Individualist Moral Understanding and ‘Moral Reasoning’ in Education

Öz

Education has a cognitive/academic aim as well as a moral aim. But there is a lot of discussion about what motivates or makes the moral aim/action. On one side of these discussions is the Kantian-individualist understanding that reduces the moral field to the individual and his reason. There is a direct connection between the individualistic grounding of morality and the preference of moral behavior independently of external factors. The individual has the status of a ‘legislator’ that determines the moral law based on his own reason. In moral matters, everyone makes their own decisions and in order for one’s actions to have a moral value, these decisions must be made with a sense of duty. As a moral agent, the person does not prefer and apply the right thing based on any external factor. What gives a person this opportunity is his moral reasoning or reasoning capacity. As moral reasoning develops, individuals who have to judge in moral situations will be more likely to use moral principles. This study examines the place of moral reasoning in moral education and aims to investigate this alleged relationship between moral reasoning and moral behavior.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kant
• Moral Education
• Moral Reasoning
• Moral Development

BİREYCİ AHLAK ANLAYIŞI VE EĞİTİMDE ‘AHLAKİ MUHAKEME’

Öz

Eğitimin bilişsel/akademik bir hedefi olduğu gibi ahlaki bir hedefi de söz konusudur. Fakat ahlaki hedefi/eylemi motive eden veya gerçekleşmesini sağlayan şeyin ne olduğuna ilişkin birçok tartışma vardır. Bu tartışmaların bir tarafında ahlak alanını bireye ve onun aklına indirgeyen Kantçı-bireyci anlayış bulunmaktadır. Ahlakın bireyci bir temele dayanması ile ahlaki davranışların dışsal unsurlardan bağımsız olarak tercih edilmesi arasında doğrusal bir bağlantı vardır. Birey kendi aklından hareketle ahlaki yasayı belirleyen bir ‘yasa-koyucu’ statüsüne sahiptir. Ahlaki meselelerde herkes kendi kararını vermektedir ve kişinin eylemlerinin ahlaki bir değer taşıması için bu kararların görev bilinciyle verilmesi zorunludur. Ahlaki bir özne olarak kişi herhangi bir dış faktörden hareketle doğru olanı tercih etmemekte ve uygulamamaktadır. Kişiye bu imkânı sağlayan şey ise onun sahip olduğu ahlaki muhakeme veya akıl yürütme kapasitesidir. Ahlaki muhakeme geliştikçe, ahlaki durumlarda hüküm vermesi gereken bireyler ahlaki ilkeleri kullanmaya daha yatkın hale geleceklerdir. Bu çalışma, ahlaki muhakemenin (ahlaki akıl yürütmenin) ahlak eğitimindeki yerini irdeleyerek, ahlaki muhakeme ile ahlaki davranış arasındaki var olduğu iddia edilen bu ilişkiyi araştırmayı hedeflemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kant
• Ahlak Eğitimi
• Ahlaki Muhakeme
• Ahlaki Gelişim

Kaynakça

1. • Aktürk, Eyüp, Ahlaktan Tanrı’ya, (Ankara: İlahiyat Yay; 2016).
2. • Aristoteles, Nikomakhos’a Etik, çev. Saffet Babür, (Ankara: BilgeSu Yay., 2014).
3. • Bergman, Roger, “Why Be Moral? A Conceptual Model from Developmental Psychology”, Human Development, 45, (2002).
4. • Blasi, Augusto “Emotions and Moral Motivation”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29:1, 0021–8308.
5. • ____ “Kohlberg’s Theory and Moral Motivation”, New Directions for Child Development, No: 47, (Spring 1990).
6. • ____ “Moral Functioning: Moral Understanding and Personality”, Moral Development, Self and Identity, ed. Daniel K. Lapsley and Darcia Narvaez, (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004).
7. • Brook, Angus, “What is Education?: Re-reading Metaphysics in Search of Foundations”, New Blackfriars, Vol. 94, No. 1049 (2013).
8. • Cevizci, Ahmet, Eğitim Felsefesi, (İstanbul: Say Yay., 2016).

