Abstract:

The article explores the phenomenon of moral blindness in the interpretation of Zygmunt Bauman and its relationship with the concept of ethics of responsibility. The social mechanisms of the formation of moral indifference in modern societies are analyzed and ways of overcoming this phenomenon through a responsible ethical position are proposed. A retrospective analysis of the values of the humanistic tradition shows that the issues of the formation of social values - opposition to moral relevance – were central in European philosophy. Modern research integrates Bauman’s ideas and proposes an ethics of responsibility as the opposite of moral petrification. However, a comprehensive analysis that directly contrasts the mechanisms of «moral blindness» with the constructive principles of the ethics of responsibility as a practical strategy of resistance remains insufficiently developed. The issue of moral blindness as existential indifference and ethics of responsibility is reflected in the works of many modern scholars. Bauman’s concept, set out in the work «Modernity and the Holocaust», has become the subject of critical analysis and development. Bauman considers the Holocaust not as an atavism of barbarism, but as a product of modern rational civilization. The key concept here is «moral blindness» a state when technological, bureaucratic and social mechanisms systematically suppress the moral state of a person. The main sign of this is a social distance, which is revealed through the flourishing of bureaucracy and the distribution of labor. Researchers develop the Bauman’s thoughts and focus on the technological aspects of moral degradation in the era of digitalization. It is now that social media and algorithms are creating new forms of distancing and dehumanization. The purpose of this article is a systematic analysis of the phenomenon of «moral blindness» in the philosophical interpretation of Zygmunt Bauman and an investigation of the potential of the ethics of responsibility as a philosophical and practical alternative for overcoming this phenomenon in the conditions of modern society. 

Keywords: loss of sensitivity, Banality of Evil, moral blindness, ethics of responsibility, collective responsibility, values. 

References:

1. Arendt, Hannah. (2021). Aykhman v Yerusalymi. Rozpovidʹ pro banalʹnistʹ zla. [Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Story about the Banality of Evil]. Kyiv. 

2. Arsentieva, G. O. (2015). Nitssheansʹka kontseptsiya «Volya do vlady» yak vlada nad soboyu. [Nietzschean concept of «Will to power» as power over oneself, as freedom of self-expression]. 

3. Zygmunt, Bauman, Leonidas, Donskis. (2014). Moralʹna slipota. Vtrata chutlyvosti u plynniy suchasnosti. [Moral Blindness. Loss of Sensitivity in Fluid Modernity]. Kyiv. 

4. Boychenko, M. (2021). Naskilʹky formalʹnoyu ye etyka vidpovidalʹnosti? [How formal is the ethics of responsibility?]. 

5. Jonas, G. (2001). Pryntsyp vidpovidalʹnosti. U poshukakh etyky dlya tekhnolohichnoyi tsyvilizatsiyi. [The Principle of Responsibility. In Search of Ethics for a Technological Civilization]. Kyiv. 

6. Bauman, Zygmunt. (2010). Lektsiya v universyteti Vitautasa Velykoho. [Lecture at Vytautas the Great University]. 

7. Leonidas, Donskis. (2014). Moralʹna slipota y ukrayinsʹki uroky. Pro lytsemirstvo Yevropy i «kolektyvnoho Shredera». [Moral blindness and Ukrainian lessons. On the hypocrisy of Europe and the «collective Schroeder»]. 

8. Morozov, A. (2018). Zlo: metafizychni ta bohoslovsʹki vymiry. [Evil: metaphysical and theological dimensions]. Kyiv. 

9. Morozov, A. (2014). «Inshyy» yak tsentralʹna problema etyky Emanuelya Levinasa. [«The Other» as the Central Problem of Emmanuel Levinas’ Ethics]. 

10.Bauman, Z. (2000). Suchasnistʹ i Holokost. Modernity and the Holocaust]. New York. 

11. Jonas, H. (1984). Imperatyv vidpovidalʹnosti: u poshukakh etyky dlya tekhnolohichnoyi epokhy. [The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age]. Chicago.