Social Malaise and

UNIT 2 CONCEPT OF MORALITY AND Need for Value Education

MORAL EDUCATION
Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Objectives
2.3 Moral Consciousness
2.4 Moral Education versus Religious Education
2.4.1 Distinction between Moral Education versus Religious Education
2.5 Theory of Morality
2.5.1 The Objective theory of Good
2.5.2 Language of Morals
2.6 The Form of Morality
2.7 Criteria of Rational Behaviour
2.8 Difference between Moral Instruction, Moral Training versus Moral Education
2.9 Moral Judgements and their Criteria
2.10 Let Us Sum Up
2.11 Answers to Check Your Progress.
2.12 References

2.1 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier unit of this block, you have learnt about the social malaises afflicting
our society, which are characterized by social and moral problems that are in turn
leading to the social degeneration of Indian society. We have seen that the fabric
of Indian society today is threatened because of the damages inflicted to society
through rampant corruption, violence, terrorism, crime, hatred, bigotry, fundamentalism
etc. and to the environment through pollution and unsustainable development. This
kind of social scenario necessitates a need for education, which is, grounded in
human values, especially the moral values. You have also learnt that education bereft
of component of human values is not education in true sense. Without inclusion of
human values it may be any thing like instructions, literacy development, training,
indoctrination and the like but not education. Hence, education, which aims at
development of total human being, must of necessity, be value oriented. And among
different kinds of values, the moral values are most essential to education. It is
the moral consciousness in man, which qualifies one to be called as truly educated.
In this unit we shall try to clarify the concept of morality as well as of moral education.

2.2 OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit, you will be able to:
 define the nature of moral consciousness and its relation with education;
 differentiate moral education from religious education; 21
Conceptual Framework  depict that the relationship between religious education and morality is
not essential;
 distinguish the matter (content) of morality from its manner or form;
 illustrate with examples the four criteria of rational behaviour as given by
Hegel;
 clarify the concept of moral education and distinguish it from moral instruction
and moral training;
 state and explain the criteria of any moral judgement and
 define the characteristics of a morally educated person

2.3 MORAL CONCIOUSNESS

Moral consciousness, like intelligence is a natural endowment, which requires an
appropriate environment or education for its full flowering in human personality. It
is inborn but not in the sense that man is good by nature, as Rousseau and other
romantic naturalists had asserted. Man, in fact, is born with two kinds of forces:
one that leads to ‘self preservation’, with instincts that lead to aggression, anger,
jealousy, fear, drive for sex and the like; and the other that leads to ‘social
preservation’, like love, affection, sympathy, care , compassion, empathy, consideration
for others, rationality etc. In Freudian terminology the former tendencies are id-
related and the latter, super-ego related and the ego acts as the steering, which
controls the two and strikes a balance between them (As per Sigmund Freud, human
psyche consists of 3 parts – id, ego and superego. Id seeks pleasure and is impulsive,
the super ego acts as the moral guardian and ego balances the two tendencies so
that impulses are expressed in a socially acceptable manner).
Moral consciousness is intimately related with ‘social preservation’. Therefore, morality
or moral consciousness has no meaning and relevance without a social context. If
we take care of others’ feelings or emotions as we take care of ours, we are
morally conscious. If the sorrows or sufferings of others fail to move our hearts
in the same manner, as the sorrows and sufferings of our own near and dear ones,
it signifies that we lack moral consciousness in the same proportion. Such
consciousness is innate or inborn, as already pointed out, but its nurturance depends
on environmental forces acting on human beings including education. Some people
strongly believe that the most appropriate platform for the consciousness to grow
into moral behaviour or full-fledged morality is through religion – visit to places of
worship, listening to preaching of religious Gurus and the like. They believe that
there is an intimate and essential relationship between religion and morality. But to
many others, such an assertion associating morality with religion is highly contentious.
In the next section we shall examine the validity of the assertion with regard to the
relationship between morality and religion.

