A critical comparison of classical and domain theory: some implications for character education

Abstract

Contemporary approaches to moral education are influenced by the 'domain theory' approach to understanding moral development (Turiel, 1983;Nucci, 2001). Domain theory holds there are distinct conventional, personal and moral domains; each constituting a cognitive 'structuredwhole' with its own normative source and sphere of influence. One of the strengths of domain theory is that separating convention from morality and distinguishing morality from self-interest provides a conceptual critique of both conventional values and the pursuit of self-interest. Relying on the work of Joseph Raz, this paper will show how a classical, neo-Aristotelian conception can also provide conceptual space for an ethical critique of convention and self-interest, yet deny that it must emanate from different normative sources. Practical implications for both of these theories will also be considered, pointing out the strengths of, as well as some areas of vulnerability for, both.

Six forms of variety in students' moral reasoning: an age-old distinction enabling new methods and findings

“…Nonetheless, the three-part domain distinction has been crucial for the development of the research area, although its relevance has also been contested (Keefer 2006). Although not being less established in the field of normative ethics -being understood by philosophers of past times such as Sidgwick (1907) -the distinction between criterion of rightness and decision methods has rarely been used in empirical research, a distinction described further in 'Definitions and data processing.'…”