도덕교육에서 내용과 형식간의 논란과 그 해소를 위한 통합적 방법

Abstract

There is a controversy between‘ content approach should be centered in moral education’and‘ form approach should be centered in moral education’. This article analyzed‘ content’vs‘. form approach’to moral education: those theories analyzed as‘ content’are S. Freud’s, R. Coles’s, and social learning theory; and as‘ form’are R. M. Hare’s, L. Kohlberg’s, and J. Wilson’s. After the analysis, this article tried to explore how to integrate the two kinds of approaches on the base of R. S. Peters’theory. Peters sees the relation between‘ content’and‘ form’as the paradox of moral education: that is, the relation of the two can be appeared to be contradicted, but it implies a truth in it. The controversy will be continued, as far as we see only the contradiction between the two. However, if we see the truth in it, there will be no more controversy. Then, what is the truth between the two? It is the complementary nature between the two. We see the paradox of the moral education in Peters’saying that‘ We can and must enter the palace of Reason through the courtyard of Habit and Tradition.’The former works as form and the latter as content. We can also see it in the characteristics of the cognitive stages of moral development presented by Piaget and Kohlberg: that is, in the characteristics that stages form an invariant sequence. The conventional stage that habit(content) works overridingly is presupposed for the postconventional stage that reason(form) works overridingly. There are few people who think that the moral life in the levels of conventions is desirable and enough. The ultimate goal of moral education should be in the levels principles. However, there is no one who can develop the stage of postconventions without developing the levels of conventions; no one who can enter the Palace of Reason without through the courtyard of Habit and Tradition. This tells that the relation between habit(content) and reason(form) is complementary rather than contradictory. When we think the relation of the two like this, it will be meaningless that one claims moral education should be ‘content’approach, the other, no, moral education should be ‘form’ approach’. It is because the nature of morality is in itself consisted of the two. This means that moral education should be approached to be integrated of the two, in order to achieve the nature of morality and, at the same time, the ultimate goal of moral education. When we see the relation between ‘content’and ‘form’in moral education as complementary rather than contradictory, the controversy between the two will be resolved, which also means the two kinds of approaches will be integrated as a whole one.