Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

CHAPTER ONE
Understanding Civics and Ethics
1.1. Introduction
This chapter is an introductory part where some terms are conceptualized. Terms/words like civic
education, citizen, citizenship, ethics and morality will be defined. Moreover, the relations between
civics and ethics, goals of civics and ethics and competences of a good citizen are the subject matters of
this chapter.
1.2. Defining Civics, Ethics, Morality

1.2.1. Civic Education

Civic education is the study of the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Civic education has begun
in ancient Greek and continued to be given as a lesson in the rest of the world.
Since human being is a social animal and co fundamental principles and values to live together with
his/her fellow beings and consequently build peaceful society and lead prosperous life. As Johan Stuart
Mill (1972) described it, progressive and peaceful setting subsists in a given society as far as that society
develops the qualities of its members and generates good citizens. Aristotle (1955) also added that
citizens of a State should always be educated to suit the constitution of a State. Accordingly, creating a
good citizen has been the prior concern of many States, including Ethiopia. This is because good citizens
are made not born.
Over the years, different terms have been used in an attempt to capture and describe the
educational experiences that deal with the task of developing democratic minded citizens.
The subject assumed different names and purposes depending on countries‗ discipline vary across
States. Terms such as Right Education (in South Africa), Citizenship
Education (in United States of America and Germany), Citizenship and Character Education (in
Singapore), Civics and Ethical Education (in Ethiopia) are just a few examples that can be found in the
literature.
Actually, these different concepts and meanings were used to differentiate between a maximal
and a minimal civic education. The minimal concept of civic education is content-led, teacher-based,
whole-class teaching and examination-based assessment. However, the maximal concept of civic
education is comprised of knowledge, values and skills, and aims to prepare students for active,
responsible participation. Unlike narrow minimalist civic education, it extends learning beyond the
curriculum and classroom to all activities inside and outside school.

Page 1
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

1.2.2 Ethics
Ethics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to understand people‗s moral (these modules use the
terms, ethics‗ and traditionally ethics‗ described the process philosophy, considers theories about what
human beings are capable of doing, alongside accounts of what they ought to do if they are to live an
ethically good life.
Generally, Ethics is:-
a. The critical examination and evaluation of what is good, evil, right and wrong in human conduct
b. A specific set of principles, values and guidelines for a particular group or organization
c. Ethics is the study of goodness, right action and moral responsibility, it asks what choices and
ends we ought to pursue and what moral principles should govern our pursuits and choices.
1.2.3 Morality.
Morality can be viewed from different perspectives and let us start with the simple definition of
the word itself. Morality from a dictionary definition (from Latin moralitas ―manner, character, proper
behavior‖) refers to the concept of human action which pertains to matters of right and wrong ―also
referred to as ‗good and evil‖.
It can be used to mean the generally accepted code of conduct in a society, or within a subgroup of
society. It relates to values expressed as: a matter of individual choice, those values to which we ought
to aspire and those values shared within a culture, religious, secular, or philosophical community. This
definition is clear when morality is spelt out and agreed upon by others. However, it becomes
ambiguous when defined by different ethnic groups, especially in the multicultural society, like
Ethiopians.
Morality has been a topic of discussion for a very long time. According to Socrates ―We are
discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live‖ when issues of morality are discussed.
Socrates is rightly asserted that morality is not a small matter. In fact, moral philosophy is the
attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of us. In
Socrates ‗words it‘s ―how we ought to live‖‖. Living in a multicultural Ethiopia, how we ought to live
can be very complicated because of the diversity of culture that is vast and unique.
Morality is a more general referring to the character of individuals and community.
Generally Morality is:
a. principles and values that actually guide, for better or worse, an individual‗s personal conduct
b. Morality is the informal system of rational beings by which they govern their behavior in order
to lesson harm or evil and do good.
c. Morality is control that lead to ―bettering human life‖

Page 2
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

The difference between ethics and morality

1.3. Ethics and Law

As against morals and ethics, laws are norms, formally approved by state, power or national or
international political bodies. Many laws are instituted in order to promote well-being, resolve
conflicts of interest, and promote social harmony. However, there are several reasons why ethics is
not law. First, some actions that are illegal may not be unethical. Speeding is illegal, but one might
have an ethical obligation to break the speed limit in order to transport someone to a hospital in an
emergency. Second, some actions that are unethical may not be illegal. Most people would agree
that lying is unethical but lying is only illegal under certain conditions, e.g. lying on an income tax
return, lying when giving sworn testimony, etc. Third, laws can be unethical or immoral.

1.4. The Importance/Goal of Moral and Civic Education

Civic education is a discipline that deals with virtue traits rooted in values of respect and culture
of tolerance to make individuals responsible and efficient member of their community. It teaches the
values and sense of commitment that define an active and principled citizen, how to make responsible
decisions, solve problems, care about others, contribute to society, and be tolerant and respectful of
diversity.

