Have library access?
IP:3.236.83.14
  • Journals

皮德思(R. S. Peters)的「理性與習慣:道德教育的弔詭」:回顧與批判

On R. S. Peters' "reason and habit: the paradox of moral education ": retrospection and criticism

Abstracts


皮德思在1963年在〈理性與習慣:道德教育的弔詭〉一文裡宣稱「要進入理性的殿堂,必先經過習慣和傳統的中庭」,之後陸陸續續至少有五篇正式發表的文章對該文做反應。本文從事後的觀點重新回顧皮德思的和那五篇文章,後見之明或許能溫故而知新。本文的發現為:1、皮德思的文章有拼湊的成分。2、皮德思的比喻取自歐克夏對專科的職業教育與大學教育的區隔,但這兩者並沒有先後的關係。而皮德思卻將習慣置於理性之前,是逐步漸進的。3、皮德思的文中自稱是在解決亞里斯多德倫理學的困境,卻隱藏著康德倫理學的架構,將習慣比喻為他律,而理性則是自律。4、亞氏倫理學中並沒有自律與他律的區分,他以追求幸福為德行的目標,照康德的標準應該都屬於他律。5、後續的五篇評論,只有Kristjánsson明確地站在亞氏倫理學的觀點做較正確地詮釋。6、在將近60年的期間,對此文的解讀仍受制於康德倫理學的框架,只有在風向轉向亞氏倫理學時才逐漸看出皮德思該文的缺失。

Parallel abstracts


R. S. Peters delivered a paper called Reason and habit: a paradox of moral education in 1963, and in the paper, he mentioned that "they (young children) can and must enter the palace of reason through the courtyard of habit and tradition". More than a decade later, five articles were published to discuss this statement. The aim of this article is to review Peters' article and the responses in the five articles. The discoveries are as follows: 1. there were adoptions of habit and reason from conflicting origins; 2. while Peters used a metaphor from Michael Oakeshott by dividing vocational education and university education, the metaphor was not appropriate for resolving what Peters called paradox of moral education, given that Oakeshott's metaphor was separate and Peters' was sequential; 3. Peters declared to resolve the paradox in Aristotelian ethics, but his resolution was in a framework of Kantian ethics, where habit was compared to heteronomy, and reason was autonomy; 4. there were no division of autonomy and heteronomy in Aristotelian ethics, and Eudaimonia was the end of moral action in Aristotelian ethics which was classified as heteronomous; 5. the author perceives that in the five review articles, only Kristjánsson appropriately criticized from the stance of Aristotelian ethics; 6.in nearly 60 years, Peters' article was read from mostly the perspective of Kantian ethics, only after the renaissance of Aristotelian ethics changed the view point of criticism was changed.

References


Bonnet, M. & Cuypers, S. (2003). Autonomy and authenticity in education. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers., R. Smith., & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education (pp. 326-340). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Carr, D. (2007). Moralized psychology or psychologized morality? Ethics and psychology in recent theorizing about moral and character education. Educational Theory, 57(4), 389- 402.
Cuypers, S. E. (2009). Educating for authenticity: The paradox of moral education revisited. In H. Siegel (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education (pp. 122-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, P. (1981). On some paradoxes in moral education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 15(1), 65-76.
Gardner, P. (1985). The paradox of moral education: A reassessment. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 19(1), 39-48.

Cited by


陳伊琳(2023)。「以友輔仁」新詮:羞恥在Aristotle友愛觀中的積極意義教育科學研究期刊68(1),137-165。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202303_68(1).0005

Read-around