In order to analyse the relationship between moral education and these meaning- making views, two distinctions need to be made. The first is between organized and personal worldviews and the second is between broad and narrow morality (Van der Kooij, De Ruyter, & Miedema, 2013). An organised worldview refers to a view of life that has developed over time as a more or less coherent and established system with certain (written and unwritten) sources, traditions, values, rituals, ideals or dogmas. An organised worldview is shared by a group of people who adhere to this view. Every religion is an organised worldview, but organized worldviews can also be non-religious, such as that of humanism (compare Vroom 2006).

Personal worldviews are not necessarily religious or restricted to religious beliefs and views. A personal worldview can be, but is not necessarily, based on or inspired by a (religious) organised worldview. If a person calls himself or herself a Christian, it is likely that his or her personal worldview will be more or less based on the organised Christian worldview. People nowadays construct their own personal worldview, which is not necessarily based on one specific organised worldview and therefore it can be more eclectic and idiosyncratic than an organized worldview (see for example Hartman, 1986; Sandsmark, 2000).2 The religious beliefs of a person are part of his or her personal worldview, but a personal worldview encompasses much more than religious beliefs: it consists of more or less definitive answers to various existential questions, such as cosmological, ontological, theological, eschatological, teleological and ethical questions (Van der Kooij et. al., 2013; Hartman, 1986; Sandsmark, 2000; Hijmans, 1994; De Jong, 1998).

The main point in the above discussion is that state schools should not aim to influence the religious convictions of their pupils. Schools should not present a particular organised worldview with the aim that pupils should adopt this view as their personal conviction. Thus, it might be argued that the concern is about the personal views and beliefs of pupils, their personal worldview. Yet, it is discussed in terms of religious and non-religious organised worldviews.

The second distinction we will use is between narrow and broad morality. Narrow morality can be described as the basic rules and principles that make it possible for human beings to live and work together. It is the morality that is necessary for the continuation of every tolerable society and is other-regarding (Mackie, 1977). Broad morality contains the body of ideals, principles and values that determine a person’s acts designed to realise his or her most important aims and give meaning to life (Mackie, 1977; De Jong, 1998; De Ruyter, 2006). Broad morality is both self-regarding and other-regarding.

In a previous study we found that narrow morality is conceptually independent of both organised and personal worldview, and does not need to refer to ‘worldview’ for its justification. Broad morality and personal worldview are closely related. Broad morality is conceptually part of ‘personal worldview’. The person’s more or less definite answers to ethical and teleological questions form the domain of broad morality. Broad morality can include theological matters but this is not necessary. For many people meaning-making notions or teleological questions are theological in nature, but not for all. Furthermore, people justify their broad moral views by referring to ideas and beliefs from their personal worldview (Van der Kooij, De Ruyter & Miedema, 2015). This means that when schools choose to teach a broad morality, they cannot avoid influencing the personal worldview of pupils.

In this article we will further explore the relationship between moral education and worldview education, focusing on the question whether certain approaches to moral education aim to influence the development of the personal worldview of students and if so, what this aim entails. If these approaches do not have this aim, it might still be the case that moral education does have consequences for the 348 J. C. van der Kooij et al. personal worldview of students. The question that arises in this case is whether or not it is possible to provide moral education without influencing the personal religious views pupils might have.