Page 3
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

In higher educational institutions of Ethiopia, civics and ethics/moral education is given with the
aim of educating students about democratic culture, ethical values and principles, supremacy of
constitution, the rule of law, rights and duties of citizens. These elements are imperative in the process
of producing self-confident citizens who decides on issues based on reason. It is also aimed at creating
a generation who has the capability to shoulder family and national responsibility. Ethics has also
become important in education, because education is a fundamental process of human life. Therefore,
ethics is very important subject in education. We can easily reach all knowledge by technology. In
education using technology reveals some ethical problems such as plagiarism. In order to understand
the importance of ethics, ethics should be placed as a course in educational system. Generally, the
necessity of delivering the course emanates from:
1. The need to instill citizens about their rights and duties
2. The Need for Participant Political Culture
3. The Need for Relevant Knowledge, Skills and Positive Attitudes:
4) The issue of peace-building:
The aim of moral/ethical and civic education is to provide people to make decisions by their free
wills. You can teach norms easily, but you cannot teach easily to obey these rules unless you teach
ethics. Therefore, teaching ethics has an important and necessary place in education.
Moral and Civics Education is based on and seeks to promote in students core
moral, ethical, democratic, and educational values, such as:
 Respect for life
 Respect for reasoning
 Fairness
 Concern for the welfare of others
 Respect for diversity
 Peaceful resolution of conflict

Page 4
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

CHAPTER TWO
Approaches to Ethics
Ethics as divided into two fields; these are

Normative ethics and non-normative ethics.

2.1. Normative Ethics

Normative Ethics is to guide us in our capacity as agents trying to decide what we should do in
this case and in that.
Is the they may focus on outcomes or duties or motivation as a means of justifying human conduct.
Includes ethical theories or approaches such as utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, principles,
narrative ethics and feminist ethics.
1. Teleological Ethics (Consequentialist)
It is referred as ―the end justifies the means‖.
It believes in purpose, ends or goals of an action, it stress that the consequences of an action
determines the morality or immorality of a given action.
Which means an action is judged as right or wrong, moral or immoral depending on what happens
because of it. One may have the best intention or follow the highest moral principles but if the
result, moral act is harmful, or bad it must be judged as morally or ethically wrong act.
There are two types of teleological: - (1) deontological theories and (2) teleological ones
 Teleological theory says that the basic or ultimate criterion or standard of what is morally right,
wrong, obligatory,
 Is the non-moral value that is brought into being.
2. Deontological is possible for an action or rule of action to be the morally right or obligatory one
even if it does not promote the greatest possible balance of good over evil for self, society, or
universe.
 They deny that the right, the obligatory, and the morally good are wholly, whether directly
or indirectly, a function of what is no morally good or of what promotes the greatest balance
of good over evil for self, one's society, or the world as a whole.
2. 2. Egoism:
There are two types of Egoism:
 Ethical and psychological Egoism.
2.2.1. Ethical Egoism: - selfishness is assumed to be unacceptable attitude
It is focus on the consequences of our actions

Page 5
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

Psychological Egoism.
The main argument that has been used as a basis for ethical egoism is a psychological one, an
argument from human nature. We are all so constituted, it is said, that one always seeks one's own
advantage or welfare, or always does what he thinks will give him the greatest balance of good over
evil. In Butler's terms, this means that "self-love" is the only basic "principle" in human nature; in
one set of contemporary terms, it means that "ego-satisfaction" is the final aim of all activity or that
"the pleasure principle" is the basic "drive" in every individual. If this is so, the argument continues,
we must recognize this fact in our moral theory and infer that our basic ethical principle must be
that of self-love, albeit cool self-love. To hold anything else is to fly in the face of the facts
Ethical egoism has generally presupposed what is called psychological egoism ―that each of us is
always seeking his own greatest good, whether this is conceived of as pleasure, happiness,
knowledge, power, self-realization, or a mixed life.
2.3. Utilitarianism: Producing the best consequences
Utilitarianism is a universal teleological system. It calls for the maximization of goodness in society
that is, the greatest goodness for the greatest number and not merely the good of the agent.
1. Classic Utilitarianism
As a formal ethical theory, the seeds of utilitarianism were sewn by the ancient Greek philosopher
Epicurus (342–270 BCE), who stated that ―pleasure is the goal that nature has ordained for us; it is
also the standard by which we judge everything good.‖
According to this view, rightness and wrongness are determined by pleasure or pain that something
produces. Epicurus‗s theory focused largely on the individual‗s personal experience of pleasure and
pain, and to that extent he advocated a version of ethical egoism. Nevertheless, Epicurus inspired a
series of eighteenth-century philosophers who emphasized the notion of general happiness that is,
the pleasing consequences of actions that impact others and not just the individual.
The classical expressions of utilitarianism, though, appear in the writings of two English
philosophers and social reformers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873).
They were the nonreligious ancestors of the twentieth-century secular humanists, optimistic about
human nature and our ability to solve our problems without recourse to God. Engaged in a struggle
for legal as well as moral reform, they were impatient with the rule-bound character of law and
morality in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Great Britain and tried to make the law serve human
needs and interests.
2. Jeremy Bentham: Quantity over Quality
There are two main features of utilitarianism, both of which Bentham articulated:
 The consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect): states that the rightness or

