Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented above.
While teaching morality can produce a just society, sometimes teaching logical reasoning can provide a more substantial background to ensure an ethical world. Therefore, both approaches should be used by teachers in schools.
On the one hand, teaching morality can produce an ethical population of students. By creating a moral framework for children to make decisions early on in their development, children can choose what is ethical in school and continue using the moral framework for the rest of their lives. For example, if you teach a student to care for another person because the student would want to be treated that way, then the student can apply this lesson to other parts of his life. The student will be less likely to steal from another person because he or she would like to be treated the same way and consequently produce a more just world.
On the other hand, teaching logical reasoning can also create a moral society. For example, a teacher can show a student how if he or she steals from the other students and they find out then the outcome will be worse off for the student than before. Therefore, logically a student should not take the risk of stealing and, in turn, will create a more ethical environment.
There are times, however, when one method can be more appropriate than the other. For example, logically it will be easier to see the benefit of doing well on a test. A teacher can explain that if the student studies, he or she will get a good grade and as a result get into a better college. However, morally the argument does not make sense. The opposite also can hold to be true. For example, a student can be taught the ethical dilemma of stealing from another student but will be less likely to understand the logical argument because logically they will have more than before if the student steals.
In conclusion, both methods are appropriate for certain situations. Teaching morality can produce a just society if it can be clearly taught to a student. Also, teaching the foundation of logical reasoning can create an ethical world if the lesson is taught with germane examples. In both of these cases the student will be able to apply the lessons later in life based on the moral or logical framework.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, if, so, then, therefore, well, while, for example, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 11.3162921348 27% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 58.6224719101 77% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1868.0 2235.4752809 84% => OK
No of words: 392.0 442.535393258 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.76530612245 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4975154251 2.79657885939 89% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 215.323595506 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.44387755102 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 589.5 704.065955056 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2000201654 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.3157894737 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6315789474 23.4991977007 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.84210526316 5.21951772744 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222555150676 0.243740707755 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934507137436 0.0831039109588 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0653850412882 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166012001805 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0408716961799 0.0667264976115 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.8420337079 122% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.1639044944 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.33 8.38706741573 87% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 100.480337079 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.