2.4 MORAL EDUCATION VERSUS RELIGIOUS

EDUCATION
To settle the issue of ‘what is morally worth doing?’ Many people prefer to take
22 the final answer from scriptures like the Gita, the Bible, the Quran or Guru Granth
Sahib and the like, or the preachers who hold high offices (the Mathadhish, the Concept of Morality and
Moral Education
Shankaracharya, the Maulvi, the Priest, the Granthi etc.). For such people, these
sources alone are the legitimate authority, which can finally settle the issue of moral
conduct.
Some denominational schools in India follow this tradition of linking moral education
with religious education. They have daily acts of worship and in the zero period,
some religious preaching and anecdotes pertaining to some morals are related. They
name it “Dharma Shiksha” period or religious education period. But, in fact, the
word Dharma has got much wider and secular connotation. Dharma is construed
by many well known scholars as, righteousness in duty with right conduct, thought
and action. Since India has adopted secular democracy as a way of life, such a
notion of moral education, which is linked with a particular sect or religion cannot
be accepted as education of the future citizens of the nation. This is because ours
is a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious society. The schools are meant to
discharge functions that are free of religious education. The idea behind such a
thought is that religion is purely a personal concern of an individual, whereas school
is an organ of the total society that aims at the development of intellectual, social,
moral skills and attitudes in children. Development of moral aspect of personality
is the principal aim of education but it should not be developed via religious education,
because religious education as we shall discuss below cannot be truly educational.
Let us now study the distinction between moral education and religious education.

2.4.1 Distinction between Moral Education and Religious

Education
(i) It is possible to live without a religion, but it is unthinkable to live without a
set of moral values to guide our behaviour. There are many people in this
world who may not believe in any religion or even in the existence of God,
but they do believe in moral values. They may be morally good or even better
than many of those who are the followers of a religion. It is for this reason
that we talk of “secular morality”, as an approach to morality, which is
independent of all religions. So, there is no logical connection between morality
and religion.
(ii) If, we wish to link morality with religion we may involve ourselves in a situation,
which is positively antagonistic to the concept of education per se. Morality
derived from or linked with religion must essentially be authoritarian, because
such principles of conduct emanate either from scripture or is dictated by some
religious Guru. But if we accept a particular code of conduct not because it
is recommended by or derived from some particular religious faith but for reasons
other than these (rational thinking, for example), then our morality is not a
religious one. For instance, we may base our actions on reasons other than
religious ones, and accordingly keep a promise, do our duty with sincerity and
commitment, speak the truth, etc. Such behaviour is not based upon religious
morality and it will not be considered authoritarian because it is based on
reasonableness and emerges from the social context. In certain contexts, where
telling a lie is in the larger human interest or a behaviour can save the life of an
innocent individual, one will agree that such a lie will be better than telling the
truth. Such a principle can apply very well to other human virtues like non-
deceiving, loyalty, non-violence, etc. Don’t you remember that even Sri. Rama,
23
Conceptual Framework whom many consider as an incarnation of God, killed Bali? This means that
under exceptional circumstances even the so-called universal values can be
sacrificed if by doing so, it serves a bigger human cause.
(iii) Linking morality with religion is unacceptable because it denies the individual
the right to choose the principles of morality according to the context of one’s
own conscience. Such a proposition is unacceptable because it puts a dead
end to any evolution or growth of moral knowledge. The fact remains that our
moral understanding must be such as to enable us to adjust to meet new moral
problems and challenges and to modify our principles to deal with them. But
if we link morality with religious authority, changing of moral principles will be
inconceivable. To the question of use of contraceptive as a means of birth
control, religion is ambivalent. This is a moral problem, the solution of which
depends on man’s thinking. Otherwise, the problem of over population will
be a danger to our survival. Hence we have to leave such questions to rational
human judgement. This implies that religion can provide no firm basis for moral
decision and action.
On the basis of arguments given above, Downey and Kelly (1982) concluded that,
“a proper morality has to be seen as independent of religion. If there is a connection
it is not that morality is dependent on religious beliefs, it is much more likely that
man’s religious beliefs are a result of moral consciousness”. So we should examine
any question of morality independent of religion and on grounds that make it universally
acceptable.

2.5 THEORY OF MORALITY

We shall discuss briefly the popular theory called the objective theory of good.