Page 6
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from
it. It is the end, not the means that counts; the end justifies the means. and
 The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect): states that the only thing that is good in itself
is some specific type of state (for example, pleasure, happiness, welfare).
Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only evil. An act is right if
it either brings about more pleasure than pain or prevents pain, and an act is wrong if it either brings
about more pain than pleasure or prevents pleasure from occurring. Bentham invented a scheme for
measuring pleasure and pain that he called the hedonic calculus: The quantitative score for any
pleasure or pain experience is obtained by summing the seven aspects of a pleasurable or painful
experience: its intensity, duration, certainty, nearness, fruitfulness, purity, and extent.
3. John Stuart Mill: Quality over Quantity
It was to meet these sorts of objections and save utilitarianism from the charge of being a pig
philosophy that Bentham‗s successor, John Stuart Mill, sought to distinguish happiness from mere
sensual pleasure. His version of the theory is often called eudaimonistic utilitarianism (from the
Greek eudemonia, meaning ―happiness‖). He defines happiness in terms of certain types of higher-
order pleasures or satisfactions such as intellectual, aesthetic, and social enjoyments, as well as in
terms of minimal suffering. That is, there are two types of pleasures. The lower, or elementary,
include eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation. The higher include high culture,
scientific knowledge, intellectuality, and creativity. Although the lower pleasures are more
intensely gratifying, they also lead to pain when overindulged in. The higher pleasures tend to be
more long term, continuous, and gradual.
 Mill argued that the higher, or more refined, pleasures are superior to the lower ones:
 It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Humans are the kind of creatures who require more to be
truly happy. They want the lower pleasures, but they also want deep friendship, intellectual
ability, and culture, the ability to create and appreciate art, knowledge, and wisdom.
The point is not merely that humans wouldn‗t be satisfied with what satisfies a pig but that
somehow the quality of the higher pleasures is better. The formula he comes up with is this:
Happiness is not a life of rapture; but moments of such, in an existence made up of few and
transitory pains, many and various pleasures, with a decided predominance of the active over the
passive, and having as the foundation of the whole, not to expect more from life than it is capable of
bestowing.
Mill is clearly pushing the boundaries of the concept of ―pleasure‖ by emphasizing higher qualities
such as knowledge, intelligence, freedom, friendship, love, and health. In fact, one might even say

Page 7
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

that his litmus test for happiness really has little to do with actual pleasure and more to do with a
non-hedonic cultivated state of mind.
4. Act & Rule-Utilitarianism.
There are two classical types of utilitarianism: act- and rule-utilitarianism. In applying the principle
of utility, act-utilitarian‘s, such as Bentham, say that ideally we ought to apply the principle to all of
the alternatives open to us at any given moment. We may define act-utilitarianism in this way:
Act-utilitarianism argues that an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available
alternative.
One practical problem with act-utilitarianism is that we cannot do the necessary calculations to
determine which act is the correct one in each case, for often we must act spontaneously and
quickly. So rules of thumb are of practical importance for example, In general, don‗t lie, and
generally, keep your promises. However, the right act is still that alternative that results in the most
utility.
A second problem with act-utilitarianism is that it seems to fly in the face of fundamental intuitions
about minimally correct behavior. The alternative to act-utilitarianism is a view called rule-
utilitarianism elements of which we find in Mill‗s theory. Most generally, the position is this:
 Rule-utilitarianism: An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a
member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any
available alternative.
 The Strengths of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism has three very positive features.
 The first attraction or strength is that it is a single principle, an absolute system with a
potential answer for every situation: Do what will promote the most utility! It‗s good to have
a simple, action-guiding principle that is applicable to every occasion—even if it may be
difficult to apply (life‗s not simple).
 Its second strength is that utilitarianism seems to get to the substance of morality. It is not
merely a formal system that simply sets forth broad guidelines for choosing principles but
offers no principles:-such as the guideline; Do whatever you can universalize. Rather it has a
material core:
A third strength of utilitarianism is that it is particularly well suited to address the problem
of posterity ―namely, why we should preserve scarce natural resources for the betterment of
future generations of humans that do not yet exist.

