Care about the virtue moral education

Fang Xi　Zhu Bi Fa

Abstract: We have got used to take the moral only as the external manipulation of community to individual consciousness and behavior, for it has been long based on the rule ethics that has inherent limitations. And this made moral education showing a demoralization and dehumanization tendency, and alienation into some corresponding dilemma like rules indoctrination and training. To perspective the gist that the virtue ethics rejects the normative ethics, we can know the revival of virtue ethics has profound requirements to the moral education. That is contemporary moral education return to virtue ethics calls for the shaping of virtue, and it is the practical needs of overcoming the theoretical dilemma of rule ethics, and also the inevitable requirement of its return to its own authentic.

Key words: Moral education, Rule, Virtue ethics, Care of virtue

Fund project：This thesis is the phased result of "the study of western virtue ethics" supported by national social science funds.

1. Real Difficulties of Moral Education

To certain extent, moral philosophy influences and determines the specific state of existence of moral education. Making further exploration into the moral philosophy background behind moral education is fundamental to comprehending and uncovering the illness of moral education. Therefore, to deal with the real difficulties of moral education, we must first go back to the ethical view, and discuss the internal limitation of rule ethics which is the foundation of moral education. However, people of ethics all know, that for the two major types of rule ethics — the consequentialism stressing effects and the kantian deontology encouraging no-purpose, they are striving to mix different moral rules according to conceit and even perfect rational objective logic, trying to make morality into a kind of rigid and general legal rule, a consistent system, by which to establish a set of universal rules that can be applied in the whole society. Among this “rule” is based on the assumption of self-absract anthroposophy, which then bring out certain “rule”, making valid or invalid judgment to whether this behaviour correspond to this rule, showing a kind of “consistent” principle of cognition. [1]p(63-68) The result is the disappearance of humanity caused by regularization.

Furthermore, in behaviour guidance this rule ethics will, make people live for nonego, or for rules (responsibility). The starting point and objective is nothing but establishing rules for behaviour. According to this logic, the meaning of morality for human lies in obedience to rules, as rules reflect the value of morality. From another perspective, the value of morality attaches to the formal rules, while rules always exist in a stationary and inconsistent way. Hereby, moral value becomes an inconsistent steady value, and its carrior becomes depersonalized. That is, rational conceit leads to general guidance for behaviour only in the way of rules, but never noticed the subject or behaver doing this behaviour, having this motivation and following this rules, in which no specific context, history or individual has appeared, hereby losing the concern for subject. In Macintyres view, since modern times, due to abandoning of Aristotles philosophy, moral construction has evolved into argument to moral rules. The result is that morality only means obedience to rules, that is, the so-called “rule morality”. Obviously, this regularized morality has the tendency of instrumentalizing morality. Such a abstract and sere theory lacking and isolating subject, on how to treat people, “in Tuorhes words, under the tyranny of principle, man disappears. Living according to consequentialism/utilitarianism and deontology means only caring about principle, rules and obligation, instead of real man”. Or in other words, “only see rules but man”, and morality hereby becomes irrelevant thing to “man”.

Beyond all doubt, the consequence of the above mentioned ethical logic is the depersonalization of moral values carrier, disappearance of the real meaning of moral education or deficiency of subject, and isolation of individual moral consciousness and value identification. This determines that the moral education based on it will necessarily come upon some real difficulties: on one hand, significance of morality is arrogated, and moral education can easily become rootless. This is because that no matter in what way the morality taught in the moral education exist, the focus is that morality becomes important only because of rules instead of individuals. From this perspective, moral education is to make the educated understand, accept and abbey these rules. Moral education then becomes rule education inevitably. Rule education replaces moral education, which actually makes rule into morality. Hereby, the man taught by moral education is not moral man but rule man, or the one wanted by political power holders. Finally, moral education can easily change into instrumental existence and lose its direction, which will not get reasonable defense on the meaning of noumenon.

On the other hand, isolation of morality with man results in the separation of moral education to subject in methodology. As the carrier of moral value is not man, its conclusion in methodology will necessarily alienate from mans subjectivity. In fact, the alienation of morality and education caused by rule ethics mainly find its expression in the methodology guiding moral reasoning and judgment, that is, moral rules become objective and hereby separate the internal connection between morality and man as the carrier of moral significance. As for certain moral philosophy, “if there exists such kind of methodology, pass this methodology on to all man of part of them. Cultivation of intension of living according to the conclusion of this methodology in our mind must be the fundamental purpose of moral education.” [3]p(365) Any moral philosophy in its methodology always implies certain moral education philosophy or contents containing moral education significance. From this, based on the methodology of rule ethics, morality for man actually becomes an external means instead of the ultimate meaning pursued by man, thus moral education is not the “moral education” teaching man how to behave.

