The second distinction we can make is between directive and non-directive teaching (Hand, 2008). If applied to moral education, directive teaching involves the teacher having the intention that the students will come to share the view that something is morally right or wrong because there are no good or valid reasons to argue for the opposite position. The issue is non-controversial amongst reasonable citizens. In the case of non-directive teaching the teacher explains as impartially as possible various moral views so that students can understand them. The teacher does this because of the belief that he or she does not have any convincing arguments for one particular position. In Hand’s (2008) words, the topic is controversial.

Religious or non-religious organised worldviews can be used in moral education as examples of how people think about morality. If this is the case they are taught in a non-directive manner. Many moral education programmes teach morality in a directive manner. Views on what is morally right or wrong are transmitted. If this is related to a particular organised worldview that is believed to hold the only right convictions with regard to moral matters, directive moral education also becomes directive teaching of religious or non-religious organised worldview notions. This shows that the final question we have to ask is, are moral norms, values and principles related specifically to religious or non-religious organised worldviews taught intentionally or non-intentionally, directively or non-directively?

What does this illustrative example of the Peaceable School demonstrate? In the introduction we explained that the personal worldview is broader than the religious views and beliefs a person has. Although a moral education programme can at first sight seem to avoid influencing religious convictions of students, nevertheless, the personal worldviews of students can be at stake. Our example illustrates the following: we saw that the Peaceable School aims to influence the personal worldview of students. The example also clarifies the following three questions that need to be answered if we want to analyse whether a moral education programme aims to influence the personal worldview of students: (1) Is it possible to provide moral education without aiming to influence the broad moral views and thus the personal worldview of pupils? (2) Does the approach aim to influence the development of personal worldview matters that lie outside the broad moral domain? (3) Are moral norms, values and principles related specifically to religious or non-religious organised worldviews taught intentionally or non-intentionally, directively or non-directively?

Educational translation of moral theories

In this section, we apply the three questions listed in the previous section in a broader, more general educational context. We will analyse whether two moral theories, which have been influential in education, confine themselves to narrow morality only or whether they can also be interpreted in terms of broad morality and personal worldview. First of all, we will discuss virtue ethics, which is the basis of various kinds of character education, concentrating on Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Character education, which has become one of the prevalent moral educational approaches in recent years, focuses on how to develop good moral character on the basis of virtues (Sanderse, 2013). Secondly, we will discuss deontology and focus on Kant. Deontological ethics, or rule-based ethics, is used in education when moral education aims to transmit duties and moral rules, such as ‘Do not steal’ and ‘Do not lie’.

The focus of our analysis is restricted to these two moral education theories for several reasons. Firstly, these two theories represent two dimensions of morality: the deontological and the aretaic dimension (Carr, 2006). The deontological dimension focuses on rules and principles that are seen as duties and obligations. It relates to the moral aspect of the action of morality. Character education is often related to the aretaic dimension of morality. It focuses on moral goodness, excellence and virtuous character. People cannot be forced to live up to these standards but can be encouraged to do so. This dimension relates to the moral aspect of the person who is performing a moral act (De Ruyter and Steutel, 2013).