about physiology and hygiene, so the moral educator ought to have some acquaintance with the principles of ethics. The moral educator ought to have, as one of his qualifications, some knowledge of the laws that govern the growth of character, the grounds on which our judgments of right and wrong ought to be based, and the great ends to which human life and work ought to be dedicated.
The opponents of moral education often expect far too much from it. They expect that it will make boys and girls better. And then they criticise it because this result frequently does not follow. As a French teacher has said, "My prizeman in morals is the biggest knave of the lot."[1] But there is nothing to be greatly surprised at in that. It simply means that that boy did not want to be good. And no amount of ethics will ever make him good, unless he wants to be good. In this respect moral education is in precisely the same position as education in general. No amount of grammar will make a boy grammatical, unless he wants to be grammatical.
Education in general sometimes seems to have better results than moral education. When that is so, the reason is this. Practically everybody wants to be able to speak grammatically, to read and write well, to count correctly, and to live a healthy life. But not everybody wants always to act rightly. If a person wants to be good, wants to act rightly, wants to do what he ought to do, then ethics may be of great value to him.
- ↑ Moral Instruction and Training in Schools, edited by M. E. Sadler, vol. ii. p. 23. In France ethics is taught as a "subject" in schools.
