Hi!

No, formal education seems not to be any guarantee for good moral conduct. (Just an example: Khieu Samphan, a Khmer Rouge leader sentenced to life 2018 for his big part in the Cambodian genocide, has a PhD from Sorbonne In Paris.)

However, educated people can have other possibilities for moral reasoning, for example to understand better what a society is and how it for the individual means both rights and responsibilities. An educated person can, possibly, better reason around a question of how the world becomes if everybody should act in a special way. Perhaps also the possibility to apply more perspectives and to feel empathy follows, I am not sure. Statistically there are fewer racists and ultra nationalists among educated people as well.

There is something to the old Socrates’ idea that right knowledge brings right conduct, but it is not any infallible principle, far from.

Education should be able to nurture moral values in a person, in the view that after all, education is to make a better human being. In formal education in most cases lot of knowledge is offloaded to the brain of the student, while there is nothing is kept for the soul. Then how can we expect from a person to have such values in life. An education system that do not cater to one's soul is incomplete.

To clarify as Socio-Emotional-Learning suggests, education should flourish a person's ethics, compassion, commitment, honesty etc..

So, the next question arises, so is it possible to develop such qualities through education ? I would answer "Yes, of course", then the other question arises, "how is it possible ?"

'Is direct -verbal directions on moral values influential ?' (eg: "You should not lie", or "Good kids never lie.." kind of talks) the answer is "yes, it is influential up to a certain level", but that is not the most influential method. The most influential method is that the adult being a model, through various, motivations, inspirations and other experiences etc. So the character of the person who is dealing with the child is very important or how should he nurture values is also important.

(Here, taking the early age to elementary schooling)

Many universities adopt the policy of non-intervention, with regard to building up moral values in students, while teaching courses. A university teacher, who talks about ethics while teaching, e.g. science or engineering, will be accused of "wasting" time & "departing" from the contents of the taught courses.

When the students are not taught moral values at universities & at homes, then they are left to the streets & to the media to shape up their conducts in life. The disturbing "observed" fact is that streets or media do not produce positive outcomes. Such students will aggravate the problems in their societies & will practice "immorality" in a more professional way than the laymen.

By asking many old experienced wise ladies & gentlemen about universities, as far as ethics are concerned, one can find out that formal education has largely no relation to raising moral standards. This is, of course, a shortcoming in a world which has turned many universities into commercial businesses & political playgrounds.

Hi all,

Thank you for your responses with thoughtful words. Please continue reading:

Dear Anders Norberg, I think your idea about building empathy is effective. Do you suggest to include any specific element in education so that may ignite empathy among students?

Dear Anees K S, being sure about 'right kind of education' is not straight and easy. Do you have any suggestion about how we can be sure of an education system that will be right for the society, and also the world as a whole?

Dear Nizar Matar, I understand your concern. Thanks for sharing interesting information in university teaching. Do you have any suggestion about how could we incorporate moral elements in academic courses?

Hi Rajib!

Thank you for your follow-up question.

Empathy is very important, it is the mechanism of by imagination entering another persons situation and try to see the world from their perspective. It isn't the same as sympathy, feeling for someone under worse conditions than oneself, it is rather an "emotional intelligence" of seeing the world from another persons eyes, being in their shoes.

How to teach that then? Well, I don't know, but I have my own trials and errors as a former high school teacher in comparative religion, philosophy and Swedish langugae and literature (now 25 years ago). In religion and philosophy it is a lot of meetings with what is "strange" to a young person. This can first shape unsecurity for the individual, but if she/he is part of a group, the strange more often appears as just "stupid". The task of a good teacher is then, I think, to challenge this by occasionally arguing from the standpoint of religion x or philosophy y, just to show how it can be very reasonable to see the world this way, given the conditions that are at hand in other times, at other places. This could have been you. This is a good start at lest, to diminish the distance to what appears as strange, and turn the classification "stupid" into a feeling of curiosity instead. In teaching Swedish literature, I have experienced that discussing poetry or short stories can also enforce empathy. But, there are probably people that perhaps lack this ability to "feel with" someone else.

Before incorporating moral elements in academic courses, there has to be a qualitative change (in the academic arena) at the top to ensure that there are leaders (and not just managers) at the highest administrative positions. These leaders must be selected on the basis of merits only, competent, and honest.

Once there are leaders of high caliber, the lower rank & file reputable academics "who would have been appointed in a fair manner" will feel more comfortable & secure in including some ideas in their courses that will deal with moral issues.