2.5.1 The Objective Theory of Good

If morality cannot be linked with religion the question arises, how can we ascertain
that some particular action is morally good? In earlier theories, moral precepts were
seen as objectively valid and therefore it was sensible to talk of moral knowledge
or knowledge of the “good”. According to this theory the base of morality is fixed
and objective. It is a view that leads us to the notion that a morally educated person
is the one who has recognized the truth of some particular moral values and he/
she acts on them irrespective of conditions/situations. Such values can be human
virtues like truth, non-violence, not-deceiving others, to be objective and impartiality,
respecting elders, etc. The purpose of education according to such a theory would
be to impart instruction with a view to instil these values in pupils. But such a
view of morality would obviously be authoritarian and hence not much different
from religious morality, which we have already rejected as outmoded. Second, can
any one of such virtues be desirable and hence good under all circumstances? We
have already maintained that such virtues are not necessarily always desirable, under
all conditions.
There are other reasons also, why we should not nurture children in accordance
with the objective theory of morality. One such reason is grounded in man’s freedom.
Human being’s freedom of thought, right to his/her own beliefs cannot be denied.
The concept of moral freedom entails notion of human being as an active agent,
24
responsible for his/her own destiny, and for his/her action and behaviour. Under Concept of Morality and
Moral Education
such a concept of autonomy, if I have a right to act freely or to protect my freedom,
for the same reasons I have no right to encroach upon similar freedom of others.
And this forms the basis of morality, which is the essence of equity or justice. It
implies that man’s values must be his own. One loses one’s freedom in so far as
one acts in accordance with the values that are imposed from without.
It is clear, therefore, that our question “what is morality”, is a response to the constantly
changing demands of the society suited to man as a free and an autonomous being.
We must recognize this as a demand for the autonomy of the individuals and a
respect for the freedom and autonomy of others. If we believe that we should live
in a society comprising of free and autonomous individuals, we also thereby feel
an increased need for moral education, a kind of education that must enable students
to do their own moral thinking, rather than encouraging them to conform to externally
imposed moral codes.

Check Your Progress 1

(i) What is moral consciousness?
…………………………………………
…………………………………………
(ii) What is the distinction between moral education and religious education?
…………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………

2.5.2 Language of Morals

Philosophers and other thinkers in the field of ethics have been trying to answer
the most fundamental question – the question of what is highest good: the summum
bonum, which may be termed as good in itself, or the determining principle in ethical
system. As a matter of fact, the different theories in ethics have come up in the
manner this question has been answered. For example, according to objectivists,
there are certain things/actions, which are good in themselves. The idealist thinkers
following this notion, assign intrinsic values to concepts like ‘truth’, ‘goodness’ and
‘beauty’. According to them these values are absolute and hence can be
unconditionally followed. On the other hand, the subjectivists, rejecting the objective
theory of values, assert that nothing in this world is good without conditions. What
we call good is not a quality of the object, situation or action, but rather a subjective
perception of the viewer. Something good for me may be bad for others; it may
be good in a particular situation or at a particular time but bad in other situations
or at other times. According to them, there is no ultimate or absolute good. The
utilitarian, taking a slightly different view from the subjectivist, holds that the right
or good act is the one which will probably produce the greatest amount of happiness
in the world at large. For them, it is happiness that is good in itself. For existentialist
thinkers, freedom and autonomy of the “will” constitute inherent goodness. Any
action or situation is good to the extent that it directly or indirectly promotes or is
likely to promote freedom and autonomy of the individual(s).
25
Conceptual Framework The basic question that is asked is whether freedom/autonomy, pleasure/happiness,
truth, beauty or goodness etc. are good under all conditions and always? A little
reflection would reveal that no such thing is good unconditionally. Kant, the great
philosopher, having critically examined all such theories of “good” stated in one of
his categorical imperatives that, “Nothing in this world or out of it, is good without
conditions except the good will”. For Kant, therefore, goodwill is the ultimate good.

If we deeply analyse this fundamental question in ethics, we find that the difficulties
we encounter in setting up universal principles in search of some value substance
arise because of our basic confusion in understanding the distinction between form
and content, language and literature, or manner and matter of moral conduct. Any
moral conduct has both form as well as content. According to Downey and Kelly
(1982) our mistake in defining moral worthy of some action lies in that we take
cognizance of the content (the action) and not its form – the reason that leads to
the particular action. According to Peters (1966), principles of moral behaviour
are: impartiality, consideration for others’ interest, freedom, respect for persons
and probably truth telling. But the same fundamental question can be asked again:
“Are such principles of human conduct good under all conditions”? And the answer
again is ‘no’, not always and not under all circumstances. So Peters’ approach is
not different from what Kohlberg called “a bag of virtues approach” to moral
behaviour. All virtues, in the ultimate analysis, constitute matter or content of morality
and not its manner or form.

