Book contents
- Moral Education in the 21st Century
- Moral Education in the 21st Century
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Why Does Moral Education Matter in the 21st Century?
- Part I Historical Insights for Contemporary Moral Education
- Part II New Approaches to Moral Education
- Chapter 7 Liberal Authority and Moral Education
- Chapter 8 The Capability Approach as a Foundation for Moral Education
- Chapter 9 Recognition Theory and Moral Education
- Chapter 10 Practicing Care Ethics in the Current Context
- Chapter 11 A Non-Ideal Virtue Theory and the Centrality of Education
- Chapter 12 Pragmatist Moral Education
- Part III Responses to Contemporary Moral Problems
- Index
- References
Chapter 8 - The Capability Approach as a Foundation for Moral Education
from Part II - New Approaches to Moral Education
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2023
Book contents
- Moral Education in the 21st Century
- Moral Education in the 21st Century
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Why Does Moral Education Matter in the 21st Century?
- Part I Historical Insights for Contemporary Moral Education
- Part II New Approaches to Moral Education
- Chapter 7 Liberal Authority and Moral Education
- Chapter 8 The Capability Approach as a Foundation for Moral Education
- Chapter 9 Recognition Theory and Moral Education
- Chapter 10 Practicing Care Ethics in the Current Context
- Chapter 11 A Non-Ideal Virtue Theory and the Centrality of Education
- Chapter 12 Pragmatist Moral Education
- Part III Responses to Contemporary Moral Problems
- Index
- References
Summary
Educating responsible moral agents is a central goal of democratic societies committed to the values of justice, equality, and the promotion of individuals’ well-being. How best to pursue the goal through formal schooling is, however, highly debated in moral education, due to reasonable disagreement on values and how to impart them. This chapter suggests that the core concepts of the capability approach provide an ethical framework which can fruitfully inform moral education. The approach’s core idea of evaluating individual well-being and the justice of society in terms of capability, or the substantive freedom to choose one’s valued life, together with the concept of agency and the importance of rational deliberation, set the ethical foundations for educating morally responsible citizens, who consider and treat other people as moral equals, care for social justice, and value their own and others’ well-being.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Moral Education in the 21st Century , pp. 136 - 150Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Allen, D., & Reich, R. (2013). Education, justice and democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brando, N. (2020). Children’s abilities, freedom, and the process of capability formation. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 21(3), 249–262.Google Scholar
Brighouse, H., Ladd, H., Loeb, S., & Swift, A. (2018). Educational goods. Values, evidence, and decision-making. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Crocker, D. (2006). Sen and deliberative democracy. In Kaufman, A. (Ed.), Capabilities equality. Basic issues and problems (pp. 155–197). London and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Culp, J., Drerup, J., de Groot, I., Schinkel, A., & Yacek, D. (2022). Introduction. Liberal democratic education. A paradigm in crisis. In Culp, J., Drerup, J., de Groot, I., Schinkel, A. & Yacek, D. (Eds.), Liberal democratic education. A paradigm in crises (pp. vii–xiii). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1995). Reconciliation through the public use of reason. Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. Journal of Philosophy, 92, 127–128.Google Scholar
Hart, C. S., & Brando, N. (2016). A capability approach to children’s well-being, agency and participatory rights in education. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedtke, L., & Zimenkova, T. (Eds.) (2012). Education for civic and political participation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Khader, S., & Kosko, S. (2019). Reason to value: Process, opportunity, and perfectionism in the capability approach. In Kehler, L. & Kosko, S. (Eds.), Agency and democracy in development ethics (pp. 178–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCowan, T., & Unterhalter, E. (2012). Education, agency and deliberative democracy: Sen’s capability perspective. In Hedke, L. & Zimenkova, T. (Eds.), Education for civic and political participation (pp. 144–163). London UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2009). Education for profit, Education for freedom. Liberal Education, 95(3), 6–13.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Perfectionist liberalism and political liberalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 39(1), 3–45.Google Scholar
Peppin-Vaughan, R. (2012). Education, social justice and school diversity: insights from the capability approach. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17(2), 206–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peppin-Vaughan, R., & Walker, M. (2012). Capabilities, values and education policy. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13(3), 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robeyns, I. (2017). Well-being, freedom and social justice. The capability approach re-examined. Oxford: Open Books.Google Scholar
Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1983). Liberty and social choice. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 69–221.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2003). Development as capability expansion. In Fukuka-Parr, S and Kumar, A. K. S (Eds.), Readings in human development (pp. 41–58). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. (2007). On education as a basic capability. In Unterhalter, E. & Walker, M. (Eds.), Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 25–43). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. (2008). Justice and equality in education. A capability perspective on disability and special educational needs. London and New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. (2014). Reframing inclusive education: Educational equality as capability equality. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terzi, L. (2019). Educational justice for students with intellectual disabilities. In Wasserman, D. & Cureton, A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and disability (pp. 541–558). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terzi, L. (2023). Autonomy and capability. In Colburn, B. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of autonomy. London and New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Warnick, B., & Smith, S. (2014). The controversy over controversies: A plea for flexibility and for “soft-directive” teaching. Educational Theory, 64(3) 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, P. (2018). Close engagement of a collegial kind: An introduction. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 53(4), 633–635.Google Scholar