ABSTRACT
This would appear to suggest that the teacher must require a ‘good character’ if they are to shape the character of the young. Indeed, on this view it is possible to argue that they should have better motives than ordinary people. Teachers share the moral obligations of any ordinary person, but ordinary people, however decent, do not have any specific moral obligations of public service. This obligation to educate the young is not only morally good, but also a morally better motive than simply teaching in order to earn a wage. However, this does not make a teacher a better person and a teacher may fail to live up to these professional obligations. It is of course possible that many teachers do not enter teaching primarily from a motive of service to others. Carr (1993b:195) makes a very interesting point when he compares a doctor with a teacher. He suggests that a doctor may be dishonest and spiteful as a person, but that none of this may matter to a parent seeking his or her expertise to treat their child successfully. In contrast, a teacher who is competent and has the best teaching skills available in the subject they teach but is known to be privately a liar may well cause the parent to have grave reservations about placing their child in his or her care.
