Morality cannot compel one to a calling. If not an existential anxiety, it could be enough for the person to live according to morality and other obligations. Morality in turn makes living in calling complicated. It can even conflict with a calling. Sometimes the calling of a person looks unacceptable for the other people, whereas one does not see any harm in it. For example, a tattoo master thinks that he is a man of art and makes his customers happy, but other people would think that tattooing is a wrong thing. Still there could be more destructive affections, obviously harmful to the society. I had a provocative question: "Is it possible to get a calling for evil?" To my surprise, I got once an affirmative opinion. One student gave an example: there are people who like to kill or who are naturally aggressive. If there is no war, they go hunting, go to police service, or realize their passion another way. However, having found their place in the structure of the society, they could fulfil some useful function. I asked: "What makes a calling of such a passion?" The answer was: "constancy, persistency, inevitability." One feels that was born to it and realize oneself in it. One does not think of doing something evil for the sake of evil. Such a person just does what is natural to him or her. Idea that calling is natural seems to be a core of that student"s obviously mistakable opinion. Calling is not natural. It is human and humanity is more than natural. Calling is not subconscious. Evidently, we need to gain an external benefit, to socialize, to serve a good purpose, or at least hope for beneficial consequences of our actions. Even that naturally cruel activity from student"s example becomes in fact positive and righteous if it serves and benefits the society.

Mainly participant students and teachers rejected the link of calling with evil at all. Calling cannot be demonic or diabolic. The interweaving of personal intentions with social evaluation and transcendental values with social benefits protects calling from being morally wrong or a mistaken. Nobody would think of calling contrary to the benefit of the other people. The obvious question about egoism of calling meets the answer that calling helps one to do the best and so to be useful in the society. Calling could look selfish only from some particular point of view, for example, for members of the family, etc. However, many think that successful people benefit the society and harmonize their surroundings. In the society a kind of a balance of various per-sonal callings is possible. Social structure of professions correlates morality and calling. Robert K. Merton said: "What, then, seems to be involved in the widespread push of professionaliza-tion? ... First, the value placed upon systematic knowledge and the intellect: knowing. Second, the value placed upon technical skill and trained capacity: doing. Third, the value placed upon putting this conjoint knowledge and skill to work in the service of others: helping. It is these three values as fused into the concept of a profession that enlists the respect of men." Therefore, "social invention of the professions institutionalizes altruistic behavior. The profession does not require practitioners to feel altruistic (although that might do no harm); it only requires them to act altruistically (at least to a substantial degree)" [Merton, 1960: 9, 11].

Good and beneficial aim makes the feeling of true calling and unites it with morality. Whereas calling and morality are of different origin, the first is rather personal and the last is social, both need a transcendental horizon of goodness. Maybe that is a point where individual pleasure meets justice, personal right becomes righteous.

We have got to add just a few moralistic theses to the topic calling. Who thinks to be called or have a calling should be able to hear oneself, the other people, and maybe the higher level

94 Future Human Image. Volume 7, 2017

The Experience of Calling: Educational Aspects and Cross-Cultural Comparisons by Yevhen Muliarchuk

than just a man. To some extent, hearing is also opposite to calling. Obedience is a great mor-al and religious virtue that sometimes prevents from persistence on personal calling. As for Christians it is definitely not a new thought. That is how we can understand the double nature of calling according to Hryhory Skovoroda. The philosopher said about the task to combine a personal inclination to some work and the general aim of looking for the kingdom of God: "Happy is a man who combined his sweetheart working with the general one" [Skovoroda, 1994: 116]. So that the general calling is what everyone obligated to and the personal calling is what an individual able to fulfill. We would add 2 more virtues and vices that are important or harmful for calling. The virtues are love and wisdom. The vices are laziness and fear. Virtues can help to get a balance in our life. Vices prevent from fulfillment our calling.

To sum up the ethical part, calling itself has a transpersonal benefit as its aim. Therefore, the external to individualistic point of view on calling is possible and necessary. That is why there is a room for an ethical reflection about calling,

5. Calling in the practice of teaching

Teaching as a calling

Teaching is not entirely a dynastic profession. Although every 2 of 3 students in our target survey who said that they feel a calling for teaching were from pedagogic families, at least 1 of 3 came from the other surrounding. Teaching is not a destiny. It is a calling. Why calling is so important for teaching? Because on teacher"s work depends the future generations of people. Teacher is involved in a twofold process of "1) education as a purposeful cognitional activity of gaining knowledge, abilities, and skills and their improvement, 2) upbringing as a purposeful methodical forming of proper features of a person..." [Beregova, 2016: 36] The result is a social maturity, responsibility, creativity of young people. For the development of the personality of pupils a kind of caring is expected from teachers. It is impossible without an internal motivation of calling.

Calling requires self-development from a teacher and makes him or her able to develop youth, otherwise a teacher is a cause of degradation and lost interest of pupils to study. As for every other profession, for teaching is true what our interviewee-students stated. For example, Jane said: "The work in calling is creating and the work without calling is ruining of oneself and others." Mary reasoned: "By calling one brings harmony. One acts with love." John noted that, "working by calling one gets moral satisfaction, joy and gives the same to the others."

Calling is responding. A called person is responsible for the profession and for the others who involved in it, teacher is responsible for pupils. Let us get again to our students" opinions. Daria: "If I become a good teacher, it means that I will realize my calling and I will have a responsibility for my profession and for the children." Faina said: "We do not need even to say "calling" when we mean responsibility, ability to do something really good and to overcome difficulties. That is just a human life." Is it enough to be just a responsible professional without a calling for teaching? Not at all! Our interviewees would not agree that calling is no use at schools.

Do we have to demand any evidences of calling from teachers? Formally, we do not need such a requirement. Fortunately, there is a kind of natural selection at schools: not so many teachers can stand the difficulties of the profession without a calling. Those who see that they are not happy with that job usually quit teaching after the first years of practice. It is a common response from teachers we interviewed: teaching without a calling cannot be an attracting