what is the moral education essay

19 minute read

Moral Education

A brief history of moral education, the return of character education, current approaches to moral education.

Only a handful of educational theorists hold the view that if only the adult world would get out of the way, children would ripen into fully realized people. Most thinkers, educational practitioners, and parents acknowledge that children are born helpless and need the care and guidance of adults into their teens and often beyond. More specifically, children need to learn how to live harmoniously in society. Historically, the mission of schools has been to develop in the young both the intellectual and the moral virtues. Concern for the moral virtues, such as honesty, responsibility, and respect for others, is the domain of moral education.

Moral education, then, refers to helping children acquire those virtues or moral habits that will help them individually live good lives and at the same time become productive, contributing members of their communities. In this view, moral education should contribute not only to the students as individuals, but also to the social cohesion of a community. The word moral comes from a Latin root ( mos, moris ) and means the code or customs of a people, the social glue that defines how individuals should live together.

A Brief History of Moral Education

Every enduring community has a moral code and it is the responsibility and the concern of its adults to instill this code in the hearts and minds of its young. Since the advent of schooling, adults have expected the schools to contribute positively to the moral education of children. When the first common schools were founded in the New World, moral education was the prime concern. New England Puritans believed the moral code resided in the Bible. Therefore, it was imperative that children be taught to read, thus having access to its grounding wisdom. As early as 1642 the colony of Massachusetts passed a law requiring parents to educate their children. In 1647 the famous Old Deluder Satan Act strengthened the law. Without the ability to read the Scriptures, children would be prey to the snares of Satan.

The colonial period. As common school spread throughout the colonies, the moral education of children was taken for granted. Formal education had a distinctly moral and religion emphasis. Harvard College was founded to prepare clergy for their work. Those men who carved out the United States from the British crown risked their fortunes, their families, and their very lives with their seditious rebellion. Most of them were classically educated in philosophy, theology, and political science, so they had learned that history's great thinkers held democracy in low regard. They knew that democracy contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction and could degenerate into mobocracy with the many preying on the few and with political leaders pandering to the citizenry's hunger for bread and circuses. The founders' writings, particularly those of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John and Abigail Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, are filled with admonitions that their new country make education a high priority. While the early leaders saw economic reasons for more and longer schooling, they were convinced that the form of government they were adopting was, at heart, a moral compact among people.

Nineteenth century. As the young republic took shape, schooling was promoted for both secular and moral reasons. In 1832, a time when some of the Founding Fathers were still alive, Abraham Lincoln wrote, in his first political announcement (March 9,1832), "I desire to see a time when education, and by its means, morality, sobriety, enterprise and industry, shall become much more general than at present." Horace Mann, the nineteenth-century champion of the common schools, strongly advocated for moral education. He and his followers were worried by the widespread drunkenness, crime, and poverty during the Jacksonian period in which they lived. Of concern, too, were the waves of immigrants flooding into cities, unprepared for urban life and particularly unprepared to participate in democratic civic life. Mann and his supporters saw free public schools as the ethical leaven of society. In 1849, in his twelfth and final report to the Massachusetts Board of Education, he wrote that if children age four to sixteen could experience "the elevating influences of good schools, the dark host of private vices and public crimes, which now embitter domestic peace and stain the civilization of the age, might, in 99 cases in every 100, be banished from the world"(p. 96).

In the nineteenth century, teachers were hired and trained with the clear expectation that they would advance the moral mission of the school and attend to character formation. Literature, biography, and history were taught with the explicit intention of infusing children with high moral standards and good examples to guide their lives. Students' copybook headings offered morally uplifting thoughts: "Quarrelsome persons are always dangerous companions" and "Praise follows exertion." The most successful textbooks during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were the famed McGuffey readers, which were filled with moral stories, urgings, and lessons. During this period of our evolution as a nation, moral education was deep in the very fabric of our schools.

There was, however, something else in the fabric of moral education that caused it to become problematic: religion. In the United States, as a group of colonies and later as a new nation, the overwhelming dominant religion was Protestantism. While not as prominent as during the Puritan era, the King James Bible was, nevertheless, a staple of U.S. public schools. The root of the moral code was seen as residing there. However, as waves of immigrants from Ireland, Germany, and Italy came to the country from the mid-nineteenth century forward, the pan-Protestant tone and orthodoxy of the schools came under scrutiny and a reaction set in. Concerned that their children would be weaned from their faith, Catholics developed their own school system. Later in the twentieth century, other religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims, and even various Protestant denominations, formed their own schools. Each group desired, and continues to desire, that its moral education be rooted in its respective faith or code.

Twentieth century. During this same late-nineteenth-century and twentieth-century period, there was also a growing reaction against organized religion and the belief in a spiritual dimension of human existence. Intellectual leaders and writers were deeply influenced by the ideas of the English naturalist Charles Darwin, the German political philosopher Karl Marx, the Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud, and the German philosopher and poet Friedrich Nietzsche, and by a growing strict interpretation of the separation of church and state doctrine. This trend increased after World War II and was further intensified by what appeared to be the large cracks in the nation's moral consensus in the late 1960s. Since for so many Americans the strongest roots of moral truths reside in their religious beliefs, educators and others became wary of using the schools for moral education. More and more this was seen to be the province of the family and the church. Some educators became proponents of "value-free" schooling, ignoring the fact that it is impossible to create a school devoid of ethical issues, lessons, and controversies.

During the last quarter of the twentieth century, as many schools attempted to ignore the moral dimension of schooling, three things happened: Achievement scores began to decline, discipline and behavior problems increased, and voices were raised accusing the schools of teaching secular humanism. As the same time, educators were encouraged to address the moral concerns of students using two approaches: values clarification and cognitive developmental moral education.

The first, values clarification, rests on little theory other than the assumption that students need practice choosing among moral alternatives and that teachers should be facilitators of the clarification process rather than indoctrinators of particular moral ideas or value choices. This approach, although widely practiced, came under strong criticism for, among other things, promoting moral relativism among students. While currently few educators confidently advocate values clarification, its residue of teacher neutrality and hesitance to actively address ethical issues and the moral domain persists.

The second approach, cognitive developmental moral education, sprang from the work of the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget and was further developed by Lawrence Kohlberg. In contrast to values clarification, cognitive moral development is heavy on theory and light on classroom applications. In its most popular form, Kohlberg posited six sequential stages of moral development, which potentially individuals could achieve. Each stage represents a distinctive way an individual thinks about a moral situation or problem. Teachers are encouraged to engage students from an early age and throughout their schooling in discussion of moral issues and dilemmas. In the later years of his life, Kohlberg was urging educators to transform their schools into "just communities," environments within which students' moral stage development would accelerate.

The Return of Character Education

In the early 1980s, amid the widespread concern over students' poor academic achievements and behavior, educators rediscovered the word character. Moral education had a religious tinge, which made many uneasy. Character with its emphasis on forming good habits and eliminating poor habits struck a popular and traditional chord. The word character has a Greek root, coming from the verb "to engrave." Thus character speaks to the active process of making marks or signs (i.e., good habits) on one's person. The early formation of good habits is widely acknowledged to be in the best interests of both the individual and society.

In addition, character formation is recognized as something that parents begin early, but the work is hardly completed when a child goes to school. Implicit in the concept of character is the recognition that adults begin the engraving process of habituation to consideration of others, self-control, and responsibility, then teachers and others contribute to the work, but eventually the young person takes over the engraving or formation of his own character. Clearly, though, with their learning demands and taxing events, children's school years are a prime opportunity for positive and negative (i.e., virtues and vices) character formation.

The impetus and energy behind the return of character education to American schools did not come from within the educational community. It has been fueled, first, by parental desire for orderly schools where standards of behavior and good habits are stressed, and, second, by state and national politicians who responded to these anxious concerns of parents. During his presidency, William Clinton hosted five conferences on character education. President George W. Bush expanded on the programs of the previous administration and made character education a major focus of his educational reform agenda. One of the politically appealing aspects of character education, as opposed to moral education with its religious overtones, is that character education speaks more to the formation of a good citizen. A widely repeated definition (i.e., character education is helping a child to know the good, to desire the good, and to do the good) straddles this issue. For some people the internal focus of character education comfortably can be both religious and civic and for others the focus can be strictly civic, dealing exclusively on the formation of the good citizen.

Current Approaches to Moral Education

The overwhelming percentage of efforts within public education to address the moral domain currently march under the flag of character education. Further, since these conscious efforts at addressing issues of character formation are relatively recent, they are often called character education programs. The term program suggests, however, discrete initiatives that replace an activity or that are added to the school's curriculum (e.g., a new reading program or mathematics program). And, although there are character education programs available, commercially and otherwise, most advocates urge the public schools to take an infusion approach to educating for character.

The infusion approach. In general, an infusion approach to character education aims to restore the formation of students' characters to a central place in schooling. Rather than simply adding on character formation to the other responsibilities of schools, such as numeracy, literacy, career education, health education, and other goals, a focus on good character permeates the entire school experience. In essence, character education joins intellectual development as the overarching goals of the school. Further, character education is seen, not in competition with or ancillary to knowledge- and skill-acquisition goals, but as an important contributor to these goals. To create a healthy learning environment, students need to develop the virtues of responsibility and respect for others. They must eliminate habits of laziness and sloppiness and acquire habits of self-control and diligence. The infusion approach is based on the view that the good habits that contribute to the formation of character in turn contribute directly to the academic goals of schooling.

A mainstay of the infusion approach is the recovery, recasting, or creating of a school's mission statement, one that reflects the priority placed on the development of good character. Such a statement legitimizes the attention of adults and students alike to this educational goal. It tells administrators that teachers and staff should be hired with good character as a criterion; it tells teachers that not only should character be stressed to students but also their own characters are on display; it tells coaches that athletics should be seen through the lens of sportsmanship rather than winning and losing; and it tells students that their efforts and difficulties, their successes and disappointments are all part of a larger process, the formation of their characters.

Critical to the infusion approach is using the curriculum as a source of character education. This is particularly true of the language arts, social studies, and history curricula. The primary focus of these subjects is the study of human beings, real and fictitious. Our great narrative tales carry moral lessons. They convey to the young vivid images of the kinds of people our culture admires and wants them to emulate. These subjects also show them how lives can be wasted, or worse, how people can betray themselves and their communities. Learning about the heroism of former slave Sojourner Truth, who became an evangelist and reformer, and the treachery of Benedict Arnold, the American army officer who betrayed his country to the British, is more than picking up historical information. Encountering these lives fires the student's moral imagination and deepens his understanding of what constitutes a life of character. Other subjects, such as mathematics and science, can teach students the necessity of intellectual honesty. The curricula of our schools not only contain the core knowledge of our culture but also our moral heritage.

In addition to the formal or overt curriculum, schools and classrooms also have a hidden or covert curriculum. A school's rituals, traditions, rules, and procedures have an impact on students' sense of what is right and wrong and what is desired and undesired behavior. So, too, does the school's student culture. What goes on in the lunchroom, the bathrooms, the locker rooms, and on the bus conveys powerful messages to students. This ethos or moral climate of a school is difficult to observe and neatly categorize. Nevertheless, it is the focus of serious attention by educators committed to an infusion approach.

An important element of the infusion approach is the language with which a school community addresses issues of character and the moral domain. Teachers and administrators committed to an infusion approach use the language of virtues and speak of good and poor behavior and of right and wrong. Words such as responsibility, respect, honesty, and perseverance are part of the working vocabulary of adults and students alike.

Other approaches. One of the most popular approaches to character education is service learning. Sometimes called community service, this approach is a conscious effort to give students opportunities, guidance, and practice at being moral actors. Based on the Greek philosopher Aristotle's concept of character formation (e.g., a man becomes virtuous by performing virtuous deeds; brave by doing brave deeds), many schools and school districts have comprehensive programs of service learning. Starting in kindergarten, children are given small chores such as feeding the classroom's gerbil or straightening the desks and chairs. They later move on to tutoring younger students and eventually work up to more demanding service activities in the final years of high school. Typically, these high-school level service-learning activities are off-campus at a home for the blind, a hospital, or a day-care center. Besides placement, the school provides training, guidance, and problem-solving support to students as they encounter problems and difficulties.

In recent years, schools across the country have adopted the virtue (or value) of the month approach, where the entire school community gives particular attention to a quality such as cooperation or kindness. Consideration of the virtue for that particular month is reflected in the curriculum, in special assemblies, in hallway and classroom displays, and in school-home newsletters. Related to this are schoolwide programs, such as no put-downs projects, where attention is focused on the destructive and hurtful effects of sarcasm and insulting language and students are taught to replace put-downs with civil forms of communication.

There are several skill-development and classroom strategies that are often related to character formation. Among the more widespread are teaching mediation and conflict-resolution skills, where students are given direct teaching in how to deal with disagreements and potential fights among fellow students. Many advocates of cooperative learning assert that instructing students using this instructional process has the added benefit of teaching students habits of helping others and forming friendships among students with whom they otherwise would not mix.

Issues and Controversies

The moral education of children is a matter of deep concern to everyone from parents to civic and religious leaders. It is no accident, then, that this subject has been a matter of apprehension and controversy throughout the history of American schools. Issues of morality touch an individual's most fundamental beliefs. Since Americans are by international standards both quite religiously observant and quite religiously diverse, it is not surprising that moral and character education controversies often have a religious source. Particularly after a period when moral education was not on the agenda of most public schools, its return is unsettling to some citizens. Many who are hostile to religion see this renewed interest in moral education as bringing religious perspectives back into the school "through the back door." On the other hand, many religious people are suspicious of its return because they perceive it to be an attempt to undermine their family's religious-based training with a state-sponsored secular humanism. As of the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, the renewed attention to this area has been relatively free of controversy.

Contributing to the positive climate is the use of the term character rather than moral. While moral carries religious overtones for many, the word character speaks to good habits and the civic virtues, which hold a community together and allow us to live together in harmony.

A second issue relates to the level of schools and the age of students. The revival of character education in our schools has been evident to a much greater degree in elementary schools. Here schools can concentrate on the moral basics for which there is wide public consensus. The same is true, but to a somewhat lesser degree, for middle and junior high schools. And although there are many positive examples of secondary schools that have implemented broad and effective character education programs, secondary school faculties are hesitant to embrace character education. Part of it is the departmental structures and the time demands of the curriculum; part of it is the age and sophistication of their students; and part of it is that few secondary school teachers believe they have a clear mandate to deal with issues of morality and character.

A third issue relates to the education of teachers. Whereas once teachers in training took philosophy and history of education–courses that introduced them to the American school's traditional involvement with moral and character education–now few states require these courses. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the American schools are seeing the large-scale retirement of career teachers and their replacement with large numbers of new teachers. These young teachers tend to be products of elementary and secondary schools where teachers gave little or no direct attention to moral and character education. In addition, a 1999 study by the Character Education Partnership of half of the nation's teacher education institutions showed that although over 90 percent of the leaders of these programs thought character education ought to be a priority in the preparation of teachers, only 13 percent were satisfied with their institution's efforts.

Evaluation of Moral and Character Education

There are a few character education programs with encouraging evaluation results. The Character Development Project (CDP) has more than 18 years of involvement in several K–6 schools, and in those schools where teachers received staff development and on-site support over 52 percent of the student outcome variables showed significant differences. The Boy Scouts of America developed the Learning For Life Curriculum in the early 1990s for elementary schools. This commercially available, stand-alone curriculum teaches core moral values, such as honesty and responsibility. In a large-scale controlled experiment involving fifty-nine schools, students exposed to the Learning For Life materials showed significant gains on their understanding of the curriculum's core values, but they were also judged by their teachers to have gained greater self-discipline and ability to stay on a task.

Still, evaluation and assessment in character and moral education is best described as a work in progress. The field is held back by the lack of an accepted battery of reliable instruments, a lack of wide agreement on individual or schoolwide outcomes, and by the short-term nature of most of the existent studies. Complicating these limitations is a larger one: the lack of theoretical agreement of what character is. Human character is one of those overarching entities that is the subject of disciples from philosophy to theology, from psychology to sociology. Further, even within these disciplines there are competing and conflicting theories and understandings of the nature of human character. But although the evaluation challenges are daunting, they are dwarfed by the magnitude of the adult community's desire to see that our children possess a moral compass and the good habits basic to sound character.

See also: C HARACTER D EVELOPMENT ; E LEMENTARY E DUCATION , subentries on C URRENT T RENDS , H ISTORY OF ; E THICS, subentry on S CHOOL T EACHING ; S CHOOL R EFORM ; S ECONDARY E DUCATION, subentries on C URRENT T RENDS , H ISTORY OF .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B ERKOWITZ , M ARVIN W., and O SER , F RITZ , eds. 1985. Moral Education: Theory and Application. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

C HAZAN , B ARRY . 1985. Contemporary Approaches to Moral Education: Analyzing Alternative Theories. New York: Teachers College Press.

C OLES , R OBERT . 1989. The Call of Stories. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

D AMON , W ILLIAM . 1995. Greater Expectations: Over-coming the Culture of Indulgence in Our Homes and Schools. New York: Free Press.

E BERLY , D ON E., ed. 1995. America's Character: Recovering Civic Virtue. Lanham, MD: Madison.

H IMMELFARB , G ERTRUDE . 1995. The De-Moralization of Society: From Victorian Virtues to Modern Values. New York: Knopf.

K ILPATRICK , W ILLIAM K. 1992. Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: Moral Literacy and the Case for Character Education. New York: Simonand Schuster.

K REEFT , P ETER . 1986. Back to Virtue. San Francisco: Ignatius.

L EWIS , C LIVE S. 1947. The Abolition of Man. New York: Macmillian.

L ICKONA , T HOMAS . 1991. Educating for Character: How Our Schools Can Teach Respect and Responsibility. New York: Bantam.

M ACINTYRE , A LASDAIR . 1981. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.

M ANN , H ORACE . 1849. Twelfth Annual Report of the Board of Education together with the Twelfth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education. Boston: Dutton and Wentworth.

N UCCI , L ARRY P., ed. 1989. Moral Development and Character Education: A Dialogue. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

P OWER , F. C LARK ; H IGGINS , A NN ; and K OHLBERG , L AWRENCE . 1989. Lawrence Kohlberg's Approach to Moral Education. New York: Columbia University Press.

P RITCHARD , I VOR . 1998. Good Education: The Virtues of Learning. Norwalk, CT: Judd.

R YAN , K EVIN , and B OHLIN , K AREN . 1999. Building Character in Schools: Practical Ways to Bring Moral Instruction to Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

W ILSON , J AMES Q. 1993. The Moral Sense. New York: Free Press.

W RIGHT , R OBERT . 1994. The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are. New York: Pantheon.

K EVIN R YAN

Additional topics

• Henry C. Morrison (1871–1945)
• Moral Development - Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development and Education

Education - Free Encyclopedia Search Engine Education Encyclopedia

• Search Menu
• Advance Articles
• Special Issues
• Virtual Issues
• Trending Articles
• IMPACT Content
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Author Resources
• Read & Publish
• Why Publish with JOPE?
• About the Journal of Philosophy of Education
• About The Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

Moral education, emotions, and social practices

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Andrés Mejía, Moral education, emotions, and social practices, Journal of Philosophy of Education , Volume 57, Issue 1, February 2023, Pages 323–336, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Paul Hirst’s idea of moral education is distinctive in the central role it attributes to social practices. For him, ethical principles and virtues should not be seen as abstract entities theoretically derived and then applied in education so that students learn to reason from those principles or live by those virtues. Instead, Hirst’s moral education incorporates an initiation into social practices and comes back to them by means of situated critical reflection from within those practices themselves. Embracing Hirst’s proposed central role of social practices, this paper spells out the key role that emotions play in moral education so understood and their relations with social practices. As emotions materialize our deeply held values, incorporated into lived experience, their cultivation will not simply be a matter of deliberation, but rather of the practical exploration of social practices that can nurture and sustain them.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1467-9752
• Print ISSN 0309-8249
• Copyright © 2024 Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Development and status of moral education research: visual analysis based on knowledge graph.

• 1 School of Marxism, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
• 2 College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
• 3 School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
• 4 Department of Education Information Technology, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

Introduction: Moral education is an educational process of the continuation, construction, and transformation of moral and social norms, and is an important guarantee for the sustainable vitality of human morality.

Methods: With bibliometrics applied and VOSviewer and CiteSpace as tools, this paper systematically analyzes 497 articles published in the Social Sciences Citation Index of Web of Science core collection from 2000 to 2022 in the field of moral education research.

Results: By quantifying specific performance information in the field of moral education in terms of authors, journals, organizations and countries, this paper identifies the highly productive authors and organizations, as well as core journals (i.e., the Journal of Moral Education ). A cluster analysis is used to show the knowledge structure, and an evolutionary analysis to present the macro-development trend of moral education.

Discussion: In this paper, the comprehensive description of the research topics on moral education clarifies the development model and disciplinary prospect of the moral education research, and provides theoretical and practical support for the continuous development and application practice of the moral education research.

1. Introduction

Discussions of morality can be traced back to the ancient Greek period, when Aristotle noted in Nicomachean Ethics that virtue could be divided into intellectual virtue and virtue of character, and that the latter came about as a result of habit, which was people's pursuit of beauty and kindness ( Ameriks and Clarke, 2000 ). During the more than two thousand years since then, countless scholars and philosophers have been inspired by Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and have made in-depth interpretations and explanations of morality and moral phenomena ( Kristjánsson, 2006 ). Under the theoretical framework of Aristotelian virtue ethics, this paper attempts to classify and review the development of moral education in K−12 and higher educational systems.

Moral education is a grand concept that involves many disciplines ( MacIntyre and Dunne, 2002 ; Kristjánsson, 2021 ). Generally, the essence of moral education is the process by which educators transform certain social thoughts and virtue ethics concepts into the individual thoughts and morals of educatees with certain educational means in social activities and exchanges ( Solomon et al., 2001 ). Thus, moral education is mainly the process of moral social inheritance or transmission.

Different from disciplinary education, the value of moral education in practice has been controversial ( Peters, 2015 ). Some scholars have questioned the necessity for schools to provide moral education ( Stanley, 2003 , 2004 ; Motos, 2010 ); however, more scholars have agreed that schools should supply systematic moral education and have provided corresponding bases for doing so ( Hoekema, 2010 ; Wong, 2020 ; Sison and Redín, 2022 ). These scholars have considered that schools have the responsibility and obligation to help students contribute to society in ways that are not limited to the value of social production but that also consider the prosocial value of promoting social goodness from the moral perspective ( Hoekema, 2010 ). Meanwhile Sison and Redín (2022) , based on MacIntyre's moral education principle, emphasized the importance of moral education in educational institutions, as an “intrinsic value of an educational institution that instills virtues … [schools should] provide ethical training on par with scientific-objective and technical training” ( Sison and Redín, 2022 ; p. 13). Undoubtedly, these disputes have deepened the value and connotation of moral education and have established a close connection between moral education and other disciplines (e.g., business education), which efforts have increased the value placed upon moral education by scholars ( Lee, 2022 ). At the same time, the in-depth thinking and scholarly refutation has vigorously promoted moral education studies, transforming the discussion from the necessity of moral education to its contents and purpose.

The battle has been long and arduous for moral education to play an important role in public schools. However, thanks to the efforts of scholars, moral education has become an indispensable part of school education ( Leihy and Salazar, 2016 ). Nevertheless, disputes remain on how to implement moral education as well as on its connotation and value ( Wong, 2020 ; Lee, 2022 ). The differences remain unclear in the moral educational issues in terms of cultural environments and social backgrounds, and systematic and comprehensive quantitative reviews and analyses are lacking in the moral education literature. Therefore, this paper aims to apply the method of a literature review to systematically organize and further analyze the research on moral education in K−12 and higher educational systems after a comparison and an identification, mainly focusing on the following points:

1. We conduct a systematic performance analysis of the research topics on moral education; know the authors, organizations, and countries with high productivity in the field of moral education; and thoroughly uncover the main journals and highly cited studies in this field.

