Introduction
Morality is a concept that refers to the beliefs, norms, and values shared by a group of people. It is one of the few social instruments used to exert control on people or maintain order in society without the application of overt coercion techniques (Singh, 1988). Some moral principles date back thousands of years, if not centuries, and are constantly passed down from one generation to another and taught in schools or through interpersonal exchanges in family or social settings (Negrut and Pop, 2022, p. 2).
In the education sector, issues of morality have taken center stage in contemporary discussions. Attention has been on finding new ways to promote the development of holistic education (Ninkron et al., 2022). The underlying idea is that students’ performance should not be limited to classroom presentations but should also encompass moral development (Singh, 1988, p. 121). These issues influence the type and quality of education provided in schools. However, some people often push them aside because of their perceived complexity and ambiguous relevance to the contemporary learning setting (Singh, 1988). If left unchecked, such issues could foster disagreement among stakeholders in the education sector.
Differences in moral perspectives create the need to understand the role of teachers in shaping their students’ morality. This need stems from the view of traditional education scholars, such as Kohlberg and Hersh (1977), who argue that schools are moral enterprises. At the same time, drawing on the social institutionalism model, researchers such as Haidt (2013) argue for evaluating morality in the context of changing times. This study explores the merits and demerits of relying on teachers as moral change agents. Two arguments will be made: (i) in support of teachers being morally neutral and (ii) in support of their role as moral guardians.
Therefore, this argumentative paper explores two sides of this issue. On the one hand, it examines the merits and demerits of teachers being morally neutral when discussing social issues with their children; on the other hand, it explores the implications of teaching morality to children. Both sides of the argument will be compared and contrasted to understand the position of morality in the modern learning environment. Examples representing each argumentative position will be provided to have a balanced understanding of the issue. The underlying thesis of this paper is discussed below.
Thesis and Support
The underlying thesis of this paper is that teachers should be morally neutral when operating in the learning setting. Reasons given to justify this position are based on the need to preserve the diversity of learning institutions, avoid the incompetence of teachers as moral agents, and address the subjectivity of moral issues in society. These matters are discussed in this section of the paper in the context of their support for the view that teachers should keep off discussing moral issues with children in the learning setting.
Learning Diversity
The first justification for this support is the need to preserve the diversity of learning institutions. In this regard, it is prudent for teachers to remain morally neutral when interacting with students in the school setting. This action is crucial because most learning institutions have students from diverse backgrounds, and such institutions should accommodate these differences (Sharp, 1984).
Regarding this assertion, Veugelers (2023) states, “Many classrooms show an increased cultural diversity in student population and in the curriculum. A serious concern for teachers is the integration and continuation of the global citizenship content” (p. 134). Indeed, it is possible to have one community, or a group of people, sharing different moral principles. The idea that a teacher should not be morally neutral implies that they would be advancing one moral perspective, usually their own, at the expense of others.
This action would create room for the development of monolithic thoughts (Youssef, 2023). This outcome should not occur in learning institutions, which should be diverse, non-imposing, and multicultural (Negrut and Pop, 2022, p. 3). If teachers become morally neutral, this diversity may be preserved. However, their engagements in moral debates are likely to cause conflicts and division in the school, thereby potentially derailing the achievement of other learning objectives (Ninkron et al., 2022).
Furthermore, educators’ failure to be morally neutral contradicts the philosophical and scientific underpinnings of theories that hold that evidence should guide the development of new discourse in learning. If teachers advance specific moral arguments at the expense of others, they would be using unsubstantiated moral viewpoints to support a particular position, contrary to the logical tenets of scientific reasoning, which should guide the production of educational outcomes (Sharp, 1984). Therefore, educators should avoid teaching morality to children.
Teaching Morality
The second issue that supports the underlying thesis of this study is teachers’ incompetence in teaching morality. Teaching children moral principles and guidelines that would influence how they move in this world is overstepping the mandate of teachers to model society. Customarily, moral issues should be left to parents to discuss, as they play a role in shaping their children’s lives (Youssef, 2023, p. 211). If teachers impose their moral views on children, they would infringe on parents’ rights to shape their children’s views of the world (Negrut and Pop, 2022).
