The Wider The Choice,
The Greater The Responsibility
The Balance Between Selfishness And Altruism
In Daily School Life
Angela Gastager
The main purpose of the following articlei is to ask for teachers’ decision-making in
prosocial moral dilemmas on the one hand, and on the other hand to ask generally if it is
appropriate for teachers to bring their own values into the classroom at all (Damon).
The different social conflicts arise from conflicting values. A realistic teaching dilemma
will be discussed. In the narrative, the protagonist believes two things must be done; one
for personal reasons and one for his or her students. What determines a moral
consideration and what should the arrangements for making decisions in certain
situations be? Facets of authenticity concerning teachers’ judgments will be discussed.
There are many simultaneous values and goals, therefore internal plurality of values will
also be discussed (Patry). The internal tension between selfish and altruistic demands
(McClintock/ van Avermaet) requires a balance between interests specific to the
individual and those of others in many different situations in daily life, and a solution in
search of “justice as fairness“ (Rawls) as the most acceptable. Ideal forms of changing
the roles in a democratic discourse of all involved individuals are a cry for sympathy
without being required to ask the question “Why should I not be permitted to do
something good for me?“ In professional teachers’ consideration, it seems to be difficult
to claim. In this context, one has to discuss some conditions which enhance the
development of a so-called altruistic personality (Hunt). Some of the social influences
will also be mentioned (Staub). How do teachers react to the dilemma between duty and
personal needs? Some of the results of the conferenceii will also be presented.
About a month ago I had a discussion with the father of a 14 year old girl and a 17 year old
boy. I listened very attentively to his stories concerning his daily dilemmas at home. Should he
decide in favor of his children? What is the amount of freedom he and his wife should grant
them? At once I compared his dilemmas with teaching experiences I had some years ago.
From the moment I entered school until I left I was almost permanently tense. The world in
which teachers, pupils, and - indirectly - parents are connected to one another is a living and
dynamic human community where decisions must be taken (see Oser & Patry, 1994, p. 6048)
and norms clash. What should be done? It is primarily the task of the teacher responsible to
make decisions quickly which are in agreement with his/ her own values. In all the varied
situations in daily school life, (s)he cannot escape from making decisions. Therefore
responsibility is demanded.
1. Introduction
Ann’s trilemma: Betty, a student who is in the 6th year of secondary school is very bad at
Mathematics. Her last test takes place tomorrow. If she fails again, she will have to repeat the
class. Her maths teacher, Ann, knows this and could help her by working with her in extra
lessons during the afternoon. However, at the same time, she ought to be earning extra money
by teaching 10 children in her private dance group. She earns 70 ECUs for this. This same
afternoon, her best friend has arranged a birthday party in a cottage in the mountains. The
friends invited will be taking a coach up to the cottage. Therefore there will be no chance for
Ann to join the group later, i.e. after helping Betty or teaching the dance group.
This relatively realistic story requires that a decision be made in a short period of time.
Being confronted with three different choices, what should Ann do? A central consideration
could be “Is Ann primarily committed to helping the student, or is she also entitled to fulfill
her personal needs? And why?“ Is the response “Yes, I’ll help my student without any
question of ‘What will I receive for my unselfish help?’“ appropriate? What about the
contrary „Why should I not be permitted to do something good for myself?“ Considerations
such as these are important in a teacher’s daily life.
In general, questions like these cannot be reduced as relating to people of a certain culture,
or of a certain age or developing stage. Questions like these are moral questions and play an
important role in every kind of human system: in the family, in the relationship between two
life-partners, in school, in a political party and in a learning group, etc. To consider questions
like these is in agreement with considering moral activity as a basic human need (see Heller,
1975, quoted from: Gronemeyer, 1988, p. 84). Here the human concept is a holistic one,
which means that there is equivalence between physiological and psychosocial needs.
In Ann’s trilemma the protagonist has several choices, which means that there are several
conflicting values. This trilemma for the teacher is both difficult and challenging, because
there are three values emerging from this conflict. Each value is one that she wants to consider
(approach). Responsibility in making a triple-faceted decision like this is greater than in a
conflict in which only two values conflict. “The wider the choice, the greater the
responsibility“ (Lukas, 1989, pp. 79ff, my translation).