9. • Cohen, Mendel F., “The Practicality of Moral Reasoning”, Mind, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 312 (Oct., 1969).
10. • Dickerson, Adam B., “Immanuel Kant, 1724–1804”, Fifty Major Thinkers on Education: From Confucius to Dewey, ed. Joy A. Palmer, (London and New York: Routledge, 2001).
11. • Duska, Ronald, Whelan, Mariellen, Moral Development: A Guide to Piaget and Kohlberg, ed. Ronald Duska and Mariellen Whelan, (New York, Paramus, Toronto: Paulist Press, 1975).
12. • Hardy, Sam A., Carlo, Gustavo, “Identity as a Source of Moral Motivation”, Human Development 48, (2005).
13. • Heimsoeth, Heinz, Kant’ın Felsefesi, çev. Takiyettin Mengüşoğlu, (Ankara: Doğu Batı Yay., 2019).
14. • Herman, Barbara, “Training to Autonomy: Kant and the Question of Moral Education”, Philosophers on Education, ed. Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (London and New York: Routledge, 2005).
15. • Higgins, Christopher, Kramarsky, Daniel J., Mackler, Stephanie, “Philosophy of Education”, Encyclopedia of Education and Human Development, ed. Stephen J. Farenga and Daniel Ness, (New York: 2005).
16. • Horner, Chris, Westacott, Emrys, Felsefe Aracılığıyla Düşünme, Çev., Ahmet Arslan, (Ankara: Phoenix Yay., 2016).
17. • Kant, Immanuel, Ahlâk Metafiziğinin Temellendirilmesi, çev. İoanna Kuçuradi, (Ankara: Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu, 2009).
18. • ____ Critique of Pure Reason, ed. ve çev. Paul Guyer, Allen W. Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
19. • ____ Eğitim Üzerine, çev. Ahmet Aydoğan, (İstanbul: Say Yay., 2017).
20. • ____ “Lectures on Pedagogy”, Translated by Robert B. Louden, Anthropology, History, and Education, ed. Gunter Zoller, Robert B. Louden, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
21. • ____ The Moral Law, Trns.by H. J. Paton, (London: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1947).
22. • Korsgaard, Christine M., Creating the Kingdom of Ends, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
23. • Lapsley, Daniel K., “Moral Self-Identity as the Aim of Education”, Handbook of Moral and Character Education, ed. Larry P. Nucci, Darcia Narvaez, (New York: Routledge, 2008).
24. • Lockwood, Alan, “Moral Education”, Encyclopedia of Education and Human Development, ed. Stephen J. Farenga and Daniel Ness, (New York, 2005).
25. • Maschette, Diane, “Moral Reasoning in the “Real World””, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, Moral Development (Apr., 1977).
26. • Noddings, Nel, Caring, (Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1986).
27. • ____ Eğitim Felsefesi, çev. Raşit Çelik, (Ankara: Nobel Yay., 2016).
28. • Norman, Richard, The Moral Philosophers, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
29. • Oakley, Justin, “A Critique of Kantian Arguments against Emotions as Moral Motives”, History of Philosophy Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1990).
30. • Oser, Fritz K., “Moral Perspectives on Teaching”, Review of Research in Education, Vol. 20 (1994).
31. • R. M., Hare, Freedom and Reason, (London: Oxford University Press, 1963).
32. • Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg, “The Ruling History of Education”, Philosophers on Education, ed. Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (London and New York: Routledge, 2005).
33. • Rösler, R. O., “Principles of Kant’s Educational Theory”, Monatshefte, Vol. 40, No. 5 (May, 1948).
34. • Scarrow, David S., “Hare’s Account of Moral Reasoning”, Ethics, Vol. 76, No. 2 (1966).
35. • Sichel, Betty A., “Virtue and Character: Moral Languages and Moral Education”, The Clearing House, Vol. 64, No. 5, Values Education (1991).
36. • Sprod, Tim, Philosophical Discussion in Moral Education, (London and New York: Routledge, 2011).
37. • Wren, Thomas, “Philosophical Moorings”, Handbook of Moral and Character Education, ed. Larry P. Nucci, Darcia Narvaez, (New York: Routledge, 2008).
38. • Xu, Zhi Xing and Ma, Hing Keung, “How Can a Deontological Decision Lead to Moral Behavior? The Moderating Role of Moral Identity”, Journal of Business Ethics , (2016), Vol. 137, No. 3 (September 2016),
39. • Yükselbaba, Ülker, “Kant’ın Ahlak Felsefesinden Habermas’ın Söylem Etiğine Geçiş”, Hukuk Felsefesi ve Sosyolojisi Arkivi, vol.22, (2010).