In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

framework. I use “ethical” here to distinguish it from the range of more trivial commitments that fill our lives—picking up the dry cleaning, for instance, or that cell phone contract we foolishly signed. Other commitments that we might consider rather humdrum, however—homeroom parent, city council member, and so on—may in fact point toward significant ethical beliefs, such as a determination to be deeply involved in our child’s education or a conviction that we owe service to our community. In the context of deep ethical conflict, to genuinely respect someone —to strive to understand her identity—we need as full a picture as possible of her ethical framework, the horizon within which she moves and chooses and lives. This horizon often extends beyond that individual ’s actions and choices, however, and includes relationships to broader social communities. Perhaps most commonly an ethnic or religious affiliation , multiple communal identifications often exist within the same individual (think, for instance, of a self-described Chicana, whose gender and ethnic affiliations significantly shape her identity). These webs of connection are frequently deemphasized by modern culture, which privileges the notion of a detached, independent self. But to ignore the relevance of these social factors is to overlook a vital influence on people ’s ethical frameworks. THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CURRICULA AND PEDAGOGY The educational implications of these requirements for respect are clearly significant. The importance of offering universal respect to others, while seeking to understand and accommodate their ethical particularities, is a central theme here as well as in broader multicultural theory and curricula . With these expectations in mind, the cognitive, empathic, and deliberative bar for Ethical Dialogue can seem dauntingly high. It requires an approach to education that, while seeking to explore a range of ethical perspectives, values depth over breadth. As Thomas Hill Jr. contends, “To study a wide range of cultures superficially, like sampling many dishes at a smorgasbord, may be personally rewarding, but is unlikely to contribute significantly to overcoming the problems of cross-cultural misunderstanding and disrespect.”8 Yet this seems to be the most common pedagogical approach in our K–12 schools, a thin sampling of many perspectives but little commitment to grappling with the challenges that such diversity presents. Unless 44 Grappling with the Good we understand the ethical frameworks that inform our deliberation about living together in society, we have not met the requirements of respect. Granted, this understanding will never be complete, but certainly a vast and significant expanse exists between willful ignorance of another’s projects and first-person understanding. It is the movement from the former toward the latter that ethical education should foster, thus helping us fulfill our foundational obligation to demonstrate respect toward others. I have argued here that in circumstances of ethical controversy, mutual understanding of others’ ethical frameworks is a vital element of respect. As I acknowledged previously, the contextual nature of this requirement means that such understanding is not always necessary for respect to be demonstrated. But when deep ethical conflict does exist, mutual understanding fosters awareness of others’ interests we are obligated to respect. It is important to note, however, that mutual understanding is not an entirely sufficient element of respect either. My understanding of why a particular ethical framework places great value in a certain religious observance means little, for instance, if I conclude that because I don’t share that belief, it should bear no weight in our deliberations about how to live together. Respect often requires mutual understanding , but always requires more as well. Ethical Dialogue—and the conception of respect that undergirds it— represents a significant departure from typical ethical education, as my critique toward the end of chapter 2 suggests. Both the overly narrow focus of “morality as obligation” curricula and the vague, decontextualized programs of much “character education” do little to address the complexity of our particular ethical selves, and thus fail to foster the depth of understanding that mutual respect requires. Moral education concerned solely with obligation and behavior is most clearly in conflict with Ethical Dialogue. Structurally, a “thin” approach that seeks to affirm a universalistic moral core while denying its dependence on deeper ethical sources provides little justification for our behavior beyond instrumental convenience. Such a foundation hardly proves sufficient for an ethic of justice or care that generally serves as the moral core. As Eamonn Callan argues: Given that the thin ethical concepts are parasitic on the thick ones, a program of moral education such as...

Share