2. We reveal the core issues and research status in the field of moral education through a cluster analysis and summarize the research results.

3. We provide theoretical and practical support for the subsequent academic research and practice of moral education using evolutionary and keyword-burst analyses to delineate the evolutionary trend of the field.

2. Literature review

Morality can be traced to the origin of human language. In exploring the origin of morality, Tappan (1997) proposed that morality, as a high-level psychological function, was mediated/regulated by the forms of words, language, and discourse. Per Tappan, as language is a remarkable social medium, the process of social communication and social relations inevitably produce moral function. Tappan also argues that because words, language, and discourse forms are essentially social and cultural phenomena, moral development has always been affected by the specific social, cultural, and historical background in which it occurs.

Morality, as a uniquely human higher mental function, has long been noticed by scholars. In ancient Greece, Socrates incorporated the study of moral ethics into the philosophical system and created his own “philosophy of ethics.” Aristotle further wrote Nicomachean Ethics , which describes the qualities of an ideal or perfect human being: courage, temperance, generosity and magnificence, and possessing a great soul ( Ameriks and Clarke, 2000 ). Aristotle provided the most basic definition of virtue ethics, which is considered the systematic origin of virtue ethics ( Ferrero and Sison, 2014 ). The morality research has been continuous as human civilized has evolved. For example, Aquinas in the Middle Ages and Machiavelli in the Renaissance built ethical discourse systems ( McInerny, 1997 ; Bielskis, 2011 ). However, due to social and historical limitations, the past research on morality has mostly relied on experience, and scholars have mostly discussed morality from the theoretical or philosophical level. Not until the psychologist Wundt established the first psychology laboratory (in 1879) did scholars begin to use modern scientific research methods to discuss morality. Soon thereafter, the research on moral education reached a development peak.

Piaget (1932) put forward Piaget's Theory of Moral Development based on his observation on children's play, initiating the scientific and systematic research on moral education ( Peters, 2015 ). Based on Piaget's research, as well as that of Dewey (1959) and others, Kohlberg (1969 , 1973) proposed a more valuable moral theory, namely, that of moral cognitive development, which was later revised and improved. The theory of moral cognitive development states that moral education is intended to help young people learn to justify moral claims correctly and rationally and to develop logical strategies to draw correct inferences from such claims when dealing with moral dilemmas ( Kohlberg, 1981 ). Kohlberg's theory attracted great attention in sociology and psychology, and it aroused intense discussion ( Mischel, 1971 ; Lickona, 1976 ). Kohlberg's theory was partially overturned in subsequent empirical studies ( Kuhn, 1976 ). Nevertheless, as the first systematic and complete theory of moral cognitive development, Kohlberg's theory of moral cognitive development has made an indelible contribution in promoting people's cognition of morality and has successfully caused many scholars to focus on moral education.

The value of Kohlberg's theory of moral cognitive development rested not only in the theory but also in his research method, which provided a perspective for an in-depth understanding of the development of moral thinking. However, because the research design was not entirely rigorous, for example, the subjects used were all male ( Aron, 1977 ), the theory also received some criticism and spawned further studies ( Gilligan and Attanucci, 1988 ; Rest et al., 1997 ), causing the research on moral development to present a diversified development trend.

The criticism of Kohlberg's moral theory and its development were accompanied by the beginning of the theories of constructivism and humanism. Humanistic theory, in particular, positively affirmed humanity and considered that human nature is kind, rational, positive, and trustworthy. The theory proposes that moral education is required because human environment after birth has many bad factors that hinder the development of human nature's innate potential. However, the basis of moral education is rational, positive, and active humanity, a theory upon which many Chinese and Western scholars have reached an agreement ( Slote, 2016 ).

Societal development and changing times have endowed the moral education research with new elements. In the 1980s, a systematic moral education curriculum system emerged in many region's schools ( Cheung and Lee, 2010 ). However, the initial practice of moral education was a process of exploration, and the development process was accompanied by many frustrations. For example, in the late 20 th century, many scholars criticized the excessive emphasis placed on moral skills in the process of traditional moral education ( Doyle, 1997 ; Lickona, 1999 ). These scholars put forward a new concept of character education to emphasize the specific content (a set of specific values) behind morality: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, honesty, justice, and fairness ( Berreth and Berman, 1997 ; Fenstermacher, 2001 ).

Since the 21 st century, the frequent contact among different cultural groups has added a multicultural perspective to moral education. Some scholars have noted that the main goal of moral education is to achieve equality between different groups and allow them to maintain contact with the overall culture of society ( Ranson, 2000 ). Therefore, moral education practitioners should teach students communication skills. Some scholars have also noted and emphasized that moral education should create channels for learners to understand society's diversity ( Banks et al., 2001 ). That is, moral education should cultivate learners with a broad cultural vision and cultural inclusiveness ( Santas, 2000 ). This suggestion means that the historical and cultural perspectives of different social groups should be included in the moral education curriculum ( Kumashiro, 2000 ).

Meanwhile, as the concept of a postmodern society spreads, moral education development has transformed from a discipline that emphasizes the standardization and objectivity of rationality and science to one that pays attention to educational value, diversity, and context ( Sarid, 2012 ). In this process, the moral education research method, contents, and objects have undergone profound changes. For example, the speculative reasoning research has gradually been replaced by the empirical situation research, and moral education has begun to emphasize the emotional commitment and developmental reflection made by individuals in the growth process ( Wardekker, 2004 ). Civic and value education have been gradually incorporated into the category of moral education and have become an indispensable part of it ( Schuitema et al., 2008 ). Finally, the research objects have gradually expanded from learners to practitioners of moral education and school administrators ( Reiman and Dotger, 2008 ). Meanwhile, diversified education has put forward some new standards for moral education. For example, moral education should pay more attention to learners' personality factors than to disciplinary education, including social identity factors consisting of race, gender, and class and personality factors such as character and temperament ( Schuitema et al., 2008 ). Therefore, the mission of moral education has gradually come to include social identity construction.

The discipline systematization of moral education is also an overall trend of the development of moral education ( Zhang et al., 2022 ). Increasingly, scholars have begun to discuss subject-specialization for moral education and standardizing the curriculum design ( Bleazby, 2020 ). In addition, the school ages and stages related to moral education have also been expanded. Some scholars have proposed that the cognition of moral education should not be limited to the moral training received at school, and moral education should become a part of the lifelong learning process ( Higgins-D'Alessandro, 2011 ; Wong, 2020 ).

The rapid development of postmodern technology has expanded the new dimension of moral education, such as defining the moral norm in the environment of mass media and networking (Internet) and how to implement the corresponding moral education ( Wanxue and Hanwei, 2004 ; Li et al., 2017 ; Chang et al., 2018 ). Technology is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the openness, anonymity, and interactivity of the Internet are challenging the traditional moral concept, especially the college students who are widely exposed to online we-media are faced with largescale moral anomia ( Li et al., 2017 ; Shao and Wang, 2017 ). On the other hand, based on the application of human-computer interactions and virtual reality scenes, artificial intelligence can achieve a more realistic situational experience of moral education. Regarding the hidden concern that artificial intelligence might replace teachers in moral education, current scholars have a relatively consistent view that human teachers in moral education will be irreplaceable for a long time ( Tan, 2020 ).

Summarizing the current research on moral education, its purpose in schools is to prepare students to participate in society ( Schuitema et al., 2008 ), but this purpose is not isolated. Instead, it can be divided into two supportive aspects: firstly, its aim is to serve students' individual development to guide students to adulthood where they can produce their own social identity; secondly, moral education hopes to promote the rational, orderly development of society by cultivating students' prosocial behaviors, as viewed from the social development perspective. These two aspects of moral education reflect two perspectives on it (personal and social). In fact, these two perspectives complement each other and together constitute the profound connotation of moral education. These underlying connotations do not change dramatically over time, showing that morality is uniquely stable in the tide of diversification and modernization. However, the multiple dimensions of culture and the rapid development of technology continually call into question the implementation and practice of moral education. In response, we must deeply examine this era and learn the development course and the current discipline structure of moral education.

3. Methods and materials

3.1. research method.

To understand the research agenda of moral education systematically, objectively, and comprehensively from a global perspective, this paper adopted a bibliometrics approach for the analysis. Bibliometrics is a measurement method used to describe and analyze the dynamics and progress of a discipline or research field. Since 1969, when British scholar Pritchard put forward “bibliometrics,” as an independent discipline, it has become prominent in scientific quantitative research. Meanwhile, benefiting from the recent developments in computer science and technology, econometric analyses combined with visual analyses have become a new trend in this research field. Econometric analytical results can be displayed in simple and clear knowledge graphs, thus achieving the goal of “one picture is worth ten thousand words” ( Merigó et al., 2015 ).

In this paper, CiteSpace 6.1.R3 (developed by Chen C. at Drexel University), VOSviewer 1.6.17 (developed by Van Eck and Waltman at the Center for Science and Technology Studies) and SCImago Graphica 1.0.24 (developed by Scimago Lab in Spain) were used to draw knowledge graphs. Each software package has its own advantages, and together they can play complementary roles. CiteSpace adopts the data standardization method based on set theory to measure the similarity of knowledge units. By drawing a Timezone view, CiteSpace can clearly outline the evolutionary process of research hot spots in the temporal dimension, thus presenting the development process and trend of this field ( Wang et al., 2022 ). VOSviewer adopts the data-standardization method based on probability theory and provides a variety of visual presentations of keywords, co-organizations, co-authors, etc. With simple drawings and elaborate images, at present, it has increasingly attracted scholars' attention in the visualization field of bibliometrics ( Pan et al., 2018 ). SCImago Graphica, on the other hand, can use table data in various formats exported from CiteSpace and VOSviewer for redrawing to supplement the mapping.

3.2. Initial literature search

In the initial literature search of this paper, the Web of Science core collection was mainly used. This was because many review studies have posited that the literature quality of the data source is crucial to the reliability and persuasiveness of the review study ( Hwang and Tsai, 2011 ; Hsu et al., 2012 ). As a high-quality digital literature resource database, the Web of Science core collection has been accepted by many researchers ( Ding and Yang, 2022 ). Within this collection, the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) is the most well-known journal index in the field of social sciences ( Yadegaridehkordi et al., 2019 ). Taken together, these methods guarantee the quality of the literature used in this paper.

Literature retrieval is also an important link to ensure research quality. Since some scholars ( Ferrero and Sison, 2014 ) have tried to review virtue ethics in business by means of quantitative reviews, this paper follows the model of Ferrero and Sison (2014) in the literature retrieval.

When setting the retrieval strategy, only the advanced retrieval function of Web of Science core collection is used in this paper. The input was the searchable TS = (“moral education” OR “moral instruction”), and Topics (TS) was used as the Field Tag to implement searchable matching in the title, abstract, and other informational elements of the literature. Such a search strategy can retrieve the literature related to moral education as comprehensively as possible. At the same time, to ensure sufficient data to analyze the development trend of the research topics on moral education, the selected literature search period was January 2000 to September 2022, and the literature types Article and Review were selected. The retrieval-based search resulted in 842 articles, the specific information for which is shown in Table 1 .

Table 1 . Summary of data source and selection.

3.3. Literature screening

The literature obtained was often mixed with some irrelevant results (e.g., literature taking moral education as a research background but analyzing other research contents). Therefore, to ensure that the literature included in the analysis was closely related to the relevant topics, software was required to remove and manually screen the literature included in the analysis after the initial literature search. Doing so prevents the analytical results from suffering due to data quality problems ( Chen et al., 2022 ).

The “remove duplicate” function of CiteSpace software was used to discard two duplicates and proceed to the manual screening. To ensure a scientific and reliable screening process, this paper refers to the literature screening criteria proposed by Su et al. (2019) . Before screening, the three team members consulted with moral education scholars to determine the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This standard was mainly to review the core research contents and themes, to identify the primary focuses in the research related to moral education in K−12 and higher education (such as the implementation path of moral education, the influence factors of the moral education effect, etc.), and to exclude some articles whose research subject was not moral education or whose research field was not within the scope of K−12 and higher education.

After determining the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the three team members independently reviewed each article according to the criteria. In the case of controversial articles, discussions and votes were held to decide whether to exclude them.

After this systematic screening process, 342 articles were deleted as they did not meet the requirements of this study, and 497 articles were ultimately retained for further analyses. VOSviewer was used to collect basic statistical information on the selected literature. These 497 articles originated from 426 organizations in 49 countries, had 759 authors, were published in 132 journals, and cited 16,815 references from 10,648 journals.

4. Performance analysis: Productivity and impact

4.1. publication time trend.

To understand a research field, it is necessary to first understand the most basic quantitative information, among which, the change in the annual publication number can best reflect the development trend of a research field. Figure 1 shows the temporal distribution of papers published in the moral education research. Overall, the publication number in this field is still increasing although fluctuating and not obvious. In 2000, the number of published articles reached 17, indicating that the moral education research has been active for a long time, rather than being a new topic. Additionally, in the past 5 years, the number of published articles was 20+, indicating that this topic has not declined gradually over time but has evolved continually as the classical scholars' thoughts and views are constantly reflected upon, reshaped and extended ( Lewis, 2018 ; Hand, 2019 ), and the topic remains vital as an independent discipline.

Figure 1 . Time trend of the publications on moral education.

4.2. Authors

By analyzing the number of articles authors publish, we can learn the representative scholars and core research topics in the moral education research. This paper used Price's law to calculate the boundary between ordinary and core authors in this field:

where n max is the number of papers by the most productive authors in this field ( n max = 11 according to VOSviewer's statistical analysis), and m is the minimum number of papers by the core authors, which can be calculated as m ≈ 2.5. Therefore, authors with ≥3 papers were identified as the core authors in this field ( Price, 1963 ), and there were 20 core authors. Table 2 presents the relevant information on the core authors in this field, including their names, the number of published articles, and the citation number per article.

Table 2 . Core authors in the moral education research field.

Table 2 shows that Han is the most productive author in this field. He has published 11 papers in the past 20 years. Han and his research team have mainly focused on moral exemplars in moral education ( Han et al., 2022 ). The moral exemplars in teaching materials and voluntary service have been deeply studied ( Han et al., 2017 , 2018b ). Moreover, Han is a pioneer in advocating technology-enabled moral education. Several of his studies have used Bayesian models to predict the relationship between moral foundations and the development of moral judgments ( Han et al., 2018a ; Han and Dawson, 2022 ). Kristjánsson's scientific productivity in the field of moral education is second only to Han's. Kristjánsson is a classical scholar who paid great attention to Aristotle's thought. Many of Kristjánsson's studies have focused on the value of Aristotle's thought in contemporary moral education ( Kristjánsson, 2014 , 2020 ), proposing that the wisdom of classical philosophers should not be ignored in contemporary moral education, and implementing a practical and critical inheritance of Aristotle's philosophical thought ( Kristjánsson, 2013 ). Kristjánsson is also the editor-in-chief of the core journal, Journal of Moral Education , in this field ( Kristjánsson, 2021 ).

4.3. Journals

Journals are the main carriers of literature. This paper performs statistical analyses of the journals that publish moral education research ( Table 3 shows the top-10 core journals in terms of published article volume). The results show that most of the research results in this field were published in the Journal of Moral Education (198, accounting for 39.76% of the total), while the second-ranked journal published only 34 research papers on moral education (approximately 6.83% of the total). Regarding the distribution of the published article volume, the Matthew effect was significant because moral education is highly focused and independent. In addition to the Journal of Moral Education , a journal closely related to moral education, other journals that focus on moral education are mostly related to educational philosophy (such as the Journal of Philosophy of Education, Educational Philosophy and Theory , and Studies in Philosophy and Education ). This finding shows the close relations among moral education, educational philosophy, and virtue ethics. In addition, from the perspective of the average citation frequency, Teaching and Teacher Education had a high citation frequency (31.67 times on average), indicating that teacher education is highly relevant to the moral education research ( Xiaoman and Cilin, 2004 ).

Table 3 . Top 10 journals in the moral education research field.

4.4. Countries and organizations

An analysis of the countries in which the research was published can reveal the countries and research organizations with high productivity in this field. To have a clear understanding of the number of publications and cooperation situation between different countries, this paper used a chordal graph for elaboration. Chordal graphs are mainly composed of nodes and chords. Nodes represent the number of certain country's published articles and are arranged along the circumference and in a radial series. The node colors represents the cooperation intensity with other countries, and colors closer to red indicate greater more cooperation with other countries. An arc with a weight (and a width) connecting any two nodes is called a chord, which represents the between-country cooperation. The resulting chord graph of the intercountry number of publications and the cooperation network is shown in Figure 2 .

Figure 2 . Chord graph of inter-country number of papers and cooperation.

Figure 2 shows that the main countries with large publication numbers and intercountry cooperation in this field are the USA, the United Kingdom, China and the Netherlands. These four countries not only publish a large number of articles but also cooperate closely. They have close international academic exchanges and a high degree of internationalization in the moral education academic research. Table 4 gives more specific quantitative information for the top-10 countries in terms of publication number. Except for China, the remaining 9 countries are all developed countries, indicating that moral education is an issue that many scholars pay attention to only after a society develops to a certain degree and has a certain economic foundation.

Table 4 . Top 10 countries in the moral education research field.

A further analysis was made of the issuing organizations. Table 5 shows the top-10 organizations in terms of publication number and their related quantitative information. Among these organizations, most (up to 5) are from the United Kingdom, among which the University of Birmingham is the most productive organization, with 17 published articles, making it the primary academic force in the moral education research. Most of this organization's articles were published between 2014 and 2020 and focused on philosophical discussions of moral education, many of which tried to relate the thoughts of ancient Greek philosophers and use them as guidance to carry out moral practice ( Carr, 2014 ; Jordan and Kristjánsson, 2017 ). Stanford University, located in the USA, has both a high publication and a high citation number (35 times on average), mainly due to Noddings (2010) , Han et al. (2017 , 2018a , b , 2022 ), and Han and Dawson (2022) .

Table 5 . Top 10 organizations in the moral education research field.

4.5. Articles

Highly cited articles can often reveal the key issues and core points of differentiation and analysis in a research field. The highly cited articles in the moral education are shown in Table 6 . The most frequently cited study from 2000 to 2022 was Villenas (2001) , a qualitative study on family moral education that analyzed the key role of mothers in family moral education from the perspective of feminism and antiracism through interviews with many Latino mothers. The second most frequently cited was a speculative study by Halstead (2004) , which systematically analyzed moral education in Islam from its basic philosophical issues. A review of the highly cited articles further reveals that moral education is a very broad topic. These highly cited articles cover many aspects of moral education, such as teacher ( Sanger and Osguthorpe, 2011 ), ethics ( Woods, 2005 ), and value education ( Thornberg, 2008 ). Other scholars have systematically discussed how moral education balances the threats and sense of alienation created by technological development ( Persson and Savulescu, 2013 ). Moral education is thus not only related to the words and deeds of each individual but also closely related to social groups. Meanwhile, to present the articles in the moral education research more comprehensively and three-dimensionally, this paper identified the remaining 90 among the 100 articles with the highest citation frequency from 2000-2022 (see Appendix 1 for details).

Table 6 . Most cited articles between 2000 and 2022.

5. Keywords analysis: Cluster, evolution, and burst

5.1. keyword co-occurrence analysis.

Keywords condense an article's core and essence. Research hot spots in a certain field can be found through keyword co-occurrence analyses, so keywords have been widely used to reveal the knowledge structure of the research field ( Chen and Xiao, 2016 ). In this paper, VOSviewer was used to visualize high-frequency keywords and display those with frequencies > 5. The results are shown in Figure 3 . In the keyword co-occurrence knowledge graph, the node sizes reflect the keyword frequency: larger nodes indicate that the keywords appeared more frequently. The node colors represent different clusters, namely, the research topics. The lines between the nodes represent the strength of association: thicker lines indicate that the keywords appear more frequently together in the same article.

Figure 3 . Co-occurrence of keywords.

As can be seen from Figure 3 , the moral education research has three main clusters. To learn the research details of the focus within each cluster, the following 3 clusters are analyzed individually.

In the blue cluster, the research studies moral education from the psychological perspective. Many studies have focused on the effect of moral exemplars ( Han et al., 2017 , 2018b ). Studies have also examined how the psychological levels are associated with moral development, including self-preservation ( Dahlbeck, 2017 ), self-doubt ( Verducci, 2014 ), and self-cultivation or self-shaping. Such studies explain the value of morality and moral education from the perspective of psychology. Other psychological studies have measured the motivational strength of moral behavior by the scientific measurement method ( Bock et al., 2021 ). Some studies have also analyzed the kind of moral education that should be given from the perspectives of belief and religion ( Lin and Lu, 2020 ). In addition, virtue ethics is a focal point covered by this cluster and has attracted much attention in the field of moral education. Virtue ethics has been deeply discussed by many scholars; for example, advocates of virtue ethics have launched a heated debate on whether a shared public moral education system is possible ( Katayama, 2003 ).

Research in the green cluster focuses on the more specific critical thinking and practical research on moral education. As a discipline derived from educational philosophy, many studies on moral education still follow the discourses and speculative research methods used in the philosophical research ( Nakazawa, 2018 ), for example, by comparing the thinking and practical models of scholars such as Kant, Aristotle and Mill and by discussing their contributions to moral education ( Surprenant, 2010 ). Cross-cultural comparative analyses and speculative studies are also an important component of this cluster and have become an important model for the creation of new thoughts on moral education. Some scholars, after learning the shortcomings of Western educational philosophers' thoughts, began to promote the Oriental Confucian view of moral education ( Sin, 2022 ). Some scholars have tried to explain whether the effect of moral education was internally or externally driven by comparing the thoughts of famous thinkers in the field of moral education between China and the West ( Slote, 2016 ). In addition to the speculative research, which is more profound, many comparative empirical studies in this cluster have focused on moral practice ( Chi-Hou, 2004 ; Cheung and Lee, 2010 ; Ronkainen et al., 2021 ). For example, Asif et al. (2020) compared the differences in the training objectives of moral education between Chinese and Pakistani teachers by combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. The teachers in Pakistan considered the sovereignty of sacred laws, loyalty to the country's constitution, and a sense of service to society as the ultimate goals of a moral education. Meanwhile, the Chinese teachers promoted a political ideology that stressed collectivism in a socialist approach, with family and social values being the most relevant. As moral education is a research topic involving social culture, historical background, and temporal characteristics, discussions on its object and implementation method are quite complicated. The research in the green cluster tries to reveal the complex relationships from more abstract ideological discussions and a more concrete empirical analysis to delineate the big picture of the moral education research.

The research in the red cluster mainly studies civic education, which is a very important subtopic in moral education. Although some scholars have proposed that moral education should be distinguished from civic education ( Cantero, 2008 ), many scholars have reached a consensus on this issue at present. Civic education is believed to be a research topic under the general concept of moral education ( Schuitema et al., 2008 ). This status is because the essence of moral education on the social level is to promote the orderly and rational development of society by cultivating students' prosocial behaviors. Therefore, all democratic societies should pay attention to citizen socialization, that is, for everyone in a democratic society to know their citizenship status. Moral education plays an important role in this process ( Althof and Berkowitz, 2006 ). Obviously, the social meaning of moral education is highly consistent with civic education. However, the use of civic education to replace moral education is not comprehensive, and some scholars have noted problems in talking about moral education only from the social level. In a democratic society, it is necessary to constantly weigh the balance between the advantages and disadvantages of public rights and private rights, requiring teachers engaged in the work of moral education teach social expectations for qualified citizens on the one hand, and citizens develop the self-awareness and moral awareness, on the other hand (Bernal Guerrero et al., 2019) .

The cluster analysis of moral education shows that the main research schools at present are moral psychology, moral education philosophy, and civic education. However, a careful examination of the moral bases followed by these schools shows that they cannot be separated from Aristotle's framework of moral virtues. The moral psychology schools are mostly based on the virtue theory of positive psychology ( Seroczynski, 2015 ). The moral education philosophy schools are also based on the derivation of Aristotelian concepts such as morality and virtue ( Surprenant, 2010 ). Civic education regards the establishment of certain sociopolitical mechanisms as a prerequisite for maintaining moral education ( Carr, 2006 ; Kristjánsson, 2014 ), which also coincides with some ideas discussed by Aristotle. Therefore, a consistent tradition and inspiration in the moral-related and moral education research for many years has been the inspiration taken from the ancient philosopher Aristotle's thought. It acts much like a towering tree: many research schools have undergone steady development and growth but remain firmly rooted in the thought foundation of ancient philosophers.

This cluster analysis of moral education also shows that it is a complex multidimensional and interdisciplinary topic, involving pedagogy, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and other fields ( Chi-Kin Lee et al., 2021 ). People from different disciplines have different opinions on moral education ( Alvey, 2001 ). Each disciplinary perspective provides an indispensable piece of the jigsaw puzzle that is the overall picture of moral education. In addition, the cluster research demonstrates a typical characteristic of the moral education research—the emphasis placed on theoretical research and analysis—which is due to the subject's particularity. Until the present, mainly educational philosophers have made profound analyses of moral education, and educational philosophers have often chosen to develop the field of moral education by argumentation ( Lewis, 2018 ). Regarding the discipline's development, the emergence and initial development of any discipline depends on high-quality argumentation to realize the conceptualization and categorization of the discipline's terms, and the same is true of moral education. These wonderful arguments are difficult to reflect in this paper in terms of a simple and concise conclusion, but they are the objects worthy of appreciation. Therefore, the cluster analysis presents only the overall style of moral education, and the brilliant internal testimony and argumentation among scholars requires readers to examine the classical literature carefully. Moreover, the cluster research also finds that under the influence of positivism, all kinds of empirical studies in moral education have increased in recent years, and the use of qualitative and quantitative analytical technology has enriched the research model of this issue. Undoubtedly, the introduction of the empirical paradigm endows this topic with scientific nature, extends the scope of the moral education research, and expands the value of moral education as a separate discipline.

5.2. Keyword evolutionary analysis

Keyword co-occurrence analyses can reveal the hot spots and focal points of research fields, thus showing the structural characteristics of moral education issues and the development process of the research field. In this paper, CiteSpace was used to conduct an evolutionary analysis and delineate the view of keyword time zones (see Figure 4 ). In Figure 4 , each background bar in the time zone diagram represents a year, the keyword size represents the keyword frequency, and the line represents the keyword co-occurrence relationship.

Figure 4 . Time zone diagram of evolution of keywords in moral education research (keywords with frequency >5).

Figure 4 shows that the high-frequency keywords essentially appeared before 2010, and only 4 keywords with frequencies > 5 appeared after 2015. This result indicates that the concept development of moral education has entered a relatively stable stage in recent years, and the discipline structure tends to be perfect. Therefore, the evolutionary analysis should focus on the development of and change in keywords from 2000 to 2010.

At the beginning of the 21 st century, the subdomain of moral education, including topics such as its teachers and mission ( Fallona, 2000 ; Wardekker, 2001 ; Husu and Tirri, 2003 ), was widely studied. In addition, some research topics, such as democracy and citizenship, were more specific and reflected scholars' expectations about moral education's goals, including understanding and recognizing obligations and responsibilities in a democratic society, seeking equality in human rights, and understanding the connotation of citizenship ( Brabeck and Rogers, 2000 ). The keywords “children” and “adolescent” reveal the main groups with which moral education was concerned at that time ( Kuther and Higgins-D'Alessandro, 2000 ). This focus is different from the view that “moral education is an integral part of lifelong education,” held by some scholars in recent years ( Wong, 2020 ). This difference shows that the generalization in moral education's object has been a major trend in the past 20 years. At the same time, moral education in the early 21 st century was more about the value and benefit of the individual educatee ( Wardekker, 2001 ). Some studies paid attention to the value of moral education in improving adolescent self-esteem ( Covell and Howe, 2001 ). However, the research at that time paid less attention to the larger social benefit of moral education. To some extent, this absence affected the construction of moral education's goal, making it slightly one-sided and narrow.

Meanwhile, the wide opportunities for moral education in schools at all levels has triggered scholars' systematic research on moral education at the instructional design level ( Jie and Desheng, 2004 ). During this period, the curriculum and teaching theory system have been constructed belonging exclusively to moral education ( Tai Wei and Lee Chin, 2004 ). At this time, the curriculum orientation of moral education was based on the pursuit of personal wellbeing and citizens' moral qualities ( Lee and Ho, 2005 ). Many studies have attempted to guide the development of the moral education curriculum based on previous theoretical studies ( Jie and Desheng, 2004 ; Richmond and Cummings, 2004 ). The reform of the moral education curriculum has become a new hot spot, as reflected in “curriculum” and other keywords in Figure 4 . At this time, under the guidance of Chinese government policies, Chinese scholars' research has become the forefront of curriculum theory in moral education, and has put forward much practical guidance for the curriculum system design of moral education ( Chi-Hou, 2004 ; Wansheng and Wujie, 2004 ; Lee and Ho, 2005 ; Cheung, 2007 ).

Between 2008 and 2012, moral, value, character, and civic/citizenship education have significantly and increasingly diverged, becoming emerging hot spots for scholars ( Gilead, 2011 ). Civic education particularly compensates for the drawbacks of the past moral education that focused too much on individual values, and it emphasizes the social benefits of individual identification with citizenship ( Schuitema et al., 2008 ). In contrast, value education, in its emphasis on the construction of learners' values, together with moral education, involves the specific connotation of moral education at the individual level ( Marshall et al., 2011 ; Pantić and Wubbels, 2012 ). As moral education continues to differentiate, concrete research has begun to increase, since the detailed issues require the support of the micro-empirical research. Although the abstract and philosophical speculation and argument remained the mainstream research trend, they were no longer in a monopolistic position.

The empirical paradigm and hybrid research methods widely used in discipline education and higher education have also been used by the moral education researchers ( Dahlin, 2010 ). This fact has become a turning point that cannot be ignored in the process of promoting moral education's development.

Overall, moral education since 2012 has essentially continued its past development trend, with few typical signs of discipline development and evolution. Although the outbreak of COVID-19 has reshaped the model of contemporary education, it seems to have had little impact on moral education at the academic research level. Until now, no scholars have systematically discussed the impact of COVID-19 on moral education. This is a blank area that the current research on moral education needs to pay attention to, because there is no doubt that the great changes in society will bring multidimensional challenge to moral education and promote its deeper reflection and development.

Moreover, the current development and evolutionary situation of moral education have also attracted scholarly attention. Krettenauer (2021) noted that in the social sciences and related fields, the morality research increased exponentially in the past 15 to 20 years, but the moral education research had not seen a corresponding upsurge. However, unfortunately, Krettenauer (2021) also failed to reveal the mechanism behind the phenomenon, and therefore failed to make constructive suggestions to resolve it. Perhaps this is also a specific research direction under the larger topic of moral education that still has present research value and requires further scholarly exploration.

5.3. Keyword-burst analysis

Keyword emergence and transformation can partially reflect the hot spot changes in the research field. Although the moral education development in the past decade has not produced many emerging elements, the change and transition of research hot spots still occurred in a specific period. Therefore, this paper utilizes the CiteSpace function of Burst detection to detect the top-10 keyword bursts (as shown in Figure 5 ) to systematically show the changes in this research topic.

Figure 5 . Top 10 keywords with the strongest citation bursts.

Figure 5 shows that, at the beginning of the 21 3 century, few research hot spots had high intensity, and the research focus was mainly on teacher education. This subtopic is explained in detail in the Keyword Evolutionary Analysis (see Subsection 5.2). Beginning in 2016, the field's research hot spots in the field of moral education frequently changed, and Figure 5 shows that many keyword bursts with profound connotations emerged from 2016 to 2019. For example, from 2017 to 2019, many scholars began to pay attention to the role of moral exemplars in moral education ( Hamilton and LaVoi, 2017 ; Han et al., 2017 , 2018b ; Engelen et al., 2018 ; Nielsen, 2019 ; Tachibana, 2019 ). Character education and virtue also became the research hot spots of moral education between 2018 and 2022 ( Bernal Guerrero et al., 2019 ; Chi-Kin Lee et al., 2021 ). These keywords formed a new trend that promoted the development of moral education in a deeper and more detailed direction. Research on moral education and virtue is often closely related to virtue ethics and character development, inspired by Aristotle. Therefore, the emergence of these hot spots reflects scholarly interest in the origin of morality study. Hence, Darnell et al. (2019) suggested the necessity to take seriously the increasing interest in Aristotle-inspired virtue ethics and character development within the social sciences.

In addition, phronesis is an ancient concept developed by Aristotle, and much of its discussion takes place in the sixth volume of his work, Nicomachean Ethics . Its intuitive meaning is practical wisdom, but understanding its meaning first requires a deep understanding of Aristotle's philosophy. Aristotle believed that human beings had both rational and irrational sides, and to have phronesis required adjusting or tailoring the irrational side of human beings to make them more rational ( Darnell et al., 2019 ; Osman, 2019 ). Thus, phronesis should be distinguished from mere clever-ness. Darnell et al. (2019) noted that Aristotle's description of phronesis implied elements of the category of natural virtues such as honesty, kindness, consideration, and compassion and was similar to the neo-Kohlbergian concept of “moral judgment”, that is, the ability to weigh or adjudicate the relative priority of virtues in complex, problematic situations.

The keyword-burst analysis identified a significant revival of Aristotle's philosophy of moral education. This result confirms the present value of classical moral philosophy, in sharp contrast with the decline of Kohlberg's moral education paradigm ( Kristjánsson, 2017 ). This contrast is a problem worth the pondering of all moral education scholars. In the past two decades of the moral education research, few research paradigms have been introduced that appear universal and in line with the needs of the times. The philosophical discussions of and theoretical research on moral education have fallen into a strange circle, as Kristjánsson wrote in a 2021 editorial. Apparently, no major, new academic trends have emerged—like Athena from the forehead of Zeus—in the past 3 years. Despite this fact, Kristjánsson (2021 ) remained hopeful about the future, waiting for the owl of Minerva to take her flight at dusk.

6. Conclusions, limitations, and future research implications

6.1. conclusions.

Based on a careful review of and reflection upon the research field of moral education, this paper reorganizes the theoretical connotation of moral education under the framework of virtue ethics. The reasoning follows the value judgment of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics that virtue is a kind of good quality based on acts and habits, and that it is distinguished from intellectual virtue ( Ameriks and Clarke, 2000 ). Therefore, moral education uses various forms and systematic teaching designs (such as the establishment of moral models) to help form, cultivate, and maintain this kind of good quality through certain practices and guidance.

The evolution of any research field, including moral education, is a dynamic development process. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize, explain and analyze it from a dynamic perspective to understand the reasons for its evolution. Through a keyword performance analysis and a relevant keyword visual analysis, the following conclusions are obtained in this paper:

1. This paper systematically analyzes the scientific productivity of authors, organizations, and countries. The highly productive authors include Han and Kristjánsson, and the highly productive organizations include the University of Birmingham and Stanford University. This paper also shows the top-four countries with the largest published article volume and with close cooperation in this field (i.e., USA, United Kingdom, China, and the Netherlands), and summarizes and comments on their research focuses.

2. This paper also pays attention to the core journals (e.g., Journal of Moral Education etc.) and highly cited articles in the field. Additionally, it examines the scope of moral education at the academic level through the discipline categories to which the core journals belong and the key elements of the differentiation and analysis of highly cited articles. Finally, it analyzes the discipline categories related to moral education.

3. Through a cluster analysis, this paper outlines the macro-disciplinary structure of the moral education research topics, identifies the schools represented by the three clusters and their specific subject concerns, and presents different prospects for moral education as an interdisciplinary topic in various disciplines.

4. An evolutionary analysis presents the development trend of moral education over the past 20+ years. Combined with the keyword-burst analysis, this paper finds that the discipline structure has tended to be stable in the past 10 years. The classical philosophical trend represented by Aristotle has reemerged as a hot topic in the study of moral education in recent years, but the decline of some classic research paradigms has caused the discipline's development to enter a slow period.

A comprehensive review of moral education can reveal the problems existing in the current development and the direction that scholars in this field should actively explore. Firstly, the biggest gap in the current moral education research is the lack of a systematic paradigm to guide the discipline's development and to standardize its construction of a system, which is consistent with Kristjánsson (2021) viewpoints. At present, moral education is in urgent need of a disciplinary paradigm that stands on a solid theoretical basis and can keep pace with the times. A reasonable paradigm is also key to solving the problem of the slow development and evolution of moral education that was criticized by Krettenauer (2021) . Secondly, more education continues to have some unsolved cross-century problems, such as the question raised by MacIntyre: whether it is possible to build a common public moral education system in the current pluralistic society ( MacIntyre, 1999 ). Such questions have not been unanimously recognized by the academic community after more than 20 years and are not rare ( Kristjánsson, 2017 ). Lastly, the overall review of moral education reveals that the discipline system of moral education spans positive psychology, ethics, education, and other disciplines. However, the current research all falls under a certain discourse system that analyzes moral phenomena and problems. Meanwhile, few scholars are trying to break through the disciplinary barriers of moral education or are looking for consistency among the research elements involved in the different disciplines of moral education. Future studies could try to build the multi-disciplinary thematic imagery behind moral education and construct a discourse system of universal significance for it.

6.2. Limitations and future research

This paper has some limitations because of some objective factors. Firstly, the bibliometric analytical software has high data standards and specifications. Therefore, to ensure the quality and integrity of the collected data, only journal articles from the SSCI of the Web of Science core collection were selected, and indexes such as the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Conference Proceedings Citation Index–Social Sciences & Humanities (CPCI-SSH) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index–Science (CPCI-S) were excluded to avoid excessive noise, which inevitably leads to the problem that the analytical data are not comprehensive. Secondly, quantitative analyses require data analyses and interpretation, which requires researchers to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of this field. Although we make efforts to overcome the adverse influence caused by personal subjective factors, some subjective color inevitably remains. To overcome these limitations, in a future study, we will expand the scope of the literature filtering, learn more widely the trends and hot topics of the moral education research, actively contact the field's scholars, and acquire objective and cutting-edge insights in the field. These efforts will greatly reduce the adverse impacts of personal subjectivity on the research and analyses.

As society dynamically evolves, technological changes will place new requirements on moral education, making it an enduring issue. This paper summarizes the main research themes of moral education research topics through systematic scientific research methods while reviewing the problems and current situation in this issue's development process. In addition, based on the research analysis, this paper puts forward some academic questions worthy of further analysis, such as why the rapid development of the moral research has failed to promote its prosperity and how to break through the strange circle of the fuzzy moral education research paradigm. Limited by its length, this paper also contains some content that has not yet been proven, including that the research methods commonly used in the field of moral education are neither classified nor quantified. Future research efforts should be made to extract quantitative information that is more comprehensive and to obtain conclusions that are more precise, which will provide interpretations that are more valuable on the development of the moral education research.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

Conceptualization and writing—original draft preparation: JC and YL. Methodology: YL, JD, and CW. Software: CW and JD. Writing—review and editing: JC and JD. Visualization: YL and CW. Supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition: JC. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This research was funded by the Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project Fund Project of Zhejiang Province (Grant No. 17GXSZ19YB) and Teaching Reform Project of Zhejiang University of Technology (Grant No. JG2022064).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the reviewers and editor for their valuable suggestions, to College of Educational Science and Technology, Zhejiang University of Technology for the cultivation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1079955/full#supplementary-material

Althof, W., and Berkowitz, M. W. (2006). Moral education and character education: their relationship and roles in citizenship education. J. Moral Educ. 35, 495–518. doi: 10.1080/03057240601012204

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alvey, J. E. (2001). Moral education as a means to human perfection and social order: Adam Smith's view of education in commercial society. Hist. Hum. Sci. 14, 1–18. doi: 10.1177/09526950122120934

Ameriks, K., and Clarke, D. M. (2000). Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Aron, I. E. (1977). Moral philosophy and moral education: a critique of Kohlberg's theory. School Rev. 85, 197–217. doi: 10.1086/443328

Asif, T., Guangming, O., Haider, M. A., Colomer, J., Kayani, S., and Amin, N. (2020). Moral education for sustainable development: comparison of university teachers' perceptions in China and Pakistan. Sustainability 12, 3014. doi: 10.3390/su12073014

Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., et al. (2001). Diversity within unity: essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan 83, 196–203. doi: 10.1177/003172170108300309

Bernal Guerrero, A., Gozalvez Perez, V., and Burguet Arfelis, M. (2019). Ethical reconstruction of citizenship: a proposal between the intimate self and the public sphere. J. Moral Educ. 48, 483–498. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2018.1563880

Berreth, D., and Berman, S. (1997). The moral dimensions of schools. Educ. Leadership 54, 24–27.

Bielskis, A. (2011). Virtue and politics: an Aristotelian reading of Niccolò Machiavelli. Problemos 80, 7–18. doi: 10.15388/Problemos.2011.0.1311

Bleazby, J. (2020). Fostering moral understanding, moral inquiry and moral habits through philosophy in schools: a Deweyian analysis of Australia's ethical understanding curriculum. J. Curric. Stud. 52, 84–100. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2019.1650116

Bock, T., Giebel, H., Hazelbaker, T., and Tufte, L. (2021). Integrating Thomistic virtue ethics with an Eriksonian identity perspective: a new moral identity assessment. J. Moral Educ. 50, 185–201. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2019.1691511

Brabeck, M. M., and Rogers, L. (2000). Human rights as a moral issue: lessons for moral educators from human rights work. J. Moral Educ. 29, 167–182. doi: 10.1080/713679341

Cantero, F. G. (2008). Ciudadanía y humanidad. La educación en el disenso. Teor. Educ. 20, 25–44. doi: 10.14201/982

Carr, D. (2006). The moral roots of citizenship: reconciling principle and character in citizenship education. J. Moral Educ. 35, 443–456. doi: 10.1080/03057240601012212

Carr, D. (2014). Metaphysics and methods in moral enquiry and education: some old philosophical wine for new theoretical bottles. J. Moral Educ. 43, 500–515. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2014.943167

Chang, C. M., Hung, M. L., Lu, J. L., and Chou, C. (2018). The virtues of Taiwanese internet-using adolescents: the development and validation of the Cyber Virtues Scale. J. Educ. Techno. Soc. 21, 104–111. doi: 10.1037/t69726-000

Chen, G., and Xiao, L. (2016). Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: a comparison of three methods. J. Informetr. 10, 212–223. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.006

Chen, J., Wang, C., and Tang, Y. (2022). Knowledge mapping of volunteer motivation: a bibliometric analysis and cross-cultural comparative study. Front. Psychol. 13:883150. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883150

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheung, C., and Lee, T. (2010). Contributions of moral education lectures and moral discussion in Hong Kong secondary schools. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13, 575–591. doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9127-x

Cheung, C. K. (2007). The teaching of moral education through media education. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 16, 61–72. doi: 10.3860/taper.v16i1.92

Chi-Hou, C. (2004). Moral and civic education–the hidden curriculum in Macau. J. Moral Educ. 33, 553–573. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000315707

Chi-Kin Lee, J., Wong, K. L., and Kong, R. H. M. (2021). Secondary school teachers' self-efficacy for moral and character education and its predictors: a Hong Kong perspective. Teach. Teach. 27, 32–47. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2021.1920907

Chouliaraki, L. (2008). The media as moral education: Mediation and action. Media Cult. Soc. 30, 831–852. doi: 10.1177/0163443708096096

Covell, K., and Howe, R. B. (2001). Moral education through the 3 Rs: rights, respect and responsibility. J. Moral Educ. 30, 29–41. doi: 10.1080/03057240120033794

Dahlbeck, J. (2017). A Spinozistic model of moral education. Stud. Philos. Educ. 36, 533–550. doi: 10.1007/s11217-016-9530-7

Dahlin, B. (2010). A state-independent education for citizenship? Comparing beliefs and values related to civic and moral issues among students in Swedish mainstream and Steiner Waldorf schools. J. Beliefs Values-Stud. Relig. Educ. 31, 165–180. doi: 10.1080/13617672.2010.503629

Darnell, C., Gulliford, L., Kristjánsson, K., and Paris, P. (2019). Phronesis and the knowledge-action gap in moral psychology and moral education: a new synthesis? Hum. Dev. 62, 101–129. doi: 10.1159/000496136

Dewey, J. (1959). Moral Principles in Education . New York, NY: Philosophical Library.

Ding, X., and Yang, Z. (2022). Knowledge mapping of platform research: a visual analysis using VOSviewer and CiteSpace. Electron. Commer. Res. 22, 787–809. doi: 10.1007/s10660-020-09410-7

Doyle, D. P. (1997). Education and character: a conservative view. Phi Delta Kappan 78, 440–443.

Engelen, B., Thomas, A., Archer, A., and van de Ven, N. (2018). Exemplars and nudges: combining two strategies for moral education. J. Moral Educ. 47, 346–365. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1396966

Fallona, C. (2000). Manner in teaching: a study in observing and interpreting teachers' moral virtues. Teach. Teach. Educ. 16, 681–695. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00019-6

Fenstermacher, G. D. (2001). On the concept of manner and its visibility in teaching practice. J. Curric. Stud. 33, 639–653. doi: 10.1080/00220270110049886

Ferrero, I., and Sison, A. J. G. (2014). A quantitative analysis of authors, schools and themes in virtue ethics articles in business ethics and management journals (1980-2011). Bus. Ethics 23, 375–400. doi: 10.1111/beer.12057

Gilead, T. (2011). Countering the vices: on the neglected side of character education. Stud. Philos. Educ. 30, 271–284. doi: 10.1007/s11217-011-9223-1

Gilligan, C., and Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Q. 34, 223–237.

Halstead, M. (2004). An Islamic concept of education. Comp. Educ. 40, 517–529. doi: 10.1080/0305006042000284510

Hamilton, M. G. B., and LaVoi, N. M. (2017). Ethical professional identity and the development of moral exemplar collegiate coaches. J. Moral Educ. 46, 114–128. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1313724

Han, H., and Dawson, K. J. (2022). Improved model exploration for the relationship between moral foundations and moral judgment development using Bayesian model averaging. J. Moral Educ. 51, 204–218. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2020.1863774

Han, H., Kim, J., Jeong, C., and Cohen, G. L. (2017). Attainable and relevant moral exemplars are more effective than extraordinary exemplars in promoting voluntary service engagement. Front. Psychol. 8:283. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00283

Han, H., Park, J., and Thoma, S. J. (2018a). Why do we need to employ Bayesian statistics and how can we employ it in studies of moral education?: with practical guidelines to use JASP for educators and researchers. J. Moral Educ. 47, 519–537. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/mruz9

Han, H., Park, S. C., Kim, J., Jeong, C., Kunii, Y., and Kim, S. (2018b). A quantitative analysis of moral exemplars presented in moral education textbooks in Korea and Japan. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 38, 62–77. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1423950

Han, H., Workman, C. I., May, J., Scholtens, P., Dawson, K. J., Glenn, A. L., et al. (2022). Which moral exemplars inspire prosociality? Philos. Psychol. 7, 943–970. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2022.2035343

Hand, M. (2019). Moral education and the justification of basic moral standards: replies to Clayton, Stevens and D'Olimpio. J. Moral Educ. 48, 529–539. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2019.1626704

Hardy, S. A., and Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Hum. Dev. 48, 232–256. doi: 10.1159/000086859

Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. (2011). Dancing up a spiral staircase: learning how best practices and policies intertwine lifelong moral development with education. J. Moral Educ. 40, 397–405. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2011.596343

Hoekema, D. A. (2010). “Is there an ethicist in the house? How can we tell?,” in Debating Moral Education. eds. E. Kiss and J. P. Euben (Durham, NC: Duke University Press), 249–266. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv11cw7pw.17

Hsu, Y. C., Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Wang, C. Y., et al. (2012). Research trends in technology-based learning from 2000 to 2009: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. J. Educ. Techno. Soc. 15, 354–370. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.15.2.354 (accessed December 14, 2022).

Husu, J., and Tirri, K. (2003). A case study approach to study one teacher's moral reflection. Teach. Teach. Educ. 19, 345–357. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00019-2

Hwang, G. J., and Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: a review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 42, E65–E70. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x

Jie, L., and Desheng, G. (2004). New directions in the moral education curriculum in Chinese primary schools. J. Moral Educ. 33, 495–510. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000315617

Jordan, K., and Kristjánsson, K. (2017). Sustainability, virtue ethics, and the virtue of harmony with nature. Environ. Educ. Res. 23, 1205–1229. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1157681

Katayama, K. (2003). Is the virtue approach to moral education viable in a plural society? J. Philos. Educ. 37, 325–338. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.00329

Kohlberg, L. (1969). “Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization,” in Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research . ed. D. A. Goslin (Chicago, IL: Rand McNally), 347–480.

Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. J. Philos. 70, 630–646. doi: 10.2307/2025030

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development . San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row.

Krettenauer, T. (2021). Moral sciences and the role of education. J. Moral Educ. 50, 77–91. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2020.1784713

Kristjánsson, K. (2006). Emulation and the use of role models in moral education. J. Moral Educ. 35, 37–49. doi: 10.1080/03057240500495278

Kristjánsson, K. (2013). There is something about Aristotle: the pros and cons of Aristotelianism in contemporary moral education. J. Philos. Educ. 48, 48–68. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12047

Kristjánsson, K. (2014). Undoing bad upbringing through contemplation: an Aristotelian reconstruction. J. Moral Educ. 43, 468–483. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2014.902809

Kristjánsson, K. (2017). Moral education today: ascendancy and fragmentation. J. Moral Educ. 46, 339–346. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1370209

Kristjánsson, K. (2020). Aristotelian character friendship as a “method” of moral education. Stud. Philos. Educ. 39, 349–364. doi: 10.1007/s11217-020-09717-w

Kristjánsson, K. (2021). Awaiting the owl of Minerva: some thoughts on the present and future of moral education. J. Philos. Educ. 50, 115–121. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2021.1907074

Kuhn, D. (1976). Short-term longitudinal evidence for the sequentiality of Kohlberg's early stages of moral judgment. Dev. Psychol. 12, 162–166. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.12.2.162

Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Rev. Educ. Res. 70, 25–53. doi: 10.3102/00346543070001025

Kuther, T. L., and Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. N. N. (2000). Bridging the gap between moral reasoning and adolescent engagement in risky behavior. J. Adolesc. 23, 409–422. doi: 10.1006/jado.2000.0328

Lee, A. C. M. (2022). The JME's 50-year contribution to moral education: a content analysis 1971-2021. J. Moral Educ. 51, 117–138. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2022.2055533

Lee, W. O., and Ho, C. H. (2005). Ideopolitical shifts and changes in moral education policy in China. J. Moral Educ. 34, 413–431. doi: 10.1080/03057240500410160

Leihy, P., and Salazar, J. M. (2016). The moral dimension in Chilean higher education's expansion. High. Educ. 74, 147–161. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0034-8

Lewis, C. J. (2018). Vygotsky and moral education: a response to and expansion of Tappan. Educ. Philos. Theory 51, 41–50. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1427576

Li, X., Li, H., Huang, C., Yao, Q., Zhao, X., Chen, X., et al. (2017). Internet news dissemination on ideological and moral cultivation in higher school. EURASIA J. Mathem. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13, 7049–7055. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/78729

Lickona, T. (1976). “Critical issues in the study of moral development and behavior,” in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory, Research, and Social Issues. ed. T. Lickona (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) 3–27.

Lickona, T. (1999). Religion and character education. Phi Delta Kappan 81, 21–27.

Lin, Z., and Lu, H. (2020). In search of a moral standard: debates over ethics education and religion in Meiji Japan. Hist. Educ. 49, 38–56. doi: 10.1080/0046760X.2019.1651905

MacIntyre, A. (1999). Social structures and their threats to moral agency. Philosophy 74, 311–329. doi: 10.1017/S0031819199000431

MacIntyre, A., and Dunne, J. (2002). Alasdair MacIntyre on education: in dialogue with Joseph Dunne. J. Philos. Educ. 36, 1–19. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.00256

Marshall, J. C., Caldwell, S. D., and Foster, J. (2011). Moral education the CHARACTER plus Way ® . J. Moral Educ. 40, 51–72. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2011.541770

McInerny, R. M. (1997). Ethica Thomistica: the moral philosophy of Thomas Aquinas . Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

Merigó, J. M., Gil-Lafuente, A. M., and Yager, R. R. (2015). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Appl. Soft. Comput. 27, 420–433. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.035

Mischel, T. (1971). Cognitive Development and Epistemology . New York, NY: Academic Press.

Motos, C. R. (2010). The controversy over civic education in Spain. Eur. Polit. Sci. 9, 269–279. doi: 10.1057/eps.2010.9

Nakazawa, Y. M. (2018). Iris Murdoch's critique of three dualisms in moral education. J. Philos. Educ. 52, 397–411. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12293

Nielsen, C. F. (2019). Exemplarity, expressivity, education. J. Moral Educ. 48, 381–392. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2018.1563879

Noddings, N. (2010). Moral education in an age of globalization. Educ. Philos. Theory 42, 390–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00487.x

Nucci, L., and Turiel, E. (2009). Capturing the complexity of moral development and education. Mind Brain Educ . 3, 151–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01065.x

Osman, Y. (2019). The significance in using role models to influence primary school children's moral development: pilot study. J. Moral Educ. 48, 316–331. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2018.1556154

Pan, X., Yan, E., Cui, M., and Hua, W. (2018). Examining the usage, citation, and diffusion patterns of bibliometric mapping software: a comparative study of three tools. J. Informetr. 12, 481–493. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2018.03.005

Pantić, N., and Wubbels, T. (2012). The role of teachers in inculcating moral values: operationalisation of concepts. J. Beliefs Values-Stud. Relig. Educ. 33, 55–69. doi: 10.1080/13617672.2012.650030

Persson, I., and Savulescu, J. (2013). Getting moral enhancement right: the desirability of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics 27, 124–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01907.x

Peters, R. S. (2015). Moral Development and Moral Education. London: Routledge.

Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child . New York, NY: Free Press.

Price, D. J. D. S. (1963). Little Science, Big Science . Warrenton, OSU: Columbia University Press. doi: 10.7312/pric91844

Ranson, S. (2000). Recognizing the pedagogy of voice in a learning community. Educ. Manag. Adm. 28, 263–279. doi: 10.1177/0263211X000283003

Reiman, A. J., and Dotger, B. H. (2008). What does innovation mean for moral educators? J. Moral Educ. 37, 151–164. doi: 10.1080/03057240802009124

Rest, J., Thoma, S., and Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: stage preference and stage consistency approaches. J. Educ. Psychol. 89, 5–28. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.5

Richmond, A. S., and Cummings, R. (2004). In support of the cognitive-developmental approach to moral education: a response to David Carr. J. Moral Educ. 33, 197–205. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000215230

Ronkainen, R., Kuusisto, E., Eisenschmidt, E., and Tirri, K. (2021). Ethical sensitivity of Finnish and Estonian teachers. J. Moral Educ. 50, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2021.1960491

Sanger, M. N., and Osguthorpe, R. D. (2011). Teacher education, preservice teacher beliefs, and the moral work of teaching. Teach. Teach. Educ. 27, 569–578. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.10.011

Santas, A. (2000). Teaching anti-racism. Stud. Philos. Educ. 19, 349–361. doi: 10.1023/A:1005298916161

Sarid, A. (2012). Between thick and thin: Responding to the crisis of moral education. J. Moral Educ. 41, 245–260. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2012.678054

Schuitema, J., Dam, G. T., and Veugelers, W. (2008). Teaching strategies for moral education: a review. J. Curric. Stud. 40, 69–89. doi: 10.1080/00220270701294210

Seroczynski, A. D. (2015). Virtues and vices in positive psychology: a philosophical critique. J. Moral Educ. 44, 112–114. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2014.969886

Shao, X., and Wang, H. (2017). Impact of we media on deconstruction and reconstruction of college students' ideological and moral outlook. EURASIA J. Mathem. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13, 8113–8119. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/80772

Sin, W. (2022). Modesty, Confucianism, and active indifference. Educ. Philos. Theory 54, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2022.2082939

Sison, A. J. G., and Redín, D. M. (2022). If MacIntyre ran a business school… how practical wisdom can be developed in management education. Bus. Ethics Environ. Resp . 32, 274–291. doi: 10.1111/beer.12471

Slote, M. (2016). Moral self-cultivation east and west: a critique. J. Moral Educ. 45, 192–206. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2016.1174674

Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., and Battistich, V. A. (2001). “Teaching and schooling effects on moral/prosocial development,” in Handbook of Research on Teaching . ed. V. Richardson (Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association), 566–603.

Stanley, F. (2003). Save the world on your own time . Available online at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/save-the-world-on-your-own-time/ (accessed October 2, 2022).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Stanley, F. (2004). The case for academic autonomy . Available online at: https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-case-for-academic-autonomy/ (accessed October 2, 2022).

Su, Y. S., Lin, C. L., Chen, S. Y., and Lai, C. F. (2019). Bibliometric study of social network analysis literature. Libr. Hi Tech 38, 420–433. doi: 10.1108/LHT-01-2019-0028

Surprenant, C. W. (2010). Kant's contribution to moral education: the relevance of catechistics. J. Moral Educ. 39, 165–174. doi: 10.1080/03057241003754898

Tachibana, K. (2019). Nonadmirable moral exemplars and virtue development. J. Moral Educ. 48, 346–357. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2019.1577723

Tai Wei, T., and Lee Chin, C. (2004). Moral and citizenship education as statecraft in Singapore: a curriculum critique. J. Moral Educ. 33, 597–606. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000315644

Tan, C. (2020). Digital confucius? Exploring the implications of artificial intelligence in spiritual education. Connect. Sci. 32, 280–291. doi: 10.1080/09540091.2019.1709045

Tappan, M. B. (1997). Language, culture, and moral development: a Vygotskian perspective. Dev. Rev. 17, 78–100. doi: 10.1006/drev.1996.0422

Thornberg, R. (2008). The lack of professional knowledge in values education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 24, 1791–1798. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.004

Verducci, S. (2014). Self-doubt: one moral of the story. Stud. Philos. Educ. 33, 609–620. doi: 10.1007/s11217-014-9407-6

Villenas, S. (2001). Latina mothers and small-town racisms: creating narratives of dignity and moral education in North Carolina. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 32, 3–28. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2001.32.1.3

Wang, C. L., Dai, J., and Xu, L. J. (2022). “Big data and data mining in education: a bibliometrics study from 2010 to 2022,” in Proceedings of 2022 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics (Chengdu: IEEE), 507–512. doi: 10.1109/ICCCBDA55098.2022.9778874

Wansheng, Z., and Wujie, N. (2004). The moral education curriculum for junior high schools in 21st century China. J. Moral Educ. 33, 511–532. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000327993

Wanxue, Q., and Hanwei, T. (2004). The social and cultural background of contemporary moral education in China. J. Moral Educ. 33, 465–480. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000315590

Wardekker, W. (2004). Moral education and the construction of meaning. Educ. Rev. 56, 183–192. doi: 10.1080/0031910410001693263

Wardekker, W. L. (2001). Schools and moral education: conformism or autonomy? J. Philos. Educ. 35, 101–114. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.00212

Wong, M. Y. (2020). University students' perceptions of learning of moral education: a response to lifelong moral education in higher education. Teach. High Educ. 25, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2020.1852201

Woods, M. (2005). Nursing ethics education: are we really delivering the good (s)? Nurs. Ethics 12, 5–18. doi: 10.1191/0969733005ne754oa

Xiaoman, Z., and Cilin, L. (2004). Teacher training for moral education in China. J. Moral Educ. 33, 481–494. doi: 10.1080/0305724042000315608

Yadegaridehkordi, E., Noor, N. F. B. M., Ayub, M. N. B., Affal, H. B., and Hussin, N. B. (2019). Affective computing in education: a systematic review and future research. Comput. Educ. 142, 103649. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103649

Zhang, Q., Saharuddin, N. B., and Aziz, N. A. B. A. (2022). The analysis of teachers' perceptions of moral education curriculum. Front. Psychol. 13, 967927. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.967927

Keywords: moral education, moral instruction, bibliometrics, knowledge graph, visual analysis

Citation: Chen JY, Liu YD, Dai J and Wang CL (2023) Development and status of moral education research: Visual analysis based on knowledge graph. Front. Psychol. 13:1079955. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1079955

Received: 25 October 2022; Accepted: 13 December 2022; Published: 04 January 2023.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2023 Chen, Liu, Dai and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of education is the branch of applied or practical philosophy concerned with the nature and aims of education and the philosophical problems arising from educational theory and practice. Because that practice is ubiquitous in and across human societies, its social and individual manifestations so varied, and its influence so profound, the subject is wide-ranging, involving issues in ethics and social/political philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind and language, and other areas of philosophy. Because it looks both inward to the parent discipline and outward to educational practice and the social, legal, and institutional contexts in which it takes place, philosophy of education concerns itself with both sides of the traditional theory/practice divide. Its subject matter includes both basic philosophical issues (e.g., the nature of the knowledge worth teaching, the character of educational equality and justice, etc.) and problems concerning specific educational policies and practices (e.g., the desirability of standardized curricula and testing, the social, economic, legal and moral dimensions of specific funding arrangements, the justification of curriculum decisions, etc.). In all this the philosopher of education prizes conceptual clarity, argumentative rigor, the fair-minded consideration of the interests of all involved in or affected by educational efforts and arrangements, and informed and well-reasoned valuation of educational aims and interventions.

Philosophy of education has a long and distinguished history in the Western philosophical tradition, from Socrates’ battles with the sophists to the present day. Many of the most distinguished figures in that tradition incorporated educational concerns into their broader philosophical agendas (Curren 2000, 2018; Rorty 1998). While that history is not the focus here, it is worth noting that the ideals of reasoned inquiry championed by Socrates and his descendants have long informed the view that education should foster in all students, to the extent possible, the disposition to seek reasons and the ability to evaluate them cogently, and to be guided by their evaluations in matters of belief, action and judgment. This view, that education centrally involves the fostering of reason or rationality, has with varying articulations and qualifications been embraced by most of those historical figures; it continues to be defended by contemporary philosophers of education as well (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988, 1997, 2007, 2017). As with any philosophical thesis it is controversial; some dimensions of the controversy are explored below.

This entry is a selective survey of important contemporary work in Anglophone philosophy of education; it does not treat in detail recent scholarship outside that context.

1. Problems in Delineating the Field

2. analytic philosophy of education and its influence, 3.1 the content of the curriculum and the aims and functions of schooling, 3.2 social, political and moral philosophy, 3.3 social epistemology, virtue epistemology, and the epistemology of education, 3.4 philosophical disputes concerning empirical education research, 4. concluding remarks, other internet resources, related entries.

The inward/outward looking nature of the field of philosophy of education alluded to above makes the task of delineating the field, of giving an over-all picture of the intellectual landscape, somewhat complicated (for a detailed account of this topography, see Phillips 1985, 2010). Suffice it to say that some philosophers, as well as focusing inward on the abstract philosophical issues that concern them, are drawn outwards to discuss or comment on issues that are more commonly regarded as falling within the purview of professional educators, educational researchers, policy-makers and the like. (An example is Michael Scriven, who in his early career was a prominent philosopher of science; later he became a central figure in the development of the field of evaluation of educational and social programs. See Scriven 1991a, 1991b.) At the same time, there are professionals in the educational or closely related spheres who are drawn to discuss one or another of the philosophical issues that they encounter in the course of their work. (An example here is the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner, the central figure in the development of operant conditioning and programmed learning, who in works such as Walden Two (1948) and Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1972) grappled—albeit controversially—with major philosophical issues that were related to his work.)

What makes the field even more amorphous is the existence of works on educational topics, written by well-regarded philosophers who have made major contributions to their discipline; these educational reflections have little or no philosophical content, illustrating the truth that philosophers do not always write philosophy. However, despite this, works in this genre have often been treated as contributions to philosophy of education. (Examples include John Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education [1693] and Bertrand Russell’s rollicking pieces written primarily to raise funds to support a progressive school he ran with his wife. (See Park 1965.)

Finally, as indicated earlier, the domain of education is vast, the issues it raises are almost overwhelmingly numerous and are of great complexity, and the social significance of the field is second to none. These features make the phenomena and problems of education of great interest to a wide range of socially-concerned intellectuals, who bring with them their own favored conceptual frameworks—concepts, theories and ideologies, methods of analysis and argumentation, metaphysical and other assumptions, and the like. It is not surprising that scholars who work in this broad genre also find a home in the field of philosophy of education.

As a result of these various factors, the significant intellectual and social trends of the past few centuries, together with the significant developments in philosophy, all have had an impact on the content of arguments and methods of argumentation in philosophy of education—Marxism, psycho-analysis, existentialism, phenomenology, positivism, post-modernism, pragmatism, neo-liberalism, the several waves of feminism, analytic philosophy in both its ordinary language and more formal guises, are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—all of which are at least part of the philosophical toolkit—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. No doubt it somewhat over-simplifies the complex path of intellectual history to suggest that what happened in the twentieth century—early on, in the home discipline itself, and with a lag of a decade or more in philosophy of education—is that philosophical analysis came to be viewed by some scholars as being the major philosophical activity (or set of activities), or even as being the only viable or reputable activity. In any case, as they gained prominence and for a time hegemonic influence during the rise of analytic philosophy early in the twentieth century analytic techniques came to dominate philosophy of education in the middle third of that century (Curren, Robertson, & Hager 2003).

The pioneering work in the modern period entirely in an analytic mode was the short monograph by C.D. Hardie, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1941; reissued in 1962). In his Introduction, Hardie (who had studied with C.D. Broad and I.A. Richards) made it clear that he was putting all his eggs into the ordinary-language-analysis basket:

The Cambridge analytical school, led by Moore, Broad and Wittgenstein, has attempted so to analyse propositions that it will always be apparent whether the disagreement between philosophers is one concerning matters of fact, or is one concerning the use of words, or is, as is frequently the case, a purely emotive one. It is time, I think, that a similar attitude became common in the field of educational theory. (Hardie 1962: xix)

About a decade after the end of the Second World War the floodgates opened and a stream of work in the analytic mode appeared; the following is merely a sample. D. J. O’Connor published An Introduction to Philosophy of Education (1957) in which, among other things, he argued that the word “theory” as it is used in educational contexts is merely a courtesy title, for educational theories are nothing like what bear this title in the natural sciences. Israel Scheffler, who became the paramount philosopher of education in North America, produced a number of important works including The Language of Education (1960), which contained clarifying and influential analyses of definitions (he distinguished reportive, stipulative, and programmatic types) and the logic of slogans (often these are literally meaningless, and, he argued, should be seen as truncated arguments), Conditions of Knowledge (1965), still the best introduction to the epistemological side of philosophy of education, and Reason and Teaching (1973 [1989]), which in a wide-ranging and influential series of essays makes the case for regarding the fostering of rationality/critical thinking as a fundamental educational ideal (cf. Siegel 2016). B. O. Smith and R. H. Ennis edited the volume Language and Concepts in Education (1961); and R.D. Archambault edited Philosophical Analysis and Education (1965), consisting of essays by a number of prominent British writers, most notably R. S. Peters (whose status in Britain paralleled that of Scheffler in the United States), Paul Hirst, and John Wilson. Topics covered in the Archambault volume were typical of those that became the “bread and butter” of analytic philosophy of education (APE) throughout the English-speaking world—education as a process of initiation, liberal education, the nature of knowledge, types of teaching, and instruction versus indoctrination.

Among the most influential products of APE was the analysis developed by Hirst and Peters (1970) and Peters (1973) of the concept of education itself. Using as a touchstone “normal English usage,” it was concluded that a person who has been educated (rather than instructed or indoctrinated) has been (i) changed for the better; (ii) this change has involved the acquisition of knowledge and intellectual skills and the development of understanding; and (iii) the person has come to care for, or be committed to, the domains of knowledge and skill into which he or she has been initiated. The method used by Hirst and Peters comes across clearly in their handling of the analogy with the concept of “reform”, one they sometimes drew upon for expository purposes. A criminal who has been reformed has changed for the better, and has developed a commitment to the new mode of life (if one or other of these conditions does not hold, a speaker of standard English would not say the criminal has been reformed). Clearly the analogy with reform breaks down with respect to the knowledge and understanding conditions. Elsewhere Peters developed the fruitful notion of “education as initiation”.

The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analytic philosophers of education, for, it was argued, getting clear about precisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarify the border that demarcates it from acceptable educational processes. Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by the content taught, the intention of the instructor, the methods of instruction used, the outcomes of the instruction, or by some combination of these. Adherents of the different analyses used the same general type of argument to make their case, namely, appeal to normal and aberrant usage. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not lead to unanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rival analyses of the concept were put forward (Snook 1972). The danger of restricting analysis to ordinary language (“normal English usage”) was recognized early on by Scheffler, whose preferred view of analysis emphasized

first, its greater sophistication as regards language, and the interpenetration of language and inquiry, second, its attempt to follow the modern example of the sciences in empirical spirit, in rigor, in attention to detail, in respect for alternatives, and in objectivity of method, and third, its use of techniques of symbolic logic brought to full development only in the last fifty years… It is…this union of scientific spirit and logical method applied toward the clarification of basic ideas that characterizes current analytic philosophy [and that ought to characterize analytic philosophy of education]. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 9–10])

After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons the influence of APE went into decline. First, there were growing criticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education had become focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practical import. (It is worth noting that a 1966 article in Time , reprinted in Lucas 1969, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970’s radical students in Britain accused Peters’ brand of linguistic analysis of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to “traditional values”—they raised the issue of whose English usage was being analyzed?

Third, criticisms of language analysis in mainstream philosophy had been mounting for some time, and finally after a lag of many years were reaching the attention of philosophers of education; there even had been a surprising degree of interest on the part of the general reading public in the United Kingdom as early as 1959, when Gilbert Ryle, editor of the journal Mind , refused to commission a review of Ernest Gellner’s Words and Things (1959)—a detailed and quite acerbic critique of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and its espousal of ordinary language analysis. (Ryle argued that Gellner’s book was too insulting, a view that drew Bertrand Russell into the fray on Gellner’s side—in the daily press, no less; Russell produced a list of insulting remarks drawn from the work of great philosophers of the past. See Mehta 1963.)

Richard Peters had been given warning that all was not well with APE at a conference in Canada in 1966; after delivering a paper on “The aims of education: A conceptual inquiry” that was based on ordinary language analysis, a philosopher in the audience (William Dray) asked Peters “ whose concepts do we analyze?” Dray went on to suggest that different people, and different groups within society, have different concepts of education. Five years before the radical students raised the same issue, Dray pointed to the possibility that what Peters had presented under the guise of a “logical analysis” was nothing but the favored usage of a certain class of persons—a class that Peters happened to identify with (see Peters 1973, where to the editor’s credit the interaction with Dray is reprinted).

Fourth, during the decade of the seventies when these various critiques of analytic philosophy were in the process of eroding its luster, a spate of translations from the Continent stimulated some philosophers of education in Britain and North America to set out in new directions, and to adopt a new style of writing and argumentation. Key works by Gadamer, Foucault and Derrida appeared in English, and these were followed in 1984 by Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition . The classic works of Heidegger and Husserl also found new admirers; and feminist philosophers of education were finding their voices—Maxine Greene published a number of pieces in the 1970s and 1980s, including The Dialectic of Freedom (1988); the influential book by Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , appeared the same year as the work by Lyotard, followed a year later by Jane Roland Martin’s Reclaiming a Conversation . In more recent years all these trends have continued. APE was and is no longer the center of interest, although, as indicated below, it still retains its voice.

3. Areas of Contemporary Activity

As was stressed at the outset, the field of education is huge and contains within it a virtually inexhaustible number of issues that are of philosophical interest. To attempt comprehensive coverage of how philosophers of education have been working within this thicket would be a quixotic task for a large single volume and is out of the question for a solitary encyclopedia entry. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt to give an overview was made in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren 2003), which contains more than six-hundred pages divided into forty-five chapters each of which surveys a subfield of work. The following random selection of chapter topics gives a sense of the enormous scope of the field: Sex education, special education, science education, aesthetic education, theories of teaching and learning, religious education, knowledge, truth and learning, cultivating reason, the measurement of learning, multicultural education, education and the politics of identity, education and standards of living, motivation and classroom management, feminism, critical theory, postmodernism, romanticism, the purposes of universities, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education (Siegel 2009) contains a similarly broad range of articles on (among other things) the epistemic and moral aims of education, liberal education and its imminent demise, thinking and reasoning, fallibilism and fallibility, indoctrination, authenticity, the development of rationality, Socratic teaching, educating the imagination, caring and empathy in moral education, the limits of moral education, the cultivation of character, values education, curriculum and the value of knowledge, education and democracy, art and education, science education and religious toleration, constructivism and scientific methods, multicultural education, prejudice, authority and the interests of children, and on pragmatist, feminist, and postmodernist approaches to philosophy of education.

Given this enormous range, there is no non-arbitrary way to select a small number of topics for further discussion, nor can the topics that are chosen be pursued in great depth. The choice of those below has been made with an eye to highlighting contemporary work that makes solid contact with and contributes to important discussions in general philosophy and/or the academic educational and educational research communities.

The issue of what should be taught to students at all levels of education—the issue of curriculum content—obviously is a fundamental one, and it is an extraordinarily difficult one with which to grapple. In tackling it, care needs to be taken to distinguish between education and schooling—for although education can occur in schools, so can mis-education, and many other things can take place there that are educationally orthogonal (such as the provision of free or subsidized lunches and the development of social networks); and it also must be recognized that education can occur in the home, in libraries and museums, in churches and clubs, in solitary interaction with the public media, and the like.

In developing a curriculum (whether in a specific subject area, or more broadly as the whole range of offerings in an educational institution or system), a number of difficult decisions need to be made. Issues such as the proper ordering or sequencing of topics in the chosen subject, the time to be allocated to each topic, the lab work or excursions or projects that are appropriate for particular topics, can all be regarded as technical issues best resolved either by educationists who have a depth of experience with the target age group or by experts in the psychology of learning and the like. But there are deeper issues, ones concerning the validity of the justifications that have been given for including/excluding particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why should evolution or creation “science” be included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Do the justifications for including/excluding materials on birth control, patriotism, the Holocaust or wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some school districts stand up to critical scrutiny?)

The different justifications for particular items of curriculum content that have been put forward by philosophers and others since Plato’s pioneering efforts all draw, explicitly or implicitly, upon the positions that the respective theorists hold about at least three sets of issues.

First, what are the aims and/or functions of education (aims and functions are not necessarily the same)? Many aims have been proposed; a short list includes the production of knowledge and knowledgeable students, the fostering of curiosity and inquisitiveness, the enhancement of understanding, the enlargement of the imagination, the civilizing of students, the fostering of rationality and/or autonomy, and the development in students of care, concern and associated dispositions and attitudes (see Siegel 2007 for a longer list). The justifications offered for all such aims have been controversial, and alternative justifications of a single proposed aim can provoke philosophical controversy. Consider the aim of autonomy. Aristotle asked, what constitutes the good life and/or human flourishing, such that education should foster these (Curren 2013)? These two formulations are related, for it is arguable that our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life—although this is not obvious, both because it is not clear that there is one conception of the good or flourishing life that is the good or flourishing life for everyone, and it is not clear that this is a question that should be settled in advance rather than determined by students for themselves. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to think and act autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. A rival justification of the aim of autonomy, associated with Kant, champions the educational fostering of autonomy not on the basis of its contribution to human flourishing, but rather the obligation to treat students with respect as persons (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988). Still others urge the fostering of autonomy on the basis of students’ fundamental interests, in ways that draw upon both Aristotelian and Kantian conceptual resources (Brighouse 2005, 2009). It is also possible to reject the fostering of autonomy as an educational aim (Hand 2006).

Assuming that the aim can be justified, how students should be helped to become autonomous or develop a conception of the good life and pursue it is of course not immediately obvious, and much philosophical ink has been spilled on the general question of how best to determine curriculum content. One influential line of argument was developed by Paul Hirst, who argued that knowledge is essential for developing and then pursuing a conception of the good life, and because logical analysis shows, he argued, that there are seven basic forms of knowledge, the case can be made that the function of the curriculum is to introduce students to each of these forms (Hirst 1965; see Phillips 1987: ch. 11). Another, suggested by Scheffler, is that curriculum content should be selected so as “to help the learner attain maximum self-sufficiency as economically as possible.” The relevant sorts of economy include those of resources, teacher effort, student effort, and the generalizability or transfer value of content, while the self-sufficiency in question includes

self-awareness, imaginative weighing of alternative courses of action, understanding of other people’s choices and ways of life, decisiveness without rigidity, emancipation from stereotyped ways of thinking and perceiving…empathy… intuition, criticism and independent judgment. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 123–5])

Both impose important constraints on the curricular content to be taught.

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as a vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a dominant group, or any particular group, including one’s own; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as an instrument of control or of social engineering? In the closing decades of the twentieth century there were numerous discussions of curriculum theory, particularly from Marxist and postmodern perspectives, that offered the sobering analysis that in many educational systems, including those in Western democracies, the curriculum did indeed reflect and serve the interests of powerful cultural elites. What to do about this situation (if it is indeed the situation of contemporary educational institutions) is far from clear and is the focus of much work at the interface of philosophy of education and social/political philosophy, some of which is discussed in the next section. A closely related question is this: ought educational institutions be designed to further pre-determined social ends, or rather to enable students to competently evaluate all such ends? Scheffler argued that we should opt for the latter: we must

surrender the idea of shaping or molding the mind of the pupil. The function of education…is rather to liberate the mind, strengthen its critical powers, [and] inform it with knowledge and the capacity for independent inquiry. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 139])

Third, should educational programs at the elementary and secondary levels be made up of a number of disparate offerings, so that individuals with different interests and abilities and affinities for learning can pursue curricula that are suitable? Or should every student pursue the same curriculum as far as each is able?—a curriculum, it should be noted, that in past cases nearly always was based on the needs or interests of those students who were academically inclined or were destined for elite social roles. Mortimer Adler and others in the late twentieth century sometimes used the aphorism “the best education for the best is the best education for all.”

The thinking here can be explicated in terms of the analogy of an out-of-control virulent disease, for which there is only one type of medicine available; taking a large dose of this medicine is extremely beneficial, and the hope is that taking only a little—while less effective—is better than taking none at all. Medically, this is dubious, while the educational version—forcing students to work, until they exit the system, on topics that do not interest them and for which they have no facility or motivation—has even less merit. (For a critique of Adler and his Paideia Proposal , see Noddings 2015.) It is interesting to compare the modern “one curriculum track for all” position with Plato’s system outlined in the Republic , according to which all students—and importantly this included girls—set out on the same course of study. Over time, as they moved up the educational ladder it would become obvious that some had reached the limit imposed upon them by nature, and they would be directed off into appropriate social roles in which they would find fulfillment, for their abilities would match the demands of these roles. Those who continued on with their education would eventually become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

The publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice in 1971 was the most notable event in the history of political philosophy over the last century. The book spurred a period of ferment in political philosophy that included, among other things, new research on educationally fundamental themes. The principles of justice in educational distribution have perhaps been the dominant theme in this literature, and Rawls’s influence on its development has been pervasive.

Rawls’s theory of justice made so-called “fair equality of opportunity” one of its constitutive principles. Fair equality of opportunity entailed that the distribution of education would not put the children of those who currently occupied coveted social positions at any competitive advantage over other, equally talented and motivated children seeking the qualifications for those positions (Rawls 1971: 72–75). Its purpose was to prevent socio-economic differences from hardening into social castes that were perpetuated across generations. One obvious criticism of fair equality of opportunity is that it does not prohibit an educational distribution that lavished resources on the most talented children while offering minimal opportunities to others. So long as untalented students from wealthy families were assigned opportunities no better than those available to their untalented peers among the poor, no breach of the principle would occur. Even the most moderate egalitarians might find such a distributive regime to be intuitively repugnant.

Repugnance might be mitigated somewhat by the ways in which the overall structure of Rawls’s conception of justice protects the interests of those who fare badly in educational competition. All citizens must enjoy the same basic liberties, and equal liberty always has moral priority over equal opportunity: the former can never be compromised to advance the latter. Further, inequality in the distribution of income and wealth are permitted only to the degree that it serves the interests of the least advantaged group in society. But even with these qualifications, fair equality of opportunity is arguably less than really fair to anyone. The fact that their education should secure ends other than access to the most selective social positions—ends such as artistic appreciation, the kind of self-knowledge that humanistic study can furnish, or civic virtue—is deemed irrelevant according to Rawls’s principle. But surely it is relevant, given that a principle of educational justice must be responsive to the full range of educationally important goods.

Suppose we revise our account of the goods included in educational distribution so that aesthetic appreciation, say, and the necessary understanding and virtue for conscientious citizenship count for just as much as job-related skills. An interesting implication of doing so is that the rationale for requiring equality under any just distribution becomes decreasingly clear. That is because job-related skills are positional whereas the other educational goods are not (Hollis 1982). If you and I both aspire to a career in business management for which we are equally qualified, any increase in your job-related skills is a corresponding disadvantage to me unless I can catch up. Positional goods have a competitive structure by definition, though the ends of civic or aesthetic education do not fit that structure. If you and I aspire to be good citizens and are equal in civic understanding and virtue, an advance in your civic education is no disadvantage to me. On the contrary, it is easier to be a good citizen the better other citizens learn to be. At the very least, so far as non-positional goods figure in our conception of what counts as a good education, the moral stakes of inequality are thereby lowered.

In fact, an emerging alternative to fair equality of opportunity is a principle that stipulates some benchmark of adequacy in achievement or opportunity as the relevant standard of distribution. But it is misleading to represent this as a contrast between egalitarian and sufficientarian conceptions. Philosophically serious interpretations of adequacy derive from the ideal of equal citizenship (Satz 2007; Anderson 2007). Then again, fair equality of opportunity in Rawls’s theory is derived from a more fundamental ideal of equality among citizens. This was arguably true in A Theory of Justice but it is certainly true in his later work (Dworkin 1977: 150–183; Rawls 1993). So, both Rawls’s principle and the emerging alternative share an egalitarian foundation. The debate between adherents of equal opportunity and those misnamed as sufficientarians is certainly not over (e.g., Brighouse & Swift 2009; Jacobs 2010; Warnick 2015). Further progress will likely hinge on explicating the most compelling conception of the egalitarian foundation from which distributive principles are to be inferred. Another Rawls-inspired alternative is that a “prioritarian” distribution of achievement or opportunity might turn out to be the best principle we can come up with—i.e., one that favors the interests of the least advantaged students (Schouten 2012).

The publication of Rawls’s Political Liberalism in 1993 signaled a decisive turning point in his thinking about justice. In his earlier book, the theory of justice had been presented as if it were universally valid. But Rawls had come to think that any theory of justice presented as such was open to reasonable rejection. A more circumspect approach to justification would seek grounds for justice as fairness in an overlapping consensus between the many reasonable values and doctrines that thrive in a democratic political culture. Rawls argued that such a culture is informed by a shared ideal of free and equal citizenship that provided a new, distinctively democratic framework for justifying a conception of justice. The shift to political liberalism involved little revision on Rawls’s part to the content of the principles he favored. But the salience it gave to questions about citizenship in the fabric of liberal political theory had important educational implications. How was the ideal of free and equal citizenship to be instantiated in education in a way that accommodated the range of reasonable values and doctrines encompassed in an overlapping consensus? Political Liberalism has inspired a range of answers to that question (cf. Callan 1997; Clayton 2006; Bull 2008).

Other philosophers besides Rawls in the 1990s took up a cluster of questions about civic education, and not always from a liberal perspective. Alasdair Macintyre’s After Virtue (1984) strongly influenced the development of communitarian political theory which, as its very name might suggest, argued that the cultivation of community could preempt many of the problems with conflicting individual rights at the core of liberalism. As a full-standing alternative to liberalism, communitarianism might have little to recommend it. But it was a spur for liberal philosophers to think about how communities could be built and sustained to support the more familiar projects of liberal politics (e.g., Strike 2010). Furthermore, its arguments often converged with those advanced by feminist exponents of the ethic of care (Noddings 1984; Gilligan 1982). Noddings’ work is particularly notable because she inferred a cogent and radical agenda for the reform of schools from her conception of care (Noddings 1992).

One persistent controversy in citizenship theory has been about whether patriotism is correctly deemed a virtue, given our obligations to those who are not our fellow citizens in an increasingly interdependent world and the sordid history of xenophobia with which modern nation states are associated. The controversy is partly about what we should teach in our schools and is commonly discussed by philosophers in that context (Galston 1991; Ben-Porath 2006; Callan 2006; Miller 2007; Curren & Dorn 2018). The controversy is related to a deeper and more pervasive question about how morally or intellectually taxing the best conception of our citizenship should be. The more taxing it is, the more constraining its derivative conception of civic education will be. Contemporary political philosophers offer divergent arguments about these matters. For example, Gutmann and Thompson claim that citizens of diverse democracies need to “understand the diverse ways of life of their fellow citizens” (Gutmann & Thompson 1996: 66). The need arises from the obligation of reciprocity which they (like Rawls) believe to be integral to citizenship. Because I must seek to cooperate with others politically on terms that make sense from their moral perspective as well as my own, I must be ready to enter that perspective imaginatively so as to grasp its distinctive content. Many such perspectives prosper in liberal democracies, and so the task of reciprocal understanding is necessarily onerous. Still, our actions qua deliberative citizen must be grounded in such reciprocity if political cooperation on terms acceptable to us as (diversely) morally motivated citizens is to be possible at all. This is tantamount to an imperative to think autonomously inside the role of citizen because I cannot close-mindedly resist critical consideration of moral views alien to my own without flouting my responsibilities as a deliberative citizen.

Civic education does not exhaust the domain of moral education, even though the more robust conceptions of equal citizenship have far-reaching implications for just relations in civil society and the family. The study of moral education has traditionally taken its bearings from normative ethics rather than political philosophy, and this is largely true of work undertaken in recent decades. The major development here has been the revival of virtue ethics as an alternative to the deontological and consequentialist theories that dominated discussion for much of the twentieth century.

The defining idea of virtue ethics is that our criterion of moral right and wrong must derive from a conception of how the ideally virtuous agent would distinguish between the two. Virtue ethics is thus an alternative to both consequentialism and deontology which locate the relevant criterion in producing good consequences or meeting the requirements of moral duty respectively. The debate about the comparative merits of these theories is not resolved, but from an educational perspective that may be less important than it has sometimes seemed to antagonists in the debate. To be sure, adjudicating between rival theories in normative ethics might shed light on how best to construe the process of moral education, and philosophical reflection on the process might help us to adjudicate between the theories. There has been extensive work on habituation and virtue, largely inspired by Aristotle (Burnyeat 1980; Peters 1981). But whether this does anything to establish the superiority of virtue ethics over its competitors is far from obvious. Other aspects of moral education—in particular, the paired processes of role-modelling and identification—deserve much more scrutiny than they have received (Audi 2017; Kristjánsson 2015, 2017).

Related to the issues concerning the aims and functions of education and schooling rehearsed above are those involving the specifically epistemic aims of education and attendant issues treated by social and virtue epistemologists. (The papers collected in Kotzee 2013 and Baehr 2016 highlight the current and growing interactions among social epistemologists, virtue epistemologists, and philosophers of education.)

There is, first, a lively debate concerning putative epistemic aims. Alvin Goldman argues that truth (or knowledge understood in the “weak” sense of true belief) is the fundamental epistemic aim of education (Goldman 1999). Others, including the majority of historically significant philosophers of education, hold that critical thinking or rationality and rational belief (or knowledge in the “strong” sense that includes justification) is the basic epistemic educational aim (Bailin & Siegel 2003; Scheffler 1965, 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988, 1997, 2005, 2017). Catherine Z. Elgin (1999a,b) and Duncan Pritchard (2013, 2016; Carter & Pritchard 2017) have independently urged that understanding is the basic aim. Pritchard’s view combines understanding with intellectual virtue ; Jason Baehr (2011) systematically defends the fostering of the intellectual virtues as the fundamental epistemic aim of education. This cluster of views continues to engender ongoing discussion and debate. (Its complex literature is collected in Carter and Kotzee 2015, summarized in Siegel 2018, and helpfully analyzed in Watson 2016.)

A further controversy concerns the places of testimony and trust in the classroom: In what circumstances if any ought students to trust their teachers’ pronouncements, and why? Here the epistemology of education is informed by social epistemology, specifically the epistemology of testimony; the familiar reductionism/anti-reductionism controversy there is applicable to students and teachers. Anti-reductionists, who regard testimony as a basic source of justification, may with equanimity approve of students’ taking their teachers’ word at face value and believing what they say; reductionists may balk. Does teacher testimony itself constitute good reason for student belief?

The correct answer here seems clearly enough to be “it depends”. For very young children who have yet to acquire or develop the ability to subject teacher declarations to critical scrutiny, there seems to be little alternative to accepting what their teachers tell them. For older and more cognitively sophisticated students there seem to be more options: they can assess them for plausibility, compare them with other opinions, assess the teachers’ proffered reasons, subject them to independent evaluation, etc. Regarding “the teacher says that p ” as itself a good reason to believe it appears moreover to contravene the widely shared conviction that an important educational aim is helping students to become able to evaluate candidate beliefs for themselves and believe accordingly. That said, all sides agree that sometimes believers, including students, have good reasons simply to trust what others tell them. There is thus more work to do here by both social epistemologists and philosophers of education (for further discussion see Goldberg 2013; Siegel 2005, 2018).

A further cluster of questions, of long-standing interest to philosophers of education, concerns indoctrination : How if at all does it differ from legitimate teaching? Is it inevitable, and if so is it not always necessarily bad? First, what is it? As we saw earlier, extant analyses focus on the aims or intentions of the indoctrinator, the methods employed, or the content transmitted. If the indoctrination is successful, all have the result that students/victims either don’t, won’t, or can’t subject the indoctrinated material to proper epistemic evaluation. In this way it produces both belief that is evidentially unsupported or contravened and uncritical dispositions to believe. It might seem obvious that indoctrination, so understood, is educationally undesirable. But it equally seems that very young children, at least, have no alternative but to believe sans evidence; they have yet to acquire the dispositions to seek and evaluate evidence, or the abilities to recognize evidence or evaluate it. Thus we seem driven to the views that indoctrination is both unavoidable and yet bad and to be avoided. It is not obvious how this conundrum is best handled. One option is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable indoctrination. Another is to distinguish between indoctrination (which is always bad) and non-indoctrinating belief inculcation, the latter being such that students are taught some things without reasons (the alphabet, the numbers, how to read and count, etc.), but in such a way that critical evaluation of all such material (and everything else) is prized and fostered (Siegel 1988: ch. 5). In the end the distinctions required by the two options might be extensionally equivalent (Siegel 2018).

Education, it is generally granted, fosters belief : in the typical propositional case, Smith teaches Jones that p , and if all goes well Jones learns it and comes to believe it. Education also has the task of fostering open-mindedness and an appreciation of our fallibility : All the theorists mentioned thus far, especially those in the critical thinking and intellectual virtue camps, urge their importance. But these two might seem at odds. If Jones (fully) believes that p , can she also be open-minded about it? Can she believe, for example, that earthquakes are caused by the movements of tectonic plates, while also believing that perhaps they aren’t? This cluster of italicized notions requires careful handling; it is helpfully discussed by Jonathan Adler (2002, 2003), who recommends regarding the latter two as meta-attitudes concerning one’s first-order beliefs rather than lessened degrees of belief or commitments to those beliefs.

Other traditional epistemological worries that impinge upon the epistemology of education concern (a) absolutism , pluralism and relativism with respect to knowledge, truth and justification as these relate to what is taught, (b) the character and status of group epistemologies and the prospects for understanding such epistemic goods “universalistically” in the face of “particularist” challenges, (c) the relation between “knowledge-how” and “knowledge-that” and their respective places in the curriculum, (d) concerns raised by multiculturalism and the inclusion/exclusion of marginalized perspectives in curriculum content and the classroom, and (e) further issues concerning teaching and learning. (There is more here than can be briefly summarized; for more references and systematic treatment cf. Bailin & Siegel 2003; Carter & Kotzee 2015; Cleverley & Phillips 1986; Robertson 2009; Siegel 2004, 2017; and Watson 2016.)

The educational research enterprise has been criticized for a century or more by politicians, policymakers, administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, philosophers of education, and by researchers themselves—but the criticisms have been contradictory. Charges of being “too ivory tower and theory-oriented” are found alongside “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”; but in light of the views of John Dewey and William James that the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving, it is becoming more fashionable to hold that the “theory v. practice” dichotomy is a false one. (For an illuminating account of the historical development of educational research and its tribulations, see Lagemann 2000.)

A similar trend can be discerned with respect to the long warfare between two rival groups of research methods—on one hand quantitative/statistical approaches to research, and on the other hand the qualitative/ethnographic family. (The choice of labels here is not entirely risk-free, for they have been contested; furthermore the first approach is quite often associated with “experimental” studies, and the latter with “case studies”, but this is an over-simplification.) For several decades these two rival methodological camps were treated by researchers and a few philosophers of education as being rival paradigms (Kuhn’s ideas, albeit in a very loose form, have been influential in the field of educational research), and the dispute between them was commonly referred to as “the paradigm wars”. In essence the issue at stake was epistemological: members of the quantitative/experimental camp believed that only their methods could lead to well-warranted knowledge claims, especially about the causal factors at play in educational phenomena, and on the whole they regarded qualitative methods as lacking in rigor; on the other hand the adherents of qualitative/ethnographic approaches held that the other camp was too “positivistic” and was operating with an inadequate view of causation in human affairs—one that ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms, and the like. Few if any commentators in the “paradigm wars” suggested that there was anything prohibiting the use of both approaches in the one research program—provided that if both were used, they were used only sequentially or in parallel, for they were underwritten by different epistemologies and hence could not be blended together. But recently the trend has been towards rapprochement, towards the view that the two methodological families are, in fact, compatible and are not at all like paradigms in the Kuhnian sense(s) of the term; the melding of the two approaches is often called “mixed methods research”, and it is growing in popularity. (For more detailed discussion of these “wars” see Howe 2003 and Phillips 2009.)

The most lively contemporary debates about education research, however, were set in motion around the turn of the millennium when the US Federal Government moved in the direction of funding only rigorously scientific educational research—the kind that could establish causal factors which could then guide the development of practically effective policies. (It was held that such a causal knowledge base was available for medical decision-making.) The definition of “rigorously scientific”, however, was decided by politicians and not by the research community, and it was given in terms of the use of a specific research method—the net effect being that the only research projects to receive Federal funding were those that carried out randomized controlled experiments or field trials (RFTs). It has become common over the last decade to refer to the RFT as the “gold standard” methodology.

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the US National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC 2002), that argued that this criterion was far too narrow. Numerous essays have appeared subsequently that point out how the “gold standard” account of scientific rigor distorts the history of science, how the complex nature of the relation between evidence and policy-making has been distorted and made to appear overly simple (for instance the role of value-judgments in linking empirical findings to policy directives is often overlooked), and qualitative researchers have insisted upon the scientific nature of their work. Nevertheless, and possibly because it tried to be balanced and supported the use of RFTs in some research contexts, the NRC report has been the subject of symposia in four journals, where it has been supported by a few and attacked from a variety of philosophical fronts: Its authors were positivists, they erroneously believed that educational inquiry could be value neutral and that it could ignore the ways in which the exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, and so on. This cluster of issues continues to be debated by educational researchers and by philosophers of education and of science, and often involves basic topics in philosophy of science: the constitution of warranting evidence, the nature of theories and of confirmation and explanation, etc. Nancy Cartwright’s important recent work on causation, evidence, and evidence-based policy adds layers of both philosophical sophistication and real world practical analysis to the central issues just discussed (Cartwright & Hardie 2012, Cartwright 2013; cf. Kvernbekk 2015 for an overview of the controversies regarding evidence in the education and philosophy of education literatures).

As stressed earlier, it is impossible to do justice to the whole field of philosophy of education in a single encyclopedia entry. Different countries around the world have their own intellectual traditions and their own ways of institutionalizing philosophy of education in the academic universe, and no discussion of any of this appears in the present essay. But even in the Anglo-American world there is such a diversity of approaches that any author attempting to produce a synoptic account will quickly run into the borders of his or her competence. Clearly this has happened in the present case.

Fortunately, in the last thirty years or so resources have become available that significantly alleviate these problems. There has been a flood of encyclopedia entries, both on the field as a whole and also on many specific topics not well-covered in the present essay (see, as a sample, Burbules 1994; Chambliss 1996b; Curren 1998, 2018; Phillips 1985, 2010; Siegel 2007; Smeyers 1994), two “Encyclopedias” (Chambliss 1996a; Phillips 2014), a “Guide” (Blake, Smeyers, Smith, & Standish 2003), a “Companion” (Curren 2003), two “Handbooks” (Siegel 2009; Bailey, Barrow, Carr, & McCarthy 2010), a comprehensive anthology (Curren 2007), a dictionary of key concepts in the field (Winch & Gingell 1999), and a good textbook or two (Carr 2003; Noddings 2015). In addition there are numerous volumes both of reprinted selections and of specially commissioned essays on specific topics, some of which were given short shrift here (for another sampling see A. Rorty 1998, Stone 1994), and several international journals, including Theory and Research in Education , Journal of Philosophy of Education , Educational Theory , Studies in Philosophy and Education , and Educational Philosophy and Theory . Thus there is more than enough material available to keep the interested reader busy.

• Adler, Jonathan E., 2002, Belief’s Own Ethics , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2003, “Knowledge, Truth and Learning”, in Curren 2003: 285–304. doi:10.1002/9780470996454.ch21
• Anderson, Elizabeth, 2007, “Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective”, Ethics , 117(4): 595–622. doi:10.1086/518806
• Archambault, Reginald D. (ed.), 1965, Philosophical Analysis and Education , London: Routledge.
• Audi, Robert, 2017, “Role Modelling and Reasons: Developmental and Normative Grounds of Moral Virtue”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 14(6): 646–668. doi:10.1163/17455243-46810063
• Baehr, Jason, 2011, The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604074.001.0001
• ––– (ed.), 2016, Intellectual Virtues and Education: Essays in Applied Virtue Epistemology , New York: Routledge.
• Bailey, Richard, Robin Barrow, David Carr, and Christine McCarthy (eds), 2010, The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Education , Los Angeles: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446200872
• Bailin, Sharon and Harvey Siegel, 2003, “Critical Thinking”, in Blake et al. 2003: 181–193. doi:10.1002/9780470996294.ch11
• Ben-Porath, Sigal R., 2006. Citizenship Under Fire: Democratic Education in Times of Conflict , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Blake, Nigel, Paul Smeyers, Richard Smith, and Paul Standish (eds.), 2003, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470996294
• Brighouse, Harry, 2005, On Education , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2009, “Moral and Political Aims of Education”, in Siegel 2009: 35–51.
• Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2009, “Educational Equality versus Educational Adequacy: A Critique of Anderson and Satz”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 26(2): 117–128. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00438.x
• Bull, Barry L., 2008, Social Justice in Education: An Introduction , New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Burbules, Nicholas C., 1994, “Marxism and Educational Thought”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 6), Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, second edition, pp. 3617–22.
• Burnyeat, Myles F., 1980, “Aristotle on Learning to be Good”, in Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics , Berkeley CA: University of California Press, pp. 69–92.
• Callan, Eamonn, 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198292589.001.0001
• –––, 2006, “Love, Idolatry, and Patriotism”, Social Theory and Practice , 32(4): 525–546. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200632430
• Carr, David, 2003, Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching , London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Carter, J. Adam and Ben Kotzee, 2015, “Epistemology of Education”, Oxford Bibliographies Online , last modified: 26 October 2015.
• Carter, J.Adam and Duncan Pritchard, 2017, “Epistemic Situationism, Epistemic Dependence, and the Epistemology of Education”, in Abrol Fairweather and Mark Alfano (eds.), Epistemic Situationism , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–191. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199688234.003.0010
• Cartwright, Nancy D., 2013, Evidence: For Policy and Wheresoever Rigor Is a Must , London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
• Cartwright, Nancy D. and Jeremy Hardie, 2012, Evidence-based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chambliss, J.J. (ed.), 1996a, Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , New York: Garland.
• Chambliss, J.J., 1996b, “History of Philosophy of Education”, in Chambliss 1996a, pp. 461–472.
• Clayton, Matthew, 2006, Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199268940.001.0001
• Cleverley, John and D.C. Phillips, 1986, Visions of Childhood: Influential Models from Locke to Spock , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Curren, Randall R., 1998, “Education, Philosophy of”, in E.J. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , vol. 3, pp. 231–240.
• –––, 2000, Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, (ed.), 2003, A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470996454
• –––, (ed.), 2007, Philosophy of Education: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2013, “A Neo-Aristotelian Account of Education, Justice and the Human Good”, Theory and Research in Education , 11(3): 231–249. doi:10.1177/1477878513498182
• –––, 2018, “Education, History of Philosophy of”, revised second version, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online . doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N014-2
• Curren, Randall, Emily Robertson, and Paul Hager, 2003, “The Analytical Movement”, in Curren 2003: 176–191. doi:10.1002/9780470996454.ch13
• Curren, Randall and Charles Dorn, 2018, Patriotic Education in a Global Age , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1977, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Elgin, Catherine Z., 1999a, “Epistemology’s Ends, Pedagogy’s Prospects”, Facta Philosophica , 1: 39–54
• –––, 1999b, “Education and the Advancement of Understanding”, in David M. Steiner (ed.), Proceedings of the 20 th World Congress of Philosophy , vol. 3, Philosophy Documentation Center, pp. 131–140.
• Galston, William A., 1991, Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139172462
• Gellner, Ernest, 1959, Words and Things: A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology , London: Gollancz.
• Gilligan, Carol, 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Goldberg, Sanford, 2013, “Epistemic Dependence in Testimonial Belief, in the Classroom and Beyond”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 47(2): 168–186. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12019
• Goldman, Alvin I., 1999, Knowledge in a Social World , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198238207.001.0001
• Greene, Maxine, 1988, The Dialectic of Freedom , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis F. Thompson, 1996, Democracy and Disagreement , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Hand, Michael, 2006, “Against Autonomy as an Educational Aim”, Oxford Review of Education , 32(4): 535–550. doi:10.1080/03054980600884250
• Hardie, Charles Dunn, 1941 [1962], Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory , New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
• Hirst, Paul, 1965, “Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge”, in Philosophical Analysis and Education , Reginald D. Archambault, (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 113–138.
• Hirst, Paul and R.S. Peters, 1970, The Logic of Education , London: Routledge.
• Hollis, Martin, 1982, “Education as A Positional Good”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 16(2): 235–244. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.1982.tb00615.x
• Howe, Kenneth R., 2003, Closing Methodological Divides: Toward Democratic Educational Research , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/0-306-47984-2
• Jacobs, Lesley A., 2010, “Equality, Adequacy, And Stakes Fairness: Retrieving the Equal Opportunities in Education Approach”, Theory and Research in Education , 8(3): 249–268. doi:10.1177/1477878510381627
• Kotzee, Ben (ed.), 2013, Education and the Growth of Knowledge: Perspectives from Social and Virtue Epistemology , Oxford: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118721254
• Kristjánsson, Kristján, 2015, Aristotelian Character Education , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2017, “Emotions Targeting Moral Exemplarity: Making Sense of the Logical Geography of Admiration, Emulation and Elevation”, Theory and Research in Education , 15(1): 20–37. doi:10.1177/1477878517695679
• Kvernbekk, Tone, 2015, Evidence-based Practice in Education: Functions of Evidence and Causal Presuppositions , London: Routledge.
• Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe, 2000, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Educational Research , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Locke, J., 1693, Some Thoughts Concerning Education , London: Black Swan in Paternoster Row.
• Lucas, Christopher J. (ed.), 1969, What is Philosophy of Education? , London: Macmillan.
• Lyotard, J-F., 1984, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory , second edition, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1985, Reclaiming a Conversation: The Ideal of the Educated Woman , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Mehta, Ved, 1963, Fly and the Fly-Bottle: Encounters with British Intellectuals , London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
• Miller, Richard W., 2007, “Unlearning American Patriotism”, Theory and Research in Education , 5(1): 7–21. doi:10.1177/1477878507073602
• National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Scientific Research in Education , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ NRC 2002 available online ]
• Noddings, Nel, 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• –––, 1992, The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education , New York: Teachers College Press.
• –––, 2015, Philosophy of Education , fourth edition, Boulder, CO: Westview.
• O’Connor, D.J., 1957, An Introduction to Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
• Park, J., (ed.), 1965, Bertrand Russell on Education , London: Allen and Unwin.
• Peters, R.S., (ed.), 1973, The Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1981, Moral Development and Moral Education , London: G. Allen & Unwin.
• Phillips, D.C., 1985, “Philosophy of Education”, in International Encyclopedia of Education , Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, (eds.), pp. 3859–3877.
• –––, 1987, Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry: Contemporary Methodological Controversies in Social Science and Related Applied Fields of Research , Oxford: Pergamon.
• –––, 2009, “Empirical Educational Research: Charting Philosophical Disagreements in an Undisciplined Field”, in Siegel 2009: 381–406.
• –––, 2010, “What Is Philosophy of Education?”, in Bailey et al. 2010: 3–19. doi:10.4135/9781446200872.n1
• –––, (ed.), 2014, Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy , Los Angeles: Sage.
• Pritchard, Duncan, 2013, “Epistemic Virtue and the Epistemology of Education”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 47(2): 236–247. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12022
• –––, 2016, “Intellectual Virtue, Extended Cognition, and the Epistemology of Education”, in Baehr 2016: 113–127.
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Robertson, Emily, 2009, “The Epistemic Aims of Education”, in Siegel 2009: 11–34.
• Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg (ed.), 1998, Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives , New York: Routledge.
• Satz, Debra, 2007, “Equality, Adequacy, and Education for Citizenship”, Ethics , 117(4): 623–648. doi:10.1086/518805
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Thomas.
• –––, 1965, Conditions of Knowledge: An Introduction to Epistemology and Education , Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
• –––, 1973 [1989], Reason and Teaching , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
• Schouten, Gina, 2012, “Fair Educational Opportunity and the Distribution of Natural Ability: Toward a Prioritarian Principle of Educational Justice”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 46(3): 472–491. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00863.x
• Scriven, Michael, 1991a, “Beyond Formative and Summative Evaluation”, in Milbrey McLaughlin and D.C. Phillips (eds.), Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century , Chicago: University of Chicago Press/NSSE, pp. 19–64.
• –––, 1991b, Evaluation Thesaurus , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Siegel, Harvey, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1997, Rationality Redeemed?: Further Dialogues on an Educational Ideal , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2004, “Epistemology and Education: An Incomplete Guide to the Social-Epistemological Issues”, Episteme , 1(2): 129–137. doi:10.3366/epi.2004.1.2.129
• –––, 2005, “Truth, Thinking, Testimony and Trust: Alvin Goldman on Epistemology and Education”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 71(2): 345–366. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00452.x
• –––, 2007, “Philosophy of Education”, in Britannica Online Encyclopedia , last modified 2 February 2018. URL = <https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/philosophy-of-education/108550>
• –––, (ed.), 2009, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001
• –––, 2016, “Israel Scheffler”, In J. A Palmer (ed.), Routledge Encyclopaedia of Educational Thinkers , London: Routledge, pp. 428–432.
• –––, 2017, Education’s Epistemology: Rationality, Diversity, and Critical Thinking , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018, “The Epistemology of Education”, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online , doi:10.4324/0123456789-P074-1.
• Skinner, B.F., 1948 [1962], Walden Two , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1972, Beyond Freedom and Dignity , London: Jonathan Cape.
• Smeyers, Paulus, 1994, “Philosophy of Education: Western European Perspectives”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 8), Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, second Edition, pp. 4456–61.
• Smith, B. Othanel and Robert H. Ennis (eds.), 1961, Language and Concepts in Education , Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Snook, I.A., 1972, Indoctrination and Education , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Stone, Lynda (ed.), 1994, The Education Feminism Reader , New York: Routledge.
• Strike, Kenneth A., 2010, Small Schools and Strong Communities: A Third Way of School Reform , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Warnick, Bryan R., 2015, “Taming the Conflict over Educational Equality”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(1): 50–66. doi:10.1111/japp.12066
• Watson, Lani, 2016, “The Epistemology of Education”, Philosophy Compass , 11(3): 146–159. doi:10.1111/phc3.12316
• Winch, Christopher and John Gingell, 1999, Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• PES (Philosophy of Education Society, North America)
• PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia)
• PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain)
• INPE (International Network of Philosophers of Education)

autonomy: personal | Dewey, John | feminist philosophy, interventions: ethics | feminist philosophy, interventions: liberal feminism | feminist philosophy, interventions: political philosophy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on autonomy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on disability | Foucault, Michel | Gadamer, Hans-Georg | liberalism | Locke, John | Lyotard, Jean François | -->ordinary language --> | Plato | postmodernism | Rawls, John | rights: of children | Rousseau, Jean Jacques

Acknowledgments

The authors and editors would like to thank Randall Curren for sending a number of constructive suggestions for the Summer 2018 update of this entry.

Copyright © 2018 by Harvey Siegel D.C. Phillips Eamonn Callan

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Moral Values in Education Essay

The responsibility of educating a child falls on both the parents and the teachers. In most instances, teachers are always trying to get the parents to be part of their children’s education. On the other hand, parents tend to handle any communication from their children’s teachers delicately. For instance, notes and phone calls from teachers are a cause of serious concern for parents. Furthermore, whenever parents do not hear from teachers they often assume that all is well with their children.

Therefore, it is likely that students will be at a disadvantage because of the lack of communication between parents and teachers. Consequently, it is only natural for schools to teach moral values to students. Schools are relied upon by the community and parents to instill and reinforce moral values among students.

Teaching moral values to students eliminate the bias that is common with children from different backgrounds. Some students could be major beneficiaries of a school system that teaches moral values as they lack this foundation at home. Therefore, schools should teach moral values so as to contribute to social and educational harmony.

Schools are mostly public or private owned institutions that are expected to pass knowledge to students. Consequently, when schools are given the role of teaching moral values, this job is passed on to either the government or a few individuals. Most people feel that when schools teach moral values, the government is the organ that dictates what should be taught to students. Teaching moral values that are set up through government institutions elicits sharp emotions among various individuals.

On the other hand, most people are aware of the fact that parents teach their children moral values at a very tender age. Therefore, there is a possibility of moralities clashing when schools start introducing opposing points of view as part of the students’ curriculum.

The dominance of personal opinions among various teachers presents a challenge to the validity of teaching moral values in schools. Schools should not teach moral values because this creates several dimensions of conflict that involve teachers, students, the government, and parents.

Those people who support the argument that schools should teach morality are of the view that it is futile for students to gain all other skills in life and end up lacking in moral values. Consequently, students will go to school and learn scientific applications, events in history, how to calculate, among other skills. However, this knowledge can be highly improved by a student’s ability to express honor, kindness, empathy, and integrity towards others.

Therefore, when schools teach moral values, they create a worthwhile balance in the students’ lives. Furthermore, when too much value is attached to end results and achievements, moral transgressions are likely to occur. Teaching moral values in schools do not involve a tyrannical activity that is engineered by the government and other forces.

Moral curriculums can be developed jointly by the staff, parents, sociologists, religious leaders, and other stakeholders. Consequently, a moral curriculum does not only consist of controversial biases, as most people believe. The fears that moral education can be easily highjacked by third parties and individuals with self-interests are unfounded. For instance, in schools where moral education is instituted through a joint effort, positive results are achieved.

The relationship between moral values and the education system is far-fetched. Moral education is more aligned with culture than it is related to the education system. Furthermore, all education systems are streamlined and standardized. Moral values and systems are flexible and it is unlikely that a standard education curriculum can accommodate this flexibility. For example, accommodating moral education in the school system would mean that different students receive different types of education by their cultural backgrounds.

Those who argue in favor of moral values being taught in schools claim that students need more than formal education for them to be good citizens. However, there is evidence that indicates that the most valuable citizens are the ones who explore and question authorities with the view of understanding the basis of rules and laws.

There are concerns that most moral curriculums are only meant to suppress the curiosity of the citizenry with the aim of subjecting individuals to imperialist regimes. Moreover, political and economic factors are more likely to influence the moral behaviors of children in school systems.

The debate on whether schools should teach moral values to students stretches far and wide. One school of thought believes that it is not the school’s responsibility to teach morality to students. On the other hand, another group feels that an educational experience is not complete without moral values. There are concerns that teaching moral values in schools undermines the role of culture in students’ lives.

Furthermore, it is often argued that teaching morality would create confusion in schools because different students subscribe to different moral systems. This latter view is opposed by the argument that not all moral values are subject to controversy. Proponents of teaching moral values in schools also point out that this system has proved to be helpful in the past.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 31). Moral Values in Education. https://ivypanda.com/essays/moral-values-in-education/

"Moral Values in Education." IvyPanda , 31 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/moral-values-in-education/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Moral Values in Education'. 31 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Moral Values in Education." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/moral-values-in-education/.

1. IvyPanda . "Moral Values in Education." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/moral-values-in-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Moral Values in Education." October 31, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/moral-values-in-education/.

• Why Is Bilingual Education Important
• No Child Left Out Act Problems Analysis
• Evaluation of Advantages and Disadvantages of Approaches to Curriculum Design
• Student Performance: Examination & Other Forms of Assessment
• Dog' Education in "The Culture Clash" by Jean Donaldson
• Handbook 'Good Study' by Neil Burdess
• Social Media Websites Effectiveness for EFL Students
• Flipped Classroom and Instructional Technology

We don’t need no (moral) education? Five things you should learn about ethics

Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin University

Disclosure statement

Patrick Stokes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Deakin University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The human animal takes a remarkably long time to reach maturity. And we cram a lot of learning into that time, as well we should: the list of things we need to know by the time we hit adulthood in order to thrive – personally, economically, socially, politically – is enormous.

But what about ethical thriving? Do we need to be taught moral philosophy alongside the three Rs?

Ethics has now been introduced into New South Wales primary schools as an alternative to religious instruction, but the idea of moral philosophy as a core part of compulsory education seems unlikely to get much traction any time soon. To many ears, the phrase “moral education” has a whiff of something distastefully Victorian (the era, not the state). It suggests indoctrination into an unquestioned set of norms and principles – and in the world we find ourselves in now, there is no such set we can all agree on.

Besides, in an already crowded curriculum, do we really have time for moral philosophy? After all, most people manage to lead pretty decent lives without knowing their Sidgewick from their Scanlon or being able to spot a rule utilitarian from 50 yards.

But intractable moral problems don’t go away just because we no longer agree how to deal with them. And as recent discussions on this site help to illustrate, new problems are always arising that, one way or another, we have to deal with. As individuals and as participants in the public space, we simply can’t get out of having to think about issues of right and wrong.

Yet spend time hanging around the comments section of any news story with an ethical dimension to it (and that’s most of them), and it quickly becomes apparent that most people just aren’t familiar with the methods and frameworks of ethical reasoning that have been developed over the last two and a half thousand years. We have the tools, but we’re not equipping people with them.

So, what sort of things should we be teaching if we wanted to foster “ethical literacy”? What would count as a decent grounding in moral philosophy for the average citizen of contemporary, pluralistic societies?

What follows is in no way meant to be definitive. It’s not based on any sort of serious empirical data around people’s familiarity with ethical issues. It’s a just tentative stab (wait, can you stab tentatively?) at a list of things people should ideally know about ethics, and based, on what I see in the classroom and, online, often don’t.

1. Ethics and morality are (basically) the same thing

Many people bristle at the word “morality” but are quite comfortable using the term “ethical”, and insist there’s some crucial difference between the two. For instance, some people say ethics are about external, socially imposed norms, while morality is about individual conscience. Others say ethics is concrete and practical while morality is more abstract, or is somehow linked to religion.

Out on the value theory front lines, however, there’s no clear agreed distinction, and most philosophers use the two terms more or less interchangeably. And let’s face it: if even professional philosophers refuse to make a distinction, there probably isn’t one there to be made.

2. Morality isn’t (necessarily) subjective

Every philosophy teacher probably knows the dismay of reading a decent ethics essay, only to then be told in the final paragraph that, “Of course, morality is subjective so there is no real answer”. So what have the last three pages been about then?

There seems to be a widespread assumption that the very fact that people disagree about right and wrong means there is no real fact of the matter, just individual preferences. We use the expression “value judgment” in a way that implies such judgments are fundamentally subjective.

Sure, ethical subjectivism is a perfectly respectable position with a long pedigree. But it’s not the only game in town, and it doesn’t win by default simply because we haven’t settled all moral problems. Nor does ethics lose its grip on us even if we take ourselves to be living in a universe devoid of intrinsic moral value. We can’t simply stop caring about how we should act; even subjectivists don’t suddenly turn into monsters.

3. “You shouldn’t impose your morality on others” is itself a moral position.