2.6 THE FORM OF MORALITY

If all virtues constitute the matter or content of morality, what then is the form of
it? Some philosophers, especially the positivists hold that reasonableness or rationality
of behaviour constitutes the form of moral discourse or moral action. Accordingly,
no behaviour in a given circumstance can be termed as good if it is not rational or
reasonable in that circumstance, even though it is in accordance with the highest
virtue that is conceivable. Conversely any behaviour or action that is rational in
given circumstances (effected for the sake of attaining a bigger human cause or
end), even though what we call human vices (like telling a lie) are used as means
to that end, will be decidedly good. That is if the “end” is worthwhile or worthy to
be pursued, the “means” do not matter much. It is on the basis of such reasonableness
that one can justify why Shri Ram in Ramayana or Shri Krishna in Mahabharata
had to adopt wrongful means, because the worthwhile “end” could have been
jeopardized and much evil would have been generated. So it is the reasonableness
of an action (its form) and not the action per se (its content) that determines the
moral worth of an action.

2.7 CRITERIA OF RATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

In order to understand rationality or reasonableness in fuller perspectives with its
implications on moral human conduct, let us explicate the concept of rationality.
Hegelian dialectics of rationality is discussed in terms of four criteria, which are:
(i) logical consistency or coherence
(ii) generation of universals
26
 (iii) empirical evidence in support of the generalizations or good reason to support Concept of Morality and
Moral Education
the same and
(iv) public intelligibility
According to the first criterion, it is necessary that a set of moral beliefs that we
have, should be internally consistent. For example, it is not rational for me to believe
that others should cooperate with me or should take care of my interests, if I do
not, at the same time, accept that I must respect others. On the other hand, it will
be equally rational (or coherent) if I believe that others need not respect my interests,
just as I don’t respect theirs. Many people in this world live life according to the
latter principle; we may not like their values (content) but we cannot call them rational
or irrational, because they show coherence or consistency of behaviour. To be
called rational, therefore behaviour must be coherent and consistent.
The second criterion/condition of rational behaviour is generation of universal principles.
According to this condition, one must not be guided by a principle today and another
tomorrow unless there are cogent reasons for the same. The idea of rational morality
entails that one’s behaviour should be in accordance with certain general principles,
whatever these principles may be.
According to the third condition of rationality, we should be able to provide empirical
evidence or good reasons for what we do. We can say that behaviour, for which
no valid reasons can be provided, is irrational in the fullest sense. Such behaviour
cannot be counted as moral.
According to the fourth condition, to be truly rational, our behaviour should be
publicly intelligible or acceptable. If, on the other hand, we tend to behave based
on evidences or reasons, which are idiosyncratic, they cannot be termed rational.
One example of such behaviour can be “rationalization” which is contrasted with
rationality. In rationalization, the individual tries to justify one’s behaviour by selective
use of evidence or reasons, which seem to be valid but are not true reasons. The
proverb “grapes are sour” (rationalising something as bad because it could not be
attained) is an example of rationalization of behaviour. Rationality on the other hand
is based on reasons given objectively and is not coloured by one’s perceptions.
In the final analysis though rationality cannot provide us with any set of moral principles
that we can adopt or act upon, it can, however tell us a good deal about the form
or manner of our moral code (what is meant by form or manner or language of
moral code may be clarified). That is it means that to be rational, our moral code
should be coherent/consistent, in the form of general principles (generalizations),
subject to evidence that emerges from public understanding of ‘good’.

Check Your Progress 2

(i) What is Objective Theory of Goodness?

……………………………………………………..

(ii) What is Rationality of Behaviour?

……………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………..
27
Conceptual Framework
(iii) What is the difference between Rationalization and Rationality?
…………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………

(iv) Describe the four criteria of Hegel’s dialectics of Rationality?

