Even at the dawn of the development of philosophy, people thoughtabout what forms the basic value orientations of the individual, what their hierarchy is and how values affect the person's attitudes. Paradoxical as it may seem, these discussions do not subside until now. Are our values established as innate or imposed by society as a result of education, in what percentage of a person does the person choose them, and in which values do they represent the pressure of the individual on the part of society and social mimicry?
It is not necessary to prove that a person left theanimal environment. And therefore from the animal world, he has a set of vital attitudes that determine his value orientations: first of all, the preservation of life, as well as the continuation of the family. Because a person has descended from primates living in the herd, we also have a value aspiration to power, which can be expressed in various forms - from sadistic aspirations to humiliate others, to passionarity. And if we are talking about alpha, beta and gamma in the animal kingdom, then why not be honest with us and assume that the same mechanisms are driven by representatives of the biological species of homo sapiens? Similarly, we are driven by the instinct of procreation, which indirectly determines our aesthetic values (whom we consider attractive for sexual partnerships), economic (the accumulation of vital goods for transfer to their descendants), political (the desire for ordering life as opposed to chaos and anarchy), and so on .
However, a person is a "zoon politikon", an animalsocial, and therefore the society imposes its values and values on the individual. This can be seen at least from the fact that there are certain classes and strata in society, and so are the values of representatives of these classes and strata. We can talk about the value orientations of hippies and yuppies, about the values of peasants and workers, deeply religious people and atheists. The formation of values is also influenced by the "mass unconscious" - the paradigm in which a person has been brought up since childhood.
How are our relatively stablerelations to material and spiritual goods, values, ideals, which, in turn, serve as a guide in life and guide our behavior? Their education is influenced by society as a whole, the environment, upbringing and personal experience of a person. Many value orientations are formed by the collective unconscious, dominant in society atitjudom. Growing up, the child quickly begins to distinguish the values declared in society from those professed by the majority of the population. Thus, the 70s of the last century, the days of the rule of "developed socialism", the youth called "doublethink". In every society there is a set of values to which it entrains individuals. It would seem that all people should have similar life values: success, wealth, beauty, happiness. As for the relationship to material goods, value orientations can be "earned and bought", and can be "steal and drink." After all, what is "success in life": to realize oneself or buy a monetary position and do nothing? What is "wealth": personal comfort or throwing dust in your eyes? What is "beautiful": style or expensive kitsch?
How sustainable are the valueorientation? While they drive us in the behavioral plan, they change with age. But, nevertheless, all of us are guided by the desire for good. Only here, "good" is understood by us in different ways. Well - it's good and profitable for us (even evil to others), or it is benefiting others, even by self-sacrifice? No wonder the religious people ask the question: where we have a concept of "good", but from the One who makes us human, prompting to seek good and do good "just because."
