In the texts of recent years, describing the relations between Ukraine and Russia, the authors often use the words "Civilization Fault". I would like to decipher this concept in terms of mathematics and logic and clarify the picture somewhat. Because one who clearly thinks, he clearly acts.
There was in the USSR a scientist with the name Lefebvre. He was not there for a long time, because being, as you will see, a clever person, fled from there at proper time and settled in the USA in 1974, where he continued his scientific and teaching career at one of the universities. Lefebvre's theory of reflection has become the Soviet response to the western theory of games. If briefly, then having an education in mathematics, and then in psychology, he set out to create a mathematical model of conscience, morality, ethics and, consequently, human behaviour. Thus in 1982, the book "Algebra of conscience" appeared, and a mathematical model of a man with a conscience was created.
What is conscience? Saying simply these are internal criteria for what is good and what is evil. The system of assessment of events in terms of "good-bad".
It is not difficult with simple things that contributes to the survival and prosperity - it is well, vice versa - is bad. Interestingly, when one and the same event carries signs of both good and evil. The reaction to this should be one, but what vector to choose?
You go by car and notice a patrol hanging on the road with a radar. Next, you see those who are riding on the oncoming lane towards the radar of the patrol. You can warn them with headlights, they will reduce the speed and escape the penalty. And that's good. But you also understand that exceeding the speed, the driver endangers himself and strangers, and from this point of view, warning him, you become an accomplice of future deaths of himself or someone else. And this is evil.
There are two possible choices - warn or not. Yes, in fact, there are only two systems of morality, depending on what the person chooses. When a compromise between good and evil is judged by you disapproved (evil) and you do not warn the counterpart of the "danger". And when a compromise between good and evil is evaluated by you approvingly (good) and you blink the headlights to warn.
That's actually all. Then everything can be deepened and developed. What Lefebvre did, writing down these situations in the form of formulas, calculating different behaviors and formulating a number of general and specific conclusions.
He pointed out that the first ethical system (where the compromise between evil and good is evil) was realized in the so-called Western system of values ("western"), and the second ethical system (where the compromise between evil and good is good) was realized in the Soviet Union, in the Soviet system of values ("eastern"). It is very often associated with communism, fascism, extremist religious beliefs and is widespread in China, in many countries of the East and Africa. (The author himself in the book called them "American" and "Soviet")
On the basis of mathematical calculations, the author makes, in particular, such an important conclusion that in the "western" system, individuals are raised in their own eyes when they enter into cooperation with each other. While in the "eastern" system, individuals are raised in their eyes when they enter into a conflict.
Such a paradox: uncompromising in morality is associated with compromises in human relations, and vice versa - compromises in morality lead to uncompromising relationships. What we can easily see in general patterns of behaviour of separate representatives of these cultures, as well as of entire states.
This is what is called a "civilizational fault" between the West and the East. "Spoon of tar, spoiling the barrel of honey" is a "Western" model, where the compromise between good and evil is perceived as evil. And "Purpose-justifying means" is an "eastern" model of the ethical system, where the compromise between evil and good is perceived as good.
And if we speak simply, then the civilizational breakdown takes place at the very moment when you decide whether to warn a criminal of a patrol post, throw garbage on the street, steal the toilet paper in the restaurant or buying stolen car receiver.