The paper tackles long-standing problem of human behavior motivation and its dependence on the choice between principles and profit, moral values and economics values. This dispute touches upon the question about the criteria of morality. It is affirmed that the promotion of values and its substantial effect upon economic/social development is impossible without conciliation between utilitarian motives and moral values. Challenges of social life and practical answers to them surpass many ethical theories, and make to comprehend methodological differences between contemporary social [professional] ethics and traditional [individual] ethics. It presupposes acute necessity of paradigmatic approach to ethics, drawing a distinction between metaphysical and positivistic interpretations of moral values The solution of this issue is of great importance under the circumstances when ethics becomes an integral part of modern management (as value management). The moral values proved to be more realized as practical values, which entails sound economic, politic and social consequences. In modern epoch we can observe the processes of rational ethics promotion in all fields of life. Ethics turns from a theory to practice, from philosophy to management, which in turn requires new approaches to values promotion.

Studying on the values only by the epistemological way of thinking, is a serious problem in the previous research on philosophy of value. The recognition and values are quite different in nature, therefore, we should not research the values by the epistemological way of thinking. Conversely, we ought to establish “the way of relational thinking”, in the studying the whole relationship of human being and different kinds of relationships. In reality, the relationship of human being is social and cultural. Hence, we ought to research and deal with the contradiction between “ought to be” and “to be” in the world of human being’s values, by the social way of thinking. The nature of human being’s life is the foundation and criterion of the value of “ought to be”.

Facing the development of pluralistic cultures and the conflict of different civilizations, we should examine political theory frameworks, particularly those concerning the construction of world order. In the dilemma “tolerance or hospitality,” tolerance has been targeted. Jacques Derrida deconstructs this concept and supports Immanuel Kant’s notion of hospitality rather than the tolerance. However, Jürgen Habermas advocates for reconstruction of the concept of tolerance, although he does note its limits. We should regard hospitality as the fundamental spirit of international relations and take the notion of “seeking sameness and respecting diversity” as a principle for handling relations between different cultures.

The definition of value is usually focused on “being”, that is, it seeks the predicate of value. In this paper we interpret a value as the product and manifestation and its effects as the dynamic subject-object relationship. A key to understand value, according to our interpretation, needs to be disconnected from the notion of being. Hence, the value philosophy in China – “the relation theory” – needs to be deepened and further concretized.

A cultural and philosophical approach in understanding human history involves identifying its personal aspects. Looking at the history of philosophy, it is not a clearly defined monologue, in pursuit of a common goal, but a complex dialogical process that includes and mutual influence and mutual repulsion, the process is an alternative to its core, and contains unrealized opportunities in history, re-creating the diversity of the movement of philosophical thought, pluralism of ideas and theories. One of the main ways to implement such an approach to the history of philosophy is to analyze it in the context of the culture, the study of the history of philosophy as a philosophy of culture.

Modern society sees obvious reinforcement of legal component in general mechanism of social regulation of relations between people. Objective significance of law supposes powerful value – subjective securing particularly the moral one. In reality minimization of morality in crisis takes place, which tries to compensate its forces through increase of quantity of laws and development of law – enforcement agencies. Deficit of the spirit and conscience causes their artificial substitutes, which worsen the situation. Daily need of society in improvement of law and legal expanse can be satisfied as a result of forming new image of interrelations between people and social groups in public awareness as a result of reinforcement of moral principles. But ability to select moral and spiritual values, particularly intense processes of their understanding, revaluation and implementation sup-poses deliberate freedom of subjects of social activity. These are representatives of scientific and educational community including lawyers, possessing high moral and professional qualities. In consideration of importance of preservation of civilizing achievements, which are examined in the context of cultural development, it is necessary to affirm the priority of high ethics. It is infallible foundation towards legal dimension of the principle of freedom of worship, secures gen-eral neutral field, on which ideological and politico-legal dialogue is possible among the civilizations and between them.

Axiology as a sphere of value orientation and preferences is a base of every culture. The analysis of poems of Homer gives an opportuni-ty to explicate the value base of archaic Mediterranean culture. Values such as honor, glory, devotion, self-sacrifice, friendship, mutual help, hospitality, justice-equality and justice-retribution are on the positive pole of this culture. Anger, insult, deception, greed, cowardice, audacity, desecration of the ene-my’s body are on the negative pole. Positive values are fixed in the sanctioned “standards” of social behavior. In this paper is investigated the base of selec-tion of behavior’s way of an epic hero. The preference for a particular action is determined by the fate or the will of the gods, or the traditional moral stan-dards, or considerations of good.

1. Philosophy as a part of culture, having its history, also have traditions. The structure of any tradition includes four main elements: a) object of tradition – legacy, b) subject of tradition – its carrier, c) attitude to legacy, inherent in subject an induced by some values, d) function of legacy transmis-sion, performed by subject. 2. Objects of traditions in philosophy are: sets of problems and questions, sets of notions and categories used to think them, interpretation of notions and categories – their changing content, relevant to philosophy ‘list’ of activities for philosophers together with norms and patterns to perform them, and etc. Subjects of traditions are groups of people, who keep and transmit the above mentioned objects. 3. Values connect philosophy with cultural surroundings. They stay beyond traditions, but they are the key factor of influence at the latter. Values drive the interests of philosophers, attracting to an object of tradition or repudiating it. Subject of tradition relates values with some legacy in philosophy, that can be valued, devalued or re-valued. If tradition carrier is unaware of values that impel him to keep legacy, then we deal with unreflective irrational tradition. This kind of tradition play stabilizing role in philosophy, providing succession. Some part of reflective (realizing values) traditions do the same. The rest of them are transforming traditions, because their subject devalues this legacy and values (revalues) some other. Transforming traditions bring philosophy changes. Their time comes when society suffers a shift or replacement of values – during reformations and revolutions.

Философия ХХI века в новых сложных условиях глобализирующегося мира уже констатировала наметившиеся интер- и кросскультурные тенденции в своем развитии. Суть в том, что как в западной, так в восточной философских традициях, являющихся основаниями соответствующих культур и цивилизаций, а, значит, и соответствующих систем ценностей, типов мировоззрения, существует сложившееся тысячелетия назад концептуальное ядро, имеющее общий универсальный характер. С другой стороны, в жизни как Востока, так и Запада, в социально-культурной и политической практиках существуют и возникают острые проблемы, указывающие на внутренние противоречия, несовершенства и необходимость изменений и нового современного содержания каждой системы ценностей как Востока, так и Запада. Современная философия, философская компаративистика и социальная философия, вычленяя то общее, что имеется в духовных истоках разных культур и цивилизаций, и то частное, что и сегодня для них принципиально ценно, приоткрывает пути от конфликта к взаимопониманию, конструктивному диалогу, а в будущем и к гармоничному взаимодействию.

Воспроизведение человеческого достоинства является основополагающим условием и целью педагогической практики, рассматривается как идеализированная норма учительства. В статье реализуется нормативный подход, предложенный автором к исследованию и интерпретации феномена учительства и его воспроизводства в культуре. Учительство определяется как воспроизводство целостности ценностей знания и личности в другом. Как единицы нормативного анализа выделяются нормы идеальные и реальные, которые делятся на авторитетные, актуальные и предвосхищаемые. Описаны основные идеализированные нормы учительства: воспроизводство человеческого достоинства и воспроизводство жизни в учении. Описан ряд основных особенностей воспроизводства идеальных норм в нормах авторитетных, актуальных и предвосхищаемых.