One of the many people who is considerably smarter and more productive than I am is Prof. Eric Schwitzgebel of the University of California at Riverside. Eric writes the blog,The Splintered Mind, and one of his many research interests is whether there is any empirical connection between studying ethics in a contemporary college or university and the improvement of one's character. So far, the evidence is that the academic study of ethics does not make you a better person. Why?

Historically, the study of philosophy has been intended to make one a better person. I am often surprised by how often people are surprised by this. For example, my area of specialization is Chinese philosophy, and I frequently hear from colleagues that the difference between Chinese philosophy and Western philosophy is that the former emphasizes becoming a better person and solving social problems, while the latter is concerned only with purely theoretical truth. This is perhaps true of what most of academic philosophy has become in the contemporary West, but it is certainly not true as a historic generalization.

In Plato's dialogues, Socrates is presented as asking questions such as "What is courage?" "What is justice?" because knowing the answer will make us better people. In addition, Plato's Seventh Letter makes clear the ethical motive behind his philosophizing:

And I was forced to say, when praising true philosophy that it is by this that men are enabled to see what justice in public and private life really is. Therefore, I said, there will be no cessation of evils for the sons of men, till either those who are pursuing a right and true philosophy receive sovereign power in the States, or those in power in the States by some dispensation of providence become true philosophers.

The authenticity of the Seventh Letter has been challenged, but even if it is not by Plato, it is by an ancient Platonist, and represents what must have been one common understanding of Plato's project.

从异教世界转过来，我们发现基督教与哲学之间的关系是复杂的。圣保罗警告说:“你们要谨慎，不可有人用空洞的、诡诈的哲学来掳掠你们。这哲学所倚赖的是人的传统和世上的基本原则，而不是基督。”保罗显然认为哲学对一个人的性格有潜在的负面影响，但任何细心的读者都能看到，这种说法是模棱两可的。保罗是在警告所有本质上“空洞和欺骗性”的哲学，还是在警告一种堕落的哲学?大多数基督徒认为这更像是后者。典型的是圣安瑟姆的观点，他的座右铭是“信仰寻求理解”。这一点也要经过多次解读，没有一个基督徒能够坚持认为，只有那些足够聪明，懂得哲学的人才能得救。然而，大多数人的观点是，既然上帝把我们创造成理性的生物，错误的哲学观点对我们产生了坏的影响，而正确的观点对我们产生了好的影响。正如爱洛伊丝所说:“我宁愿让魔鬼做我的忏悔者，也不愿让一个不懂哲学的牧师做我的忏悔者。”

Of course, those knowledgeable about the Confucian tradition will be aware that it understands learning as having an ethical focus:

Imagine someone who recognizes and admires worthiness and therefore changes his lustful nature, who is able to fully exhaust his strength in serving his parents and extend himself to the utmost in serving his lord, and who is trustworthy in speech when interacting with friends and associates. Even if you said of such a person, "Oh, but he is not learned." I would still insist that it is precisely such qualities that make one worthy of being called "learned."(Confucius: Analects 1.7, Edward Slingerland trans.)

Now, does Schwitzgebel's research show (or at least suggest) that Platonists, Christians, Confucians and others have been wrong in thinking that philosophy can improve one's character?

想想我们是如何在当代学院或大学中教授哲学的。(1)学生年龄一般在18 - 22岁之间。(2)他们被录取主要是基于他们自己的选择。如果有空位的话，教授不能拒绝学生进入课堂，也不能因为学生的极端破坏性行为而将其逐出课堂。(3)学生的个人生活与教授无关，除非学生选择分享信息。(当一个学生分享个人信息时，通常是在试图为他的特殊要求辩护的情况下，比如迟交作业。)(4)教授应该只根据学生的学术能力来打分，比如词汇量、记忆力、逻辑推理能力和写作风格。

Contrast the preceding with what advocates of ethical education recommend. (1) In Book I of hisNicomachean Ethics, Aristotle writes,

Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on social life; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit. (W.D. Ross, trans., slightly modified)

柏拉图同意了。对他们来说，一个人需要在正确的习惯中长大，并有实际生活问题的经验，才能欣赏哲学的见解。阿奎那甚至说，一个人要到50岁才能真正开始认真地学习哲学。(讽刺的是，他正是在这个年龄去世的。)孔子的观点一开始似乎非常不同。他这样评价自己:“十五岁时，我就一心学习。”然而，他将道德教育的过程描述为贯穿一个人的一生:“三十岁时，我被牢牢地种植了。四十岁的时候，我就没有疑虑了。”如此下去，直到“七十岁，随心所欲，不越界”(论语2.4，我的译本)。记住，儒家的“学”并不局限于书本和理论的研究。 The later Confucian Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi) made the process more explicit. He proposed that at the age of eight students should begin the Lesser Learning, an education in basic skills like reading, writing and arithmetic, along with training in good habits and etiquette. Only the promising students would go on to the Greater Learning, where they would learn the philosophical basis of the values they had started to internalize: "Lesser learning is the direct understanding of such-and-such and affair. Greater learning is the investigation of such-and-such a principle -- the reason why the affair is as it is" (Chu Hsi,Learning to Be a Sage反式。丹尼尔·k·加德纳著，第90页)。

(2) In classical ethical education, a student was expected to make a commitment to become a better person, and held accountable for failure to live up to this commitment. The ancient Confucian Mengzi (Mencius) said, "There are many techniques of instruction. My scorning to instruct someone is also a means of instruction" (6B16). In the Confucian tradition, the student learns from the instructor's refusal to take him as a student that he is not sufficiently serious or committed. If the potential student changes and becomes committed, the instructor will accept him. If the potential student does not change, there is no point in trying to instruct him. I don't think this would fly with a contemporary Dean, though.

So why doesn't the contemporary study of ethics improve character? (1) The students are too young and inexperienced about life to benefit from the study of philosophy. Philosophy is about the why, not the what, and college-aged students don't know the what very well yet. (2) Students take ethics classes without demonstrating any commitment to becoming a better person, and without any penalty for failing to manifest a commitment. (3) The instructor is institutionally forbidden from inquiring into or attempting to influence the student's personal life, where most of his or her character will be manifest.

我们能做些什么来改变当代哲学教育，使其更注重品格的培养吗?有可能，但这并不容易。自由社会(广义上的自由社会)的一个重要组成部分是我们尊重学生不同的道德、宗教和政治承诺。诚然，我们经常在这方面失败。但这是一种有价值的理想，如何在不过分干涉学生生活的情况下培养学生的品格，并不是显而易见的。尽管如此，我还是觉得孔子和亚里士多德在背后看着我，鼓励我做得更多，让我的学生成为更好的人。