The choice is always between two or more conflicting values. This is characteristic in
responsibility: the values are attractive, positive and exclusive of each other. Additionally,
responsibility will only become relevant if people do indeed have a choice. Both are
applicable in Ann’s case.
2. Values in the classroom
2.1 Teaching and values
It is commonly accepted that teaching has a moral dimension. But nevertheless there is a
curious ambivalence in the profession concerning a teacher’s proper stance on moral issues.
The following chapter is based on Damon’s article “Teaching as a Moral Craft and
Developmental Expedition“. Damon began his seminars by asking the following general
question: “Is it appropriate for teachers to bring their values into the classroom at all?“ A wide
range of opinion and disagreement is provoked. But in many discussions of teaching-goals,
Damon found strong consensus that teaching should foster - if nothing else - tolerance and
critical thinking. “Within our educational culture, these two goals are so widely accepted and
are rarely questioned that I often have trouble getting teachers to see them as values at all“
(Damon, 1992, p. 140). He expresses his astonishment about many teachers seeing a
commitment to absolute tolerance in the classroom as perfectly consistent with the belief that
teachers should not allow their values to affect their classroom judgments and behavior.
Teachers often show a tendency to place the goal of critical thinking in a kind of natural
metacategory outside the realm of values, as if there were no rational choice to be made in the
matter. Since critical thinking is seen as an objective procedure for subjecting choices to the
tests of reason and truth, it is not usually seen as itself being subject to evaluation (see Damon,
1992, p. 140f).
How can ethical dilemmas be managed in the classroom, is a further important question
asked Damon. Ethical dilemmas frequently arise in the classroom in contexts that are not part
of the immediate teacher-student relationship. For example, students may have conflicts with
one another, or they may report on other moral problems that they have experienced, in school
or out. Moreover, in schools where moral education is explicitly part of the educational
agenda, ethical dilemmas may be presented directly to students for purposes of analysis and
reflection (see Damon, 1992, p. 145). “The question of how (or even whether) to express
one’s own values in the classroom troubles many teachers” (Lyons, 1990, quoted from:
Damon, 1992, p. 145).
Some field have standards operating metaphors, such as teaching as a fine art, teaching as
an expert profession, and teaching as an applied science. According to Tom many of these
standard operating metaphors are leading educators astray. He proposes the „moral craft“
metaphor as an antidote to the misconceived standards by which a teacher’s work is being
guided and judged (see Tom, 1984, quoted from: Damon, 1992, p. 139). Teaching is
fundamentally a practical activity directed by explicit or implicit values.
2.2 Intrapersonal plurality of values
In his article “One person - several values; some considerations about intrapersonal plurality
of values” Patry (1997) says that there are several or many factors which are occasioning a
protagonist to a certain action. That means that an act is not caused by one argument but rather
by several arguments and adequate values.
In most situations the reasons for concrete action are not mentioned or explained, not even
if it would be necessary to justify one’s behavior. There are many reasons for our actions.
Each person - and in this context especially teachers - wants to reach several goals and values.
One has many simultaneous values, so that we speak about the plurality of values within a
person. Men look out for different simultaneous goals. In our social behavior we try to reach
justice and utility for ourselves at the same time. In education, teachers always recognise
several goals (see Patry, 1997, pp. 64ff, my translation).
Dilemmas can be very different types of situations with different characteristics of norms.
For example, at school, teachers are very often in the following dilemma-situation: “Do I have
to give up my own interests or needs in order to help my students?“ However, not satisfying
one’s needs results in frustration. Can one require this from a teacher? If I neglect my own
needs often the so called „Burn-out-Syndrome” may possibly be the consequence.
Patry supposes that people who are able take responsibility for a longer time “live” a
certain “healthy selfishness”; probably the balancing between altruistic and selfish interests is
much easier for them than for others. The demand for „psycho-hygiene” arises. But in which
dose would it be appropriate? How is it made acceptable? Not too much and not too little. It
can be expressed in other words, “the mesotical principle”. In ethics one often speaks about
the middle (according to Aristotle). “The good“ is valid as the right measure between two
extremes, for instance sincerity between overstatement and irony, justice between grudge and
malicious joy. Especially justice is an important virtue for a community (see Kunzmann et al.,
1995, p. 51, my translation).
