Moving beyond rationalistic responses to the concern about indoctrination in moral education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indoctrination is an ongoing concern in education, especially in debates about moral education. One approach to this issue is to come up with a rational procedure that can robustly justify potential items of moral education content. I call this the ‘rationalistic justification project’. Michael Hand’s recent book, A Theory of Moral Education, is representative of this approach. My essay has three parts. First, I show that Hand’s justificatory procedure – the problem-of-sociality justification – cannot serve the purposes he has in mind; it fails on its own terms and may even cause the teacher to inadvertently slide into indoctrination. Second, I argue that the causes of this failure lie deeper than Hand’s particular approach to the rationalistic justification project; rather, it is the broader project itself that is misguided, largely due to its narrow conceptions of morality and rationality. Third, I offer an alternative way of framing the issue of indoctrination, by drawing on Aristotle’s philosophy of rhetoric. My suggested approach recontextualizes the issue of indoctrination and brings into focus a broader set of relevant features of the teaching–learning situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".