Page 8
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

Criticism of Utilitarianism
 Problems with Formulating Utilitarianism
 The Comparative Consequences Objection
 The Consistency Objection to Rule-Utilitarianism
 The No-Rest Objection
 The Publicity Objection
 The Relativism Objection
Criticism of the Ends Justifying Immoral Means
Chief among the criticisms of utilitarianism is that utilitarian ends might justify immoral means.
There are many dastardly things that we can do in the name of maximizing general happiness:
deceit, torture, slavery, even killing off ethnic minorities. As long as the larger populace benefits,
these actions might be justified. The general problem can be laid out in this argument:
(1) If a moral theory justifies actions that we universally deem impermissible, then that moral
theory must be rejected.
(2) Utilitarianism justifies actions that we universally deem impermissible.
(3) Utilitarianism must be rejected
Generally, utilitarianism is a moral theory which takes into account how the consequences of an act
will affect all the parties involved. Moral rightness depends on the consequences for all affected
people or sentient beings. The fundamental principle of utilitarianism is the principle of utility:
The principle of utility
 The morally right action is the one that produces the best overall consequences with regard
to the utility or welfare of all the affected parties.
 Jeremy Bentham‗s slogan: The right act or policy is the one that causes ‗the greatest happiness
of the greatest number that is, maximize the total utility or welfare of the majority of all the
affected parties.
Altruism
In altruism an action is right if the consequences of that action are favorable to all except the actor.
Butler argued that we have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others. This
view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of our actions are motivated
by instinctive benevolence.
Psychological altruism holds that all human action is necessarily other centered and other
motivated. A parallel analysis of psychological altruism results in opposing conclusions to
psychological egoism, and again arguably the theory is just as closed as psychological egoism.
Altruists are people who act so as to increase other people‗s pleasure. They will act for the sake of

Page 9
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

someone else even if it decreases their own pleasure and causes themselves pain.
Deontological Ethics (Non- Consequentialist)
The utilitarian or consequentialist answer to this question is that it is the good outcome of an act
which makes it right. Moral rightness or wrongness is calculated by determining the extent to which
the action promotes values such as pleasure, well-being, happiness, etc. To this extent, the end
justifies the means. In many respects, deontological moral theory is diametrically the opposite of
utilitarianism.
It is referred as the means justifies the‖ end‖. It is coined as ―deontic‖. This is a theory that the
rightness or wrongness of moral action is determined, at least partly with reference to formal rules
of conduct rather than consequences or result of an action. It is an emphasis on the intentions,
motives, moral principles or performance of duty rather than results, as the sign of right
action/morality and immorality. It is a duty based and according to this theory, the consequences or
results of our action have nothing to do with their rightness or wrongness.
 Performance of One’s own Duty
The 17th century German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under
three headings: duties to God, duties to oneself and duties to others!
 Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that there are two kinds:
(1) A theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and
(2) A practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worships God.
 Concerning our duties towards one; these are also of two sorts:
(1) Duties of the soul, which involve developing one's skills and talents, and
(2) Duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might through gluttony or
drunkenness, and not killing oneself.
 Concerning our duties towards others; Pufendorf divides these between absolute duties,
which are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of
contracts between people.
Absolute duties are of three sorts: (1) avoid wronging others; (2) treat people as equals, and (3)
promote the good of others.
 Conditional duties involve various types of agreements; the principal one of which is the duty
is to keep one's promises.
The Divine Command Theory
According to one view, called the divine command theory (DCT), ethical principles are simply the
commands of God. They derive their validity from God‗s commanding them, and they mean
commanded by God.‖ Without God, there would be no universally valid morality. We can analyze

Page 10
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

the DCT into three separate theses:

1. Morality (that is, rightness and wrongness) originates with God.
2. Moral rightness simply means ―willed by God,‖ and moral wrongness means; being against the
will of God.
3. Because morality essentially is based on divine will, not on independently existing reasons for
action, no further reasons for action are necessary.
Problems with the Divine Command Theory
There are two problems with the DCT that need to be faced by those who hold it.
1. DCT would seem to make the attribution of goodness to God redundant. When we say God is
good, we think we are ascribing a property to God; but if good simply means what God commands
or wills, and then we are not attributing any property to God. Our statement God is good‖ merely
means God does whatever he wills to do‖ or God practices what he preaches,
and the statement ―God commands us to do what is good‖ merely is the logically empty statement
―God commands us to do what God commands us to do.‖
Rights Theory
A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a "right" is a justified
claim against another person's behavior - such as my right to not be harmed by you. Rights and
duties are related in such a way that the rights of one person imply the duties of another person.
There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights.
 First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments.
 Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country.
 Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of
gender, race, or handicap.
 Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I cannot hand over my rights to another
person, such as by selling myself into slavery.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
The name of the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is identified with the moral
theory known as deontology.
Kant was adamantly opposed to the idea that the outcome of an action could determine its moral
worth. For deontologists, it is not consequences which determine the rightness or wrongness of an
act, but, rather, the intention of the person who carries out the act. The emphasis is on the
correctness of the action, regardless of the possible benefits or harm it might produce. Deontologists
maintain that there are some moral obligations which are absolutely binding, no matter what
consequences are produced.