A university must have a strict ethical code which fights corruption, racism, dishonesty, cheating, etc. Regulations must apply on all those who are found at the academic setting "with no exceptions" from the bottom of the ladder to the top of it.

Immorality has destroyed empires in the past so it can easily cause a downfall of an academic institution despite the supporting safety measures that may be undertaken.

There is certainly a lot of discussion around that topic. I guess it all comes back to the teacher.

IDEALLY THE TEACHER COULD EITHER

-agree (not comply and passively follow but to agree and share) the scope and rational of formal education and show it in his/her work. In other words do what formal education wants, because he/she believes it is really good.

-be flexible enough to combine demands of formal education with his/her ideas

-chlange formal education to what he/she believes to be good for teachers.

Like I said that would be ideal. However, I think we all agree that we cannot reject the need for a formal education.... This is the challenge I believe.

Hi,

I think one of the main problems is that morality is not only about “others”, but also about “human flourishing”. Unfortunately, in education, morality is mostly handled by focusing on “others”, so, it migh be easier to give up our moral vİrtues such as empathy, respect etc. That is, there is no sustainability. Why we also do not focus on the effects of morality in respect of human flourishing! (this may also affect positively the achievement of children, which is another topic). The other crucial point, it should not be forgotten that moral values/virtues may change over time or according to a specific situation. How can we control them? or Can we say that they are stable in every situation? So, to bring up “practical wisdom(s)” will be more important, correspondingly, critical thinking in moral education as well. I suggest the approach of Aristoteles’s Virtue Ethics.

Formal close to norm, the main of norm.is morality

The development of people's morality is closely related to education, media, culture and living environment. If an educated person lived in very difficult environment, the person maybe become a criminal

Sometimes, i think...

Thank you for raising this interesting question. which has had me thinking for several days. Perhaps one could distinguish between ethics and morality?

It seems to me that examining ethical theories and their underlying assumptions is an appropriate area of study for formal education. Teaching morality is something that the whole society should be engaged in.

Morality involves practical decisions about how a person should conducr themselves and how they behave towards others. It does not require formal education since the foundations of morality are in the home and part of a person's upbringing. In a sense morality is caught and not taught. As some contributors have already noted, being educated is no guarentee of being a good person! Education can provide more sophisticated ways of lying, decieving and cheating other people, and the means to rationalise those actions.

Citizenship does perhaps have some place in formal education since it is about rights and reponsibilities, which are political questions in my view. Ofcourse, this does touch on morality since icitizenship ntroduces the framework of law that society decides should govern what is permissable. However, citizenship is concerned with what is legal rather than what is just, right or good in my view.

I would be interested other people's ideas.

Hi Anders,

Thank you again for your nice answer on empathy. I do agree that reading novels or stories can support empathy building. I have also taken your others points from your long experience of teaching.

Best wishes.

Dear Nizar Matar,

Thank you again for your thoughtful answers to my question. You have pointed out some very important difficulties in our education system, irrespective of a certain country. I think this is the time to think about incorporating morality into our education. Otherwise, a sustainability of the world civilization will be in a stake.

Best wishes Sir.

Hello Kubra Kirca Demisbaga,

Thank you for your reply with interesting point. Could you please add another point into your thought. All societies in the world is not same on 'individualism' vs 'collectivism'. Condition of 'education for all' is not also same.

Best wishes.

Dear Ian Stevenson,

Thank you so much for your time to think on this topic and narrating your opinions in details. There are some very important points I have learnt from your write-up including 'society engagement for morality teaching', 'morality is caught not taught' and 'education may help build the skills of deceiving people in a sophisticated way'. Wow! The last thing is the matter of my fear. I experience it every time. When our education systems only make us competent citizens for the 21st century, how can the sustainability be ensured? Sense of morality is mainly influenced by family and social environment. And, many life skills can be gained by doing in practically. I am not against education system. But, I think it should be made effective so that it can nourish our learners for a sustainable civilization.

Best wishes.

Dear Zhaoyun Wang,

Thank you for identifying the sources of morality.

Best wishes.

Dear Rajib,

Our society believes in many things on the basis of assumptions. So, the belief that formal education instills morality is flawed in itself.

Many legal theorists have identified morality as a base on which laws are formed so much so that sometimes morality and laws become synonymous. A child enters the realm of learning right from the womb and develops gradually, therefore, formal educational institutions are just a part within the whole learning process for the child.

No doubt, formal education plays its limited role in instilling morality in the child but at the same time the same formal education also exposes the child to elements of immorality. The courses which are taught at school cannot and should not talk about the nice and moral things only. If it does so then the child will not get an opportunity to observe, identify and classify the good from the bad. Now, it is the responsibility of the people who are involved in imparting informal education to the child, like the family and society, to balance things.

Dear Slavoljub Hilčenko,

Agreeing partially with your opinion - "they must come with this morality from home!"

I believe we need to break the notion that education is centered on institutions - schools/colleges etc. If we start realizing that education is all about the exposure and experience of a child. A child is learning when he is in a street, when his mother/father talks to their friends etc.

Let's try to remember our childhood, what made us to respect others, to have compassion...? I am sure it was many inspirations we got from others. So education not only limited within the boundaries of the school. Parents and teachers have a great role in it. Anyone so knowledgeable in maths, the science of languages should not become a teacher - to make a better society with good moral values.

Hi, Hijab!

The formal education, in special considering the base education, which is dedicated to the younger, help them to build the sense of community and social life.

As @Anders Norberg spoke about empathy and I truly agree with him, I would increase the discussion with the importance of the alterity in contemporary life. It is important to see the other as the other person, and this is fine because because we are equal in ours differences. I mean, everyone has different needs, difficulties, and imperfections that made us equal, these emphasis us as human beings.

Formal Education is an opportunity for the younger to training the social life and to learn to see the other with sympathy, being empathic and respecting the alterity. It is important to educate the child to don’t need to punish the adult, as Pythagoras taught us a long time ago. The goal is that child became an adult with values.

Change an adult mentality is more difficult, but not impossible. The aim must be in the childhood preparing them to social adult life and to enjoy the others.

There is a definite interplay between ethical behavior, morality and "belief". All of these are formed through some combination of informal education, institutionalized education, observation and experience. Unless there is universal (or near universal) agreement on an ethical or moral point it is hard to see how one would successfully "teach" this in a "memorize this" style of teaching.

However, if one looks at what is implied in approaches like "brain-based learning,"1 a teacher can easily present scenarios (through fiction and case studies) and ask the students to discuss well-thought-out questions based on the scenario. Once this is done a few times with a group of students, you can then ask the students themselves to design questions that evoke critical thinking. Groups can be created, and questions exchanged. Results can be shared.

After a time, a culture of learning is created. The attitudes that go with the creation of such a culture of learning tend to stay with those who have experienced such an educational culture. Students tend to become critical thinkers and life-long learners.

In this way, "formal education ...[may] help build morality of the students..."

1 one of my "take-aways" from "brain-based learning" is that a teacher learns to trust students to be deep thinkers and highly motivated researchers when challenged in an atmosphere of love, respect and a "no dumb questions" / "no dumb answers" environment...

Hi Steve Fletcher,

Thanks for your very well thought and organized answer. I do fully agree with this approach. If I am not wrong, your answer is inclined to higher education and mainly related to humanities discipline. Evoking critical thinking, or analyzing a case in the classroom of higher education may be considered for teaching science/business/technical subjects besides social science/language. Do you suggest the similar approach can also be applied for secondary or higher secondary level of education?

Please make me correct if I have misunderstood your opinion.

Yes, I absolutely do think that such approaches should be use in primary, secondary and tertiary education. One of the interesting aspects of "brain-based-learning" is that we all love to and are hard-wired to learn. Brain-based learning also states that boredom is a state of "non-learning". I believe many children are bored at school, not because they don't want to learn, but because they are not sufficiently challenged. Because of how we were educated, we think that children up to a certain aged must be spoon-feed and only when they have an advanced degree are they given the right to think independently. I have seen marvelous things happen when challenges and expectations are set at high (but attainable) levels by wise teachers.

In the case of moral education, I believe these should be among the earliest things that are studied by children, for when students learn to love and appreciate each other they become better co-learners and an atmosphere of intellectual curiosity is created and maintained.

Hi Steve, thanks again for a nice explanation. It is helpful.

The simplest thing we can do is to become role models demonstrating the moral behaviour we expect in others hence to bring about change in our circle of influence and the process continues. This applies to all walks of life.

Dear Tabassum Naveed,

Thank you for sharing a very important point.

Dear Ahmad Murjani, thanks for sharing the report link.

It is my humble opinion; a soul entering higher education without a moral foundation and no moral instruction will exit it with the same. However, moral education lack capacity to automatically impact change. I see no evidence the capacity to define morality, or understand morality, creates or increases morality. What universities do is define the consequences of amoral decisions based upon their impact within academia. A liar and a cheat entering the university will see themselves as successful if they pass all their classes while lying and cheating, regardless of their actual knowledge, since their goal is only self-aggrandizement. After all, are lying and cheating wrong and by the authority of what power? So foundational questions must be asked when dealing with morality. Is higher education morality neutral? Where does morality come from? Who has the authority to define morality? Is morality subjective? Would academia be exalting itself beyond its station, should it attempt to define morality in its own image? In a humanistic society, insistent on trampling God in favor of self, we find little continuity of moral standard or application. Universities are ill equipped to manage such a desperate question, because universities fail in understanding a moral standard cannot simply be externally applied, arbitrary enforced, flexibly defined, or subject to pop culture or pop psychology. Morality defined by human beings is subject to human frailty. Therefore, moral teaching intended to alter moral course is truly substantive and authoritative when supplied outside humanity. Abandon God, abandon morality.

Dear Lawrie Prickett,

Thank you for your comprehensive answer and a big set of diversified relevant questions.

At some point, globalism, leadership and project management are integrated into secondary and post-secondary courses, which often include cultural norms and processes across the world, focusing on understanding and navigating individualistic and collectivistic values, attitudes and behaviours. What we place value upon as individuals or based on our cultural upbringing (culture meaning, beliefs, traditions, language, etc., not just race--all tied in), we will protect and exert moral aspects, depending on the situation, unless fear is driving what we do. Then it's left up to the person to decide if the survival/competition factor is a better motivator for moral behaviour, and if so, values take a backseat to perceived 'lack' (thank you Mr. Maslow!). There will always be opportunists who have perhaps used resiliency to get what they need, at all costs, but the weight of the choice is in the eye of the beholder, and in the moment. Communication, sharing and agile flexibility--these tools can help us all get what we need, but it requires listening, understanding and respect, but only if your mind and situation are open to finding an alternative beyond your behavioural toolbox, or you are forced to use this route to get what you need. Once the boundaries of appropriateness are set, and you have to deal with that individual(s) in the future, you'll know the rules of engagement.

Dear Donna Gray,

Thank you for your wonderful answer with great explanations. I agree with you. Cultural exchange through tolerance, respect and empathy may help build trust and morality as a whole. Education may have positive influence when it is properly planned. All these will make changes in our behaviors that will ultimately impact on our mindset. It is a matter of long long drive. Education can reduce the length of the journey. What are you thoughts on this? Could you please write a little more on this.

Well, formal education does not help build morality to students...concepts don't transmit good manners or behavior,... It's the way of transmission in the mouth of the teacher that helps... and his example takes pupils to do something... good or bad; but, if students come from home with bad behavior taught by parents...it's a hard work for teachers!

Dear Martha Ligia Barrero,

Thank you for your answer. I understand the fact you have cited here. Do you think that formal education in primary/secondary/higher secondary level should have the responsibility to help students build moralities?

La educación formal puede reforzar la educación del hogar o familiar puesto que la solida viene de los valores y principios de la casa y la que enseñan los padre entre otros

Dear Martinez Gonzalez,

Gracias por tu comentario. ¿Tiene alguna sugerencia sobre cómo se la educación formal puede reforzar la morale?

Moral Education. ... The second task of moral education is to provide students with the intellectual resources that enable them to make informed and responsible judgments about difficult matters of moral importance. Both are proper andimportant tasks of schools—and both cut across the curriculum.

Value education is the process by which people give moral values to others. ... explicit values education is associated with those different pedagogies, methods or programmes that teachers or educators use in order to create learning experiences for students when it comes to value questions.

One purpose of moral education is to help make children virtuous—honest, responsible, and compassionate. Another is to make mature students informed and reflective about important and controversial moral issues. Both purposes are embedded in a yet larger project—making sense of life.

Happy New Year Rajib! Thank you for your recommendation.

I am now vexed...in a way, to get more specific about the question, since there are so many factors to take into account, historically speaking.

1. The brain, as discovered by research, seems to have a couple of areas that make us 'feel' good about doing good. Whether the brain chooses this because of values instilled into society, that has yet to be determined. That can be a factor, with, or without formal education (and that definition is newly defined, considering we've been walking the earth for a very long time).

2. A segue from point #1, The origins of morality is theoretically believed to begin about 45,000 years ago, despite nomadic collection being not necessarily from the same tribe, but like-minded individuals scrambling to survive. Really interesting read at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-became-moral-beings-80976434/. Makes me wonder that 'education' established by philosophers and shamans was the beginning of understanding our place in the universe, including the natural laws. Belief began with connection to the environment and animals/insects, etc., using them as a guide in what to watch for and how to behave, whether it was moral or not. I would surmise that the sophistication of morals, depending on the cultural community, its access to social interaction, leadership, competitiveness, self-awareness and comfort of living, would allow individuals to move into the next level of Maslow's hierarchy, and become self-aware, ergo, give back to the community/leave an impact. The results of individual philosophies, practices, and observations, fueled by personal experience, empathy and sympathy (awareness of self, then awareness of others) could be the impetus for 'higher education', understanding the self more, as well as others, to work around it all to make the world go round and survive/thrive.

3. Each society has adopted its own moral, ethical and operational codes--most steeped in tradition and beliefs created in the moment, to serve or express the originator's intent and experience. Then it's shared, with the hope that perhaps...maybe, others may jump in the pool of perspective and understanding (theory). Despite our eagerness to pursue new and modern philosophies and approaches to learning, sharing and doing, as humans, we are still stuck in time, practicing beliefs that give us stability and commonality, but that doesn't mean we progress (that's a moving target as well). New ways of thinking/education requires a willingness to see things bigger than we are, since most ideologies profess that we are the centre of all there is. Once we surpassed locking up those who proved and questioned that we are in fact, part of the dust of the universe, it forced us to question our place in it, and what do we do with our egos once we learn in school that we are not all there is. It's the clash and comparison of these levels and tributaries of these ideas that education provides, helping to navigate around behaviours that are not familiar, offensive, challenging and in some cases, new and sexy (I threw that in there just to make sure you're awake--it's a long answer!).

4. Each family, neighbourhood, city, town, university, company, province/state/prefecture, and country has its own culture, based on the collective attraction to the values, beliefs, sharing, vibrancy and traditions. It is comfortable until some degree of agitation and competition show up. Then we become more flexible, moving and morphing into a new iteration with each event, generation (those who move away for a time, come back changed, changing others, or with strangers showing up mixing in and adding to the recipe of beliefs). Education uses theories and protocols to weigh and balance risk, based on observation and the invitation to question everything. The more proof that bad moral behaviour results ostracism, war, death, famine, lack of connection, starvation, etc., this will influence education, as it is typically reactive to what the collective wants and needs economically to be competitive and fed. Those who attend support the morals and beliefs taught in our institutions (via taxation or attending, working for, etc.), all create a collective mission, vision and values, and adherence drives the code that begets the education. Those are moving targets too. You are correct. It is a long haul, for all of us. What we believed 50 years ago in a lot of ways doesn't apply anymore. Education is as flexible as the universe, and morality, as it seems, is also reactionary and agile as any system, even though the basis of doing what is 'right' is different, depending on where you live. There will always be those who believe in something we think is outrageous, immoral or illegal. At the end of the day, we are all taught 'right and wrong'...and even the most educated person will choose their survival instincts (positive or negative) to navigate their journey. No guarantee that being 'smart' means being kind.

Long answer, so much more to discuss, but I hope this launches more comments.

Best,

Donna

Dear Ammar A. Oglat,

Thanks for your reply. Education helps people investigate. Do the educated people really investigate good or bad; sin or holy; right or wrong? Do they act unjustly even by knowing which is right and which is wrong? I will appreciate if you please make your answer on this point.

Dear Nirmala S.V.S.G.,

Thanks for your reply. Happy new year 2019.

This is a very important and complex question.

Currently, all around the world, societies are falling into chaos. This is part of a change in "the order of things" where the old world order falls and the new world order is able to step in.

Ideally, societies would hold a common understanding of morality and that would be taught in schools. Until that happens, it falls to each individual teacher, to ask probing questions that stimulate critical thinking in the minds of their students. The "law of universality" (as known in the realm of philosophy) or the golden rule (as it is known in ALL religions) is a relatively easy place for a teacher to start. Many experiences can be replicated in a classroom that highlight the universally recognized nature of the golden rule. As teachers, of English or math or science or history, there are ways to demonstrate such principles. In our teaching methods we can demonstrate this, we can model this if we ask ourselves, if I were this student, what would I want / how would I feel?

As teachers, we must have faith in our students. We should, "never judge another man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins." If we model this and other aspects of the Golden Rule in our classrooms and in our lessons, we will be a success and the education that we help facilitate will help bring about a better morality.

Thank you Steve Fletcher for your insightful reply. The very understanding of morality is also biased by "the order of things". So, a thought is "why should bother?". New generation is supposed to build up their future with all new orders (what they are actually doing).