What’s the use of ethical philosophy? The role of ethical theory in special educational needs

Abstract

This article examines the relevance of modern moral philosophy to education, with particular reference to special educational needs. Where moral philosophers explore the tension between utilitarian and deontological reasoning, they often consider the balance between the rights of the individual and the benefits or costs for the majority. I argue that the debate is predicated on a false dichotomy between minority and majority which is best overcome by a return to virtue ethics. In exploring this ethical debate, I draw on a case study from Australia of a student excluded from mainstream education on the basis that inclusion will not serve the greater good of the majority of students. My intention here is not to offer practical guidance in the complex day-to-day deliberations of educators dealing with issues of inclusion, but to elaborate the structure of the present thinking about inclusion. It is hoped that an appreciation of the deeper basis of ethical reasoning will itself lead to a greater recognition of the need for exploring the ethical grounds of teaching and learning. I will argue that any dichotomy between the utilitarian happiness of the many and the deontological commitment to the rights of the individual is based on a misconception of human identity. The false choice between the many and the one rests upon the assumption that morality is fundamentally about restricting personal preferences in favour of the good of the majority, that there exists a fundamental conflict between what is good for the individual and what is good for society as a whole. This will lead me to argue that we need to reinterpret human identity as constituted by its social relations and that this reorientation is best achieved by reference to virtue ethics.

Keywords:

• moral philosophy
• inclusion
• utilitarianism
• deontology
• virtue ethics

Notes

1. John Clarke and Janet Newman imply the utilitarian foundations of modern managerialism: ‘The logic of managerialism is that managers are accountable for what they deliver, but not for how they deliver it. It is results, not methods that count’ (Clarke and Newman 1997, 64).

2. Of course this is highly debatable and, in many respects counter-empirical, since a good number of people are able to recognise the sanctity of life without reference to a religious ground. To establish this point would take us well beyond the context of the present argument.

3. For theorists that reject the dichotomy between the individual and social see, for example, Elias (1987) and Marx (1988). In his article ‘Creating Public Values’, Ozolins draws upon Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas to argue that the good of the individual person ‘and the good of their community are inextricably linked’ (Ozolins 2010, 411). Here, Ozolins attempts to dissolve the tension between the state and the individual person and considers the role of the school in creating particular moral habitats that support this dissolution.

4. The case of the runaway trolley car driver who must choose whether to sacrifice the life of one for the sake of five (Trolleyology as one colleague likes to call it), is the best known case, and is refined in so many ways as to drive students into the dilemma.

5. See also (Sandel 2010, 195–199).