Page 11
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

The Categorical Imperative

A Kant‗s duty-based theory is emphasizes a single principle of duty. Kant agreed that we have
moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing one‗s talents, and keeping our promises to
others. However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses
our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the ―categorical
imperative.‖
Kant's theory is hinged by his beliefs on autonomy and his formulation of categorical imperatives.
He believed that, unless a person freely and willingly makes a choice, their action has no meaning
(and certainly no moral value). Autonomy allows us to be self-creating when it comes to our values
and morality. Autonomy is one‗s own beliefs, independence, and government: acting without
regard for anyone else. Conversely, heteronomy is acting under the influence of someone else and
allows for an individual to consistently place blame outside of self.
Kant believed that each individual is rational and capable of making free choices; thereby relies on
autonomous thinking.
Ross’s Prima Facie Duties or Moral Guidelines
The term prima facie means ―at a first sight ―or ―on the surface.‖ By prima facie duties, Ross means
duties that dictate what we should do when other moral factors are not considered. Stated another
way, prima facie duties are duties that generally obligate us; that is, they ordinarily impose a moral
obligation but may not in a particular case because of circumstances. An actual duty is the action
that one ought to perform after considering and weighing all the prima facie duties involved.
There are several prima facie duties that we can use to determine what, concretely, we ought to do.
List the following categories of prima facie duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our
actual moral convictions:
Duties of Fidelity: the duty to keep promises and the obligation not to lie. Duties of fidelity are
duties to keep one‗s promises and contracts and not to engage in deception.
Duties of Reparation: This is a duty to make up for the injuries one has done to others. Ross
describes this duty as "resting on a previous wrongful act". It is the duty to compensate others when
we harm them. If, for example, I damage something that belongs to someone else, I have an
obligation to make restitution.
Duties of Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us. Suppose, for example, an especially
good friend is suddenly in need of assistance, I am duty bound to do all I can help this individual,
who in the past had acted so selflessly toward me.
Duties of Justice: The duty of justice requires that one act in such a way that one distributes
benefits and burdens fairly.

Page 12
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

CHAPTER THREE:

3.1. Ethical Decision Making & Moral Judgments

One of the key tasks of ethical reasoning is to analyze and critically consider the values we hold and
the claims we make in relation to the perceived obligations that we might have towards one another.
Applied to the processes of death and dying and the care provided at end of life, key values that
arise include sanctity of life (the fact of being alive is itself deeply valued), quality of life (the fact
of having positive experiences and avoiding negative experiences is considered deeply morally
significant), autonomy (respecting someone‗s preferences in relation to where, how and when they
die is, increasingly, considered to be deeply morally significant and challenging).
3.2. Ethical Principles and Values of Moral Judgments
Ethics ‗is concerned with studying and/or building up a coherent set of rules ‗or principles by which
people ought to live. The theoretical study of ethics is not normally something that many people
would regard as being necessary in order for them to conduct their everyday activities.
3.2.1. Moral intuitions and Critical Reasoning

The study of ethics involves reasoning about our feelings. In other words, it involves making sense
of and rationalizing our intuitions about what is right ‗or good‗. Almost all people, to a greater or
lesser extent, are capable of experiencing feelings of empathy towards others. Empathy provides us
with a sense of what others are feeling and may thereby allow us to identify with other people.
Empathy therefore gives us what Traer (2013) refers to as our moral sentiments; and ethical
reasoning about these sentiments gives us our moral principles.
All societies are characterized by their own ethical ideas expressed in terms of attitudes and beliefs
and their own customs (their notions of what is considered customary). Some of those ethics are
formalized in the laws and regulations of a society, nation or state. Such customs and laws can
influence the consciences and the moral sentiments of those living in a society, as individuals
acquire ideas and attitudes from their families and from their wider society.
3.2.2 Rationalization
Rationalization is Studying ethics, the involves attempting to find valid reasons for the
moral arguments that we make.
Most people already have general ideas or what philosophers presumptions ‗about what they think
is right‗ or what requires people to think critically about the moral ideas that they hold, to support
or refute those ideas with convincing arguments, and to be able to articulate and explain the

Page 13
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

reasons and assumptions on which those arguments are based. In moral philosophy, an argument is
not simply about our beliefs or opinions; instead, it is about the reasons underlying those beliefs or
opinions.
3.3 Types of reasoning (cognitive)

Three forms of critical reasoning that individuals can use to justify their arguments are outlined below
Three forms of critical reasoning:
 Reasoning by analogy explains one thing by comparing it to something else that is similar,
although also different. In a good analogy, the similarity outweighs the dissimilarity and is
clarifying.
 Deductive reasoning applies a principle to a situation. For instance, if every person has human
rights, and you are a person, then you have human rights like every person.
 Inductive reasoning involves providing evidence to support a hypothesis. The greater the
evidence for a hypothesis, the more we may rely on it. ‗ The fact that there is mounting
evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is having a detrimental effect on global climate, for
example, is used to substantiate the argument that we have a moral duty to reduce carbon
emissions.
3.3.1. Ethics and Religious Faith

For many people, ‗morality and religious faith go hand in hand.

