Reasonable Plurality and Moral Education. New Perspectives on Old Paradoxes.

Authors

  • Ana María Salmerón Castro Grupo de Investigación en Educación Moral Universidad de Barcelona

Keywords:

Moral education, moral development, philosophy of education, values education.

Abstract

This article faces an old paradox of moral education: the apparently logical impossibility of choosing the transmission of agreed-upon values and the autonomous exercise of reason. The author takes an epistemological position in which human learning is considered the result of an interaction of individual developmental processes and the acquisition of knowledge. She assumes knowledge as a category subjected to criteria of truth, and this, as preceded by an agreement concerning values. She states that transmission of the community consensus is not only inevitable, but is essential to the development of the autonomous deliberative game and to the exercise of critical intelligence as well. However, she warns us against a possible danger: the mere transmission of accepted principles and values may place moral education under a heterogeneous direction of conduct. Educators should, by all means, avoid such a risk. She suggests seeking a reasonable plurality as a means of transmitting agreed-upon values. The notion of reasonable plurality derives from a feature assigned to John Rawls’ concept of “overlapping consensus”.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aristóteles. (1954). Ética Nicomaquea. Versión española y notas de Antonio Gómez Robledo. México: UNAM.

Carr, D. (1991). Educating the Virtues. An Essay on the Philosophical Psychology of Moral Development and Education. London: Routledge.

Dearden, R.F., Hirst, P.H. y Peters, R.S. (1982). Educación y desarrollo de la razón. Formación del sentido crítico. Madrid: Nárcea.

Escamez, J., Pérez, E., et al. (1998). Educar en la autonomía moral. Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana, Consellería di cultura, educació y ciencia.

Frankena, W. (1965). Three Historical Philosophies of Education. Aristotele, Kant, Dewey. Michigan: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Hamlyn, D. (1977). El aprendizaje humano. En R.S. Peters. Filosofía de la educación. (pp. 324-352). México: FCE.

Kant, E. (1946). Fundamentación de la metafísica de las costumbres. Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). Moral Education in the Schools. A Developmental View. School Review, 74, 1-30

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1982). Estadios morales y moralización. El enfoque cognitivo-evolutivo. Infancia y aprendizaje, 18, 33-51

Kohlberg, L. y Turiel, E. (1980). Desarrollo y educación moral. Madrid: Nárcea.

Menschinskaia, N.A. (1995). Algunos aspectos del desarrollo de la psicología soviética del aprendizaje. En A. Pérez Gómez y J. Almaraz: Lecturas de aprendizaje y enseñanza. (pp.335-352). México: FCE.

Pérez Gómez, A. y Gimeno, J. (1993). Comprender y transformar la enseñanza. Madrid: Morata.

Pérez Gómez, A y Almaraz, J. (1995). Lecturas de aprendizaje y enseñanza. México: F.C.E.

Peters, R.S. (1978). The Place of Kohlberg’s Theory in Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education,3 (7), 19-42.

Peters, R.S. (1984). Desarrollo moral y Educación moral. México: FCE.

Piaget, J. (1971). El criterio moral en el niño. Barcelona: Fontanella.

Rawls, J. (1995). Liberalismo político. México: UNAM/FCE.

Sichel, B. A. (1988). Moral Education. Character, Community and Ideals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Taberner, J. (1994). Socialización en valores y filosofía para niños. Entre Kohlberg y el comunitarismo. Aprender a pensar. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 9-10, 70-77.

Vigotsky, L. (1979). El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores. Madrid: Akal.

Downloads

Article abstract page views: 1021

Published

2000-05-01

Similar Articles