Analysis of Humanitarian Technologies of Expertises in Solving of Socio-Cultural Dilemmas

Introduction. The aim of the article is to show the socio-philosophical basis of humanitarian expertises and to demonstrate an important role of these technologies in the life of society and the world for solving of current socio-cultural dilemmas. We set ourselves the following tasks: to conduct a socio-philosophical justification of the theoretical foundations of moral expert science, to define three types of humanitarian expertises, to identify the range of their application, to show the significance of their application for society and for professional organizations.

Methodology and sources. This work methodologically is based on a socio-philosophical analysis of the works of well-known sociologists and philosophers of the ХХ–XXI centuries who created the foundation for humanitarian expertises as well as on a comparative analysis of the three expertises with the identification of their deferential characteristics.

Results and discussion. Thanks to the developed methods and methodologies in sociology, cultural studies, etc., various new approaches were created for the scientific study of the society problems and the consequences of the influence of scientific and technological progress on it. These methods and methodologies which are the basis of humanitarian technologies, allowed us to step over the individual subjectivity and to consider objectively socio-cultural phenomena, based on facts and on the justification of social action. Suggested by Emile Durkheim’s practical sociological method of investigating facts made it possible to combine the forces of specialists in different fields to identify the causes of the appearance of normal and pathological factors and to analyze them. Whereas, M. Weber outlined the methodological foundations of social action with the help of them it is possible to objectively identify the main actions developed by this society. The methods and techniques formed the basis of the humanitarian technologies of three examinations: socio-humanitarian, humanitarian and ethical. There is still no term under which they can be combined so the author’s this article proposed the term – humanitarian. The humanitarian is from the word humanity (humanity), that is, what is inherent in all people including society and its actions. Functional analysis of social and cultural products by Robert Merton and show of ethics micro and macro order by George Ritzer had formed the foundation for modern humanitarian expertises: social humanitarian, humanitarian and ethical.

Conclusion. When the role of science in the life of society becomes dominant, it is necessary to have such methodologies with which it will be possible to control the illegal use of scientific achievements, to identify unethical behavior of scientists. The main focus of these expertise is to control the illegal activities of professionals, to protect the interests and health of people.

1. Durkheim, E., Pravila sotsiologicheskogo metoda [The rules of the sociological method], available at: https://www.rulit.me/books/metod-sociologii-read-104323-21.html (accessed 06.01.2021).

2. Mauss, M., “Essay on the gift. Form and basis of exchange in archaic societies ”, Obshchestva. Obmen. Lichnost’. Trudy po sotsial'noi antropologii [Societies. Exchange. Personality. Works on Social Anthropology], available at: http://anthro-economicus.narod.ru/files/Moss_Present.pdf (accessed 20.01.2021).

3. Weber, M., Osnovnye sotsiologicheskie ponyatiya [Basic sociological concepts], available at: https://bookscafe.net/read/veber_maks-osnovnye_sociologicheskie_ponyatiya-66052.html#p1 (accessed 01.02.2021).

4. Merton, R. (2006), Sotsial’naya teoriya i sotsial’naya struktura [Social theory and social structure], Transl. by Egorova, E.N., Kaganova, Z.V., Nikolaev, V.G. and Cheremissinova, E.R., AST: Khranitel’, Moscow, RUS.

5. Ritzer, G. (2002), Sovremennye sotsiologicheskie teorii [Modern Sociological Theories], 5th ed., Piter, SPb., RUS.

6. Petruneva, R.M. and Vasilieva, V.D. (2010), “On Methodology of Complex Social and Humanitarian Expert Examination of Engineering and Designing Decisions”, Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, no. 2, pp. 65–70.

7. Bryzgalina, E.V., Alasaniya, K.Yu., Sadovnichii, V.A. et al. (2016), “The Social and Humanitarian Expertise of Functioning of the National Depositaries of Biomaterials”, Voprosy Filosofii, no. 2, pp. 8–21.

8. Korshunova, O.N., Vinnikov, A.Ya., Girenko, N.M. et al. (2005), Sotsiogumanitarnaya ekspertiza prestuplenii na pochve nenavisti [Socio-humanitarian examination of hate crimes], Norma, SPb., RUS.

9. Ashmarin, I.I. (2006), “The supra-professional meanings of humanitarian expertise”, Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, no. 4, pp. 202–205.

10. “Formation of research on philosophical bioethics in our country”, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, available at: https://iphras.ru/page24514316.htm (accessed 27.02.2021).

11. “International Bioethics Committee”, UNESCO, available at: https://ru.unesco.org/themes/etika-nauki-i-tehniki/ibc (accessed 15.06.2021).

12. “World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology”, UNESCO, available at: https://en.unesco.org/themes/ethics-science-and-technology/comest (accessed 15.06.2021).

13. “Ending child poverty”, UNICEF, available at: https://www.un.org/ru/ethics/ (accessed 15.06.2021).

14. “Digital sovereignty is central to European strategic autonomy – Speech by President Charles Michel at “Masters of digital 2021” online event” (2021), European Council of the European Union, 3 Feb., available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2021/02/03/speech-by-presidentcharles-michel-at-the-digitaleurope-masters-of-digital-online-event/ (accessed 15.06.2021).

15. Voronin, A.A. (2018), “B.G. Yudin about humanitarian expertise and the challenges of neurorevolution”, Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, no. 3, pp. 91–102. https://doi.org/10.17805/zpu.2018.3.8.

16. Yudin, B.G. (2006), “From ethical expertise to humanitarian expertise”, Gumanitarnoe znanie: tendentsii razvitiya v XXI veke. V chest’ 70-letiya Igorya Mikhailovicha Il’inskogo [Humanitarian knowledge: development trends in the XXI century. In honor of the 70th birthday of Igor Mikhailovich Ilyinsky], in Lukov, V.A. (ed.), Izd-vo Nats. instituta biznesa, Moscow, RUS, pp. 214–237.

17. Hardwig, J.R. (1991), “The Role of Trust in Knowledge”, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 88, no. 12, pp. 693–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027007.

18. Hardwig, J.R. (1994), “Toward an Ethics of Expertise”, Professional Ethics and Social Responsibility, in Wueste, D.E. (ed.), Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, USA, pp. 83–101.

19. Sogomonov, A.Yu. (2012), “Two vectors of ethical examination in the modern world”, Prikladnaya etika: ekspertnyi potentsial [Applied ethics: expert potential], in Bakshtanovskii, V.I. and Novoselov, V.V. (eds.), iss. 41, UTMN, Tyumen, RUS, pp. 30–39.

20. Belova, E.A. (2008), Ekologicheskii monitoring, kontrol’ i ekspertiza [Environmental monitoring, control and expertise], YKSUG, Grodno, Belarus.

21. Belyaeva, E.V. (2012), “Environmental and ethical examination of a social object”, Prikladnaya etika: ekspertnyi potentsial [Applied ethics: expert potential], in Bakshtanovskii, V.I. and Novoselov, V.V. (eds.), iss. 41, UTMN, Tyumen, RUS, pp. 40–52.

22. Sychev, A.A. (2012), “Expertise: Moral or Ethical?”, Vedomosti prikladnoi etiki [Applied Ethics News], no. 41, pp. 14–29.