콜버그와 하버마스이론이 도덕교육에 주는 시사점 비교
- 원문 URL
The purpose of this study is to identify the implications of moral education between Kohlberg and Habermas. As you know, there may be the important points of moral education in a democratic and culturally diverse society. You may agree with me in that these are such as the autonomy in moral judgments, the rationality of moral reasoning and the sympathetic understanding through communication, etc.. These ideas in moral education may not have come from both Kohlberg and Habermas, but must have been accepted as important ones owing to these two men. Therefore we need to investigate Kohlberg's and Habermas' theories in order to draw some relevant implications of moral education in a democratic and postmodern society. This study tackles on this issue. The moral education theory of Kohlberg rests on his theory of moral development. His moral development theory is generally defined as a cognitive approach to moral development. However the essential issue lies in not "what kind of moral judgment" but "what kind of moral reasoning in a certain judgment" when being faced with some kind of moral dilemmas. According to Kohlberg, moral reasoning develops from the pre-conventional level through the conventional level to the post-conventional level. And each level is divided into two distinct stages. Thus ideally speaking, the moral development would proceed from stage 1 to stage 6. The moral education of Kohlberg may be simply described as the efforts and strategies of lifting up the students' moral reasoning level from the previous lower stage to the one higher stage. Habermas' implications of moral education may be derived from his communication theory. According to Harbermas, there are four kinds of human action, that is the teleological, the norm-regulative, the expressive, the communicative. The communicative action means that two subjects transact with their words and deeds each other in some both-sided interaction modes. The persons who participate in communication or dialogue actively can catch the irrational social norms, structure, etc. and sympathize the erection of the rational and universal norms. In an ideal speech-situation, the participants in communication or dialogue can explore the presuppositions of their speech critically and accept the genuine agreements. Therefore the Harbermas' implications of moral education may be characterized as the construction of an ideal speech-situation and encouragement of an active participation in communication or dialogue. The formal implications of moral education from Kohlberg and Habermas may be such as the role-play, the discussion of moral dilemmas, esp. in elementary schools. And these may be insignificant in that these ideas are not different from the previous moral education methods which have been proposed as alternatives to the existing methods. But there may be some substantial differences between the former and the latter. They may be that the former permits the students to more autonomy of moral decisions and encourages them to more critical review of social norms, etc. than the latter. These ideals cannot be too emphasized in moral education but how is it possible to achieve these ideals in elementary students who are immature and naive in moral development?