Download Morality in Education - Midlands State University

Morality in Education
Theories of Moral development
How can morality be judged?
One view of morality is based on Kohlberg’s framework of moral reasoning. According to Kholberg, “moral judgments may
be defined as judgments of value, as social judgments, and as judgments that oblige an individual to take action.” (Glover,
1997) There are three types of reasoners in Kohlberg’s theory; preconventional, conventional, and postconventional.
Preconventional reasoners reason according to the self perspective, in that they either ignore or fail to understand social
norms, and consequently do not use them in their reasoning process. Conventional reasoners do use these social rules and
norms to guide their moral reasoning. Lastly, postconventional reasoners appreciate social rules, but do not explicitly follow
them when making moral decisions. Instead, they use the principle behind the social norm to direct their behavior.
Piaget also had a theory of moral development that is based on stages. The first stage is called heteronomous morality. In
this stage, children believe that rules are constant and that breaking them results in automatic punishment. Additionally, a
behavior that has negative consequences will be judged as bad and as deserving of punishment even if the intentions
behind the action were good. (Slavin, 2006) The second stage of morality, called autonomous morality, develops after age
10 or 12. In this stage, children base their moral judgments on the intention behind the act and not just whether there were
positive or negative consequences to follow the act. Children understand that rules are man made and that punishment is
not inevitable. (Slavin, 2006)
A third theory of moral development, called the domain theory was developed by Elliot Turiel. In this theory, a division is
made between developing ideas of morality and other areas of social knowledge. “According to domain theory, the child's
concepts of morality and social convention emerge out of the child's attempts to account for qualitatively differing forms of
social experience associated with these two classes of social events.” (Nucci, 2002) This view is different from Kohlberg’s
theory in that morality and social convention are distinct as opposed to being a single entity.
Carol Gilligan presents another theory of morality which is based on a criticism of Kohlberg’s work which focused primarily
on boys. In Gilligan’s theory, boys’ sense of morality is based on a sense of justice and people’s individual rights. On the
other hand, girls’ moral reasoning is based on issues of caring and an individual’s responsibility for other people. (Slavin,
2006)
How can these various theories be applied to real life learning situations? They can be used in morality education.
One interpretation of the purpose of moral education is, moral education should guide the students to build up the correct
outlook of the world, life and evaluation, consistently improve their socialistic consciousness so as to lay a solid foundation
for them to become a rising generation having lofty ideas, moral integrity, knowledge and culture, and observing disciplines.
(http://www.edu.cn/20010101/21779.shtml)
Morality in Education
The connection between morality and education
Why should morality be taught in schools? Throughout history, morality transmission has been present in education.
Furthermore, many people believe that there is a connection between learning academically and the development of mental
power, and the learning of moral values and the development of strength of character. The development of the intellect and
of moral character are intimately related. Just as there is an order in nature (the laws of science), in reason (the laws of
logic), and in the realm of numbers, so too is there a moral order. One thing we need to do is recover the belief that there is
a transcendent, unchanging moral order, and restore it once more to a central place in the educational process. (Nash) This
is one main reason many people believe that morality education belongs in schools. Additionally, schools are responsible for
guiding children in the step by step developmental process, and moral development or learning ethical values is a step in
the process of greater development. (Maddock, 1972) Therefore, it can be seen partly as schools’ responsibility to educate
children in morality. Another reason why character education should have a place in school curriculum is the role that
teachers play in students’ lives. Children inherently know to respect and listen to people in positions of authority. Teachers
represent an important adult authority figure in students’ lives and are therefore capable of making a huge impression upon
students. Additionally, teachers spend a large portion of the day with the students, often more than even the children’s
parents do with their kids. Therefore the teacher has ample opportunity to educate children not only in important academic
subjects, but in character and values as well. (Schafersman, 1991) Further explanations for why many insist values
education is needed in schools today are found in the increased incidence of emotional problems for adolescents, teen
suicide and murder, and unwanted pregnancy among teens.
