The Inseparability of Morality and Well‐being: the duty/virtue debate revisited

Keefer, Matthew W.

doi:10.1080/0305724960250302

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To the contrary, many students showed evidence of metacognitive strategies as they evaluated the dissonance they faced in cases where their empathy toward others was in conflict with their stated positions or principles. Reasoning understood in this manner constitutes a form of value-centered practical rationality (Milligan, 1980;Keefer, 1996;Keefer & Olson, 1995;Raz, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The ability to negotiate and resolve socioscientific issues has been posited as integral components of scientific literacy. Although philosophers and science educators have argued that socioscientific issues inherently involve moral and ethical considerations, the ultimate arbiters of morality are individual decision-makers. This study explored the extent to which college students construe genetic engineering issues as moral problems. Twenty college students participated in interviews designed to elicit their ideas, reactions, and feelings regarding a series of gene therapy and cloning scenarios. Qualitative analyses revealed that moral considerations were significant influences on decision-making, indicating a tendency for students to construe genetic engineering issues as moral problems. Students engaged in moral reasoning based on utilitarian analyses of consequences as well as the application of principles. Issue construal was also influenced by affective features such as emotion and intuition. In addition to moral considerations, a series of other factors emerged as important dimensions of socioscientific decision-making. These factors included personal experiences, family biases, background knowledge, and the impact of popular culture. The implications for classroom science instruction and future research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note how different theoretical orientations or emphases will stake out different challenges or problems for investigation. This is not an unfamiliar story, as it is one that clearly differentiates deontic from classical, virtue-ethic approaches (Keefer, 1996).…”

Section: Wilks Keefermentioning

confidence: 98%

“…52-53) Classical theory differs in both its subjective and objective aspects. Most moral values are like all other values; we can acquire knowledge of them only through active personal engagement with them (Keefer, 1996). Yet, while classical theory emphasizes the agent's active pursuit of values, how actions are evaluated as good or valuable derive only from the value of the goal pursued and not, say, by any quality of will or desire of the agent pursuing the goal.…”

Section: Introduction: Contrasting Domain and Classical Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%

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

Keefer

2006

Journal of Moral Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…There is no conceptual difference to be made between the knowledge needed to understand what morally matters to others and the knowledge we need to understand what is relevant to our own moral benefit. That is, acquiring practical or functional knowledge of our own valuable pursuits instructs us in the duties that we owe to others, just as being able to identify the duties we owe to others requires knowing what is necessary for living a meaningful life (Keefer, 1996). Second, classical theory provides a wider or more inclusive characterization of the moral domain.…”

Section: Looking Forward Towards the Past: Can A Classical "Virtue-etmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education

Zeidler¹

2003

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Inseparability of Morality and Well‐being: the duty/virtue debate revisited

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas

The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas

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

The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About