After we've thought about John Dewey's concept of disequilibrium in terms of moral behavior, what I'd like to do now is spend a few minutes together reviewing four essential approaches to moral behavior, to talking about moral education, and then trying to point out what are some of the advantages, benefits, of each of these approaches but at the same time also to highlight what are some of the limitations. The first approach we call preaching. What this means is, that if you view different types of approaches to moral behavior, preaching is one of the most dominant forms that we know of. In other words, somebody gets up there, somebody suddenly generally from a point of authority, from position of authority, gets up and starts to talk with a very convincing, very dogmatic and often in many times, and oftentimes as well in a charismatic way and talks about the need to act in a certain way, the need to follow a certain moral code. This preaching has enormous power. This preaching approach has the ability to really impact the lives of people in dramatic ways, and throughout history we have seen how effective preachers are able to have an enormously powerful impact on their followers. That's one form of moral education. A second form is what we call values clarification. This was really developed by among others Roths and Simon. This essentially took place during the 1970s, and that's an important cultural point to be emphasized is, that it took place in the late 60s and 1970s. What this said is a font, that in order to teach about morals and in order to teach about ethics what you have to do is, you have to invite the learner to think about their morals. To think about their positions on certain types of moral questions or challenges. You can ask them questions, you can challenge them, however what Roth and Simon say very explicitly according to the values clarification, you help them clarify, you help the learner clarify their values, you help them clarify their positions. However, you do not make a judgment and you certainly don't have the prerogative to say, "This is a bad judgment or this is a bad value." You certainly don't have the prerogative as the preaching approach does which says, "This is what you should do." But rather, you question, you can help clarify but at the end of the day the learner has to come to the value on their own. It has to be their decision and that's what values clarification is all about. As I said earlier, in terms of the historical context is took place after the tumultuous years of the 1970s and all of the various dramatic changes in culture in the United States and around the world. As a result there were very few absolutes in terms of moral behavior and that's what prompted values clarification to play such an essential role in education in the United States and other places around the world, s that's values clarification. A third type of development or a third type of approach to moral education, is what we would call values judgment. This was basically established or founded by Piaget, followed up by a number of other theoreticians possibly the most notable one is Lawrence Kohlberg at Harvard University. Here, what they believed was, that in order to help people behave in a morally responsible way, what you have to do is you have to provide them with the dilemma, value dilemmas, and invite them to take a decision on a moral dilemma which is being posed. Here in this approach, there is a very heavy emphasis on the cognitive issue. How would you decide to do this? The most famous perhaps of the Kohlbergian dilemmas is the Huns dilemma of where Huns is living in Germany and he sees that his wife is terminally ill, he sees that her health is deteriorating on a regular basis and there is no possibility of saving her life. Till one day he learns of this miraculous drug which could save her life and in fact, he pursues this and he goes to purchase this drug. He goes to local pharmacy and learns that this drug is prohibitively expensive. In that sense, Huns can't afford to purchase this drug, and he weighs the moral possibility of stealing the drug. Here, Kohlberg has the dilemma of, what do you do? What should Huns do? Should he in fact steal the drug? Now, for Kohlberg it's the essential question here is not, should he steal drug or not? But what is the rationale that you provide for the decision to steal it or not to still it. Kohlberg has a whole, he has a stage development process here of different stages which go in a hierarchy in terms of making these moral decisions where ultimately for the greater good that's at the higher end of the stages of moral development according to Kohlberg. So, here it's values judgment, here it's a heavy emphasis on the cognitive side, and this is very different obviously than the preaching or the values clarification. Then, there's a fourth approach which we're going to explore at some length, which we're calling the inquiry approach which is based on the work of Matthew Lipmann and Garth Matthews, related to the whole development of the field of philosophy for children. Here, this invites the learner to get involved in trying to learn more about the moral dilemma. Learning more about what the consequences are. Learning more about, what does this mean? What did we learn from past experiences, from past ideas? Clarifying our terms, clarifying our uses of ideas, clarifying our uses of concepts, clarifying our behaviors. It's helping us sharpen but as opposed to the values judgment. Here, there is a clear implication that we have to work as a community. Here, as opposed to values judgement, there is a much greater emphasis in terms of the activity, in terms of the consequences, in terms of the behavior of those who are studying this. Here, we have a range of different possibilities, the preaching, the values clarification, the values judgement, and the inquiry approach. Each one of these obviously has advantages, but as we said it also each one of these has limitations as well.