You hear this all the time, but you can probably spot the fallacy here pretty quickly: that “shouldn’t” there is itself a moral “shouldn’t” (rather than a prudential or social “shouldn’t,” like “you shouldn’t tease bears” or “you shouldn’t swear at the Queen”). Telling other people it’s morally wrong to tell other people what’s morally wrong looks obviously flawed – so why do otherwise bright, thoughtful people still do it?

Possibly because what the speaker is assuming here is that “morality” is a domain of personal beliefs (“morals”) which we can set aside while continuing to discuss issues of how we should treat each other. In effect, the speaker is imposing one particular moral framework – liberalism – without realising it.

4. “Natural” doesn’t necessarily mean “right”

This is an easy trap to fall into. Something’s being “natural” (if it even is) doesn’t tell us that it’s actually good. Selfishness might turn out to be natural, for instance, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to be selfish.

This gets a bit more complicated when you factor in ethical naturalism or Natural Law theory , because philosophers are awful people and really don’t want to make things easy for you.

5. The big three: Consequentialism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics

There’s several different ethical frameworks that moral philosophers use, but some familiarity with the three main ones – consequentialism (what’s right and wrong depends upon consequences); deontology (actions are right or wrong in themselves); and virtue ethics (act in accordance with the virtues characteristic of a good person ) – is incredibly useful.

Why? Because they each manage to focus our attention on different, morally relevant features of a situation, features that we might otherwise miss.

So, that’s my tentative stab (still sounds wrong!). Do let me know in the comments what you’d add or take out.

This is part of a series on public morality in 21st century Australia. We’ll be publishing regular articles on morality on The Conversation in the coming weeks.

• Morality series
• Most-read year one Arts

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Communications and Engagement Officer, Corporate Finance Property and Sustainability

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

The Student Daily

Career, Notifications & Jobs

Importance of Moral Education Essay

November 28, 2020 by Son of Ghouse Leave a Comment

In the modern era, when people around the world are civilized, we have an unprecedented boom in technology and science. Consequently, the quality and standard of life of the average person are at an all-time high. Though human history is comparatively newer on this 4.35 billion years old earth, we have managed to successfully hone the forces of nature to not just survive but thrive as a species. This write-up is an essay on importance of moral education essay.

Our ancestors started as hunters and gatherers, but now we are writing complex computer programs to make artificial intelligence carry out our space explorations. When you search for the reasons behind this huge evolution of human development, you can easily conclude that the system of education has made us more capable and competent.

Education is one of the most important processes that help an individual to be enlightened about his or her existence. Education provides us with knowledge in accessible and practical ways that guide future generations. This process provides an individual with skills, habits, beliefs, and values that will help him or her attain a successful and prosperous life.

There are various systems of education in different parts of the world. But no system of education can be complete without students getting proper moral education as a part of their curriculum.

Moral education consists of a set of beliefs and guidance acquired in the philosophical journey of our society. It makes a student well mannered, courteous, vigorous, non-bullying, obedient, and diligent. It guides the behavior, attitudes, and intentions of the students towards others and nature. It helps a person throughout his or her life to decide what is right or what is wrong.

Definition Of Moral Education

Some educational theories suggest that new avenues of the future can only open when the previous generation makes a path for it by staying out of the way. Though adults can take their moral understanding further with their ability of critical thinking that they acquire from systematic education, children require more careful attention as they are easily impressed and influenced. That is why the guidance of past generations and traditions remain very important in the form of moral education.

Moral education is very ambiguous as a term as different cultures, based on where they live and how they live, have a different set of moral values. But one thing that can be agreed upon universally is that moral education intends to shape the idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in young minds.

By the term ‘good’, you can assimilate deeds like contributing towards a healthy society, not harming a fellow member of the society, helping others, being civic, and being productive. The term ‘bad’ however refers to any thought or force that opposes the good deeds.

Although the modern education system is very new and still developing, the branch of moral education has been taught to pupils since ancient times. Earlier, the duty of imparting moral lessons used to be carried out by the religious leaders and educators who specialized in uplifting the moral value of the society by both adhering to and reforming the old traditions. In the modern age, especially after the colonization of several parts of the world, moral education has been reinforced by the new age educationists.

In the contemporary world moral education has become more universal in approach. More and more humanitarian aspects like human rights, rights for specially-abled people, women’s rights, animal rights, and rights of other marginalized sections of the society have been included.

This progressive approach towards moral education results in a more harmonious society where students become more inclusive and compassionate towards each other along with being successful individually.

Also Read: Essay on Aatma nirbhar Bharat in English

Essay On Importance Of Moral Education In 150 Words

The purpose of an individual’s education is their all-round development, and not just securing high paying jobs, no matter how much the rat-races of the world may have convinced us otherwise.

The education of an individual can never be complete unless they have learned the lessons of tolerance, compassion, pluralistic values, respect, faith, honesty, and many other great virtues that are essential for an upright social life.

These lessons are acquired from the moral education that kids are imparted through stories, skits, interactions, dialogues,  and discourses, and are expected to come from the elder members of the society.

Moral lessons teach young children about ideas that take them towards the ‘good’ life and help them identify the ‘bad’. A life that is not guided by these lessons can easily go astray, and an individual leading such a life, instead of being useful and productive, turns out to be harmful to society.

Essay On Importance Of Moral Education In 250 Words

For a young student moral lessons are just as important as technical and scientific ones as these help in shaping their entire personality. The word moral comes from the Latin root ‘moris’ which means the code of conduct of a people, and the social adhesive that holds a community together.

Moral lessons teach students the importance of positive virtues like honesty, responsibility, mutual respect, helpfulness, kindness, and generosity, without which no society can ever function. At a personal level, this knowledge is essential for a healthy and meaningful life.

These lessons are also aimed at conveying the vital message that negative qualities like greed, vengeance, hatred, and violence can hinder the functioning of a productive society and can cause immense personal damage to the individual.

Since young minds are easily impressionable and assimilate both positive and negative influences easily, moral lessons are vital in helping them make righteous choices as adults. Moral education makes sure that children grow up to develop a virtuous character and lead a decent life.

History bears witness, whenever a society has deterred from the path of these moral values, calamities have befallen humankind. Had Adolf Hilter been taught the right lessons in tolerance and diversity, the world would have been spared the horrors of the Holocaust and a World War.

A proper system of moral education becomes instrumental in shaping the present and the future of a harmonious society. For the betterment of individuals and the community they live in, imparting the right values to children as students are therefore essential.

Essay On Importance Of Moral Education For Class 7&8

Moral education as a process of learning enables a child to acquire socially acceptable skills that make them a useful resource for society. In the present times, moral education is a necessity, keeping the changing systems of the world in mind.

Moral education should not begin in the confines of a classroom but should start in the comfort and security of a home. Parents should be the first idols of children from whom they learn the basics of moral conduct.

Imparting moral lessons to young kids who have just begun developing their thoughts and are yet to attain individuality is a task of great responsibility. They can only be shaped into righteous human beings if proper care and due guidance are provided.

It is to be remembered, in this relation, that kids learn more from observation and modeling than from lectures and discourses. The kind of environment they develop in and the kind of individuals they find as models play a vital role in shaping them as individuals.

It is, therefore, of utmost importance to make sure that children always find a healthy atmosphere of productivity and righteousness around them, with healthy, meaningful relationships with their parents and other elders.

However, when we allow kids to grow in an atmosphere of immoral conduct, we should only expect them to lead lives bereft of all morality. In such cases, the consequences can be dangerous.

A community whose children, the symbols of its future, develop without proper moral education is doomed to be submerged in the darkness of crimes, immorality, violence, hatred, discrimination, selfishness, and greed.

The benefits of moral education are numerous. Apart from teaching children socially useful values to guide their everyday life, an efficient system of moral education imparts lessons of cooperation. As a value, cooperation is not just vital to an individual’s everyday life, but also for the survival of human society.

There can be no future for human civilization if this value is left out of children’s education as we, as a society, need each other to survive. Morals of respect, love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, and honesty help in imbibing this essential value among kids early on in life.

Moral education also helps in teaching children values of responsibility and independence which is otherwise difficult to make them learn. An effective curriculum of moral education would help children build a positive approach to difficult situations, and make them self confident. It helps children in realizing their purpose in life, their motivations, and goals, and make them dedicated to the cause of social well being.

Moral education is the only hope of humanity in the process of eradicating social evils like gender discrimination, animal abuse, oppression, violence, racial discrimination, and violence against minorities.

In order to create a better tomorrow and ascertain the continuation of human civilization, imparting moral education to children is a must. As an integral part of education as a whole, moral lessons should be focussed on, making sure that children receive an all-round education that enhances their personality.

Relevance Of Moral Education During The Present times

The present world is ever-changing. With the advent of technology and globalization, changes in family structure, the evolution of the education systems, changes in patterns of recreation, emergence of the ‘virtual’ world, and variations in the interpersonal relationships, children’s lives, thought patterns, and learning needs have undergone tremendous changes. Under these circumstances, the need and relevance of moral education have also changed.

With the virtual world casting a lasting impression on children, they have now become a lot more vulnerable to negative influences. Misuse of technology nowadays leads many young children and teenagers astray.

The damage caused in many cases is beyond repair. The distortions in the nature of human relationships and their consequences are having lasting impacts on young minds.

Under these changed circumstances, moral education has to assume a changed, and probably more important role. Due to the changes in most major spheres of life, moral values have also suffered major distortions.

Greed, violence, discrimination, and jealousy are becoming common among people. With social media, hatred spreads like wildfire. Values like honesty and generosity are only found in textbooks these days and their practical implications are becoming a rare sight.

Moral education is the only way in which the situation can be expected to improve. Proper moral education in classrooms and at home can help in boosting the morale of the students. But these lessons have to be provided in a more time-adjusted way to suit the need of the hour.

Making proper use of technology, a more visual and engaging curriculum can be drafted to engage the students in a practical and life-like manner.

Including moral education in school curriculums and adding extra weightage to these lessons is, therefore, a vital step to take in this direction.

As a society, the value of moral education is immense for us. If we are to produce sensible, kind, generous, responsible, and sensitized individuals to lead the future, moral education cannot be left out. In fact, our very existence as a civilization stands on how morally righteous and upright our future generations are.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Moral Teaching: Why Kant's Ideas On Education Are More Valid Than Ever

BOGOTÁ — Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential of Western philosophers, was born 300 years ago on April 22. He was a leading proponent of the ideas of the 18th century enlightenment, proposing the "categorical imperative" of ethical conduct based on objectivity and reason, not religious injunctions.

His ideas on teaching are to be found in three of his books: On Pedagogy, including his lecture notes from the University of Königsberg and published weeks before his death in 1804, the last chapter of Anthropology From a Pragmatic Point of View (1798) and What is Enlightenment? (1784). Kant was (together with Hegel) one of the few philosophers who taught for a living.

Kant would not like us today

He was reputedly so punctual that neighbors adjusted their watches on seeing him leave home for a walk at 3:30 p.m. Yet he was so moved reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Émile or On Education that he interrupted the afternoon walk for several days. The neighbors can only have imagined he was ill.

Judging by the titles he chose for his books, it is unlikely his virtues included modesty: Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Metaphysics of Morals (1797) and Critique of Practical Reason (1788). Kant's central thesis is that education's role is to help youngsters attain maturity, which means an ability to think freely and judge morally. He thus tackles the most important question in teaching: why teach what we are teaching?

Today, he would be a critic of socio-cultural polarization as it conveys little reflection and far too much zeal. He would also reject indoctrination wherein a teacher makes students think as he or she does, violating the learner's freedom. He would assuredly deride the language used today in politics, public life and online as in most cases this violates the categorical ethical imperative that entails respecting others, whatever their views or rationale.

A good philosopher will not "teach'" philosophy but the art of thinking.

Thinking independently requires courage, good teachers and systematic effort, which is why most individuals will happily repeat what their teachers, parents or political leaders say or the books they like to read. This creates a comfort zone that avoids the effort and risk of making judgments or stating ideas. It also means somebody else thinking and deciding on your behalf.

To think then is to exercise freedom and win autonomy, and a good philosopher will not "teach'" philosophy but the art of thinking. The ultimate goal of education, for Kant, was to aid pupils win their freedom and their moral and cognitive autonomy, both individually and collectively. This emphasis on the ethical and collective distances him from the "proto-romantic" Rousseau, who inclined toward spontaneity and individualism .

In contrast with animals who quickly learn what they will do in life and guide themselves with instincts, Kant says "man is the only creature that must be educated" into a being "able to perfect himself," and who has a "pragmatic predisposition toward becoming civilized through culture."

Stanislas Dehaene, a French scientist , picks up on this by describing us as members of Homo docens , the self-teaching species. This means that governments are obliged to assure everybody a good education, which isn't the case. In Kant's terms, people are only what education makes of them, which makes our two most complex and vital tasks in life "the art of governing and the art of educating."

How to become an adult

How then could we become adults through education? Kant sees three conditions for this: discipline, care and upbringing.

Discipline should be instilled at the youngest age as it becomes impossible to impose later on, and there Kant differs substantially from Rousseau. As if he had foreseen the norm of permissive families in our age, he wrote that if the child is "left to his own free will in youth and given no resistance, he will surely remain a little wild throughout his life."

We can see this with the modern youngsters today used to having their way, as their parents saw fit to pander to their whims and egocentrism. As they were never taught about it, they know nothing of either empathy or collaboration .

Kant analyses the tension between coercion and freedom. In his terms, "I must accustom my pupil to accept his freedom to be restrained, while guiding him so he can make good use of his freedom." Coercion has no sense here if freedom is not the objective, yet that goal will not be attained without obedience in a young child.

Kant remains a great teacher for us today, and his ideas, as valid as ever.

Plato said it before: There are two pernicious excesses to be avoided when educating youth: excessive severity and excessive indulgence . The balance between is difficult to attain but is essential to a good education. Children will become fearful and submissive if parents and teachers are oppressive, and indolent and capricious if perpetually cushioned with permissiveness.

Care is the second condition, akin to the constant attention given to an infant to assure its survival. Without the right care, children and adolescents may resort to force in their relations, though too much attention may be stifling.

As for the third condition, upbringing, Kant sees it as a guarantee of civilized living. It is the positive part of education that humanizes and turns a child into a fully-fledged human being, and that, as he stated in 1798, means "moral self-determination." The individual requires culture and moral criteria to live with others, which means teaching children with foresight into a "possible and better future state" in terms of human perfectibility.

The current state of affairs

Kant was well aware none of this was to be found in the schools of his time, whence his proposal of experimental schools to test his ideas before using them in public education. Today, we would call them teaching innovations. The teacher Inés Aguerrondo used to favor experimentation as pushing the "limits of what is possible" by interrupting the educational routine .

There are many, many people over the age of 18 in Colombia and Latin America, who have yet to become adults or mature in the Kantian sense, as they are incapable of judging independently. And Kant would surely think the same of Americans in the United States, if he were here today and informed of the candidate Donald Trump's reelection chances . What would he think of education in Argentina, where people recently voted for the angry, vociferous Javier Milei ?

Kant remains a great teacher for us today, and his ideas, as valid as ever . Our authorities should work to ensure children will grow to become the best adults they can be, in moral and intellectual terms, and fill the gaping gaps between this ideal and reality.

Our teachers are far from perfect when it comes to training and rigor, while youngsters tend to reject the risks of thinking freely. In Colombia, the state has given negligeable support to experimental schools. With this state of affairs, we can be sure people will remain immature, and their democracies, wild and primitive .

Like our content? Follow us for more. This article first appeared on Worldcrunch.com It was translated and adapted by Worldcrunch in partnership with EL ESPECTADOR . For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here .

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Morality?

Societal underpinnings of "right" and "wrong"

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

How Morals Are Established

Morals that transcend time and culture, examples of morals, morality vs. ethics, morality and laws.

Morality refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. It’s what societies determine to be “right” and “acceptable.”

Sometimes, acting in a moral manner means individuals must sacrifice their own short-term interests to benefit society. Individuals who go against these standards may be considered immoral.

It may be helpful to differentiate between related terms, such as immoral , nonmoral , and amoral . Each has a slightly different meaning:

• Immoral : Describes someone who purposely commits an offensive act, even though they know the difference between what is right and wrong
• Nonmoral : Describes situations in which morality is not a concern
• Amoral : Describes someone who acknowledges the difference between right and wrong, but who is not concerned with morality

Morality isn’t fixed. What’s considered acceptable in your culture might not be acceptable in another culture. Geographical regions, religion, family, and life experiences all influence morals. 

Scholars don’t agree on exactly how morals are developed. However, there are several theories that have gained attention over the years:

• Freud’s morality and the superego: Sigmund Freud suggested moral development occurred as a person’s ability to set aside their selfish needs (id) to be replaced by the values of important socializing agents, such as a person’s parents, teachers, and institutions (superego).
• Piaget’s theory of moral development: Jean Piaget focused on the social-cognitive perspective of moral development. He theorized that moral development unfolds over time alongside the progressing stages of cognitive development. Early on, children learn to adopt certain moral behaviors for their own sake (it makes them feel good), rather than just abide by moral codes because they don’t want to get into trouble. By adolescence, you can think more abstractly, and begin to make moral decisions based on higher universal principles and the greater good of society.
• B.F. Skinner’s behavioral theory: B.F. Skinner focused on the power of external forces that shaped an individual’s development. For example, a child who receives praise for being kind may treat someone with kindness again out of a desire to receive more positive attention in the future.
• Kohlberg’s moral reasoning: Lawrence Kohlberg proposed six stages of moral development that went beyond Piaget’s theory. Through a series of questions or moral dilemmas, Kohlberg proposed that an adult’s stage of reasoning could be identified.
• Gilligan's perspective of gender differences in moral reasoning . Carol Gilligan criticized Kohlberg for being male-centric in his theory of moral development. She explained that men are more justice-oriented in their moral reasoning; whereas, women are more care-oriented . Within that context, moral dilemmas will have different solutions depending on which gender is doing the reasoning.

What Is the Basis of Morality?

There are different theories as to how morals are developed. However, most theories acknowledge the external factors (parents, community, etc.) that contribute to a child's moral development. These morals are intended to benefit the group that has created them.

Most morals aren’t fixed. They usually shift and change over time.

Ideas about whether certain behaviors are moral—such as engaging in pre-marital sex, entering into same-sex relationships, and using cannabis—have shifted over time. While the bulk of the population once viewed these behaviors as “wrong,” the vast majority of the population now finds these activities to be “acceptable.”

In some regions, cultures, and religions, using contraception is considered immoral. In other parts of the world, some people consider contraception the moral thing to do, as it reduces unplanned pregnancy, manages the population, and reduces the risk of sexually transmitted illnesses.

7 Universal Morals

Some morals seem to transcend across the globe and across time, however. Researchers have discovered that these seven morals seem somewhat universal:

• Defer to authority
• Help your group
• Love your family
• Return favors
• Respect others’ property

The following are common morality examples that you may have been taught growing up, and may have even passed on to younger generations:

• Have empathy
• Don't steal
• Tell the truth
• Treat others as you want to be treated

People might adhere to these principles by:

• Being an upstanding citizen
• Doing volunteer work
• Donating money to charity
• Forgiving someone
• Not gossiping about others
• Offering their time and help to others

To get a sense of the types of morality you were raised with, think about what your parents, community and/or religious leaders told you that you "should" or "ought" to do.

Some scholars don’t distinguish between morals and ethics . Both have to do with “right and wrong.”

However, some people believe morality is personal while ethics refer to the standards of a community.

For example, your community may not view premarital sex as a problem. But on a personal level, you might consider it immoral. By this definition, your morality would contradict the ethics of your community.

Both laws and morals are meant to regulate behavior in a community to allow people to live in harmony. Both have firm foundations in the concept that everyone should have autonomy and show respect to one another.

Legal thinkers interpret the relationship between laws and morality differently. Some argue that laws and morality are independent. This means that laws can’t be disregarded simply because they’re morally indefensible.

Others believe law and morality are interdependent. These thinkers believe that laws that claim to regulate behavioral expectations must be in harmony with moral norms. Therefore, all laws must secure the welfare of the individual and be in place for the good of the community.

Something like adultery may be considered immoral by some, but it’s legal in most states. Additionally, it’s illegal to drive slightly over the speed limit but it isn’t necessarily considered immoral to do so.

There may be times when some people argue that breaking the law is the “moral” thing to do. Stealing food to feed a starving person, for example, might be illegal but it also might be considered the “right thing” to do if it’s the only way to prevent someone from suffering or dying.

Think About It

It can be helpful to spend some time thinking about the morals that guide your decisions about things like friendship, money, education, and family. Understanding what’s really important to you can help you understand yourself better and it may make difficult decisions easier.

Merriam-Webster. A lesson on 'unmoral,' 'immoral,' 'nonmoral,' and 'amoral.'

Ellemers N, van der Toorn J, Paunov Y, van Leeuwen T. The psychology of morality: A review and analysis of empirical studies published from 1940 through 2017 . Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2019;23(4):332-366. doi:10.1177/1088868318811759

Curry OS, Mullins DA, Whitehouse H. Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies . Current Anthropology. 2019;60(1):47-69. doi:10.1086/701478

Encyclopædia Britannica.  What's the difference between morality and ethics?

Moka-Mubelo W. Law and morality . In:  Reconciling Law and Morality in Human Rights Discourse . Vol 3. Springer International Publishing; 2017:51-88. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49496-8_3

By Amy Morin, LCSW Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

• +1 (519)-670-9769
• [email protected]
• Privacy Policy

My Edu Corner

Make Education Better

Importance of Moral Education: Essay, Article, Short Note

Introduction (essay on moral education).

Morality is one of the fundamental aspects of human life and society. It is this moral code that allows people to trust each other, cooperate and form a culture and community with a common set of values and beliefs. Going by the definition, morality is defined as “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior”. In this modern day and age with rising uncertainty and crime rate, a serious contemplation is required over the kind of education and values being instilled into children and teens.

History of moral education

Ever since the beginning of civilization moral teachings and ethical values have been a major part of the education system. Teaching virtues of moral values like honesty, responsibility, and respect for others, was  the founding base for the education system. The idea is to develop a system to instill these virtues into children so that they can go on to become productive members of society and contribute towards the common good. In those early days, teaching morality was one of the main objectives of schools. In India, we had “gurukul system” where the students were supposed to live in gurukuls along with their gurus (teachers) and learn to live an ideal life while also acquiring knowledge and relevant skills. Our history is the proof that such a system was indeed very effective and it contributed a lot towards societal advancements in those days.

Present system

In stark contrast, our modern education system is severely lacking moral education. This globalized system of education is now an industry. Education has become a profit making business where information is sold as knowledge. We are living in a world where people are valued solely based on a number of degrees and domain knowledge. Although it isn’t bad to prioritize knowledge and innovation, none of it can take place of moral values. Humans are social beings and as a society, we need a basic set of principles and values to be respected and followed by all. Living a healthy and fulfilling life is an art which cannot be learned without incorporating life lessons and moral values.

These are troubled times for our society. We are dealing with not just an increased crime rate and violence but also an increased rate of depression and suicidal tendencies among kids and teenagers. Lack of moral teachings is a major cause of all these problems. Schools and universities can be likened to factories churning out workforce for the ever-changing and dynamic market. Schools are no longer teaching students how to live in society, how to face problems and importance of empathy and care for others. Due to this, kids these days do not know how to deal with life problems and hardships and increasingly they are taking extreme measures. They do not know the solution to their problems and they lack the self-esteem to ask for help. It is like they are stuck in this perpetual misery.

5 thoughts on “Importance of Moral Education: Essay, Article, Short Note”

this essay is very helpful .

