Quandaries of ethics education
Bert Gordijn
0
1
Henk ten Have
0
1
0
H. ten Have Paris,
France
1
B. Gordijn (&)
Dublin, The Netherlands
-
If we are to believe Plato, Socrates seems to have had a rather
cheerful outlook on ethics teaching. In the Protagoras he
argues that virtue consists entirely of knowledge. More
specifically, Socrates develops a hedonistic view, in which
pleasure determines happiness. Virtue is the knowledge
needed to attain pleasure and happiness. Thus, virtues and having
a virtuous character mean that we have knowledge of what
yields pleasure overall. However, Socrates not only thinks that
knowledge is a necessary condition for virtuous behavior; it is
also a sufficient condition (cf. Homiak 2011). This Socratic
view is not in accord with common sense. The latter suggests
that achieving a virtuous character and displaying good
behavior call for more than just the acquisition of knowledge.
If one rationally believes something to be right, this insight
alone cannot guarantee that one behaves virtuously. After all,
people do not always act rationally and are often encouraged
by temptations of all kinds to act against their better rational
judgment. If they are incontinent or weak-willed, they may
therefore easily sway from the right track. Unfortunately,
incontinence (acrasia) is widespread, at least according to
common sense (cf. Homiak 2011).
Contrary to the mainstream view Socrates holds that
people who leave the right track are not weak-willed but
ignorant. Acrasia is not possible, at least not with someone
who has true knowledge. If somebody really knows good
what will bring long term pleasure at the end of the day
and evil, nothing will overpower him so that he acts against
his insights. If one truly masters the art of measuring
pleasure, equally considering current and future pleasures
and pains, why would one choose a suboptimal course of
action (cf. Woodruff 2010). no man voluntarily pursues
evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. (Plato,
Protagoras). Actions taken in ignorance are involuntary. Therefore,
they are not blameworthy. If Socrates is right in holding
that knowledge is sufficient to guarantee virtuous behavior,
moral improvement can be achieved through appropriate
education. In fact, Socrates regards this as his personal
mission as he constantly endeavors to educate his fellow
Athenians (Plato, Apology). However, Socrates is not
convinced that he has true knowledge of the virtues.
Therefore, teaching ethics cannot merely be a matter of
transferring knowledge. Instead it is essential to have
elaborate discussions about the virtues. Only through
thorough debate can we gain true understanding of the
virtues. That is why Socrates is one of the most influential
ethics teachers everwithout having left behind one single
written word.
Aristotles outlook on ethics teaching is less upbeat, but
most likely more realistic. Knowledge alone does not
guarantee good behaviour. Acrasia is a reality. Both peoples
behaviour and character are in large part the product of
habituation. Aristotle clearly sees the limits of Socrates
exclusively intellectual approach to moral improvement:
argument and teachingare not powerful with all men,
but the soul of the student must first have been cultivated by
means of habits (Aristotle, X 9). In order to enhance the
changes of an appropriate upbringing legislation is needed:
it is difficult to get from youth up a right training for
virtue if one has not been brought up under right laws; for to
live temperately and hardily is not pleasant to most people,
especially when they are young. For this reason their nurture
and occupations should be fixed by law (Aristotle, X 9).
However, not only minors need legislation. Good laws are
equally vital for adults: they must, even when they are
grown up, practise and be habituatedwe shall need laws for
this as well, and generally speaking to cover the whole of life;
for most people obey necessity rather than argument, and
punishments rather than the sense of what is noble
(Aristotle, X 9). In his view there should be no ethics classes for
wrongdoers; instead offenders are to be put in jail or
otherwise punished.
This does not mean that Aristotle gives up on ethics
teaching. It will just not be effective, if habituation has
gone wrong in the first place. Accordingly, he states at the
beginning of Nicomachean Ethics: any one who is to
listen intelligently to lectures about what is noble and
justmust have been brought up in good habits
(Aristotle, I 4). Although Aristotles ideas of the prospects of
ethics teaching are more moderate than Socrates, he still
operates on the assumption that the study of ethics tends to
improve moral behaviour of apprentices, barring students
who are completely spoiled by bad upbringing. At least
that is his stated goal in the Nicomachean Ethics: we
are inquiring not in order to know what virtue is, but in
order to become good (Aristotle, II 2). Similar ideas
about moral reflection and the study of ethics and thei (...truncated)