Pojman's Moral Philosophy: Moral Responsibilities in Education

In Louis Pojman's article "What Is Moral Philosophy?" he contends that morality is the "most important subject on earth" and therefore needs to be applied to subject content instruction in education. The author states five purposed of morality:

• To keep society of falling apart
• To amend human suffering
• To promote humanity's advancements
• To resolve problems in just and orderly ways
• To assign praise / blame, reward, and punishment / guilt

Pojman uses the idea of moral philosophy as the study and reflection on specific customs, precepts, and practices of people and cultures. He applies moral philosophy as the systematic endeavor to comprehend moral concepts, then used in an attempt to justify moral principles and theories. He stresses that ethics (and therefore morality and moral philosophy) are grounded in reason and the human experience. He then stresses the differences among the practical applications of morality in religion, law, and etiquette. Regarding the religious interpretation of morality, religious ethics are vertical, being grounded in diving authority while using reason to complement revelation. For the legal interpretation of morality, laws can be immoral while still remaining valid and some aspects are not and can not be covered by law (the idea of intent). Etiquette does not determine correct behavior, only socially acceptable or polite behavior.

The final area covered by the author involves the four domains of ethical assessment: actions, consequences, character, and motive.

The types of action include "right acts" which are permissible as either an option or obligatory act, and "wrong acts" which one should always refrain from doing. He greatly stresses the idea of "right acts," going so far as to discuss supererogatory acts that go above and beyond what is necessary, deontological acts, stressing the inherent nature of the acts being performed, and Kant's hypothetical and categorical commands.

The consequences for actions stresses the teleological theories used to determine moral correctness and Bentham & Mill's Utilitarianism stressing actions that are done for the good of all.

The idea of character is entertwined with virtue, or the extremet importance of applying ethics to one's life to ensure a society of good people who attempt to always do good. Using Aristotle's ideas of ethics, the author stresses that all moral systems emphasize different virtues to different degrees.


The most difficult area covered is motive, or the relevance of the intention behind any actions taken. This was addressed in detail under the description of legal morality in determining guilt.

The author's five purposes of morality are set forth on a very large scale. Some can apply directly to instruction, but others would be much harder to utilize. Each will be examined here.

The first purpose, to keep society from falling apart, is much more evident in schools that function as a major element within a society: perennialist schools would have a fit being asked to instruct these methods, and in some ways, so would essentialist schools.

The idea of amending human suffering can mean to use education to help those less fortunate. This idea has been heavily developed with such programs as CityYear and Americorps, where students who have had positive educational opportunities are encourages to give a year of their lives to work in struggling education systems as teachers, coaches, and mentors.

The idea of promoting the human race is not only lofty but also self-serving. Humanity has been promoting itself through obtaining and applying new technologies since controlling the use of fire, and has paid little attention to the environmental or social costs involved. Schools grounded in the idea of "acquiring knowledge for knowledge's sake" will thrive in this field, while schools who promote the previous two purposes would take this to mean equalizing the playing field for the residents of 2nd and 3rd world countries, and would work toward applying that knowledge to those with little opportunity to obtain it.

Humanity is not very good at resolving conflicts in just or orderly ways. The idea of peaceful resolution not only rings false to most, but goes against the very heart of "fight or flight" present in all life on this planet. The theory of orderly conflict resolution with justice to all parties involved looks wonderful on paper, but fails miserably in the real world. Just listen in on a game of pick-up basketball after school any day and this will become evident. As long as we have social, fiscal, and racial inequalities in the world, there will be no true justice in conflict resolution.

While humanity is not good at conflict resolution, it is excellent at determine the cause, applying rules of engagement, and rewarding or punishing those involved in conflict. Any competitive activity is based in this, whether it be athletics, dance, chess club, fine arts competitions, or academic awards. This is an area where everyone becomes a behaviorist, with conditions required for objectives to be reached to satisfy mastery or a standard. In basketball, if all team members function to their highest ability as a unified team, they will win the game. In the spelling bee, if a student studies their words, knows the spelling evident in various entymologies, and can handle the pressure of being in a glaring spotlight, they will win. For every desired result there is a series of required actions necessary in a specific environment. When a group or individual does not succeed at "winning," blame is often assigned quickly and in a harsh manner: "winners date the prom queen while losers don't get a date and stay home". In many cases, it is the fear of losing that pushes the participant(s) toward winning, not so much the sense of personal accomplishment.

In many ways I agree that morality is essential to education. That being said, I do not believe that all of Pojman's purposes in morality could apply to real-world instruction. Working in a Catholic school, the idea of ethical action is woven into the very fabric of instruction. The separation of religious morality from legal morality is also intrinsic, while etiquette is approached more as an expected behavior than as a part of moral behavior. Unfortunately, many philosophers like the author bring about wonderful theories on paper, but their application in the real world becomes messy and easily knocked out of joint. Pojman does address some of these "difficult choices" with this examples of moral rules being overridden by other moral rules, but doesn't give the reader any direction to take in these situations. This "just do it and don't ask" aspect will turn off anyone who gets into one of these situations and attempts to find help but finds none.

I see my own role of moral agent as not just a teacher but as a member of society. My personal belief is that it is my job to myself as well as to others to always act in an ethical manner. I was raised in an extremely traditional Catholic household where proper etiquette (eating, attire, posture, attendance at events) were integrated into daily life. I attended Catholic schools where I had traditional instruction (many teachers in grade school were nuns or former nuns, many in high school were priests) and expected acceptable behaviors. In college I spent 4 years working for the military where behaviorism is still alive and well. These experiences showed me the importance of doing what is right in order to accept who I am as a person. They also showed me that hypocrisy is twice as evident in someone who preaches ethical behavior but chooses not to live it.