Ethical Realism

Philosophy Should be a Requirement

Philosophy Should be an Educational Requirement in High School & College

Philosophy needs to be a requirement in high school and as part of “general education” in college within the USA. It is important that everyone (a) know more about being reasonable and (b) know more about being moral. Both reasonableness and morality are of the utmost importance and are the specialization of philosophy. I will discuss (1) the importance of philosophy education, (2) evidence that philosophy benefits people, (3) defend philosophy, and (4) make a suggestion about the sort of philosophy requirements we could introduce to high schools and colleges.

1. Why Philosophy Education is Important

There are two main philosophical fields that are of the utmost importance to us: Reasonableness and morality.


Learning to be reasonable is of utmost importance because we all have to make choices and accomplish goals. Being reasonable enables us make good choices, accomplish our goals, live a better life, and become better people. Just about everyone knows that other people are often unreasonable and could benefit from taking classes that specialize in reasonableness, like logic; but almost everyone is biased about their own reasonableness. We can often see the shortcomings of others, but not of ourselves. If “everyone else” should learn to be more reasonable, than so should we.

“Reasonableness” is the essence of philosophy and it can be taught in the specializations of logic (good argumentation) and epistemology (the study of knowledge). Everyone is already a philosopher insofar as they are reasonable, and everyone does some philosophy insofar as they think reasonably. However, no one is perfectly reasonable and philosophy has a lot to offer. There are many mistakes people make that roadblock their ability to be reasonable known as “fallacies” and a greater understanding of reasonableness can help us improve our ability to be reasonable because we can do so deliberately rather than merely believing whatever “seems reasonable” in an intuitive sense.

Learning to be more reasonable can be aided by an understanding of good argumentation, formal logic (argument structure), informal logic (common unjustified assumptions and other fallacies), reading philosophical arguments, writing philosophical arguments, and practice philosophical debate.

The fact that people don’t learn enough about reasonableness is exemplified by (a) our increased interest in “critical thinking,” (b) the fact that we aren’t always getting enough “critical thinking” in our education, and (c) common unreasonable beliefs and behaviors.

The fact that we are interested in “critical thinking” already reveals how unreasonable we are because “critical thinking” is such a general and meaningless word. Someone with “critical thinking” doesn’t necessarily know how to think well. “Thinking well” is more about being reasonable than “critical.” I’m not against critical thinking, but learning about critical thinking is about lowered standards. If we know how to be reasonable, we know how to think critically (and more). If we know how to think critically, we don’t necessarily know how to think reasonably.

The fact that we aren’t always getting enough “critical thinking” in our education is a preoccupation of many educators and it exemplifies the fact that we are a long way from expecting people to know how to be reasonable. One extensive study lead by Richard Arum found that “critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education” and I suggest that philosophy could very well help considering that he found that “[s]tudents who majored in the traditional liberal arts—including the social sciences, humanities, natural sciences and mathematics—showed significantly greater gains over time than other students in critical thinking, complex reasoning and writing skills.”1

Common unreasonable beliefs and behavior is revealed by the manipulative behavior of politicians, propagandists, and advertising agencies that try to deceive people by using flawed reasoning and quite often succeeded. Deception in politics is described in “Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used in Politics.” Deceptive advertising is described in detail in the wikipedia article on false advertising. Much of the deception and propaganda found in the US media was discussed in the free movie, PsiWar, which is on youtube.


Morality is of the utmost importance because our decisions can have a powerful impact on ourselves and others. Our decisions can help or hurt people. We want less criminals, more people to help the poor, less CEOs who dump toxic waste in third world countries, more people to demand that the government stop handing out billions of dollars to oil companies in “subsidies,” less corrupt cops and politicians, less judges who accept bribes, and so on.

Those who “specialize” in morality are philosophers. A reasonable understanding of morality is known as “moral philosophy” and “ethics.” Philosophers provide us with moral theories and the most reasonable methods of making moral decisions. In particular, we need to apply reasonableness to morality.

Learning to improve our ability to be moral can be aided in much the same way as learning to be reasonable in general, but applied to morality in particular. We can learn moral theories, read moral philosophy, write our own philosophical arguments involving morality, and debate moral issues with philosophical guidance.

Although philosophers don’t always agree about what action is “right” or “wrong,” they offer the most we can hope for. There is no better alternative to understanding morality than through moral philosophy. Being reasonable doesn’t require agreement, it requires us to have “sufficiently justified” beliefs.

Additionally, moral education not only can help people become moral by getting people to think more about morality (and learn to think reasonably about it), but also because we can learn about psychological factors that help motivate people to be moral. We can teach these factors or implement them when possible. For example, we can learn how to nurture our empathy for others and stop behaviors or lifestyles that neglect it.

The fact that morality is of the utmost importance and we can become better people is not what I would consider to be a controversial fact. The fact that moral education has not been considered to be important enough to be an educational “requirement” in high school or college is an outrage.

2. Evidence that philosophy benefits people

Scientific evidence

There is some scientific evidence that philosophy can benefit people (mainly in the form of statistical information). Statistics have shown philosophy majors to do well in a variety of standardized test scores2, and even children around the age of ten were found to have benefited from philosophy education:


I must admit that science has not proven all of the benefits of philosophy education once and for all, but the demand for scientific evidence that philosophy education helps people become more reasonable is a lot like demanding that historians can prove that history education helps people know more about history. Assuming that historians know anything about history, it would mark a complete failure in history education if they couldn’t help people know more about history. The same is true for philosophy. If philosophy classes can’t help people know more about reasonableness or morality, then philosophy education would be a total failure.

Historical evidence

Perhaps the strongest evidence that philosophy helps people is found in the real-life impact it has had throughout history. It lead to formal logic, improvements in mathematics, computers, and natural science. The fact that philosophy was involved in the progress of these fields is a matter of historical fact. Aristotle and the Stoics developed formal logic. Formal logic is used by mathematicians and computers. Natural science is the most reliable method of discovery other than logic and mathematics and it was originally a branch of philosophy called “natural philosophy.”

3. Defending Philosophy

We have no choice but to embrace philosophy because of the role it plays in reasonableness and morality. It is the best we can hope for in helping us be reasonable and moral deliberately rather than merely intuitively. Without philosophy we should expect people to be unreasonable, immoral, dogmatic, and fanatical. If we think it is impossible to know anything about reasonableness and morality, then we can’t demand that people be reasonable or moral—but certainly we do make those demands and will continue to do so. If we want to demand that people accept certain moral commandments, then we must know why it is reasonable to accept those commandments. We can’t demand that everyone trust our moral commandments without a good argument any more than we can be expected to accept the moral commandments of others without a good argument. And if we are expected to accept a “good augment,” we have to know something about what makes an argument reasonable.

There are various objections people give to philosophy that might explain the mysterious oversight concerning why philosophy has been taken out of our educational requirements rather than included in them. In particular, (a) people argue that philosophy doesn’t lead to knowledge because even philosophers disagree and (b) people confuse argumentation with unproductive hostile human interaction.

Does philosophy lead to knowledge?

First, people often think in black and white terms. They think “philosophers haven’t figured it all out yet, so what’s the point? Why should I trust them?” The point isn’t that you should trust philosophers like a religious leader. Instead, you should realize that philosophers have spent their entire lives thinking about many issues and have built their life’s work on the knowledge of philosophical history—the life’s work of many other philosophers spanning thousands of years. You can benefit from the thoughts of philosophers precisely because it can save you the time of having to think of everything yourself. You don’t have to agree with the philosopher’s conclusions, but the arguments philosophers give are relevant to what we should believe.

Second, I think philosophy can lead to knowledge. I have discussed philosophical knowledge concerning reasonableness and morality.4 People often confuse knowledge with certainty. I know that I have two hands, but I could be wrong. I might actually be having a dream that makes me believe that I have two hands. All the same, it is very likely that I have knowledge that I really do have two hands based on my ability to reason and observe the world. I agree that philosophy doesn’t lead to certainty, but it might lead to knowledge. Some people might think “moral knowledge is impossible” but I’m not convinced for reasons I discuss here.

Third, “knowledge” might be more than we need. We don’t need to attain knowledge concerning reasonableness or morality to warrant the fact that we should learn about these topics. It is possible to have justified beliefs, even when two people disagree. One person can think bigfoot exists and another can think it doesn’t exist—and it’s possible that both people’s beliefs are sufficiently reasonable and justified. That doesn’t mean all beliefs are up for grabs. Some beliefs are unreasonable. It’s not reasonable to reject evolution based on the extensive evidence in biological science nor is it reasonable to trust a holy book over extensive scientific evidence.

Is argumentation an unproductive hostile interaction?

People think “debating” politics, religion, and morality is a waste of time and is little more than an emotional power struggle or “we have a right to believe whatever we want.” People think it’s oppressive to “tell others that they should agree with you” and it’s impossible to be reasonable about these things or to convince another person to believe something because it’s “reasonable.” I don’t see any reason to believe such a position—and it is impossible to have any reason to agree with it.

I have two responses to this position. First, if it’s impossible to believe something based on good reasoning, then we have no reason to believe “it’s impossible to believe something based on good reasoning.” Second, we have reason to reject this position because we do have reasonable beliefs based on good reasoning. We should believe that we have hands because we observe we have hands. We should believe that torturing people is wrong without a very good reason for doing it because we know how horrible it is to feel pain. And so on. Perhaps the best reason to agree that some beliefs are more reasonable than others is attained when we have experience with good arguments. I attempt to give uncontroversial examples of good arguments in my free book “What is Philosophy?” (PDF)

Why do people have so much resistance to philosophy?

I have four suggestions:

One, many people simply don’t know philosophy exists (as a field of research). Philosophy has been removed from our education to the point that many people don’t know about it anymore. People can’t talk about the importance of philosophy education because they don’t even know about it.

Two, they haven’t learned to think perfectly, so some of their beliefs are unreasonable—including the belief that philosophy is a waste of time. They are used to thinking in simple terms. If we don’t know for sure who is right, they think they are entitled to keep their “unjustified beliefs” because “no one can prove they are wrong.” Of course, this is asking too much. We don’t always have to prove someone wrong in order to prove that their belief is unreasonable. I might believe that aliens live on Jupiter and no one can prove me wrong, but there is no good reason to have that belief. It’s unreasonable because there is reason to think life can’t exist there. Not all beliefs are “up for grabs” even though we can’t prove everything for certain.

Three, philosophical language has been corrupted. Words like “argument” have an important meaning in philosophy, but now they have a different meaning. For example, “argument” is now synonymous with “unproductive hostile interaction” involving insults and so forth. This cripples our ability to communicate about the reasonableness of beliefs or even have philosophical thoughts, and it encourages people to equivocate words. People often use the word “argument” in a sense quite close to the philosophical meaning—a method of being reasonable—but it is assumed that even “intellectual” arguments are “unproductive hostile interactions” just like the immature yelling and screaming we have observed. In fact, philosophical arguments can and do lead to bitter feelings despite the fact that they aren’t always unproductive or meant to offend people. Disagreement is like being told “you’re wrong,” and many of us feel like being wrong is a weakness. It’s often embarrassing to “be wrong” and many of us think we are “better people” if our beliefs are true and based on better reasoning than the beliefs of others.

Four, many people might reject philosophy and the possibility of being reasonable in favor of the belief that “everyone is entitled to their own beliefs” because they don’t want to offend anyone. As I said above, many of us feel like “being right” makes a person superior to those who are “wrong,” and we can avoid offending anyone by saying “all beliefs are equal” so that we can also say “all people are equal.” This is an egregious and dangerous kind of “political correctness” that makes it impossible to judge criminals or punish the people in power who harm many people.

The fact that many people are either unimpressed with philosophy or don’t know about it was discussed in more detail in “The Marginalization of Philosophy.”

4. A Suggestion for Philosophy Educational Requirements

It’s hard to say how much philosophy should be required for our education because it must compete with other priorities and we have limited resources. We can’t require everyone actually become philosophers, but we can require that they know a minimally satisfying amount of philosophy. I propose the following:

High school philosophy requirements

  1. Philosophy should be taught in English classes. It need not “compete” with any class and no class needs to be removed from our high school education. Philosophy requires us to read and write. That is possible in English class. The main switch here is merely what we read and write. The idea that high school students can’t read or write philosophical content is insulting and absurd. People have to start somewhere, and high school students aren’t mindless fools.
  2. I don’t demand that philosophy be the primary content of English classes. It can be slowly introduced to students. Freshman should be ready to learn the basics of argumentation and some logical fallacies, Sophomores could read their first philosophy book and be guided through the thinking process (involving premises and conclusions), Juniors can learn a little formal logic rather than how to “diagram sentences,” and Seniors can write their first philosophy paper.
  3. At least some of the philosophical discussion should involve morality.

College philosophy requirements

  1. Philosophy should be part of our “general education” in college.
  2. We should require students to take both an introduction to philosophy class and an ethics class.


We need to learn philosophy not only for our own good, but for the good of others. We want everyone to be moral and reasonable. It’s not hard to admit that many people should take classes to improve their ability to reason and be moral. It’s not hard to admit that these are very important subjects for people to learn. It’s a bit mind boggling that these subjects have been removed rather than added from our education, but there have been powerful forces of resistance against philosophy—people either don’t know about philosophy or they find it offensive.

The importance of philosophy was not entirely completely captured in this piece. There is much more to be said. I outlined ten reasons that you should take a philosophy class or major in philosophy in “Should I Take a Philosophy Class? Should I Major in Philosophy?

I have now finished Part 2, where I discuss objections to my proposal that philosophy become a requirement in high school. Go here to take a look.

Update (3/2/11): I made minor corrections and added sections on the scientific and historical evidence that philosophy education helps people.

Update (3/3/11): A minor change was made concerning the scientific evidence/statistical evidence concerning the benefits of a philosophy education.

Update (3/7/11): Rephrased my point involving Richard Arum’s study that found that critical thinking and writing skills are not as improved by our college education as we might hope.

Update (3/22/11): I rearranged things, made a special section for evidence that philosophy benefits us, and changed my discussion of common unreasonable beliefs and behavior.

James Gray, 3/2/11 – 3/22/11


1 Rimer, Sara. “Study: Many college students not learning to think critically.” McClatchy. 2 March 2011. <>. Originally published January 18, 2011.

2 “Philosophers Excel in Standardized Tests.” Washington State University. 2 March 2011. <>.

3 “Philosophy for Kids.” BPS Research Digest. 2 March 2011. <>.

4 I wrote about “10 Myths about Beliefs” and discussed knowledge concerning “reasonable beliefs” and I wrote about “10 Myths about Morality” to discuss moral knowledge.


Blog at

%d bloggers like this: