On Collision of Moral and Morality Principles in Russian Politics

On Collision of Moral and Morality Principles in Russian Politics

Gaman-Golutvina O.V.,

Dr. Sci. (Polit. Sci.), Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Comparative Political Science Department, MGIMO University; President of the Russian Association of Political Science; Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Comparative Politics”; member of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation and the Public Council under the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia, ogaman@mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 250180 | ORCID: 0000-0002-2660-481X | RESEARCHER_ID: E-4046-2012

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2005.03.13
Rubric: DIXI!

For citation:

Gaman-Golutvina O.V. On Collision of Moral and Morality Principles in Russian Politics . – Polis. Political Studies. 2005. No. 3. P. 163-171. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2005.03.13


The article seeks to substantiate the thesis of the necessity of divided apprehension of political and private morals. Proceeding from Hegel’s philosopho-historical conception, the author argues that the phenomena of politics and of morals pronouncedly differ by their substantial, as well as functional particulars. Whereas the essence of morals consists in the unshakeability of norms and values established once and for all and aimed at taming the egoistic nature of man, in politics it is not the ideal, but the interest that figures as the constant. In O.V.Gaman-Golutvina’s opinion, it is conformity with national-state interests that proves to be the criterion of morality in politics. While admitting that either in politics the end does not entirely justifies the means, she at the same time stresses that for determining the degree of morality of the means, adequate procedures are, after all, required, too. According to her conclusion, political, as distinct from “private” morals, are situational and do not admit a priori judgments. What is violence, which is its admissible measure, how its redemption is possible, — only in a concrete context may these questions be answered.

Content No. 3, 2005

See also:

Zamyatin D.N.,
Space and (In)security: ontological models of imagination. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No3

Shaptalov B.N.,
Russia’s Choice in the Light of “Classic Democracy”. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No1

Yanov A.L.,
Slavophiles and Foreign Politics of Russia in the 19th Century.. – Polis. Political Studies. 1998. No6

Lapayeva V.V.,
Why the Intellectual Class of Russia Needs a Party of Its Own. – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No3

Melville A.Yu.,
So What’s Happened to the “Russian Choice”? 161. – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No4



   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991