(http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0108_Moral_education.html) “In comparison with other generations, today’s
children and youth are seemingly more lacking in decency, integrity, concern for others and morality” (Moral agendas for
children’s welfare, 2004) It is hoped that incorporating more character education into schools will help lower many of the
alarming statistics related to drug abuse, crime and emotional disorders among adolescents. The Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, a national organization concerned with curriculum development and the
improvement of teaching procedures compiled a report outlining ways to help better the current situation. They
recommended more moral education in public school curricula, the development of clear guidelines for teachers so they can
understand how to be character educators the creation of a societal and cultural atmosphere that supports moral behaviour
by having parents, schools, religious organizations, the media and all members of society working together to establish a
positive environment. Additionally, they advocated the incorporation of critical thinking and decision making skills in morality
1
education, and the use of regular assessments of the moral ambiance of schools. (http://www.forerunner.com/
forerunner/X0108_Moral_education.html)
Morality Around The World
Issues of passing along moral values to children are different in various places around the world. The diverse cultures and
variety of religions that people around the world practice have the potential to shape people’s views regarding many values,
an important one being the transmission of morality to one’s children. It has been well established by multiple studies that
people combine their moral judgment with their cultural ideologies when making decisions regarding important issues. (Rest,
Narvaez, Thoma, & Bebeau, 1999) This helps to explain why there may be such different concepts of or methods of
teaching morality in different parts of the world.
In Israel, for example, there is a visible divide between the religious and observant Jewish community and the secular
community. This separation can be seen in the homogeneity of neighbourhoods, and is also evident in the school system.
Parents in religious families choose to send their children to public religious schools, while secular families opt for public
schools with no religious focus. (Schwartzwald & Leslau, 1992) The difference between these schools is not only in the
material that is taught, but also in the values that are espoused. “Education in the non-religious school is normally framed
with a milieu of secular universal and national values, whereas that within the religious school connotes a more conservative
outlook on the personal and national planes.” (Schwartzwald & Leslau, 1992) In other words, the specific values and type of
morality that is taught, or that is in the atmosphere of the school, is different. For this reason, it is important for parents to
choose schools that reflect their beliefs and their hopes for their children.
Analysing the way in which morality is transmitted to Muslim students in Kuwait provides a new, unique view. The specific
understanding of morality in the Muslim tradition is in correspondence with the “philosophy of life in the Muslim creed that
says, “life is a gift or a trust from God who alone has the ultimate right and authority to continue or terminate it.” (Al-Ansari,
2002) As a result, religious Muslims rate this statement most highly on a list of moral standards. This view is consistent with
Stage 4: Law and Order Orientation, in Piaget’s view of morality. This stage belongs in the conventional level of morality, in
which as Slavin explains, moral judgments are no longer based on a desire for social approval. Violations of laws are not
justifiable, and laws are followed explicitly. (Slavin, 2006) This concept is very highly valued in Muslim society. Thus, it
influences the way in which Morality is taught in schools in Kuwait. This example clearly demonstrates “that moral reasoning
is partially culturally bound.” (Al-Ansari, 2002)
An examination of morality among members of the Batswana tribe in South Africa reveals interesting information as well.
Studies have shown that “the moral maturity of adolescents who continued their formal education was significantly higher
than the moral maturity of those who left school” (Rest, 1975 and Rest, Mark & Robbins, 1978 as cited by Maqsud, 1998)
This demonstrated a strong, positive relationship between education and a sense of morality. Some hypotheses regarding
morality suggest that males and females display morality in different ways. This could potentially be an issue for the
Batswana students due to tribe dynamics. However, it was found that male and female high school students did not differ in
the way they used caring or justice to solve moral dilemmas. (Maqsud, 1998) These results refute Gilligan’s theory of gender
differences in the application of moral principles.
The transmission of moral ideals takes on a different form in Asian countries. Japanese moral education is designed to
instruct students in morality through every educational activity in school. This is accomplished through direct moral
education, lessons in all academic subjects, and other special activities as well. (Ikemoto, 1996) In addition, there are three
other ways in which the Japanese transmit a sense of morality to their students. First, students actively participate in
cleaning the school. This serves the purpose of establishing a positive learning environment as well as of teaching students
to understand the value of work. Secondly, students participate in activities with living things like animals and plants. The
hope is that through these activities children will learn to respect and value life. Thirdly, students partake in after school
clubs in junior high and high school. This helps them to develop interpersonal skills such as cooperation, responsibility and
courtesy, as well as to learn to adhere to rules. Overall, morality education is extremely important in Japan and takes
precedence over all other subjects. (Ikemoto, 1996) The Japanese method of incorporating morality education into all
aspects of curriculum and life is very successful as “an effective character education program involves the entire faculty,
staff, parents and community.” (Bulach, 2002)
Morality education in China takes a similar form to that in Japan. It is an essential part of education in schools and is taught
in primary and secondary school with the teaching of other subjects, as well as in after school activities such as the Young
Pioneers and the Communist Youth League. Family also plays an important role in terms of maintaining a positive social
environment and influencing children. Additionally, there is a state created "Code of Conduct of Primary School Pupils", and
a "Code of Conduct of Secondary School Students". These codes establish the basic stipulations for the behaviour of
students. (http://www.edu.cn/20010101/21779.shtml) It is clear that Asian countries have very explicit and established
methods for teaching morality in schools. Also, these methods are not connected to religion as morality education is in many
other countries.
