The poverty of contractarian moral education
Clayton, Matthew; Stevens, David
DAVID STEVENS firstname.lastname@example.org
In A Theory of Moral Education, Michael Hand claims that a directive moral education that seeks to persuade children that a particular conception of contractarian morality is justified can be undertaken without falling foul of the requirement not to indoctrinate. In this article, we set out a series of challenges to Hand’s argument. First, we argue that Hand’s focus on ‘reasonable disagreement’ regarding the status of a moral conception is a red-herring in this conception. Second, we argue that the endorsement of moral contractarianism and the prohibition on indoctrination pull in different directions: if contractarianism is sound, then teachers or governments should be less worried about indoctrination than Hand suggests. Third, we argue that moral contractarianism is mistaken; teachers should look elsewhere for guidance on the moral norms and principles towards which they should direct their pupils.
|Journal Article Type||Article|
|Publication Date||Apr 1, 2019|
|Journal||Journal of Moral Education|
|Publisher||Taylor & Francis (Routledge)|
|Peer Reviewed||Peer Reviewed|
|APA6 Citation||Clayton, M., & Stevens, D. (2019). The poverty of contractarian moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 48(4), 501-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1576123|
|Keywords||Michael Hand; Moral education; Moral contractarianism; Reasonable disagreement; Indoctrination|
|Additional Information||This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Moral Education on 01.04.2019, available online: http://www.tandfonline....0/03057240.2019.1576123|
This file is under embargo until Oct 2, 2020 due to copyright restrictions.
You might also like
In defence of ‘Toma’: algorithmic enhancement of a sense of justice
Further thoughts on talking to the unreasonable: a response to Wong
What is the point of religious education?
Is the free market acceptable to everyone?