In general, based on the logic of rule ethics, regarding rule as the carrier of moral value can avoid moral reasoning and judgment guided by personalistic good and evil. This will inevitably make it hard for morality and education to connect with each other, thus causing the alienation of education and morality. In other words, without moral value as the carrier, it is impossible to make further scientific attendance to the intrinsic humanity with morality and its education. This is because it makes us difficult to make scientific philosophical ontology position to “morality”. “If moral education doesnt have a scientific philosophical ontology position, moral education cannot facilitate humanity to develop into an ideal state. Moral category and moral laws cannot be deduced from the truth theory about humanity, or declared as ‘proper or ‘duty-bound by appealing to humans substantive characteristics.” [4]p(83-89) Humans moral education practice has actually proved that, the distorted and even wrong philosophical ontology understanding to morality is the fundamental reason for moral education to be baseless, thus losing reality and its due educational effect and authority.

2. Moral Education Requires Model of Virtues

Now that the predicament faced by the moral education cannot be solved by drawing up the codes of ethics, it is necessary to find out the new standpoint of the moral education-virtue ethics. In fact, virtue ethics has a long history, but was neglected since modern era. One of the important reasons of its revival is the big flaws in deontology and consequentialism which are main forms of Modern Ruleethics. And the flaws include the emphasis of action, the overlook of quality, the insolubility of the problems under specific contexts by the general principle etc.. [5]p(13) As the revival of the classical virtue ethics, the works of G.E.M.Anscombe is the advances in contemporary moral theories. We will not discuss this point here. I want to say that, “The common belief about virtue ethics is that it will not tell us what should to do. This belief is something that just is indicated in an expressive hypothesis. In a another word, virtue ethics centering on human/ action body not action should focus on being rather doing, the good (bad) quality rather the proper (improper) conduct. And at the same time, it should also put its attention to think “which kind of people I am” not “what I should do”. [6]P(17) All of these are the general features of the contemporary virtue ethics. However what is virtue? As the Professor Jiang Chang said, “Virtue is the fundamental requirement of human nature that makes people seek a better living by their own senses or wisdoms. It is likely to make people live better and affect humans activities by the mental orientation, thus leading human and humans activities to being of good qualities- the qualities of ethics.” And virtue has features of tendency, intentionality, multiple dimensions, unity and universal application. [7] p(30-39)

From the standpoint of virtue ethics scholars, it is the simple and mechanical understanding of human morality to stipulate the human action/behavior as the moral rules by rule ethics. But in fact, “when dealing with practical matters, the philosophers with the complicated ethic rules is not wiser than doctors, policemen and other people. [8]P(6) In another word, it is the morals not the rules to evaluate the suggestions for difficulties. A person of high moral standard, tender and compassion has the ability to make the correct decision without the rules. And the person with high moral standard is the one who is free of the moral rules. [9]P(13)As the American ethicist Pitchum said : “ In the moral life, most of the people is likely to consider the factors of credibility , integrity, goodness and real feelings, not the principles and rules.” [10]P(26) Virtue ethics puts much attention to virtue and well-being of people. All various researches centering on virtue is trying to prove the basis of ethics is the human itself. And in virtue ethics, ethics comes back to be on action body. The throwback of the research subject shows that the morals not only are the public rules, but also include the moral characters and ideals that the individual can accept voluntarily and the moral emotions. Differing from rule ethics, virtue ethics focuses on the action body and does not make use of the topic of the action body to develop rule (virtue) ethics. It regards the action bodies as a unit of human nature and offers a pre-moral basis for the action. [11]P(63-68) That is the direction all virtue ethicists are dedicated to.

As were mentioned above, the moral education should be built on the foundation of the moral philosophy that emphasizes personalities as the carrier of moral values and is just virtue ethics. Only in this way can ethics and education get the perfect integration of noumenon (本體) and methodology so as to solve the theoretical difficulties of rule ethics. And regarding the personalities as the carrier of ethics is the restoration of the moral values dynamic features and the reflection of the action bodys(主體) value. So the of the education is the people and the formation of virtue rather than the impartment of the rules. Put it simply, ethics and the moral education is to teach people how to behave. It means ethics is not only the existence of the static value but also the expression that the action body actively pursues the dynamic value. The education in ethics is to make people obey the moral rules and make the pursuit become a moral existence. In another words, the real moral education is to develop the peoples virtue and convert what we “should” do to what we “could” do. And this conversion is the transformation process of static values to dynamic values as well as the discovery process of the moral meaning. Apparently, virtue ethics puts its emphasis on the personalitys bearing of the moral meaning. In the moral practice, the moral education supported by virtue ethics gets the humans subjectivity fully played. Meanwhile the people can discover and experience the moral meaning for human. [12]P(34-36) When the moral rules have not integrated with the humans mind, ethics is just the code of social conduct that restrains the peoples behaviors. And the essential attribute of ethics is the rules. However, when the moral rules have become the part of the humans mind, ethics no longer controls the people who have been active and initiative pursuit of high standards of personality in spirit. The essential attribute of this kind ethics is spirituality or subjectivity. From the rules to virtues is the moral education transformation from slavishness to initiation.