…………………………………………………………………

2.8 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MORAL

INSTRUCTION, MORAL TRAINING VERSUS
MORAL EDUCATION
A few illustrations may be added to bring out the differences in a better way. We
have seen that moral education is not a matter of instruction in certain moral tenets,
nor it is a matter of getting to know certain moral values, which are objective, fixed
and unchangeable. It is rather a process of learning to think for ourselves on moral
issues, of becoming morally autonomous. While describing the act of teaching, we
use terms like instruction, training, conditioning or even indoctrination and sometimes
education.
However one should remember that each of these terms has a definite and a
specific meaning. They cannot be used interchangeably. In order to distinguish
these terms, let us think of situations where these are appropriately used. According
to Peters (1966) education is concerned with developing autonomy of the individual,
where people can think and choose on their own. Education also involves
development of a cognitive perspective. The other processes like training or instruction,
etc. do not have any such aim. While training somebody in certain skill (say motor
driving) we have no consideration for the individual’s autonomy. The process of
conditioning and indoctrination are still more irrelevant to individual’s autonomy.
In these processes there is a deliberate attempt to stifle individual’s autonomy.
Attempts made to indoctrinate people into some religious or political-social systems
are deliberate in nature and the aim is to prevent people to question the validity of
these systems.
In the process of education, however, what is important is the development of
knowledge and understanding – a kind of cognitive perspective and also the
development of critical awareness. To be educated, therefore, means not only the
acquisition of autonomy but also the capacity to use that autonomy effectively. For
example, if a person is provided autonomy or freedom to act, but the individual is
not fully informed on the subject, the freedom provided will be meaningless. Merely
providing freedom of thought does not qualify a person to be educated, unless one
is adequately informed on the subject. So education implies an attempt not only
to develop pupils’ ability to form their own opinion, but also to improve the quality
of these opinions. We very well recognize that we do not give proper cognizance
to an individual’s opinion unless we are convinced that he/she has given proper
thought to the matter and knows what he/she is talking about.
Another feature of education, to which Peters (1966) draws our attention is that
the activities they are engaged in are worthy of being pursued for their own sake,
28
whereas in the case of other activities like training instruction or indoctrination, this Concept of Morality and
Moral Education
is not necessarily the case. To take a case, we can train some body to perform
certain skills without any question of whether he/she values them or not. For example,
one can train somebody in skills like pick pocketing or stealing or even torturing
somebody. Similarly one can indoctrinate some body in accepting dogmas, beliefs
etc. which no rational mind can appreciate. On the other side, it is illogical to
speak of a man as educated, and assert that he/she places no value on the knowledge
and understanding that he/she has acquired while being educated. There is still another
vital element in moral education, which is related with the development of proper
human emotions and sentiments, feeling for others etc. If we do not consider other
people’s relations we miss something very significant in moral decisions. Hence
rationality based on objectivity does not exclude human relations.

2.9 MORAL JUDGEMENTS AND THEIR CRITERIA

Having examined the nature of morality and moral education, we need to examine
an important question of what counts as a moral action. It has two aspects: one,
an action cannot be called moral or not moral unless we establish that the individual
has so acted on his/her own “free will”. It must be an act that the individual is, in
the full sense responsible for it. If, on the other hand, the individual is coerced or
compelled to do by forces beyond his control – and had it been left to his free
will, he would probably not have performed it, the individual in such a case cannot
be held fully responsible for the act. In such a situation the act will not be termed
moral or immoral.
This leads to our second point of consideration. When the question of praise or
blame for certain acts performed comes to be examined, we need to see the intention
or motive with which the act is performed by the agent. Two further issues need
to be considered in this regard: (a) did the agent perform the act because he thought
it was right? or (b) did he perform because it could bring advantages to him/her?
In fact, while making a moral judgement about an act performed by the agent, the
action per se is not that important as the “will” with which the act is performed.
Kant probably meant exactly the same thing when he said: nothing in this world or
out of it is good without conditions except the good will. If an act is performed
with a “good will”, it will be termed as good, irrespective of the consequences of
the act. In any court of law also these two principles of “good will” and of “free
will” are considered as the sole criteria for determining whether a person is criminally
culpable or not. The judge seeks to ascertain whether the act was done without
any coercion, of his own free will and with what intention/motive was the act done.
For any act done under coercion, the doer cannot be held responsible and hence
cannot be culpable. Similarly, if the intention is established to be good, but some
how the consequences of the act are harmful to somebody, then the agent will
not be criminally culpable. Kant clarifies this point in what he calls “action done
for the sake of duty” and “action done in accordance with duty”. Moral goodness
can only be assigned to the former but not to the latter.
One such example may be of an expert ophthalmologist (an eye surgeon) who gives
an advertisement in a newspaper to hold a free eye-operation camp for the benefit
of the poor people who cannot afford the hospital expenses: Obviously, with such
a free operation camp many poor people will be benefited. Nevertheless the moral
29
Conceptual Framework worth of it will depend on the intention of the surgeon for organizing the free camp.
Some people do it for the sake of their advertisement, for being known to the public
so that it may accrue him dividends in the form of helping his business flourish.
For them such camps serve as bait. What is crucial to moral behaviour is that it
should be motivated by the desire to do what is morally or socially desirable and
not for the sake of expediency. The action done for the sake of duty is unconditionally
good, whereas work done only in accordance with duty possesses no moral worth.