In this regard, teachers should understand that their contribution to childhood development is limited to imparting skills and knowledge and not moral principles. Instead, parents should be left to navigate such issues with their children, as they have the ultimate responsibility for their child’s life. This role implies that parents have an inherent responsibility to impart moral teachings to their children, as in most societies, they serve as instructors, models, and motivators. With respect to this assertion, MacNiven (2023) says, “parents then would appear to be the natural people to make the decision. Not to allow them to do so could be an infringement of their rights as parents” (p. 114).
Subjective Morality
The third level of support for the underlying argument in this study is the subjectivity of moral principles. Learning curricula are often scalable and standardized to improve educational equality. Morality is a subjective issue that cannot be easily standardized (Negrut and Pop, 2022). For example, it is difficult to harmonize educators’ moral views across different ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds, which shape their worldviews and, by extension, their morality (Kader, 2021). This variance in perspective means that morality does not meet the threshold of scalability or uniformity required for inclusion in the learning curriculum.
Thus, if educators are expected to teach learning outcomes, achieving standardization would be challenging due to these factors (Ninkron et al., 2022). At the same time, teachers come from different moral backgrounds. This diversity means that they are not competent to teach morality. Indeed, unlike conventional teaching techniques, in which educators are trained to impart knowledge and skills to their students, there is no common institution that trains teachers in morality. Therefore, the meaning of the concept varies, and it does not make sense for the same people to be entrusted with teaching children morality.
Example of Why Morality Should Not Be Taught in Schools and Counterargument
The division that religion has caused in society is an example of the extent to which morality can be used to divide the world. The absence of a greater power or authority beyond religious beliefs means that no one religion is better than the other (Jaffrelot, 2021, p. 195). Similar to issues of morality, it is difficult to say that one moral position is better than another. Moral issues in learning have emerged from different spheres of education and skill development. For example, sex education and the act of forcing students to pray in schools are contentious subjects that have emerged from differences in moral discourse among parents and educators (Waldren, 2013).
Linked discussions have isolated the issue to understand the role of a teacher’s moral values in student development. The emphasis here is on reviewing how ethical reasoning is taught to children (Negrut and Pop, 2022). These concerns have questioned the role of teachers as appropriate change agents for teaching morality in schools (Ninkron et al., 2022).
This example shows how religion can cause social divisions, as believers of one faith may be less tolerant of those of another (Kakar, 2022). This statement demonstrates why teachers should be morally neutral when interacting with children in a multicultural setting. Concisely, they should be self-aware about the effects of moral divisions on societies to avoid exacerbating them.
The situation is serious when engaging with children because they lack the cognitive competence to discern such matters (Negrut and Pop, 2022). Therefore, they may pick on negative moral teachings and use them to cause divisions among peers. Consequently, as religion has caused social divisions, there is a high risk that teachers who are not morally neutral could instigate similar divisions among children, based on the example of religious divisions highlighted above. The counterarguments to the position advanced in this study are that teachers should teach morality in the classroom.
Religious conflicts across various states demonstrate the extent to which moral biases can divide society. India has experienced several internal cases of strife and war because of religious differences between Muslims and Hindus (Jaffrelot, 2021; Kakar, 2022). Compared with India, China, with more than 1.4 billion people, appears to be a more harmonious society, based on the idea that fewer internal conflicts occur in the state than in India (Luo, 2023).
The success of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China is another piece of evidence supporting the view that a common moral foundation is essential for the prosperity of societies (Zhang and Wang, 2021). Proponents of his view see no problem with this practice because they say that teaching styles differ from the content taught. Ho (2021) argues that Chinese society has borrowed this principle to avoid conflicts stemming from moral or religious differences. In this regard, such societies abhor the moral vacuum in schools because they believe schools should enable children to learn about morality or be made aware of it (Ho, 2021). These researchers suggest that teachers’ involvement in moral subjects should be moderate and superficial, to the extent that they should only raise awareness of the issue without sounding imposing (Luo, 2023).
Therefore, they advocate teaching morality through content rather than style. Stated differently, they are expected to discuss matters of moral significance to make children aware of such matters (Jaffrelot, 2021, p. 508). Therefore, in addition to addressing traditional subjects such as mathematics, history, and science, educators can also discuss stories with moral lessons or ideals to be emulated in society. Some character-based education programs and life skills activities have been developed with this principle in mind.
Therefore, these views imply that morality need not be taught only through manner but also through content. The flaw in this reasoning is the lack of accountability for teachers’ moral backgrounds. Indeed, like other human beings, teachers’ moral views are not necessarily guided by logic but rather by emotions, family backgrounds, places of origin, gender, beliefs, and other values, which may be irregular for some educators. Given that people have flaws, teachers are likely to pass their moral flaws on to their children. Therefore, it is prudent for them to remain morally neutral.
