Debating Morality and Education
Debating Morality and Education
Brian Sheehan and Sylvia Keroles
Loyola Marymount University
Dr. Binfet
Education 501
June 19, 2003
1
Debating Morality and Education
2
Introduction
The debate about teaching morals to children in public schools is on the rise. The issues
regarding moral and ethical education are diverse and extremely controversial. This paper will
offer a point of view about whether moral education should be part of public school curriculum.
Literature will be reviewed based on positions for and against moral education in public schools.
Other issues that will be explored include how moral education should be defined, can and
should morality be decontextualized, and does moral education necessitate religious or spiritual
instruction. These issues will be related to the scenario of Mr. Rivera, a 5th grade teacher in a
local public school, who has been accused of overstepping his boundaries when asking his
students to explore reasons for being honest. This paper will recommend concrete and practical
strategies related to Mr. Rivera’s situation. Obstacles that may prevent the implementation of
these suggested strategies will also be addressed.
Review of Literature
All of the sources that were reviewed agree that morality can be taught in schools. The
key questions are whether it should be, how it should be, and whether it will ultimately be
effective. This section will review the conflicting arguments in the literature regarding the role
of morality education in public schools. These arguments can be placed in three distinct
categories: those for, those against, and those that posit an indirect approach (i.e., students learn
morality in school without being taught it per se). In discussing the arguments for moral
education the positions of four important figures, who have influenced many of the arguments
fundamentally, will be reviewed. They are: Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, John Dewey, and
John Wilson.
Debating Morality and Education
3
Beyond his famous stages of child development, cognitive developmentalist Jean Piaget
outlined a constructivist theory of children’s moral development in The Moral Judgment of the
Child. In this work, Piaget “offered rich descriptions of how children’s increased awareness of
others’ perspectives moves them from a morality of duty and obligation to a morality of
cooperation and mutual respect” (Cummings & Harlow, 2000, p.300). Piaget (1997) suggested
the best way to observe this cooperation and mutual respect was to watch children as they played
with peers. Using the example of a game of marbles, which has an “extremely complex system
of rules…a code of laws, a jurisprudence of its own” (p.14), Piaget determined whether the
children’s reasoning about the rules was heteronymous (rules based on acceptance of adult
authority) or autonomous (rules based on consensus among peers). He concluded that the more
children interact with peers the more they gain the tools of autonomous moral reasoning. In other
words, they gain an understanding of equality, mutual respect, etc., as separate from the rules of
authority figures (Cummings & Harlow, 2000). Cummings & Harlow (2000) speak for many
cognitive developmentalists when they say: “Piaget’s constructivist theory of the development of
moral reasoning holds promise as a foundation for formal education” (p.300). The Piagetan
model of moral education includes teaching core values, but goes beyond this to encourage
children to question authority and to promote the dialogue and interaction that will help them
discover mutual respect and autonomy (Cummings & Harlow, 2000). Piaget’s views are widely
used to argue for morality education in public schools.
Lawrence Kohlberg (1975) built on Piaget’s early work regarding children’s construction
of morality. Using a method similar to Piaget’s stages of child development, Kohlberg suggested
a theory of moral reasoning based on three levels and six stages, whereby children progress
through preconventional (based on personal needs and others’ rules), conventional (based on
Debating Morality and Education
4
others’ approval, expectations, or values), and postconventional moral reasoning (based on social
contracts and individual principles). Kohlberg’s theory has been the basis for a number of
programs aimed at moral education. His ideas, coming on the heels of the social justice
movement, led to moral development becoming “a major topic in psychological textbooks and
found its way into the school in many guises, such as ‘value clarification’ curriculums [sic]”
(Elkind, 2001, p. 12). Like Piaget’s work, Kohlberg’s theory is often used as a basis of argument
for morality education in schools. It is important to note that Kohlberg’s work has been widely
criticized, even by those who agree with its descriptions of moral reasoning, in part “because the
stages do not seem in reality to be separate, sequenced, and consistent” (Woolfolk, 2001, p. 79).