2.3 Justice as primary value
Among values, “justice as fairness“ seems to be central. According to Hunt three norms or
moral principles determine altruism (see Hunt, 1992, pp. 73f, my translation):
* reciprocity: all forms of cooperation and interchangeable help
* help or social responsibility: help for those who depend on you
* fairness: It is a kind of summary of several norms advocating equality, humanity and
justice.
In the seventies the US-American philosopher Rawls developed a theory of justice. He says
that a reasonable man and a complete member of a liberal and democratic society (he adds in
1992) strives for social basic goods. They are proposed in a kind of list including the social
basis of persons’ self-reliance (see Koller, 1994, pp. 85ff, my translation). Justice as fairness
is the most acceptable solution in search of a balance between selfishness and altruism. The
claim of an ideal change of roles for all people involved requires the ability to express
sympathy in different forms and helps to prepare for a democratic discourse. Rawls supposes
that people want to contribute to an equality of chances within a society and among all
members of the society. A minimal individual obligation for social cooperation is the
consequence (see Ganthaler, 1995, pp. 84f, my translation). In the classroom, teachers as well
as pupils, “should practice“ justice in realistic dilemma-discussions.
3. Selfish and altruistic demands
3.1 Definition of altruism - the internal tension
„Altruism“ is a very complex issue. For an appropriate discussion, a clear definition of the
term “prosocial“ is required. Staub defines a positive or prosocial act as an act which furthers
the wellbeing of others (see Staub, 1982, p.1, my translation). Human beings have to
overcome their selfish interests in order to favour the development of caring and acting for
others (according to Comte, 1875).
What is altruism? McClintock and van Avermaet propose a definition of altruism which
shows the internal tension between selfishness and altruism visually (see figure 1) and can be
considered in this manner: „If one supposes that the values of an actor are consistent over a
longer time and one supposes that these values reflect a linear combination of ’payments’ to
‘ego’ and ‘alter’, then social values can be represented as utility function, which is constituted
by linear vectors“ (McClintock & van Avermaet, 1982, quoted from: Harbach, 1992, p. 82,
my translation).
utility to „alter“
cooperation
individualism
utility to „ego“
Figure 1: vectors defining a part of social values (modified after McClintock &
van Avermaet, 1982, quoted from: Harbach, 1992, p. 83, my translation)
3.2 The teacher as an altruistic personality
3.2.1 Characteristics
Which characteristics does an altruistic personality have? It is possible to draw a picture of an
altruistic personality in childhood and adulthood according to Hunts’ results and examples
(see Hunt, 1992, pp. 117ff, my translation):
* Mood in general: Adults in a positive mood usually are more prosocial than adults in a bad
mood which includes that happy people are more prosocial than unhappy.
* Empathy: Independent of their mood children and adults, who have a good sense for the
feelings of others, are more likely to be altruistic.
* Popularity: Popular children and adults are very helpful in general, which is an expression
of some kind of need for connecting with others, outsiders are probably less helpful.
* Self-concept: Persons having a high emotional value for their ego are more altruistic than
persons with a low one. A positive image of oneself has the effect of a positive connection
to others.
* Attitude towards other people: Adults with a positive image of men are more helpful than
others. That is the so called prosocial orientation (Staub). It is a combination of positive
attitude towards other people, care for their well-being and feelings of responsibility.
* Moral standards: Internal moral norms are integral (consistence) for prosocial orientation
and an altruistic personality.
The possibility that men with altruistic moral standards, are also altruistic in their way of
acting, is very high.