‗Morality and religious fair arguments, some people view actions as being right or wrong in terms
of whether they are commanded by a god. Some moral philosophers do not view arguments based
on religious faith as being rationally defensible. They believe that we can determine through
rational reflection what is right and wrong. If a god commands only what is right then, logically,
this makes divine commands unnecessary; we are able to know what is right or wrong without
relying on any divine commandments, as we can use rational reflection.
Faith-based arguments are relevant to moral philosophy for several reasons. For a start, people do
not always agree on what is right or wrong. It is not clear that we can determine what is right and
wrong simply through rational reflection. .

3.3.4. Testing moral arguments

Critical reasoning is about asking questions whenever anyone gives us a reason to support an
argument.
most people already use critical reasoning when they make arguments and question other people‗s
arguments. We have an idea of what we think is right based on our experience (our ethical

Page 14
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

presumptions), and we explain those ideas to other people based on our feelings (intuitions) and
reasons.
There are three main ways of testing a moral argument. This ways to test a moral argument or
disagreement are.
a. Factual accuracy, say that something is wrong or right simply based on how things are
reasonable, but it does not mean that ethical discussion should be divorced from fact; the
accuracy of the factual content of a discussion is very important.
b. Consistency, Arguments need to be consistent.
c. Good will is the most difficulty criterion to qualify.
3.3.5 Thinking ethically: A framework for Moral Decision

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral
issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step,
although obvious is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked. But having
the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is; they do not tell us what ought to
be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values.
3.3.6. Fairness and Justice Approach
The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek
philosopher Aristotle who said that ‗equals should be treated equally and unequal‗s unequally. The
basic moral question in this approach is:
 How fair is an action?
 Does it treats everyone in the same way, or does it shown favoritism and discrimination?
Generally, this approach focuses on how fairly or unfairly our actions distribute benefits and
burdens among the members of a group. This approach asks what is fair for all stakeholders, or
people who have an interest in the outcome. Fairness requires consistency in the way people are treated.
The principle states. Treat peoples the same unless there are morally relevant differences between them.
3.3.7. The Common Good Approach
The Greek philosophers have also contributed the notion that life in community is a good in itself
and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking
relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all
others especially the vulnerable are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls
attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone. This may be a
system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or
even public recreation areas.

Page 15
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

3.4 The principle of the common good approach states;

3.4.1. The Rights Approach
The basic rights approaches are:-
 The Right to the Truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about
matters that significantly affect choices.
 The Right of Privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our
personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.
 The Right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we
freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly
choose to risk such injuries.
 The Right to what is agreed: We have the right to what has been promised those with
whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.
The Rights Approach identifies certain interests tests or activities that our behavior must respect,
especially those areas of our lives that are of such value to us that they merit protection from
others.
3.4.2 Religious Morality
Religious morality refers to a human being in relationship to a supernatural being or beings. In the
Jewish and Christian traditions, for example, the first three of the Ten Commandments (See the
figure below) pertain to this kind of moral relationship with God, not with any other human
beings. By violating any of these three commandments, a person could, according to this particular
code of ethics, act immorally toward God without acting immorally toward anyone else.
The Ten Commandments
1. I am the Lord, Your God; do not worship false gods.
2. Do not take the name of God in vain.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. Do not kill.
6. Do not commit adultery.
7. Do not steal
8. Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. Do not cover your neighbor‗s spouse.
10. Do not cover your neighbor‗s belongings.

Page 16
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

3.4.3 Morality and Nature

Morality and nature is refers to a human being prevalent in all primitive cultures
More recently, the Western tradition has also become aware of the significance of dealing with
nature in a moral manner. Some see nature as being valuable only for the good of humanity, but
many others have come to see it as a good in itself, worthy of moral consideration. With this
viewpoint there is no question about whether a Robinson Crusoe would be capable of moral or
immoral actions on a desert island by himself.
3.4.4 Individual Morality
Individual morality refers to individuals in relation to themselves and to an individual code of
morality that may or may not be sanctioned morality, which can be found within the in
supernatural realm. A person may or may not perform some particular act, not because society,
law, or religion says he may or may not, but because he himself thinks it is right or wrong from
within his own conscience.
3.4.5 Social Morality
Social morality concerns a human being in relation to other human beings. It is probably the most
important aspect of morality, in that it cuts across all of the other aspects and is found in more
ethical systems than any of the others. Returning briefly to the desert-island example, most
ethicists probably would state that Robinson Crusoe is incapable of any really moral or immoral
action except toward himself and nature. Such action would be minimal when compared with the
potential for morality or immorality if there were nine other people on the island whom he could
subjugate, torture, or destroy. Many ethical systems would allow that what he would do to himself
is strictly his business, as long as it doesn‗t harm anyone
3.5. Morally/Ethically Responsible
Morality pertains to human beings and only to human beings; all else is speculation. If one wants
to attribute morality to supernatural beings, one has to do so solely on faith. If one wants to hold
animals or plants morally responsible for destructive acts against each other or against humans,
then one has to ignore most of the evidence that science has given us concerning the instinctual
behavior of such beings and the evidence of our own everyday observations.
Recent experimentation with the teaching of language to animals suggests that they are at least
minimally capable of developing some thought processes similar to those of humans. It is even
possible that they might be taught morality in the future, as humans are now. If this were to occur,
then animals could be held morally responsible for their actions.

Page 17
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

3.5.1 Moral Judgments

Moral judgments refer to deciding what is right and what is wrong in human relations. Individuals
are continually judging their own conduct and that of their fellows. They approve of some acts and
call them right or good. They condemn other or evil actor bad. Moral and call judgments always
have to do with the actions of human beings and, in particular, with voluntary actions - those
actions freely chosen. Involuntary actions - those over which people have no control - are rarely
open to moral judgment, as a person usually is not held responsible for an action that she or he did
not initiate. Moral judgments are evaluative because they place value on things or relation or
human actions; determine what is right or wrong, good or bad.
1. Motives: Motives, as Jesus, Kant, and others have pointed out, are basic for a determination of
morality.
2. Means: Just as there may be many motives for desiring something, there may be many means
for achieving it. The term means can be defined as an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end
3. Consequences: Consequences are the effects or results of a moral decision based on a value.
4. The Moral Situation: A moral situation involves moral agents - human beings who act, are
empowered to make choices, and consciously make decisions.
 A moral act involves an agent: If something is a natural event or an action performed by animals,
then it is morally neutral - it does not appear on our moral radars. Humans can be moral agents, or
any creatures that can freely and thoughtfully choose its actions will count as a moral agent.
 A moral act involves intention: An intention here refers to our motives that are important to
determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. If an action is done accidentally, it may be
counted as a morally neutral action. However, some unintentional acts, such as those done through
negligence, can be moral. Neglecting our duties, even accidentally, make us morally culpable.
 A moral act affects others: A moral action needs not only an agent and to be deliberate but also
needs to affect others (those we might call moral patients) in significant ways, that is, an action
that has harmful (be it physical, psychological, emotional, or depriving others of happiness) or
beneficial consequences for others.
Generally, a moral action is one which:

Is performed by agents, creatures that are capable of free choice/ free will

Is the result of intention; the action was done on purpose with a particular motive

Has a significant consequence on others in respect of harm or benefits it brings about.
Another way of putting the problem is as follows: Is there any clear foundation or basis for
morality Let us assume for the moment that there is no supernatural morality and see if we can

Page 18
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

find any other reasons why people should be moral.

 Argument from Enlightened Self-Interest
One can certainly argue on a basis of enlightened self-interest that it is, at the very least,
generally better to be good rather than bad and to create a world and society that is good rather
than one that is bad. As a matter of fact, self-interest is the sole basis of one ethical theory,
ethical egoism.
 B. Argument from Tradition and Law
This argument suggests that traditions and laws, established over a long period of time, govern the
behavior of human beings, and traditions and laws urge human beings to be moral rather than
immoral, there are good reasons for being . Self-interest is one reason, but another is respect for
the human thought and effort that has gone into establishing such laws and traditions and
transferring them from one historic period and one culture to another
 C. Common Human Needs
Morality is not of course identical with following self-interest. If it were, there could be no conflict
between morality and self-interest and no point in having rules overriding self-interest. John
Hospers
Morality exists, in part, because of human needs and through recognition of the importance of
living together in a cooperative and significant way. It may not be the case that all human beings
can be convinced that they should be moral, or even that it will always be in each individuals-
interest self to be moral.
 Behaving morally is a matter of self-respect.
 People won‗t like us if we behave immoral
 Society punishes immoral behavior.
 God tells us to be moral.
 Parents need to be moral role models for their children.
From Hobbes‗s perspective, morality consists them, then nearly everyone will flourish. These
rules restrict our freedom but promote greater freedom and wellbeing. More specifically, the five
social benefits of establishing and following moral rules accomplish the following:
a) Keep society from falling apart.
b) Reduce human suffering.
c) Promote human flourishing.
d) Resolve conflicts of interest in just and orderly ways.
e) Assign praise and blame, reward and punishment, and guilt.

