. But sometimes the little things are the most important. Will nations be willing to abandon their traditions in favor of new values? Or maybe the adoption of a common morality does not mean at all "combing everyone with the same brush" and the difference in small things will remain?

Read also:

Question 1. Essence and functions of finance as an economic category.
Categorization of crimes. Grounds for dividing crimes into categories. The value of the categorization of crimes.
Basic concepts explaining the origin of money and the essence of money as an economic category.
Subject and method of economic theory. Economic laws and categories.
The essence of wages as an economic category. Functions and principles of wages. Wage regulation.
Essence and functions of finance as an economic category.
Essence and functions of finance as an economic category. The role of finance in the modern economy.

Morality- a form of social consciousness, consisting of a system of values and requirements that regulate people's behavior. Approaches to the origin of morality: naturalistic, theological, sociological, cultural.
The development of moral standards: taboo - custom - tradition - moral rules.
Moral requirements and ideas:

norms of behavior (“do not lie”, “do not steal”, “do not kill”, “honor elders”, etc.);

· moral qualities (goodwill, justice, wisdom, etc.);

moral principles (collectivism - individualism; egoism - altruism, etc.);

moral and psychological mechanisms (duty, conscience);

Highest moral values (goodness, the meaning of life; freedom; happiness).
Ethics- Philosophical science, the subject of which is morality, morality. Morality - high ideals and strict norms, the world of due. Morality is the principles of real practical behavior of people, the world of existence.
Moral functions: regulatory, value-oriented, coordination, motivational, constitutive.
Moral culture of the individual- the degree of perception by the individual of the moral consciousness and culture of society. Stages of formation: elementary morality (what will they do to me?), conventional morality (what will they think of me?), autonomous morality (what will I think of myself?). The structure of the moral culture of the individual: the culture of ethical thinking, the culture of feelings, the culture of behavior, etiquette.

3. Do the following statements about human nature contradict each other?

A) Aristotle, an ancient philosopher, scientist-encyclopedist wrote: “Some people are created by nature to be free, others are slaves. For those people who are slaves by nature, it is both beneficial and just to be slaves.

B) The scientist Antiphon, a contemporary of Aristotle: “By nature, all people are equal in all respects. We all breathe the same air through our mouths and noses, and we all eat the same way with our hands.”

Think: if Aristotle and Antiphon had lived to create the theory of the natural origin of human rights, how would they, in your opinion, react to this theory? Justify your opinion.

The above statements contradict each other. So, if Aristotle proceeded from the naturalness of social inequality, justifying the existence of slavery, then Antiphon, on the contrary, affirmed the idea of the natural equality of all people, regardless of their social status. Slavery for Aristotle is something without which no system of socio-economic and state life is conceivable at all. Antiphon is known as one of the most implacable opponents of slavery. Obviously, his views are much closer to the postulates of the natural law concept of human rights than the positions of Aristotle.
According to natural law theory, human rights are rights inherent in his very nature, without which he cannot exist as a biosocio-spiritual being. Human rights belong to him from birth, by virtue of the laws of nature, do not depend on their recognition by the state. They cannot be transferred, taken away or destroyed. The state can only consolidate, guarantee or limit them.
This theory is based on the unconditional recognition of a person's right to dignity and the right to freedom. Dignity in it is understood as the recognition by society of the social value and uniqueness of a particular person, the significance of each individual as a part of the human community. The dignity of a person is the source of his rights and freedoms. Freedom, on the other hand, acts as the independence of social and political subjects, expressed in their ability and ability to make their own choice and act in accordance with their interests and goals.
Supporters of the positivist concept of human rights, who oppose natural law theory, on the contrary, believe that rights and freedoms are established by the will of the state and are derived from it. It is the state, in their opinion, that determines the list, the content of the rights that it grants to its citizens.

In everyday life, we often encounter the concept of moral norms, immoral behavior. As a rule, actions against morality are condemned by society. We learn what morality is and what features it has as one of the regulators of social life.

concept

In society, there are such rules of conduct that are not spelled out in documents, but are observed by most people. For example, in the professional field. A person shows love for his work, tries to be useful, accumulates knowledge and skills that contribute to his more successful activities. All this is not established by special acts and operates without any written form. Family and friendly relations are also built, in which, for example, it is customary to respect and love each other, not to lie, to support in difficult situations.

In this regard, the question arises, is there any system of unspoken rules that is the same for the whole society? Morality is such a system.

Morality is a set of norms accepted in society that regulate relations between people, their mutual duties and rights.

The emergence of morality

Morality arose in antiquity and continues to operate in modern society.

The concept of ethics, the science of morality, was introduced by Aristotle in the 4th century BC. Then it denoted philosophical knowledge about all the phenomena of culture in general.
The traditions and customs that existed in society gradually began to take the form of ideals to which one should strive, for example, the ideal of beauty, justice, and so on.
The patterns of behavior approved by society were fixed in the form of moral norms.

Signs of moral standards

sustainability

Moral norms, represented, for example, in customs and traditions, can persist for a long time. Originating in one century, they continue to be observed by several generations of people until they are replaced by other norms, but this process, as a rule, takes a long time. From this follows the second feature of morality.

9. Politeness and restraint as a principle of etiquette.

One of the basic principles of modern life is the maintenance of normal relations between people and the desire to avoid conflicts. In turn, respect and attention can only be earned through courtesy and restraint. Politeness has such manifestations as an attentive attitude, a willingness to provide services to another person. A good attitude towards people is the main basis of the morality of the service etiquette of a modern organization. Human restraint is the ability to control one's actions, to communicate carefully and tactfully with other people.

10. Delicacy as a principle of etiquette.

Delicacy is a property of really educated, intelligent people, the highest expression of goodwill and greetings. This is politeness with a deep understanding of the internal state and mood of other people.

11. Tact and sensitivity as a principle of etiquette.

Tact and sensitivity is a sense of proportion that should be observed in conversation, in personal and official relationships, the ability to feel the boundary beyond which, as a result of our words and actions, a person experiences undeserved resentment, grief, and sometimes pain.

12. Modesty as a principle of etiquette.

Modesty is the ability not to overestimate oneself, one's importance, not to advertise one's merits and merits, to be able to restrain oneself, to be moderate, simple and decent. Modest person: will not seek victory at any cost in an insignificant dispute; will not impose his tastes and sympathies; will never expose his merits.

DE 4. The history of ethics.