2.10 LET US SUM UP

The unit starts by relating moral consciousness in human beings with human feelings
of right and wrong and caring for others. In explaining the nature of morality and
moral education, effort has been made to distinguish it from religious education.
Since religious education is authoritarian, hence it cannot be truly educational because
education by its very nature enables one to think on one’s own. In our discussion
about the nature and concept of morality we related the objective theory, according
to which the base of morality is fixed and unchangeable. But in practice we observe
that in the context of morality, we take cognisance of the changing circumstances,
intention and the context in which we find ourselves. Hence, its nature cannot be
fixed. Secondly the objective theory is against the concept of autonomy of the
individual. It is further shown that, no value content could be unconditionally good
under all circumstances. That is, there cannot be any absolute or ultimate good.
The nature of morality is made clear by explaining the distinction between ‘form’
and ‘content’ of moral behaviour. Our moral behaviour must have a form as well
as content. For example, when we say that any behaviour to be morally good it
must be rational, here the rationality of behaviour constitutes its form and the actual
act constitutes the content. The different criteria of rationality as propounded by
Hegel have been illustrated in this unit. The unit also discusses the distinction between
moral instructions, moral training indoctrination vis-à-vis moral education by giving
suitable examples in each case. At the end, the question of what constitutes a
moral action and what does not have been examined. In this regard, two very
important criteria of moral judgement have been illustrated viz. the intention with
which any act is performed and the “free will”. To conclude, no act performed
without the free will of the doer, can be said to be moral or immoral; and second,
any act performed with goodwill constitutes moral goodness, irrespective of its
consequences. In this regard the two kinds of acts have been explained briefly:
one that is done for the sake of duty and the other done in accordance with duty.

2.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress 1
(i) It is a natural endowment which requires an appropriate environment or education
for its full flowering in human personality. It is related with social preservation.
If we take care of others interests, feelings or emotions as we take care of
our own then we are morally conscious.
(ii) a) It is possible to live without a religion but it is unthinkable to live without a
set of moral values. b) Morality derived from religion is authoritative in character
because it emanated from scriptures which are rigid. c) Morality is not dependent
30
 on religious beliefs; it is likely that a man’s religious beliefs are the result of Concept of Morality and
Moral Education
moral consciousness.
Check Your Progress 2
(i) According to this theory, the base of morality is fixed and objective. It views
that a morally educated person is the one who has recognized truth of some
particular moral values and he/she acts on them irrespective of conditions/
situations. Such values can be absolute and hence can be unconditionally followed
human virtues like truth, politeness, respect to elders etc.
(ii) Some philosophers like the positivists hold the view that rationality of behaviour
constitutes the form of moral action. Accordingly no behaviour in a given
circumstance can be termed as good if it is not rational even though it is in
accordance with the highest virtue that is conceivable.
(iii) In rationalization, the individual tries to justify one’s behaviour by selective use
of evidence or reasons which seem to be valid but are not true reasons. Rationality
on the other hand is based on reasons given objectively and is not colored by
one’s perceptions.
(iv) The four criteria of Hegel’s Dialectics of rationality are: a) logical consistency
or coherence b) generation of universals c) empirical evidence and d) public
intelligibility.

2.12 REFERENCES
Ayer, A. J. (1946), Language Truth and Logic in Downey, J.B. and Kelly, A.B.
(1982), Moral Education, London: Harper and Row.
Bair, K. (1975). Moral Autonomy as an Aim of Education in Downey, J.B. and
Kelly, A.B. (1982), Moral Education, London: Harper and Row.
Dagar B.S. and Dhull, Indira (1995). Perspectives in Moral Education, New
Delhi: Uppal Publishing House.
Downey, J.B. and Kelly, A.B. (1982). Moral Education, London: Harper and Row.
Hare, R.M. (1974). Freedom and Reason, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1964) Moral Education in Schools, School Education Journal.
Kay, W. (1975) Moral Education, London: Allen and Unwin.
Peters, R.S. (1966). Ethics and Education, London: Allen and Unwin.
Peters, R.S. (1973). Reason and Compassion, London: Routeledge.

31