Comment Text*excellent

#i love it. this had helped to complete my question paper solution #thank you piyush

Good essay but need to be improved

Comments are closed

Sherlock has Detected Adblocker In Your Browser

Need of Moral Education in Our System of Education

Moral education is the need of the hour. The world today is filled with crime, hatred, and greed. People have forgotten their humanity and are only concerned with themselves. They have lost their sense of right and wrong.

Moral education is the process of teaching people about morality, or the principles that govern right and wrong behavior. It helps people to develop a strong sense of ethics and values. It also teaches them how to make good choices in life, based on these principles.

There is no denying the fact that moral education is needed in our society today. With all the negativity that surrounds us, it is more important than ever to instill positive values in our children.

By teaching them about honesty, respect and responsibility, we can help them grow into responsible adults who will make a positive difference in the world.

What is Moral Education?

Moral education, in its broadest sense, refers to the intentional efforts that aim to cultivate a sense of ethics and values in individuals. It involves teaching and learning about what is right and what is wrong, shaping behavior, promoting social responsibility, and encouraging respect for others.

When we talk about moral education, we talk about a set of values that guide us in making decisions, interacting with others, and leading our lives. It revolves around virtues such as honesty, integrity, responsibility, respect, kindness, and empathy. It is about developing a strong moral compass that navigates individuals through the complexities of life, enabling them to differentiate between right and wrong.

Why Moral Education?

In a world where values often seem to take a backseat, the need for moral education becomes more significant. It plays a vital role in building character, fostering empathy, and instilling a sense of social responsibility. It acts as a guiding light, leading individuals towards ethical behavior and decisions.

Importance of Moral Education

Moral education holds immense importance in today’s society. It equips individuals with the ability to make moral judgments, to be empathetic, and to live responsibly in society. In schools, it helps create a harmonious environment by encouraging respect and tolerance among students. At home, it aids in the development of sound judgment and good behavior. In society, it helps nurture responsible citizens who contribute positively towards their community.

Moral education acts as a catalyst for personal growth and societal betterment. By fostering good citizens who contribute positively to their surroundings, it indirectly impacts the progress of society. Therefore, it is an integral part of education that cannot be overlooked.

Aims of Moral Education

The primary objectives of moral education revolve around the holistic development of an individual. It aims to:

Purification of Soul

Through introspection and self-reflection, moral education encourages individuals to analyze their actions and behavior. It aids in understanding one’s inner self better, leading to the purification of the soul.

Propagation of Moral Values

Moral education serves as a channel for passing down ethical values and principles from one generation to another. It ensures the continuity and preservation of moral values.

Character Building

It molds an individual’s character, encouraging ethical behavior and actions. It promotes virtues such as honesty, integrity, empathy, respect, and kindness.

Moral Training

Moral education equips individuals with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. It provides moral training that guides individuals in their actions and decisions.

Healthy Moral Environment

By fostering a sense of respect and tolerance, moral education creates a healthy and positive environment, whether at school, home, or society.

The Education System: A Closer Look

While education is primarily associated with academics, there is a growing recognition of the value of moral education.

Focus on Academics: The Current Scenario

The conventional education system largely emphasizes academics. There is a strong focus on achieving academic excellence, securing good grades, and gaining knowledge in various subjects. However, this approach often leaves little room for the development of moral values.

While academic skills are essential for professional success, moral values are equally important for leading a meaningful and fulfilling life. The need of the hour is to strike a balance between academics and moral education.

Do We Need Moral Education in School?

Schools play a crucial role in a child’s life. They are not just centers for academic learning but also environments where a child learns about society, relationships, and behavior. The incorporation of moral education in schools is beneficial in many ways.

Firstly, schools provide a structured environment that is conducive to learning and development. Through activities and discussions, moral values can be effectively instilled in students. Secondly, the school years are a critical phase in a child’s life. It is during this period that a child learns, grows, and forms opinions. By introducing moral education at this stage, ethical values can be ingrained deeply into the child’s psyche.

Benefits of Moral Education

The benefits of moral education extend beyond individual development and have a profound impact on society. It is a significant factor in personal growth and societal development.

Fostering Good Citizens

Good citizenship goes beyond being law-abiding. It involves being respectful, responsible, and active in community activities. Moral education promotes these values, fostering good citizens who contribute positively to their community and society.

Promoting Personal Development

Moral education is not just about teaching right from wrong. It is about nurturing individuals who are empathetic, responsible, and respectful. It promotes virtues such as honesty, integrity, kindness, and respect, contributing to overall personal development.

Examples of Moral Education

Moral education is a continuous process that can be incorporated into everyday activities and interactions. Examples of moral education can range from classroom activities that encourage teamwork and respect to community service programs that promote social responsibility.

Role-playing scenarios, discussions on ethical dilemmas, and character education lessons are common ways of imparting moral education. These activities not only instill moral values but also provide practical experience, helping students understand the relevance of these values in real-life situations.

In addition, community service programs provide hands-on experience in empathizing with others and understanding societal needs. It fosters a sense of social responsibility, encouraging students to contribute positively to their community.

Need for Moral Education in Physical Education

Physical Education, often centered around fitness and skill development, presents an excellent opportunity for moral education. Incorporating moral education in physical education can promote values such as teamwork, respect, and sportsmanship.

Team sports provide an excellent platform to instill the value of teamwork. It teaches students to work together towards a common goal, highlighting the importance of cooperation and coordination.

Physical education teaches respect in many ways. It promotes respect for rules, respect for opponents, and respect for oneself. It teaches students to play fair and respect the outcome of the game.

Sportsmanship

Good sportsmanship involves being gracious in victory and defeat. It teaches students to handle success and failure with dignity, a value that is applicable not just in sports but in all aspects of life.

Moral Education in Our Life

The importance of moral education extends beyond the classroom and plays a vital role in our lives. It guides our behavior and decisions, impacting our relationships, our work, and our interaction with society.

In personal relationships, moral education fosters respect, empathy, and kindness. It nurtures healthy relationships, characterized by understanding, tolerance, and mutual respect.

In the professional world, moral education promotes honesty, integrity, and responsibility. It encourages ethical work practices and fosters a positive work environment.

In societal interactions, moral education instills a sense of social responsibility. It encourages individuals to contribute positively to society, fostering a sense of community and solidarity.

Why is moral education essential in today’s society?

Moral education is crucial in today’s society as it helps in shaping responsible and empathetic individuals. It equips people with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, promotes ethical behavior, and encourages social responsibility.

How can moral education be incorporated in schools?

Moral education can be incorporated into schools through classroom activities, discussions on ethical dilemmas, community service programs, and character education lessons. These activities not only instill moral values but also provide practical experience, helping students understand the relevance of these values in real-life situations.

Why should moral education be part of physical education?

Incorporating moral education in physical education can promote values such as teamwork, respect, and sportsmanship. It teaches students to work together, respect rules, and handle success and failure with dignity.

Moral education holds the key to nurturing individuals who are not just academically proficient but also ethically conscious. By weaving moral education into the fabric of our education system, we can cultivate a generation of responsible, empathetic, and morally aware citizens.

The focus on moral education underscores the need for a comprehensive education system that balances academics with the inculcation of moral values. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, the role of moral education becomes increasingly significant.

In the face of societal challenges and global issues, moral education emerges as an essential component, contributing to individual development and societal betterment. It is, indeed, the call of the hour.

Sherry Lane

Meet Sherry Lane, a proud holder of a PhD in Educational Psychology with a concentration in Montessori Methods. At EduEdify.com, I dive deep into Montessori Education, Teaching-Learning, and Child-Kid paradigms. My advanced studies, combined with years of research, position me to provide authoritative insights. Let's explore the many facets of education, ensuring every child receives the best instruction tailored to their needs.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

In Medicine, the Morally Unthinkable Too Easily Comes to Seem Normal

By Carl Elliott

Dr. Elliott teaches medical ethics at the University of Minnesota. He is the author of the forthcoming book “The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No,” from which this essay is adapted.

Here is the way I remember it: The year is 1985, and a few medical students are gathered around an operating table where an anesthetized woman has been prepared for surgery. The attending physician, a gynecologist, asks the group: “Has everyone felt a cervix? Here’s your chance.” One after another, we take turns inserting two gloved fingers into the unconscious woman’s vagina.

Had the woman consented to a pelvic exam? Did she understand that when the lights went dim she would be treated like a clinical practice dummy, her genitalia palpated by a succession of untrained hands? I don’t know. Like most medical students, I just did as I was told.

Last month the Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidance requiring written informed consent for pelvic exams and other intimate procedures performed under anesthesia. Much of the force behind the new requirement came from distressed medical students who saw these pelvic exams as wrong and summoned the courage to speak out.

Whether the guidance will actually change clinical practice I don’t know. Medical traditions are notoriously difficult to uproot, and academic medicine does not easily tolerate ethical dissent. I doubt the medical profession can be trusted to reform itself.

What is it that leads a rare individual to say no to practices that are deceptive, exploitative or harmful when everyone else thinks they are fine? For a long time I assumed that saying no was mainly an issue of moral courage. The relevant question was: If you are a witness to wrongdoing, will you be brave enough to speak out?

But then I started talking to insiders who had blown the whistle on abusive medical research. Soon I realized that I had overlooked the importance of moral perception. Before you decide to speak out about wrongdoing, you have to recognize it for what it is.

This is not as simple as it seems. Part of what makes medical training so unsettling is how often you are thrust into situations in which you don’t really know how to behave. Nothing in your life up to that point has prepared you to dissect a cadaver, perform a rectal exam or deliver a baby. Never before have you seen a psychotic patient involuntarily sedated and strapped to a bed or a brain-dead body wheeled out of a hospital room to have its organs harvested for transplantation. Your initial reaction is often a combination of revulsion, anxiety and self-consciousness.

To embark on a career in medicine is like moving to a foreign country where you do not understand the customs, rituals, manners or language. Your main concern on arrival is how to fit in and avoid causing offense. This is true even if the local customs seem backward or cruel. What’s more, this particular country has an authoritarian government and a rigid status hierarchy where dissent is not just discouraged but also punished. Living happily in this country requires convincing yourself that whatever discomfort you feel comes from your own ignorance and lack of experience. Over time, you learn how to assimilate. You may even come to laugh at how naïve you were when you first arrived.

A rare few people hang onto that discomfort and learn from it. When Michael Wilkins and William Bronston started working at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island as young doctors in the early 1970s, they found thousands of mentally disabled children condemned to the most horrific conditions imaginable: naked children rocking and moaning on concrete floors in puddles of their own urine; an overpowering stench of illness and filth; a research unit where children were deliberately infected with hepatitis A and B.

“It was truly an American concentration camp,” Dr. Bronston told me. Yet when he and Dr. Wilkins tried to enlist Willowbrook doctors and nurses to reform the institution, they were met with indifference or hostility. It seemed as if no one else on the medical staff could see what they saw. It was only when Dr. Wilkins went to a reporter and showed the world what was happening behind the Willowbrook walls that anything began to change.

When I asked Dr. Bronston how it was possible for doctors and nurses to work at Willowbrook without seeing it as a crime scene, he told me it began with the way the institution was structured and organized. “Medically secured, medically managed, doctor-validated,” he said. Medical professionals just accommodated themselves to the status quo. “You get with the program because that’s what you’re being hired to do,” he said.

One of the great mysteries of human behavior is how institutions create social worlds where unthinkable practices come to seem normal. This is as true of academic medical centers as it is of prisons and military units. When we are told about a horrific medical research scandal, we assume that we would see it just as the whistle-blower Peter Buxtun saw the Tuskegee syphilis study : an abuse so shocking that only a sociopath could fail to perceive it.

Yet it rarely happens this way. It took Mr. Buxtun seven years to convince others to see the abuses for what they were. It has taken other whistle-blowers even longer. Even when the outside world condemns a practice, medical institutions typically insist that the outsiders don’t really understand.

According to Irving Janis, a Yale psychologist who popularized the notion of groupthink, the forces of social conformity are especially powerful in organizations that are driven by a deep sense of moral purpose. If the aims of the organization are righteous, its members feel, it is wrong to put barriers in the way.

This observation helps explain why academic medicine not only defends researchers accused of wrongdoing but also sometimes rewards them. Many of the researchers responsible for the most notorious abuses in recent medical history — the Tuskegee syphilis study, the Willowbrook hepatitis studies, the Cincinnati radiation studies , the Holmesburg prison studies — were celebrated with professional accolades even after the abuses were first called out.

The culture of medicine is notoriously resistant to change. During the 1970s, it was thought that the solution to medical misconduct was formal education in ethics. Major academic medical centers began establishing bioethics centers and programs throughout the 1980s and ’90s, and today virtually every medical school in the country requires ethics training.

Yet it is debatable whether that training has had any effect. Many of the most egregious ethical abuses in recent decades have taken place in medical centers with prominent bioethics programs, such as the University of Pennsylvania , Duke University , Columbia University and Johns Hopkins University , as well as my own institution, the University of Minnesota .

One could be forgiven for concluding that the only way the culture of medicine will change is if changes are forced on it from the outside — by oversight bodies, legislators or litigators. For example, many states have responded to the controversy over pelvic exams by passing laws banning the practice unless the patient has explicitly given consent.

You may find it hard to understand how pelvic exams on unconscious women without their consent could seem like anything but a terrible invasion. Yet a central aim of medical training is to transform your sensibility. You are taught to steel yourself against your natural emotional reactions to death and disfigurement; to set aside your customary views about privacy and shame; to see the human body as a thing to be examined, tested and studied.

One danger of this transformation is that you will see your colleagues and superiors do horrible things and be afraid to speak up. But the more subtle danger is that you will no longer see what they are doing as horrible. You will just think: This is the way it is done.

Carl Elliott ( @FearLoathingBTX ) teaches medical ethics at the University of Minnesota. He is the author of the forthcoming book “The Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No,” from which this essay is adapted.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Top NEET Coaching Centres in Bangalore

Best Universities in Luxembourg

Streamlining Student Management: The Power of Automated Systems

All You Need to Know about Scholarship to Study Abroad

International School Fees: Unveiling the True Value

• Career & Jobs
• Career Guidance
• Study Abroad
• Personality Development

Why Moral Education is Important in Students Life

• What is moral education?
• Objectives and need for moral education
• Moral and ethical values -A comparative study
• The four pillars of moral education
• Why do we need moral education to be part of the modern education curriculum?
• How can schools implement moral-education values to students?

Over the years, the term moral education has been defined in various ways by numerous scholars. There is no particular definition for the term.

However, to understand it in simple and plain language we can say that moral education is the teaching of values that distinguish between right and wrong. It is this set of values that finally guides your behaviour and intentions towards others around you.

For centuries, academicians and intellects have debated the world over whether moral values should be taught in schools or not. Many believe that moral and ethical values cannot be taught but can only be learned through the actions of peers and elders.

In this case, the foremost question that may arise is how do we distinguish the right action from a wrong one if we are not taught the same. One act may be considered right for a particular person and wrong to another.

Therefore, it becomes necessary to universally consolidate a certain set of values and morals to enable community living. Moral values in education are as important as a Doctor of Philosophy.

The debate about adopting moral education in schools may go on for a long time, but the importance of moral education cannot be undermined.

The importance of moral education in schools can be determined through the objectives of moral education.

The objectives of moral education can be summarized as below.

• Moral education helps to differentiate between what is universally accepted as right and what is accepted as wrong.
• It defines an individual’s personality. A person may be classified as a moral or immoral person.
• Moral education helps to eliminate or minimise the vices like jealousy, greed, etc.
• Inculcating or adopting moral values can positively impact one’s self, and it can build a positive attitude and develop self-confidence .

Need for Moral Education

“To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” Theodore Roosevelt

With the rapid development of the internet and technology over the past few years , the world has become a global village.

With distances being shortened, high-speed communication, and closer interactions between different groups, the world has become a single community linked together by telecommunications.

This fast-paced world has brought about the need for the introduction of ethics, values, and morals to promote community living. Moral education has never been felt more required than today.

Surveys reveal that the early 1980s saw a drastic decline in students’ academic performance and behavioural patterns. It was then that educators reintroduced the term “character” in their tutoring sessions.

Character can be defined as the moral qualities that are distinct to an individual. Educators emphasized on introducing students to good character and eliminating bad habits.

Educators then believed that an early introduction to good habits or ethical values was conducive to building harmony in society. Therefore, it can be clearly seen why moral education is essential.

Moral and Ethical Values

As Albert Einstein once said “The most important human endeavour is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life”

The term moral and ethics is more often interchangeably used though in practice the two words have entirely different connotations.

Morals are more like values that define an individual in society. Morals are values that protect and respect life.

Not only the life of one’s self but the life of everyone around. Every moral value function to enhance the quality of life. Here, it is pertinent to note that moral values may differ according to the situation one is in.

For example, one of the core moral values in society today is honour and respect for oneself and another. However, this same honour may be construed as disrespect and conceit for another to protect one’s own dignity.

The real moral value of honour should therefore be taught as universal respect and honour for another life irrespective of other catalysts.

Ethics on the other hand can be defined as an individual who possesses moral values and expresses willingness to do only the right thing despite the difficulty in performing the morally right act. A person is said to be ethical if he possesses and practices moral values.

Listing out a set of defined moral or ethical values is not a realistic task.

However, religious texts, philosophers, and preachers have laid down the principle of moral and ethical values that ought to be followed by every individual for a harmonious society.

However, ethics and morality have little to do with religion. The values have more to do with living in a civilized society , graciously and amicably.

The Four Pillars of Moral Education

The four pillars of moral education describe the foundation upon which moral education rests.

1. Character and Morality

Here moral education are individual-centric. It concentrates on individual character building.

2. Individual and Community

Moral education concerning the individual and the community is how each individual behaves himself and concerning the community at large.

The focus is on building an individual that will be part of a greater community.

3. Civic Education

The main aim of cultural education in moral education is to learn how the nation came to be what it is today.

The ideals of our forefathers and the teachings of great scholars are contributing factors that have shaped humanity and the nation.

4. Cultural Education

Close on the principles of civic education, cultural education also forms an integral part of moral education. Culture denotes the customs and traditions of a particular nation or ethnic group.

You May Also Like Importance of Education in Life

Why Is Moral Education Important in Schools ?

“Education without morals is like a ship without a compass, merely wandering nowhere.” – Martin Luther King

Imparting moral values to a child begins with elders at home. This education however does not end in the formative years and before the child is ready for school.

Imparting value education requires years of understanding and absorption. Every age and stage of the child entails different levels of perception.

Therefore, it becomes imperative that teachers would have to continue this education in schools to ensure continuity of moral education from the elders at home.

Schools are the heart and soul of a child’s life. The formative years of a child are the most important. It is at this time that the child’s character can be moulded and defined.

School teachers and peers are the greatest influence on these impressionable minds. Laying a standard set of values and morals to be taught in school can go a long way in building student character.

Moral education in schools is an effective method of inculcating values in children.

How Schools Can Adopt Better Methods to Impart Moral Education for Students?

Imparting moral values for students is a difficult mission. Keeping students engaged in value-based classes can be a daunting task.

Young minds often wander and get distracted soon. Keeping students engaged and at the same time imparting moral values is the key.

One of the tried and tested methods in many schools is by introducing community activities in the form of designated dates such as lend a helping hand day, share a smile day or even a visit to an orphanage or an old age home.

Practicing activities that involve community assistance can give students first-hand experience. Such activities can inculcate a sense of belonging right from a tender age.

What Is the Right Age to Teach Moral Values in Students?

As there are no defined set of rules or a particular curriculum or syllabus related to moral education, the question of when to initiate this value education comes into picture.

Is there a right age? Is there a time when it becomes too late to initiate value education? To answer these questions, one must necessarily reflect on life as a whole.

Value education begins at a very tender age. The process of growing and evolving involves the inculcation of values.

Learning to share, learning to respect, learning to help others in need are all virtues imbibed in us in our formative years. Some of these values are not even taught. They are learned from experience.

At later stages of life, one may make mistakes, minor or grave errors. Such situations demand a reiteration of values. That is why moral education is essential in schools.

There is no particular age that is considered the right age to impart moral education to students. The earlier one is introduced to moral and value education, the easier it is to mould a character. Moral education is a lifelong learning skill.

In conclusion, it must be noted that imparting value and moral education in schools is as important as a subject in mathematics or science.

A doctorate in these subjects is of no use without a sound moral character. Knowledge will most definitely give the students the power, but good character will earn respect.

The truth of one’s character is judged by a choice of actions. These actions are guided by moral principles learned over the years. The importance of moral education can never be undermined.

You Might Also Like

Top 10 seo company in bangalore specialized in seo educational institute ., leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Weekly Newsletter

subscribe to our latest blog and weekly newsletter

Popular News

Women’s Education in India – An Overview

- Advertisement -

• Certifications

Top Categories

Subscribe us, for quick admission assistance.

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Rethinking Justice: why the Death Penalty should be Abolished

This essay about the reasons to abolish the death penalty discusses the ethical, practical, and financial implications of capital punishment. It argues that the irreversible nature of the death penalty, coupled with the risk of executing innocent people, raises serious moral concerns. The essay also points out the lack of evidence supporting the death penalty as a crime deterrent and highlights the biases in its application, which disproportionately affect minorities and those of lower socio-economic status. Additionally, it notes the higher costs of death penalty cases compared to life imprisonment. Finally, the essay emphasizes a shift in global norms, with a growing number of countries abolishing the death penalty in favor of more humane approaches to justice. This reflects a broader move toward upholding human rights and fostering a fair and equitable justice system.

How it works

The death penalty has always been a hot-button issue, sparking debates that cut deep into our moral and ethical fibers. But as society evolves, so too should our justice system. There are several powerful, human-centered reasons why the death penalty feels like an outdated relic in today’s legal landscape.

Let’s start with the moral quandary it presents. Taking a life, under any circumstance, raises a multitude of ethical questions. One of the most troubling aspects of capital punishment is the chilling possibility of executing an innocent person.

Since 1973, over 185 individuals on death row in the United States were exonerated. This isn’t just a statistic; it’s a glaring reminder of how irreversible and final the death penalty is. Mistakes in other areas of justice can often be rectified, but there is no undoing an execution.

Then there’s the argument about whether the death penalty actually deters crime. The evidence here is shaky at best. Numerous studies have shown that harsh penalties like execution do not effectively prevent crime more than life imprisonment. If deterrence is the goal, the death penalty misses the mark, which begs the question: why keep it?

Bias in the death penalty’s application adds another layer of concern. The system shows troubling disparities, particularly with racial biases and socioeconomic status influencing outcomes. Defendants accused of killing white victims are disproportionately sentenced to death, which speaks volumes about the prejudices skulking through the corridors of our courts. This isn’t just unfair; it’s a fundamentally flawed system that perpetuates inequality.

Financially, the death penalty doesn’t make much sense either. It’s far more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. This is due to the lengthy and complex legal process required in capital cases, designed to minimize errors. Every dollar spent here is a dollar that could be used more effectively elsewhere within the criminal justice system.

Globally, the trend is also moving away from capital punishment, with over two-thirds of countries having abolished it in law or in practice. This global shift isn’t just about being progressive; it’s about adhering to international human rights standards that recognize the death penalty as a violation of the right to life.

In the end, abolishing the death penalty isn’t just about eliminating a punishment option. It’s about building a justice system that reflects our values of fairness, redemption, and humanity. It’s about acknowledging that the state shouldn’t sanction the irreversible act of taking a life. Moving away from the death penalty would signal a commitment to these values and contribute to a more equitable society.

So, as we ponder the path forward, let’s consider a justice system that upholds life and offers chances for redemption. That’s the kind of progress that aligns with our collective growth as a compassionate society.

Cite this page

Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/ [Accessed: 13 May. 2024]

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 13, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/. [Accessed: 13-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/ [Accessed: 13-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers