Our Goal
for the Next Century:
A Moral and an Educational Revolution
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D. 
It is particularly in the classrooms of our
colleges that the young are suffering the worst
abuses. To correct these abuses, not only must
curriculums be revised, but faculties must once
again consist of teachers rather than professors,
of men interested in liberal and humanistic
learning, for themselves as well as for others,
more than in research or in the advancement of
knowledge in some specialized or technical field.
Unfortunately, most of the young, precisely because
they are so poorly educated, do not and cannot know
the kind of education they so sorely need -- the
kind that would have maximum relevance not to
business or worldly success, but to the business of
making good lives for themselves and to success in
that effort.
Applying here the critical distinction between
natural needs and conscious wants, what must be
said is that all our young need genuinely liberal
and humanistic learning as a means to the good
life, the dullest among them as well as the
brightest. But the brightest among them do not now
want the kind of education they most need, as
indicated by the types of courses they themselves
arrange for when they set up their own Free
Universities. They do not want the kind of
education that they need because they have not been
taught the basic moral lessons about the shape of a
good human life, about its constituent parts and
the means they must employ to achieve it.
Miseducated and, therefore, misguided, they thrash
about in a variety of wrong directions, hitting out
against political, economic, and social conditions
that have favored them, instead of against the
deficiencies and deformities of an educational
system that has mistreated them so badly.
We know that the time of our lives -- our new
century -- is better than any earlier period of
human life. That judgment must now be qualified in
one significant respect. The statement is true for
all the external conditions of a human life on
earth, conditions provided by technological
advances and by a greater approximation to the
ideals of democracy -- brought about by the
beginning of the twentieth century revolution.
Included among these external conditions is, of
course, equality of educational opportunity in all
its external aspects. But it is precisely in the
sphere of education that the twenty-first century
is inferior to the oligarchical, class-divided,
slave-holding, poverty ridden societies of the
past, in which the possibility of making a good
life was open only to the very few.
When schooling was given only to the privileged
few, it was directed to the right ends. It was
essentially liberal and humanistic and, therefore,
prepared the few whose time was free from toil to
use that free time in all the forms of learning and
creative work that constitute the activities of
leisure. In this way it helped them to make good
lives for themselves. The irony of our present
situation is that now, when a large proportion of
our population is provided with external conditions
that help them to make good lives for themselves,
the educational facilities do not fulfill that
promise by affording them the kind of education
they need. Instead of being the kind of education
appropriate to free men, and men with ample free
time for the pursuits of leisure, it is the kind of
education appropriate to slaves or workers, men
whose time will be mainly consumed by economic
activities rather than devoted to the activities of
leisure.
Many of the critics, old as well as young,
direct their complaints at the wrong objects. One
of the most regrettable features of our times and
our society is not that it has a large number of
highly vocal critics who complain about it, but
rather that the complaints are voiced in ways that
are so often mistaken, unreasonable, and
off-the-target.
On the one hand, the dissident young, frequently
under the influence of their teachers and
professors, together with others full of complaints
about our society, do not hesitate to make moral
pronouncements about social evils they think must
be immediately eliminated. It is perfectly clear
that they do not know or understand the moral
principles that would give support to their
charges, and that they have not engaged in the
moral reasoning that could make their criticisms
tenable. Exactly the same principles that might
support criticism of racism, crime, and poverty
should lead them to criticize a society that
exaggerates the importance of sensual pleasures,
that engages in the over-production of superfluous
commodities, and that does not draw a line between
the frivolous and the serious use of free time.
Exactly the same principles and reasoning would
also help them to understand what is wrong with
being a drop out, a junkie, a self-alienated
refugee from reason, or an existentialist cop-out
-- wrong in a way that can ruin a human life -- or
what is wrong with over-indulgence in sex, what is
wrong with psychedelic escapism, with attempts to
expand the sensate life but not the life of the
mind, or what is wrong with pure emotionalism and
the rejection of reason, etc.
Whether it results from alcohol, pot, or
stronger narcotics, drunkenness is drunkenness -- a
state of aggravated passions, disordered
imagination, and uncontrolled impulses, ending in
torpor, all of which is incompatible with the
exercise of prudence and moral virtue in the choice
of goods. Show me a person who condones drunkenness
by any means, and I will show you one who does not
understand what a good life is or how to achieve
it. That same person will be one who, when he
speaks out against this or that social injustice,
will not be doing so with a commitment to the good
life, correctly conceived, and so will be lacking a
rational basis for his social complaints.
If this estimate of the character of the most
vocal and emotional critics of our society, both
old and young, appears to be harsh, I can mitigate
its severity only by saying that the fault is not
theirs. It lies in the dismal failure of our
educational system, under which most of them have
been defrauded of a schooling they had a right to
expect. Their minds have not been opened to any
wisdom or trained to seek it; their minds have not
been disciplined in the ways of reason, and so they
have not learned to respect it.
On the other hand, the self-appointed guardians
of the morals and patriotism of our society are no
less dogmatic in their pronouncements, or in their
suggested cures for the evils they profess to see.
They propose, for example, the re-injection of
morality into the schools in the form of simple
homilies that are as irrelevant today as they were
in the past, when they abounded. But morality
cannot be taught by homilies.
It is true of these critics, too, that they do
not know or understand the principles that would
give moral support to their charges. Exactly the
same principles that might support their criticisms
of the educational system, or of the young, or of
corruptions in government, should also lead them to
criticize a society that exaggerates the importance
of wealth and wealth getting, and an economy that
depends too much on defense contracts. Exactly the
same principles would help them to understand what
is wrong with being a businessman (when business is
considered an end in itself) -- wrong in a way that
can ruin a human life -- what is wrong with
over-indulgence in alcohol or sports or television,
what is wrong with intellectual escapism, combined
with ignorance of and contempt for the life of the
mind, what is wrong with cruelty and the excessive
use of force, with the rejection of compromise, and
so forth.
In the course of the centuries, human
institutions have been greatly improved, and they
might be further improved without limit, as William
Graham Sumner once remarked, were it not for folly
and vice. Folly and vice are human defects, not
American defects. Twenty-first century America has
no monopoly on folly and vice, nor do the critics
of the twentieth century have a monopoly on
conscience-stricken reactions to human folly and
vice. Plato charged the Athenians who condemned
Socrates with folly and vice. The dialogues of
Plato are a more penetrating critique of the false
values of Athens, at the time when it was the glory
of antiquity, than anything said about America now,
because Plato had a true scale of values on which
to base his criticisms. That is clearly not the
case with the most vociferous and emotional critics
of American society today.
The evidence -- too often, I regret to say --
suggests that they do not. They are as much subject
to folly and vice as are the objects of their
criticism. And the only salvation for them, as for
all the rest of us, is the moral wisdom that must
be learned to correct the folly, and the moral
discipline that must be cultivated to correct the
vice.
To this end we need a moral revolution and an
educational revolution together, for each would
appear to be impossible without the other.
Although it is reasonable in other areas of
human life to expect revolutionary changes to be
called for and engineered by the oppressed we
cannot expect a moral and educational revolution to
come from those who are deeply dissatisfied with
the moral climate in which they live, but who also
lack the moral training and the liberal education
needed to reform the mores of our society and its
educational system. We appear to be in a
cul-de-sac. It may be too much to expect the moral
and educational revolution we need to come from
anyone now alive. The discontented have not learned
enough and are not likely to, because most of them
do not trust reason as a way of learning what must
be learned. Perhaps if, in some way, the
generations to come could learn what a good life is
and how to achieve it, and could be given the
discipline, not only of mind but of character, that
would make them willingly responsive to the
categorical oughts of a teleological ethics,
perhaps, then, the moral and educational revolution
might begin and take hold.
To hope for this is to hope for no more than
that the restoration of a sound and practical moral
philosophy will enable enlightened common sense to
prevail in human affairs. This is not only a
practicable ideal, it is a practical necessity. In
the middle of the nineteenth century, when a
constitutional democracy in this country was still
a hundred years away, Horace Mann wrote:
"The establishment of a republican government
without well-appointed and efficient means for the
universal education of the people is the most rash
and foolhardy experiment ever tried by man."
How much truer that statement is today when we
now have universal suffrage! Not only the
prosperity of our high-tech economy but, even more
so, the well-being of our political democracy
depends upon the reconstitution of our schools.
Our schools are not turning out young people
prepared for the high office and the duties of
citizenship in a democratic republic. Our political
institutions cannot thrive, they may not even
survive, if we do not produce a greater number of
thinking citizens, from whom some statesmen of the
type we had in the eighteenth century might
eventually emerge. We are, indeed, a nation at
risk, and nothing but radical reform of our schools
can save us from impending disaster.
Whatever the price we must pay in money and
effort to do this, the price we will pay for not
doing it will be much greater.
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|