editorial
The major theme of this edition of Ethos focuses on character development
and the need for such development to be an integral part of the educative
process. In this sense there has long been a realisation that education might
not simply be confined to limited areas of knowledge such as language,
mathematics and the sciences, but should also encourage more knowledge,
awareness, understanding and sensitivity about ourselves, others and the
world we live in. But here we are not talking about just any development of
character, but rather development within a moral framework where
someone might be described as being of good character, or defining ‘what is
the good of a person’.
ethos magazine
positive education for the future
Living life...
...but not by numbers
This is not a new phenomenon or restricted to western culture; from the
ancients we can trace a concern to identify and encourage a moral life
through both the influence of religion and culture. For example, the
thoughts of Confucius, the Taoist tradition, Hinduism, Buddhism, Athenian
virtues found in the Republic and Nicomachean Ethics, the Judeo-Christian
tradition, Islam, the philosophy of the Enlightenment and more; all have contributed to an increased
understanding of what might constitute the ‘moral life’.
Although there is a well established pedigree of thought about what might constitute moral education and
development, based on reasoning ability as exemplified by the work of Kohlberg, it has to be recognised that
Aristotle has had a profound and increasing influence on the more recent thinking about ‘what is the good
of a person’. Referring to the thoughts of Aristotle, Elizabeth Anscombe (1958) proposed that in a secular age
notions of duty and obligation were less relevant and should be replaced by notions of ‘character’, ‘virtue’
and ‘happiness’. In this sense there is also a rejection of the artificiality of division between the cognitive and
affective domains and a need to see morality as having a broader meaning with a concern with helping people
to live their own lives in such a way that it encourages a morally based existence.
Nevertheless, these ideas are likely to raise some considerable concerns about the possible relativity of such
notions whereby humanity is in endless pursuit of personal ‘happiness’ whilst identifying a set of virtues based
on societal norms which in turn have to be acceptable to the utilitarian ‘greatest number’.
Whilst philosophers, including Aristotle, have long recognised the existence of the human soul in determining
how this ‘something’ might affect functionality of thought and action, in a secular world there appears to
be little understanding about what the ‘soul’ might be. Science and psychology appear to have very real
difficulties in identifying what we mean by the ‘soul’ and exactly what its function might be within the moral
domain.
In this sense, when we are talking about ‘a good person’ are we speaking about someone who conforms to a
set of acceptable virtues with little or no notion of why it might be the right thing to do? Are we describing
someone who is perpetually pursuing their own notion of the ‘good life’, adhering to their latter day ‘gurus’
philosophy of ‘happiness’, or within a regime of some ‘life coach’ concerned with socially prescribed ‘choices’
and notions of ‘wellbeing’?
Or alternatively, is there some further and mystical element to morality and the moral life which has up to
now defied exact identification? For example, some ‘kind’ of art can be produced from a ‘painting by number
kit’ which produces a pre-prescribed result, as long as the ‘artist’ conforms to the instructions on the ‘packet’
and displays sufficient dexterity to neatly fill in the shapes: but is this art? Does it exemplify human traits of
creativity, imagination, expression and power that ‘speak’ to others? Where do such traits come from, and how
does such art speak so powerfully in a way that others can identify and relate to? Does the moral domain enjoy
a similar dynamic?
The content of this edition of Ethos sets out to explain further the need for ‘character education’, what it might
be and how it might be delivered. No doubt you will have your own views on this, but I hope that we can all
agree that moral education and development in whatever form is an essential part of the school curriculum
and human development.
3