3.2.2 Conditions of the development of an altruistic personality and social influences
Some special influences seem to enhance personal characteristics of children which raise the
probability for prosocial acting. Staub designs a system of coordinates which enhances a
prosocial orientation (see figure 2).
categories of
influences on children
1.socialization through
parents (adults)
a) quality and style of
interaction; warmth and
affection, effective control, rational arguments
for the child
b) aspects with regard
to the contents: demonstrated acting, induction
2.natural socialization,
participation in prosocial activities
3.socialization through
the peer-group
4.environmental conditions, grade of structuring kind of rules,
distribution of the
authority and other
aspects
principles of learning
and developing
1.conditioning: punishment
consequences or
I.characteristics of a
personality
1.orientation of values
and
affective orientations
2.identification
2.specific values,
standards
3.loosening a cognitive
imbalance or a
cognitive discrepancy
4.learning by observation
3.convictions and
valuations of persons,
events and situations
4.tendencies of
perception, sympathetic
understanding, speed in
defining events
results
II.acting: the function of
a personality’s different
characteristics and
situative circumstances
5.opening of qualities
5.self-respect
of the own person (selfperception) and of the
environment
6.competencies, locus
of control, plans and
strategies, specific
competencies
1.-3.: personal aims
Figure 2: coordinates which enhance a prosocial orientation
(according to Staub, 1982, p. 303, my translation)
4. Conflicting values
4.1 Conflict types
Based on Dollard and Miller’s conflict types; approach-approach, approach-avoidance, and
avoidance-avoidance (see Patry, 1997, p. 67), we distinguish “approach values“ and
“avoidance values“. In the former, the high value lies in doing something, in the latter in notdoing something.
The character of the conflict is inherent in the different values. A compromise never is
possible.
* Avoidance-avoidance: A person has to decide on two or more values which she or he does
not want in reality or does not approach, for instance the „Corea dilemma“ (see Oser &
Althof, 1992, p. 199).
* Approach-avoidance: The famous „Heinz-dilemma” by Kohlberg (see Oser & Althof, 1992,
pp. 171f) is an example where an approaching value (He wants the medicine for his wife.)
and an avoiding value (Heinz will be punished for steeling the medicine.) clash.
* Approach-approach: Two or more values which a person wants, wishes, or desires, conflict.
While most dilemmas in the ethics literature are approach-avoidance or avoidanceavoidance conflicts, teacher Ann’s problem is an approach-approach-conflict, or even an
approach-approach-approach trilemma.
4.2. Analysis of an approach-approach-approach trilemma
Remembering Ann’s trilemma, which was presented in the introduction, in the following
chapter the results of the group-discussions (see figure 3) of the conference will be presented.
Questions of the trilemma-discussions:
1. What should Ann do? Why?
2. Is there an obligation to help her student in her spare-time?
3. Is the private birthday party more important than the extra lessons or the dancinggroup?
4. Ought teachers in general try to enhance their students’ ability in learning? Why or
why not?
4.3 Aspects of an authentic teachers’ decision-making
The use of different facets of teachers’ decision-making are possible and necessary in the
following proposed steps.
* In situations of choice you cannot flee from decision making and balancing; you have to
consider all your possibilities.
* In situations of choice it is very important that you do not balance and consider a very long
time. You have to get used to it.
After recognizing the meaningful decision you have to decide at once, although it is risky. In
the process of balancing one can find an astonishing parallel to a situation which concerns
justice (see Lukas, 1989, pp. 82f, my translation).
What do authenticity and responsibility mean? Two main ideas, which can be trained and
practiced in teachers’ decision-making, are proposed by Längle:
* “To be responsible means to play a certain role. It is the place, where I am important, where
I am acting. In this sense freedom is the basis for responsibility.
* Freedom and responsibility are connected and cannot be divided“ (Längle, 1991, pp. 84f,
my translation).
Results of the trilemma-discussions
1st group
1. - no point in helping just
before test
- friendship is very important
- money is not all in life
+last exam is important
+ pupil will be very grateful
2. part of responsibility
schooling
is
not
about
competition
reference norms are criterial
norms
discrimination
parents complaints
2nd group
1. Ann could try to see the
problem,
find
a
new
perspective/ solution (e.g. other
children could help her before
the test.).
3rd group
1. help the pupil
...because the time is now
...responsibility of the teacher
...last exam
(no consensus)
2. Betty has some responsibility 2. No, not obligated, because
of her own.
spare-time is very important for
the teacher.