These examples demonstrating varied ideas of what constitutes morality in different places bring up many important
questions. Is there an impartial way to measure the development and presence of moral reasoning? Do different cultural
ideals merely correspond to different levels of moral reasoning as outlined by Western thinkers? Categorizing countries and
cultures in this way may be dangerous if certain cultures and values are assigned to higher levels of morality. Would this be
a fair way to judge morality? Is there a way to evaluate differences without creating a hierarchical system? While it is evident
that the emphasis of certain values over others is a major component to the development of moral ideologies for different
2
cultures in distinct locations, it is essential to maintain an open mind in order to be able to view these diverse as ideas as
different without an attached judgment of superiority or inferiority.
Overall, it is clear that there are very different concepts of morality and suitable behaviour in different cultures. In fact,
“acceptable behavior in one sub-culture is often viewed with loathing by another.” (http://www.onelife.com/ethics
/brule.html#1) This makes it very difficult for people to transition or move between different areas and cultures. “Due to
variations in language and behavioural systems, worldwide human interaction and communication suffers, often to the point
of warfare.” (http://www.onelife.com/ethics/brule.html#1) One view would be to create a uniform standard of ethical and
moral behaviour. (http://www.onelife.com/ethics/brule.html#1) But, is this ever possible? Would the world benefit from a
common criterion for morality, or because cultures are so diverse and unique, would people never be able to regulate
themselves to this standard? Furthermore, would people around the world even value this universal set of ideals and feel a
connection to the values? Without a personal connection and feelings of attachment, moral codes are essentially useless
because they hold no meaning for people. As a result, there would be no reason to follow the code.
Perhaps each country could have its own moral code though. The development of a uniform ethical code in America is an
idea that has been suggested by multiple researchers. There are some requirements for the creation of the code, however.
“It must present an overall sense of right and wrong behavior; it must have a hierarchy of values; and it must be based on
consequences. It need establish a system of morality applicable to Americans and it must provide a reason to be good.”
(Gutierrez, 2005) The values that would be included in the code would be constitutional integrity, equality and democracy
among others. (Gutierrez, 2005) But, is it in accordance with American values to have one common moral code? Or does
America value diversity, including the diverse opinions, beliefs and values of the many groups and types of people that live
in the country? Would everyone agree to the same set of values? And, if everyone already agrees to the same value set,
why is it necessary to make a formal federal list?
The Connection between Morality and Religion
Education and religion have a strong connection as many issues relate to both. Religion has always had a strong influence
on people’s social and political issues. Education is also a hotly debated issue in politics today, especially as it related to
issues such as how to teach creation vs. evolution, what place prayer has in schools, and vouchers given with public money
for students to attend private religious schools. (Deckman, 2002) People must decide whether or not their needs are being
met by, and if their values are appropriately being transmitted by their local public school, or whether a more religious
education fits their needs better.
From the perspective of religious leaders, there is a connection between morality and religion, as well as a need to teach
morality in schools. Morality is necessary so children can learn to respect, value and take care of themselves and others. “In
a world where short-term gratification is pressed upon children by their peers, the media, and many adults, to raise a young
person without a basic value system is to cast him or her adrift.” (http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=981) While the teaching
of values has traditionally taken place in the home, church or synagogue, as well as in schools, recently, society has
become reluctant to teach values in public schools as many are afraid that specific religious views will be presented.
(http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=981) However, most core values are the same in all major religions, the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it should be possible to transmit these shared values without emphasizing one religion in
particular. (http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=981)
However, according to atheism, “there is no link between moral behaviour and religious behaviour.”
(http://www.eclipse.co.uk.thoughts/) Therefore, according to this view, it is inappropriate to teach children about religions
and moral behavior without also presenting the possibility of morality that is not associated with religion. Children should be
taught to think about morality, and the reasons for behaving in an ethical manner according to common sense, not just
religious law or tradition. (http://www.eclipse.co.uk.thoughts/) Kohlberg also believed that morality and religion are unrelated.
In his opinion, morality is based on justice and cognitive thought, while religion has its foundation in revelations from a
religious leader. (Glover, 1997)
There is clearly much dissent regarding whether or not morality and religion are explicitly connected. In either case,
proponents for either side of the argument would agree that character education is necessary in schools today. But, is
morality education more successful in public or parochial schools?
3