The Ethics of Teaching: Chapter One & Two

After reading chapters one and two in The Ethics of Teaching, I have found that it can be difficult to decide whether or not to use a “consequentialist” approach to teaching or a “non-consequentialist” approach. On one hand, decisions are based on the amount or type of consequence that would arise in a situation. On the other hand, decisions are not based on consequences at all, rather, they are based on respect for others, such as treating them how you would want to be treated, and doing what is morally right.

As future teachers, is it best for us to choose one approach over the other and stick by it no matter what? Or would it benefit us, as well as our students, to view each situation separately and base our decision on the circumstances? I have worked in a classroom setting as well as many other programs with children where I have found myself in several situations where I had to decide whether or not to punish a few students for their behavior, or the entire class. I have called students out and had them sit out of an activity (in a physical education setting/activity based program) as well as punished the whole class by limiting the time allowed for an activity or not allowing them to do the activity at all. In my experience, I have chosen to look at each situation separately from another and make my decision based on what happened. I feel that in certain cases, it is best to have the least amount of consequences possible, where other situations it might be best to do the right thing, no matter what the consequences are. Some cases have had positive results and some negative, but that is the chance I took when I made my decision. Should I rethink my methods of handling situations or would this approach benefit myself as well as my students?