She is a human being besides
being a teacher.
3. same importance - depends
on situations
(personal emotional feeling)
4. It is the main task of a
teacher: „School is the place to
learn success in learning.“
Figure 3: Results of the trilemma-discussions of the conference ( means that Ann should
study with the pupil and + means that Ann should not study with the pupil.)
5. Conclusions
Often teachers have more freedom and more opportunities than they believe. Teachers have to
take the consequences. In teacher-training, two kinds of preparations are possible and
necessary:
* The general type of preparation or the central question “What can I do in a dilemmasituation?“
* And second, the problems of teachers are always the same “What can I do, when it happens
again?“
So teachers and students have to be prepared for quick decision-making; but to figure out the
relevant features of a situation takes time. Decision-making under a time constraint therefore
demands the decider to be consciencious about potential problems even before the critical
situation occurs.
In daily school life, especially in situations concerning the internal tension between selfish
and altruistic demands of a teacher and a student, teachers have to be aware of the specific
conditions of each situation. Maximum perception of the many different factors and
coordinates of a situation is a visionary goal. But one might as well try.
References
Damon, W. (1992). Teaching as a moral craft and developmental expedition. In: F. Oser, A. Dick, & J.-L. Patry
(Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching: The New Synthesis (pp. 139-153). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ganthaler, H. (1995). Ethik in einer pluralistischen Gesellschaft (Ethics in a pluralistic society). In: I. Hodovsky
& P. Zima (Eds.), Svobodna spolecnost-svobodna moralka. Freie Gesellschaft - freie Moral. Der
Wertpluralismus und die ethische Verantwortung (pp. 81-85). Olomouc: Pedagogicke fakulte UP v Olomouci.
Gronemeyer, M. (1988). Die Macht der Bedürfnisse. Reflexionen über ein Phantom (The power of needs.
Reflections on a phantom). Reinbek/ Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Harbach, H. (1992). Altruismus und Moral (Altruism and morality). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hunt, M. (1992). Das Rätsel der Nächstenliebe: der Mensch zwischen Egoismus und Altruismus (The
compassionate beast). Frankfurt - New York: Campus.
Koller, P. (1994). Soziale Güter und soziale Gerechtigkeit (Social goods and social justice). In: H.-J. Koch, M.
Köhler, & K. Seelmann (Eds.), Theorien der Gerechtigkeit (Theories of justice). 15. Tagung der deutschen
Sektion der internationalen Vereinigung für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie (pp. 79-104). Stuttgart: Steiner.
Kunzmann, P., Burkard, F.-P., Wiedmann, F. (19955). Philosophisches Lexikon (Philosophical lexicon).
München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Längle, A. (1991). Sinnvoll leben (Living meaningfully). Wien: Verlag Niederösterreichisches Pressehaus.
Lukas, E. (1989). Psychologische Vorsorge. Krisenprävention und Innenweltschutz aus logotherapeutischer
Sicht (Psychological prevention for crisis and protection for inner life in logotherapeutical perspectives).
Freiburg/ Breisgau: Herder.
Oser, F., Althof, W. (1992). Moralische Selbstbestimmung. Modelle der Entwicklung und Erziehung im
Wertebereich (Moral self-determination. Models of development and education in the field of values).
Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Oser, F., Patry, J.-L. (1994). Teacher responsibility. In: L. Anderson (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of
education, 2nd edition, volume „Teacher education“ (pp. 6048-6053). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Patry, J.-L. (1997). Eine Person - mehrere Werte. Überlegungen zum intrapersonalen Wertpluralismus (One
person - several values. Some considerations about intrapersonal plurality of values). Pädagogische
Rundschau, 51, 63-81.
Staub, E. (1982). Entwicklung prosozialen Verhaltens. Zur Psychologie der Mitmenschlichkeit (Positive social
behavior and morality). München-Wien-Baltimore: Urban und Schwarzenberg.
i
In: J.-L. Patry & J. Lethovaara (Eds.) 1998, Teacher ethics and responsibility, Tampere: University of Tampere
Press, 63-74.
ii
Conference on Teacher Ethics, Tampere/ FIN: May 1996.