Therefore, there are a number of alternatives to his theory that are used in support of Piaget’s
principles and/or of cognitive developmental approaches to morality education in public schools.
In 1908, John Dewey argued in Theory of the Moral Life that a science of morality could
be created that would stand alongside the working theories of the standard academic sciences
(McCarthy, 1999). Stated simply, Dewey believed that morality was a legitimate and necessary
academic subject that could be derived scientifically and empirically, borrowing from many
sources of data. Dewey (1908) argued that scientific data on morality could be found, for
example, in “more consciously elaborated material of legal history, judicial decisions and
legislative activity” (p.23). These sources could, with objectivity, help us define what is good or
bad for society. To Dewey, “the objective status of value judgments [was] critical, for without
such an objectivity in morality, no intelligent guidance of human conduct is possible”
(McCarthy, 1999, p. 344). Dewey’s arguments present a powerful, if often elusive argument for
morality education, precisely because it envisions an objective moral analysis.
Debating Morality and Education
5
John Wilson’s writings on morality are multiple and varied. Between his early writings
and later writings (and even within some of the same writings) his definition of morality
changes. Wilson is consistent, however, in that he believes morality has two foci. The first is
the state of the individual (i.e., the state of the human soul). The second is the state of society
(i.e., the politics of living and flourishing together) (Haydon, 2000). While Wilson is primarily
concerned with personal morality, his views have been used to support ideas for moral education
as divergent as teaching religion in public schools and teaching basic citizenship to help people
live better together.
There are a number of arguments against morality education in public schools. Two of
the most common will be reviewed. The first is that morality cannot be clearly defined or agreed
by society. This view asserts that morality is an ambiguous concept. This makes any attempt at
moral education a purely subjective exercise. In other words, “people are not held together by
any kind of moral consensus. They are held together by their capacity to understand moral
values different than their own” (Ignatieff, 1998, p. 72). The emphasis is on our moral
differences versus our moral similarities. The second common argument against morality
education is concisely outlined by Elkind (2000/2001): “Character education programs are
almost sure to fail in their intended aims. They are ineffectual because they attempt to use
schools to solve problems that originate elsewhere” (p.16). Versions of this argument range
from the belief that classroom practices cannot change the outside world to the belief that moral
knowledge does not lead to moral behavior. Elkind (2000/2001) also asserts that: “In fact,
character education can be counterproductive if it merely adds to a teacher’s already heavy
curricular workload” (p. 17).
Debating Morality and Education
6
One view that avoids the polemics of “for” or “against” is based on what we will call
indirect moral education. This argument states “character and a kind of moral sensibility can be
learned indirectly in a high-school setting” (Williams, Yanchar, Jensen, & Lewis, 2003, p.24).
An excellent example of this principle in action comes from a recently published, multi-year
analysis of a successful character education program tested with public high school students.
The program is known as United Studies. This program “identifies and supports teachers who
are able to model creativity and caring, while using a variety of settings and experiences to help
students learn from naturally occurring character lessons” (William, et al, 2003, p. 2). The
success of United Studies is intriguing because it highlights the moral educational benefits of
supporting good teaching methods, and shows the positive moral effects of both modeling and
ecological changes in the learning environment. Some specifics of United Studies are worth
outlining here:
United Studies is an integrated educational program involving…activities associated with the
natural environment. The environment is our curriculum—mountains, lakes, streams, and deserts
are our classrooms. Real learning must be an active process; consequently, we learn by doing.
United Studies stresses natural learning techniques. Student involvement in quality activities is
the foundation of the learning process. Real learning occurs more consistently and rapidly when
the student is dealing with real objects, real problems, real situations, rather than contrived
problems. (Lewis & Hatch, 1991, p. 1)
Further support for the power of indirect techniques to foster morality in schools occurs in
Woolfolk (2001), specifically with regard to modeling: “[An] important influence on the
development of good moral behavior is modeling. Children who have been consistently exposed
to caring, generous adult models will tend to be more concerned for the rights and feelings of
others” (p. 82).
