First, teaching examples. At the beginning of the school term, xu teacher received desks and benches from the school, and was told that these were public property of the school. At the end of the semester, the school will receive the property. If the property is damaged or lost, the class will compensate according to the degree of damage. In addition, the final class evaluation will deduct points and the collective honor will be damaged. Under the management of xu teacher, students' sense of collectivism is increasing day by day. After a semester, the class property was basically not damaged or lost. However, just one week before the end of the semester, three stools were lost in the class and appeared in other classes. Obviously, the stool was stolen. Grade one 10 class students' tastes. A few days later, the stool came back, but not the original one. Xu teacher felt very strange. He asked his classmates that it turned out that some students were angry, but they also went to another class to "take" the stool.

Second, preliminary thinking. When students abide by honest moral principles, the collective interests will be damaged. Should we be honest or safeguard the collective interests at this time? Xu teacher can take two measures to deal with this behavior of his classmates. The first way is to remain silent. If the teacher has no opinion, he just doesn't object. Another way is to order these students to return the stools and educate the whole class, saying: If others take our public property, we should not take other people's property instead.

Third, analysis and discussion. There are two ways of thinking in ethical theory, that is, two ways to judge the moral quality value of behavior: the non-consequentialist way of thinking represented by Kant, a German philosopher in the18th century. When considering the moral dilemma, it is immoral not to judge the right or wrong behavior according to the result of the behavior, but to look at the motivation of the actor. If the motivation is not good, the behavior is immoral. If it is out of goodwill, no matter whether the result is good or bad, it is considered a moral behavior, so it is not. /kloc-In the 5th century, the theory of consequentialism, represented by British utilitarians Mill and Bentham, always took the result of behavior as the basis for judging whether behavior was moral or not. If the action taken leads to good consequences, no matter what the motivation is, no matter whether the motivation is good or bad, the action will be judged as moral behavior. (1) non-consequentialism. Xu teacher's silence, in the view of non-consequentialists, has two problems: First, it violates the universal moral principle of honesty. It is dishonest for xu teacher to take other people's things for himself. Xu teacher can't accept someone else's stool just because he stole it, which violates the principle of universality and consistency of honesty. Secondly, non-consequentialists hold the view that "you should treat others as you want them to treat you". Kohlberg pointed out in his article "Moral Environment in Schools" that students should "learn to live and be treated as members of a group of people of the same age and status". "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." Therefore, if xu teacher wants her behavior to conform to the moral principle of "honesty" that she has always adhered to, then the action she has taken should be recognized by non-consequentialists: criticizing and educating students and asking them to return their stools. It is an honest act to return something that does not belong to you to your master and not steal from others. However, it is difficult to think in a non-consequentialist way. Non-consequentialists emphasize that behavior should abide by moral principles such as obligation, responsibility, right and wrong, but how can students decide whether they are willing to abide by these moral principles under the conditions of here and now? How will xu teacher persuade them to abide by these moral principles? Students in Grade One (10) did not damage or lose their property, but now they have to bear some economic losses because their property was stolen, which should not be borne by them. (2) Consequence theory. According to the theory of consequentialism, the consequences of things determine whether the behavior is correct or not. The correct behavior should be the behavior of maximizing goodness. Xu teacher's acquiescence is an act of maximizing goodness. The students took their stools back and adhered to the collectivism they believed in, so that the interests and honor of the collective were safeguarded and the collectivism was fully reflected. Collectivism is the goodness pursued by the ending theorists, and the value of collectivism is maintained and recognized by all the students in Grade One (10), which is the maximization of goodness pursued by the ending theorists. In the discussion of consequentialism, there is a prerequisite: ethics and moral relativity. Kohlberg believes that "different teachers, children and society have different views on how to form a certain value." When considering the question of value, there is no single correct answer ... every student has his own values. " Students in Grade One (10) generally think it is wrong to steal other people's things, but when their property is stolen, they don't think it is immoral to steal other people's stools. If xu teacher scolds them, they can argue that we are not wrong. What we are doing is to safeguard the honor of the whole class. This is collectivism. Although it is different from the teacher's point of view, we still insist. The basis is: we have different value levels from teachers. On the premise of the relativity theory of morality and ethics, people who hold the way of consequentialism think that xu teacher should adopt the way of approval and acquiescence. Xu teacher's acquiescence can bring the following good results: First of all, her acquiescence is an affirmation of the collectivism shown by her classmates, because she affirms that the loss of collective interests can be recovered, the collectivism spirit of the students will be greatly carried forward, and the whole class will be more United and form a better class spirit because of the strengthening of collectivism. Secondly, taking other people's stools in the same way is likely to include students or classes who stole stools in Grade One (10). Let them taste the pain of stealing public property, which is a lesson for them and can play a disciplinary role. It is also difficult to act according to the theory of consequentialism. First of all, how do we decide what is the maximization of good? Class 1 10 in Senior High School can only be regarded as a small group in terms of number and strength. Compared with the whole grade and the whole school, the interests of this small group have been safeguarded. How can it be said that it has done the greatest good for most people? The cultivation of collectivism consciousness of this small group can only be regarded as a small group in a narrow sense. Can it be called collectivism? Secondly, if the behavior of substituting other people's stools continues, in fact, almost every class will experience the pain of property theft. Isn't this the expansion of evil? How can we be sure that these students will be educated and enlightened after suffering? Will they get worse? Thirdly, the theory of consequentialism emphasizes the pursuit of good results, which will prompt the actor to take improper means and defend it. Therefore, in the process of this pursuit, moral evil has appeared, and this series of consequences is exactly contrary to the maximization of good expected by the consequentialists.

Fourth, the conclusion. Peters, a philosopher of moral education, pointed out: "The principle of' education' already includes the principle that something of value should be obtained. This means that people are delivering something of value in a morally acceptable way. " To discuss teachers' educational influence is to discuss whether teachers have delivered something of value in a morally acceptable way. On the one hand, teachers' handling of class moral dilemma reflects teachers' moral quality and ideology, which is transformed into a dynamic social environment and affects children; On the other hand, whether the treatment method is morally acceptable determines the effectiveness of the process of transmitting valuable things (such as collectivism values), that is, the effectiveness of "education" as Peters said. By discussing the thinking modes of Consequence Theory and Non-Consequence Theory, it seems that it is difficult for us to decide what action xu teacher should take to be an appropriate and morally acceptable behavior. Perhaps we can seek the commonness of the two ways of thinking to evaluate teachers' behavior morally. The first is the consistency of motivation theory and effect theory. For the evaluation of a teacher's behavior, it is not advisable to consider whether he has a good behavioral motivation and whether he has achieved a good goal. Bad motivation, although occasionally achieved good results, can not be judged as moral behavior; Secondly, we should pursue the consistency of means and purposes. We should not only regard ourselves as an end, but others as a means to achieve our goals. We should treat others as we want them to treat us. Perhaps xu teacher can do this: let students return the stools they brought, organize students to discuss, and understand what is true rather than narrow collectivism, and what is the correct behavior to safeguard collective interests; At the same time, in order to prevent stools from being stolen again, and stools from other classes from being stolen, we can reflect this matter to the school and let the school educate the whole school to stop this behavior; In order to avoid future losses, xu teacher can also implement the stool responsibility system in the class, and put the stool under personal management, which can be used as a sign that is easy to identify and does not damage property, so that they can understand that they have suffered a little loss this time, just to prevent the stealing of stools from continuing. This is not only out of kindness, but also out of kindness.