In other words, the moral education base on virtue ethics is meant to train the people with the real virtues. And the moral action is form the power of the personality. This personality always involves in the whole structure of the action bodys existence and spread the details in peoples lives. The personality of the action body formulates and proves virtues and vice versa. To a certain extent, the personality and virtues are identical in existence of the action body and are the intrinsic proof of the action body itself. Fundamentally speaking, the meaning of the moral education is the meaning of human existence itself, not beyond human existence. Hence it is inevitable for the moral education to put attention to human in ideology and methodology, thus promoting and developing the subjectivity. In fact, the purpose of the moral education is that it urges the educated human to transfer the social ethics into the stable moral traits and behaviors that are exactly what virtues are. In this sense, there is an inherent meeting point on virtue ethics and the moral education：the individual acquisition of virtue. As a matter of fact, when Aristotle talked about virtues, he thought that the realization of the moral meaning is to make people form the moral virtues. We can take virtues as the internal drive of the moral action. It is the reflection of the action bodys pursuit and stick to the moral meaning, also called ethics of being-in-itself. Baruch de Spinoza thought, virtue and power is the same thing, “that is (III. vii.), virtue, in so far as it is referred to man, is a man's nature or essence, in so far as it has the power of effecting what can only be understood by the laws of that nature.” [13]P(36-37) In a short, no matter virtue is the character that can control the peoples willing or the peoples essential strength, it shows that ethics exhibits its inherent meaning beyond the human unless ethics is one being-in-itself part of the human. And ethics should be rooted in human nature, demonstrate reverence and respect for life and develop the independent ethics of the same kind, thus realizing life's happiness and satisfactory.

Above all, the moral education whose philosophical foundation is the rule ethics is mainly internalizing the ethical rules established by society into the individuals moral beliefs through “indoctrination”, and focus on the emphasis on the social regulation of morality and discipline function. The rules (or discipline) are to reduce the human who are living to inanimate objects, and this is outrageous and distorted to human nature and immoral itself. Rules closed life, molded autocratic sadistic personality and slave battered personality. It is disrespect for life, distortions of human nature and it is wicked and anti-moral education itself. Or, rules take human as objects have no life instead of living human. The largest derogatory of virtue is this non-human, and the inhumane way to judge and treat people. In addition, the rules also have direct derogatory role of virtue, for if the process of virtue shaping is a process of nourish the virtues and moral education, then the process of regularization is a process of derogatory virtue and abetting “wicked”. On the contrary, the moral education based on virtue ethics pays attention to quality and selection, and stresses the stability characteristics formed on the human who have morality, the compatibility and intermediation of value related to ethics and education. Both let people know virtue and get virtue. Here, ethics and education find a common philosophical fulcrum. That is why do people live or what kind of life should people live…… The return of the foundation of the philosophy of contemporary moral education theory and practice from rules to virtuous is not only to overcome the dilemma cause by rule ethics guiding the moral education and practice, but also the inevitable requirement of the contemporary moral education returning to their own authentic. Obviously, only use this thinking model to explore the way of peoples moral life; the moral education is itself which cares of virtues, abundance of human nature and toward “people first”. In a nutshell, the premise of contemporary moral education to overcome the inner troubles of rule ethics and return to truth is based on virtue ethics and calls for virtue shaping.

References

[1][11]Fang Dezhi. Resurgence of Virtue and Education of Morality --- On Requirement and Elicitation of Aristotles Virtue Theory to Revival of Virtue Ethics [J]. Studies in Ethics. 2010(3).

[2][8] Daniel Statman. Introduction to Virtue Ethics[C]. //Daniel Statman. Virtue Ethics. Edinburgh University Press，

[3]Joseph·P·Demarco, Richard·M·Fox. The New Trend of the Modern Ethics [M]. Translated by Shi Yubin. China Youth Press. 1990.

[4]Dai Mucai. Contemporary “Moral Disruption” and its Moral Philosophical Rescue [J]. Journal of Jiangxi Nomal University (Philosophy and Social Edition). 2003(1)．

[5][6][7][9]Jiang Chang. Virtue Theory [M]. Peoples Publish House. 2011.

[10]Tom Beauchamp. Principle of Biomedical Ethics(Fifth Edition)[M]. Oxford Press，2001.

[12]Liu Bingyuan. True Regression from Specification to Virtue: the Contemporary Moral Philosophy of Education. [J]. Journal of Socialist Theory Guide. 2010（1）.

[13][Ancient Rome] Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics [M]. Translated by Liao Zhongbai. The Commercial Press. 2004.

Author]

Fang Xi(1982--), male, from Tongshan in Hubei province. He is an instructor working in Huawen College of Yunnan Normal University, Now he is studying for the doctor degree and majoring in philosophical ethics and Chinese culture study.

Zhu Bi Fa(1982--), male, from Tongshan in Hubei province. He is an instructor working in Hubei University of Chinese Medicine, Now he is studying for the doctor degree in Wuhan University and majoring in medical ethics and Marxist philosophy study.