Dimensions of Moral Education

P.J. Hammel is a professor of Education at the University of
Saskatchewan.

There is always a danger in trying to interpret briefly the theme of a work of complex intellectual argument, like this work by Robert E. Carter. However, when brevity is required, the risk must be accepted. It is in this light that the following is offered: Carter attempts to show that moral education in schools is not only possible but necessary. In the process, he rejects the concept of “values clarification” (which has caused so much controversy in education), examines critically the Six Stages of Moral Judgement posited by Laurence Kohlberg, and argues that chaos and paralysis need not result from true existentialism. Beginning with the Socratic method of questioning to continue to know better, Carter assumes, as basic, a state of “intellectual myopia” in which one does not know absolutely, knows that one does not know absolutely and, therefore, must continuously strive to know better. On the basis of this assumption, philosophy must become a continuous search for more effective answers to questions, and morality cannot become simply a set of absolute rules. Therefore, although “most people assume... that any teacher worth his or her salt will make students aware of the meaning of ‘value’, ‘good’, ‘intrinsic’ and other important terms,...in those areas which have to do with the most important issues in human living, the ‘questions that matter most’, you need not aim to get it right but to get it better.” Hence, moral education cannot be the study of specific religious absolutes but rather a teacher-led activity in which students continue to search for better answers than they now have.

This is a difficult book to read, in spite of its clarity of exposition, because for complete understanding the reader must have an extensive background in schools of philosophy and in the specific views of individual philosophers to which Carter refers frequently.

If one can judge the merits of a work by extension, it might be important to note that Laurence Kohlberg, in an introduction to this work, says that Carter “presents my theory of moral development and moral education in a clear but constructive critical approach... His distinction between the more disputable claims and those which are less controversial is one which I would largely accept, and recommend this chapter from that point of view.”

In spite of this recommendation, if the work is to have an influence on public education, philosophers of education will have to interpret Carter’s work so that the classroom teacher will be able to avoid the delusions of the extremes of values clarification and absolutism.