Response to Counterargument
The difficulty in equipping teachers to be moral agents stems from the lack of a moral compass across all societies. Notably, the lack of a standardized format for teaching moral principles undermines the idea that teachers’ divergent moral views can be harmonized and taught to children in schools.
Therefore, proponents of the view that teachers should not be morally neutral are suggesting that diverse moral guidelines could be used to teach children. This diversity is a liability for educational curriculum implementation because a standardized format is needed for scalability, yet moral teachings lack such harmony. This statement explains why researchers such as Hand (2018) advocate for teachers to teach morality and empower students to be aware of everyday moral challenges.
However, the suggestion that teachers should teach morality in schools is undermined by proponents’ failure to understand the model on which schools and learning are founded. These educational institutions are expected to be knowledge hubs, channeling students’ desire for scientific knowledge and skills development. They are not meant to teach morality but rather to advance scientific data. Therefore, morality falls outside the scope of issues educators should teach. To demonstrate this, it is essential to study how mobile phone companies operate and their role in society.
Although they have data on different users on their platforms, it is illegal for these companies to share such information unless under a few exemptions in law (Karabi, 2022). Therefore, if one commits a murder and the service provider is aware of the culprit, they are not expected to disclose such information to unauthorized people. Such matters are out of the scope of their responsibilities; otherwise, they would not be in business in the first place.
Therefore, the expectation that parents have of schools as neutral centers of scientific knowledge advancement gives them the confidence they need to enroll their children in such institutions. If teachers are not morally neutral, they may meet resistance from parents who do not share their moral views. Therefore, moral issues are outside the scope of issues educators should focus on. Based on this line of reasoning, the counterarguments proposed in this study are insufficient to make a reliable argument about the need for teachers to teach morality in schools.
Summary
This study has evaluated two sides of an argument that explores the role of teachers as moral agents in the education system. One side of the argument holds that teachers should be morally neutral when engaging with their students. In contrast, the other side holds that educators are appropriate agents to teach students moral skills. Proponents of this view suggested that allowing teachers to teach moral principles would lead to greater harmonization of societies, as people would share similar views and beliefs about political, social, and economic matters.
The successes of largely homogeneous societies, such as China, were used as examples of how communities sharing similar cultural inclinations can prosper. To further reinforce this point, the Chinese example was contrasted with India, which is a relatively diverse country with a significant percentage of Muslim and Hindu populations. Supporters of this ideology believe that teachers are better placed to impart moral skills in society because they are professionals working with students in relatively relaxed learning environments.
A contrasting school of thought, which holds that teachers should be morally neutral because moral issues are subjective, was reviewed. The argument analyzed in this discussion was deemed unimportant in teaching children moral values unless the expectation is to create a homogeneous society. The study argues that teachers should remain morally neutral when interacting with students in the classroom for three reasons.
The first is that learning institutions should be morally neutral centers of education because of the plurality of views on morality within the student population. Secondly, the present study rejected the view that teachers should teach morality in schools because teachers may be flawed individuals with moral gaps that can be transferred to students.
The lack of standardization in the teaching of moral principles in society also emerged as another basis for rejecting teachers’ role as moral agents. The argument here is that teaching or learning should be standardized and scalable, but morality is subjective. The diversity of views in the school setting makes it difficult to have a single standard for teaching or even for learning about moral principles. These three arguments have been advanced as grounds for rejecting educators’ role as moral change agents in society.
Reference List
Haidt, J. (2013) ‘Moral psychology for the twenty-first century’, Journal of Moral Education, 42(3), pp. 281–297.
Hand, M. (2018) A theory of moral education. London: Routledge
Ho, B. (2021) China’s political worldview and Chinese exceptionalism: international order and global leadership. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Jaffrelot, C. (2021) Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy. London: Princeton University Press.
Kader, H. (2021) ‘Human well-being, morality and the economy: an Islamic perspective’, Islamic Economic Studies, 28(2), pp. 102-123.
Kakar, S. (2022) The colors of violence: cultural identities, religion, and conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Karabi, B. (2022) Mobile commerce. London: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Kohlberg, L. and Hersh, R. H. (1977) ‘Moral development: a review of the theory. Theory into Practice, Moral Development, 16(2), pp. 53-59.