Debating Morality and Education
7
There is no dearth of opinions for and against morality education in public schools.
Opinions of how it can be done, and where in the curriculum it might fit, are equally numerous.
What is the Definition of Morality?
In order to recommend for or against morality in public school education, the
fundamental need is to have a working definition of morality. There is little consensus on an
exact definition in the literature. The dictionary tells us that one definition of morality is
“conformity to the ideals of right human conduct.” However, in the context of education,
opinions of its meaning are as varied as opinions for or against its application in schools. John
Wilson has argued “before we can make any reasonable approach to moral education…we have
to be clear what it is we are trying to educate people in” (Haydon, 2000, p. 355). Morality means
different things to different people. Different sources in the literature state morality equals
character, or values, or ethics, or conduct, or even the state of the human soul.
We believe a broad definition of morality is most useful, a definition that looks for
common ground among the various beliefs and descriptors, especially in terms of morality’s
impact on the society at large. We agree with Haydon (2000) that morality is essentially a social
institution perpetrated by the decisions of individuals. Specifically, we define morality as an
individual’s ability to differentiate right from wrong, and act accordingly, in society. Our
definition of morality is consistent with Lickona (1999), whose perspective on character
education states: “Good character consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the
good-habits of the mind, habits of the heart and habits of behavior” (p.77). Our choice of the
words “right” and “wrong” is deliberate, as opposed to more analytical terms such as “good” and
“bad.” This puts us at odds with John Dewey, for example, who would fault the use of such
terms as being subjective, unscientific, and perhaps hinting at spirituality (McCarthy, 1999). We
Debating Morality and Education
8
agree with Dewey that moral education can be enhanced by scientific analysis of what is good
and bad for a given society; however, we do not want to ignore the individual and their
conscience. We believe morality is about acting in society’s best interests, but with the
individual having emotional equity in doing what he/she thinks is right or wrong. The individual
who consistently tries to do the right thing, in all aspects of behavior, can be said to have
character, act ethically, have strong values, and be moral in the broadest sense of the word.
Can Morality be Decontextualized?
With a working definition of morality, the nature of morality can now be explored. Does
morality imply a shared set of universal and immutable tenets that all people should live by, or is
it more contextual? In other words, are moral values concrete truths or are they contingent on
the points-of-view of individuals and/or the society in which they occur? Two schools of
thought on contextual morality are subjectivism and cultural relativism. Subjectivists claim that
morality is defined by each individual. If a person believes something is right, it is. If they
believe something is wrong, it is. Cultural relativism, on the other hand, claims that morality is
defined by the culture one grows up in. For example, if we grew up in Saudi Arabia, it would be
morally permissible to have four wives. If we grew up in Japan, it would be morally permissible
to lie in order to save face (Schick, 1998). Our definition of morality outlined above recognizes
both the role of the individual and society; however, as we discuss morality’s role in public
schools, we believe the focus should be on the values of the society that exist for the good of the
society, and as such, define right and wrong for individuals. We support a cultural relativistic
view of moral values. Therefore, in the context of education, we believe that morality cannot be
decontextualized.
Debating Morality and Education
9
In defense of our position, we agree with Schick (1998) that subjectivism, as an ethical
theory, is weak. It implies that we can never act immorally. Moral discourse is, therefore,
impossible. This is why “there are probably fewer subjectivists among professional ethicists
than there are creationists among professional biologists” (Schick, 1998, p. 1). We disagree with
Schick, however, that there is a concrete form of morality that can be defined by self-evident
truths of logic. What is self-evident to one group of people is not so self evident to others. For
example, the self-evident truths outlined in the Declaration of Independence were not nearly so
self-evident to the British. What is important is that a given group of people held these truths to
be self-evident. Any implementation of a universal or concrete form of morality, we believe, is
nothing more than the dominant culture exercising its control over the society at large. It is an
exercise in power.
To be precise, our view of the nature of moral values could perhaps better be called
societal relativism. Our view focuses on the needs of the larger society, versus any specific
culture. We do this because there is no way to define a society’s culture, since each member of a
society belongs to many different cultures at the same time. Society is a negotiation between
many cultures. In any American school, kids from the same neighborhood, and often the same
ethnic background, sit next to other kids who have more cultural differences than similarities, be
they religious, gender, economic, etc. To us, societal relativism is about a given society
identifying the salient moral commonalities among its different cultures. That these
commonalities exist, we are sure. In American society, for example, it is generally accepted that
stealing is morally bad. Whether some microcultures believe it is wrong because it breaks one of
the Ten Commandments, while others might feel it undermines the right to own property, is
irrelevant. The moral dilemma of the druggist’s wife as outlined by Woolfolk (2001) in our text
Debating Morality and Education
10
highlights the cogency of this argument. The dilemma is so oft presented precisely because it is
generally accepted that stealing is wrong, thereby creating the moral conflict. In the words of
Damon: “The challenge for pluralistic societies will be to find enough common ground to
communicate the shared standards that the young need” (p. 78).
Does Moral Education Necessitate Religious or Spiritual Instruction?
Our definition of morality is the ability to differentiate right from wrong and to act
accordingly in society. Therefore, we believe that morality in education does not necessitate
religious or spiritual instruction. This is because there is a significant difference in the way
morality is taught in public versus private schools. For example, Catholic schools focus more on
teaching students to love their religion and help them to model behavior based on the lessons
from the Bible. “Character development in the Catholic school involves much more than
teaching children to obey rules and to avoid wrongdoing. A major emphasis should always be
on nurturing goodness and the contributions that virtuous life can make to personal happiness
and spiritual fulfillment” (Cronin, 1999. p. 11). The focus of Catholic schools is that they will
learn spiritual fulfillment and change the lives of children in meaningful ways. Consequently,
the focus of Catholic school curriculum is not on moral issues or dilemmas, but on reaching out
to children with love, compassion and forgiveness, thus setting the standard for Christian
behavior. This is fundamentally different from the role of moral and character education in
public schools. We believe that the role of moral education in public schools can be nonspiritual and non-religious, concerned for the individual’s impact on society, rather than personal
spiritual fulfillment. Surprisingly, some people who express the strongest views regarding faith
also believe there are values that we as a society have in common, values that can be taught in
public schools. President George W. Bush for example states:
Debating Morality and Education
11
We’ve got to recognize in our society that strong values are shared by good people of different faiths, and
good people of no faith at all. These are universal values, values we sharing in all our diversity: Respect,
tolerance, responsibility, honesty, self-restraint, family commitment, civic duty, fairness, and compassion.
Response to Scenario Question
We believe that moral education can be taught objectively in public schools. We have
supported this by asserting the following: 1) A social definition of morality leads directly to
common social values that can be taught and learned in public schools; 2) Morality is contextual,
allowing specific societies to have common, agreed, and negotiated relative morality; 3) Moral
education can occur without having religious overtones or spiritual influences.
We believe that moral education should be taught in public schools. In today’s moral
climate, we feel it is necessary to coordinate an effort to build moral education and character.
Our overriding reason is that we are deeply concerned that the insidious nature of modern society
works to undermine the character of our children. According to Cronin (1999) for example:
Today’s moral climate calls for an intensive and coordinated effort build character. The breakdown of the
family, the corrosive influence of sex and violence in the entertainment, sports, and advertising industries,
and the distorted view of success in our society that exalts material gain, self-interest, and self-satisfaction
present great threats to the character of our children (p.10).
We agree with the statement: “Diligence, courage and honesty are not virtues which belong to
one or another race, one or another religion, one or another culture” (Boston University, 2003).
It is crucial for public schools to include teaching moral education to children. These efforts
towards character building and making moral decisions are the responsibility of the community
at large.
Teaching moral education in public schools will allow children to grow up and to be responsible
participants in a complex and diverse society. We are accountable to guide these children to
Debating Morality and Education
12
self-rule and mutual respect. Therefore, parents should be supporting public schools to include
moral education in their curriculum.
In the scenario of Mr. Rivera, who is being accused of overstepping his boundaries while
having his class explore reasons for being honest, we believe Mr. Rivera should continue to
explore these issues but should use caution when addressing them in the classroom. Mr. Rivera
should be specific in defining his purpose for the moral lessons and in discussing character
education. He should make sure his students understand the motives for these discussions and be
sure they are well distinguished from any religious affiliations or have any spiritual overtones.
Mr. Rivera can take some concrete and practical strategies to establish a secure and safe
environment in his classroom. Mr. Rivera should establish some clear guidelines for himself and
his students. These guidelines should include how issues should be discussed among the class
and define what comments are appropriate. It is also appropriate to maintain respect for the
teacher and students.
There are also several tactics that Mr. Rivera can do to create a positive learning
environment and to prevent further accusations. Some strategies are to inform parents of what
will be discussed in class ahead of time. This can occur in several ways; Mr. Rivera can send a
copy of a syllabus home with the student at the beginning of the year or he can send monthly or
weekly topics which inform parents of the subject matter he will be discussing. Mr. Rivera can
also speak to parents at teacher to parent conferences or open houses that the school might have.
He can use this valuable time to explain his rational and reasoning for teaching moral education
and answer any concerns parent might have about this topic.
Mr. Rivera should be certain he has the support of his school administration in dealing
with moral education. Therefore, he should discuss this concern with his grade level leader and
Debating Morality and Education
13
contact his union representative. Mr. Rivera should also communicate any concerns to his vice
principal or principal.
In the event that Mr. Rivera is not allowed to teach moral lessons directly, he should look
at indirect methods to promote moral learning. Examples of these methods are promoting
democracy in the classroom (e.g., Kohlberg’s Just Community), changing the classroom
environment (e.g., United Studies) and modeling good moral values and character.
Debating Morality and Education
14
Bibliography
Boston University School of Education. (2003). The center for the advancement of ethics and
character. Retrieved June 15, 2003, from http://www.bu.edu/education/caec/
Cabral, B. (2000, Fall). Rituals & ethics—structuring participation in a theatrical mode. Stage
of the Art, 12, 20-26.
Cronin, P. (1999, August/September). Character development in the Catholic school.
Momentum, 30, 10-12.
Cummings, R. & Harlow, S. (2000, Summer). The constructivist roots of moral education. The
Educational Forum, 64, 300-307
Damon, W. (1999). The moral development of children. Scientific American, 73-78.
Elkind, D. (2000, December/2001, January). The cosmopolitan school. Educational Leadership,
58, 12-17.
Gillespie, P. (2002, November 30). Ethical illiteracy in public education. Retrieved June 15,
2003, from http:www.freepublic.com/focus/news/798482/posts
Hayden, G. (2000, September). John Wilson and the place of morality in education. Journal of
Moral Education, 29, 355-367.
Ignatieff, M. (1998, September). First loves. The New Yorker, 60-75.
Lickona, T. (1999, Winter). Character education: seven crucial issues. Action in Teacher
Education, 20, 77-84.
McCarthy, C. (1999, Summer). Dewey’s ethics: philosophy or science? Educational Theory,
49, 339-359.
Nucci, L. (1997). Moral development and character formation. In Walberg, H.J. & Haertel, G.
D., Psychology and Educational practice, 127-157. Berkeley: MacCarchan. Retrieved June 3,
2003, from http://tigger.uic.edu/-lnucci/MoralEd/articles/nuccimoaldev.html.
Schick Jr., T. (1998). Is morality a matter of taste? Why professional ethicists think that
morality is not purely “subjective”. Free Inquiry Magazine, 18. Retrieved May 27, 2003, from
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html
Williams, D., Yanchar, S., Jensen, L., & Lewis C. (2003). Character education in a public high
school: a multi-year inquiry into unified studies. Journal of Moral Education, 32, 3-33.
Woolfolk, A. (2001), Educational Psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Debating Morality and Education
15