The article seeks to substantiate the thesis of the necessity of divided apprehension of political and private morals. Proceeding from Hegel’s philosopho-historical conception, the author argues that the phenomena of politics and of morals pronouncedly differ by their substantial, as well as functional particulars. Whereas the essence of morals consists in the unshakeability of norms and values established once and for all and aimed at taming the egoistic nature of man, in politics it is not the ideal, but the interest that figures as the constant. In O.V.Gaman-Golutvina’s opinion, it is conformity with national-state interests that proves to be the criterion of morality in politics. While admitting that either in politics the end does not entirely justifies the means, she at the same time stresses that for determining the degree of morality of the means, adequate procedures are, after all, required, too. According to her conclusion, political, as distinct from “private” morals, are situational and do not admit a priori judgments. What is violence, which is its admissible measure, how its redemption is possible, — only in a concrete context may these questions be answered.