New Direction for Moral Education - Reconsideration of Moral Pluralism and Christian-Secular Moral Dualism

Oct 15, 2026

Christian-secular moral dualism, the view that Christians and secular people hold different moral values, is widespread in social understanding and moral education, yet it does not match empirical findings on how people perceive morality. The article proposes an empirically defined morality grounded in welfare/harm that remains stable across cultures and personal-social diversity, including religious beliefs. It distinguishes this morality domain from social conventions and from virtuous acts like honesty, and explains why pluralism and the dualism view persist, then offers pedagogical directions for welfare-based morality and Christian morality under universal moral principles.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages19

Reading Time48 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Limitations of Current Moral Views and Pedagogies

| | New Direction for Moral Education: Reconsideration of Moral Pluralism and Christian-Secular Moral Dualism | | --- | --- | | | | Yuki Hasebe, Western Illinois University Abstract Christian-secular moral dualism, the idea that Christians and secular people hold different moral values, is prevalent in our social views and moral education. This belief, however, does not correspond with the findings of current studies on people’s moral perceptions. This article presents an empirically defined welfare/harm-based morality that stands across different cultures and personal-social diversities including religious beliefs. This domain of morality differs from social conventions and rules as well as virtuous acts (e.g., honesty), both of which are often classified as apart of moral quality in other literature on moral perceptions and traditional character/moral education. The article describes the reasons why moral pluralism and Christian-Secular moral dualism have been prematurely, yet widely supported in societies, followed by pedagogical suggestions for a new direction for further understanding of welfare-based morality per se, as well as Christian morality in the context of the universal moral principle. Keywords: morality; moral education; moral pluralism; Christianity; universal morality; domain theory Introduction Moral pluralism, a major theoretical framework of moral views in our current society, supports the idea that people’s definition of morality varies among individuals of different backgrounds, beliefs, and values (MacIntyre, 1981; Cherry, 2008) . Religion is one predominant factor believed to diversify individuals’ moral codes (Crittenden, 1990). Along with this belief, widely supported is an idea that morality cannot be addressed independently of the aspects of religion. Consequently, the belief that Christians hold a different set of moral values from secular people is largely supported in our societies. As evidence, millions of American children and youth are educated via homeschooling or in private institutions, based on their parents’ beliefs that public-school enrollment cannot ensure instruction in accordance with their religious convictions, particularly with reference to the aspects of morality (Lyman, 1998; Farris, 2013). This belief and educational trend, however, do not correspond with the findings of recent studies on people’s moral judgments and reasoning (Nucci, 2009) . This article presents an empirically supported universal moral notion found to stand across social-personal diversities such as culture and religions. The article then analyzes why moral pluralism/Christian-Secular moral dualism is prematurely, yet prevalently supported in our societies, followed by pedagogical suggestions for a new direction of moral education that applies the universal moral concept. Limitations of Current Moral Views and Pedagogies Real-life examples demonstrate the prevalence of advocacy of moral pluralism. In my Psychology classes at a university, I ask my students what would be the criteria for determining a person to be moral. Their responses uniformly refer to a common phrase “people who know what is right or wrong.” Everytime I ask the question, I sense that some students think that the statement“knowing right or wrong” sounds good in tone, yet intuitively feel that the dichotomous classification of social matters as right or wrong is somewhat inadequate in fully addressing the philosophical depth and complexity of human morality. However, they are not able to articulate exactly where the inadequacy stems from, and therefore rarely challenge the statement. The perceived inadequacy of the statement, however, precisely reflects the ongoing limitations in our current understanding of morality. As the class discussion continues, the students’ definition of morality, in reference to the ideas of right or wrong, naturally leads to another way of thinking: what is considered right versus wrong differs f

FAQs

What is Christian-secular moral dualism, and why does the article challenge it?

It holds that Christians and secular people use different moral values. The article argues that this belief does not align with current empirical studies on people’s moral perceptions.

What morality framework does the article propose instead of dualism?

It presents a welfare/harm-based morality empirically defined to work across cultures and diverse personal-social backgrounds, including differences in religious beliefs.

How does the article describe limitations of current moral views and moral education approaches?

It highlights that social-right/ wrong pluralistic views lack clear guidelines for whose standards determine moral status. It also notes how moral education has shifted toward character/virtue education without a clear conceptual framework for what “character” refers to.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by RuangKosong