Morality in the University Peter

Morality in the University

Peter Steinfels in his 2004 article asks whether or not universities should teach aim to teach morality. He explicates several perspectives from those involved in the academic field. On the one hand, there are those that feel it is not the place of the university to try to inculcate morality. "You can't make them into good people...and you shouldn't try" (Steinfels) argues this perspective. On the other hand, there are those that say that morality is so engrained in every aspect of life that one cannot teach anything without teaching it. Trying not to teach morality only teaches a sort of vague "scientific" morality. How can one walk in the footsteps of philosophers like Aristotle and Plato and not at least address morality?

These are both reasonable arguments -- that they are in conflict is due to the fact that for some odd reasons none of these professors are taking full advantage of the English language. Universities ought not aim to teach morality; they should aim to teach ethics. These are distinct principles, though closely related, and if the professors involved would use these terms appropriately and accurately, they would find that they are not so much in conflict as they might think.

Ethics and morality are distinct issues. Morality deals with truth-claims about what is right and wrong, while ethics deal with the principles of conduct which are expected of people in a given field. Morality tends to deal with issues such as faith, sex, gambling, drugs, and so forth. For example, many people feel that premarital sex is immoral. Ethics, however, focus on the standards which are required to act properly towards others. Ethically, premarital sex is not wrong unless it violates certain standards (for example, sleeping with an employee or breaking the law in sexual activity). Sometimes morality and ethics may even disagree -- for example, both priests and psychiatrists have ethical obligationsto keep the confidence of those who confess to them. However, if either heard a confession from an unrepentant serial killer who persisted in their murders, either might legitimately feel have a moral obligation to act to stop this. In short, morality and ethics are significantly different.

The difference between ethics and morality is very significant for this debate because I feel that universities ought to teach their students ethics, but should not impose any morality on them. This is indeed the classic view. Aristotle did not write a book called Morality, after all, but his Ethics have been intensely influential on the development of academics. When schools attempt to teach morality to students, they do indeed risk violating the student' consciences and personal beliefs. A university ought not attempt to teach their students "truth," as Professor Mearsheimer points out quite legitimately. However, universities do have an obligation to ensure that their students understand what their individual professions expect from them in terms of ethics, and additionally assure they know of what public sector ethics consist. A college educated doctor, for example, needs to understand his or her obligation to the patient to do no harm, to be honest about conditions and medications, not to put any outside interests over patient health, to keep confidentiality, to treat fairly with co-workers, not to steal drugs from his workplace, and all other such ethical constraints. Regardless of whether or not it may be "moral" to spare someone from suffering, for example, a college-educated doctor should know that it is not ethical to euthanize someone without their consent. Likewise researchers should know about the ethics of research where it concerns honesty, good treatment of test subjects, and other such issues. Even those studying business or other fields without such strict ethical codes should be trained in ethics for their field -- a corrupt accountant, for example, may not feel personally that they are being immoral (perhaps they consider that "no one is being hurt") but college should have taught them that the ethics of their field require honesty. In all fields there is a form of morality. In fact, this is precisely what is being said by Rochester when he claims there is an "ascetic morality inherent in the very notions of research, discovery and scientific truth." (Steinfels) This is not a morality -- it does not deal with personal and spiritual ideals of what is right and wrong. This is an ethic, for it deals with the forms and methods which scientists must follow. Certainly, a scientist might make of science a religion and from there develop a personal morality based on science -- but that morality is not required to be a scientist. That ethic, however, is necessary.