Page 19
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

CHAPTER FOUR:

4.1. Understanding State

The term state has been used to refer to a territorial unit, a philosophical idea, an instrument of
coercion or oppression, and so on. This confusion stems, in part, from the fact that the state has
been understood in four quite different ways; from an idealist perspective, a functionalist
perspective, an organizational perspective and an international perspective.
Functionalist approaches to the state focus on the role or purpose of state institutions. The
central function of the state is invariably seen as the maintenance of social order (see p. 400), the
state being defined as that set of institutions that uphold order and deliver social stability. Such an
approach has, for example, been adopted by neo-Marxists (see p. 64), who have been inclined to
see the state as a mechanism through which class conflict is ameliorated to ensure the long-term
survival of the capitalist system. The weakness of the functionalist view of the state, however, is
that it tends to associate any institution that maintains order (such as the family, mass media,
trade unions and the church) with the state itself. This is why, unless there is a statement to the
contrary, an organizational approach to the definition of the state is adopted throughout this book.
The organizational view defines the state as the apparatus of government in its broadest sense.
That is, as that set of institutions that are collective organization of social existence a definition is
that it distinguishes clearly between the state and civil society.
The international approach to the state views it primarily as an actor on the world stage; indeed,
deals with the state‗s outward-looking face, its relations with other states and, therefore, its ability
to provide protection against external attack. The classic definition of the state in international
law is found in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of the State (1933).
According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention,
 The state has four features: a defined territory, permanent population, an effective
government and sovereignty. Let us now discuss details of the above-mentioned
attributes as follows:

 Population: Since state is a human association, the first essential element that constitutes it is
the people.
 Defined Territory: There can be no state without a territory of its own. The territory of a
state includes land, water, and airspace.
 Government: Government is said to be the soul of the state. It implements the will of the
community. It protects the people against conditions of insecurity. If state is regarded as the

Page 20
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

first condition of a civilized life, it is due to the existence of a government that maintains law
and order and makes good life ‗possible.
 Sovereignty: As already pointed out, sovereignty is the fourth essential attribute of the
concept state. It is the highest power of the state that distinguishes it from all other
associations of human beings. Sovereignty, in its simplest sense, is the principle of absolute
and unlimited power. It has two aspects - Internal and External. Internal Sovereignty implies
that inside the state there can be no other authority that may claim equality with it. The state is
the final source of all laws internally. On the other hand, External sovereignty implies that the
state should be free from foreign control of any kind.

4.2 Rival Theories of State

According to the Andrew Heywood (2013) classified the rival theories of state into four:
 The pluralist state, the capitalist state, the leviathan state and the patriarchal state.

4.2.1. The Pluralist State

The pluralist theory of the state has a very clear liberal lineage. The state can be ignored only
because it is seen as an impartial arbiter or referee that can be bent to the will of the government
of the day.
The origins of this view of the state can be traced back to the social-contract theories of thinkers
such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The principal concern of such thinkers was to examine
the grounds of political obligation, the grounds on which the individual is obliged to obey and
respect the state. They argued that the state had arisen out of a voluntary agreement, or social
contract, made by individuals who recognized that only the establishment of a sovereign power
could safeguard them from the insecurity, disorder and brutality of the state of nature. Without a
state, individuals abuse, exploit and enslave one another; with a state, order and civilized existence
are guaranteed and liberty is protected. As Locke put it, where there is no law there is no freedom..
The neutrality of the state reflects the fact that the state acts in the interests of all citizens, and
therefore rep view, stability and order could be secured only through the establishment of an
absolute and unlimited state, with power that could be neither challenged, nor questioned. In other
words, he held that citizens are confronted by a stark choice between absolutism and anarchy.

4.2.2. The Capitalist State

The Marxist notion of a capitalist state offers a clear alternative to the pluralist image of the state
as a neutral arbiter or umpire. Marxists have typically argued that the state cannot be understood
separately from the economic structure of society. This view has usually been understood in

Page 21
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

terms of the classic formulation that the state is nothing but an instrument of class oppression: the
state emerges out of, and in a sense reflects, the class system. Nevertheless, a rich debate has
taken place within Marxist theory in recent years that has moved the Marxist theory of the state a
long way from this classic formulation. In many ways, the scope to revise Marxist attitudes
towards the state stems from ambiguities that can be found in Marx‗s Marx did not
develop a systematic or coherent theory of the state. In a general sense, he believed that the state
is hat part is of determined a super structure ‗or condition which can be seen as the real
foundation of social life. However, the precise relationship between the base and the
superstructure, and in this case that between the state and the capitalist mode of production, is
unclear. Two theories of the expressed in his often-quoted dictum from The Communist Man
modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bo this
perspective, the state is clearly dependent on society and entirely dependent on its economically
dominant class, which in capitalism is the bourgeoisie. Lenin thus described the state starkly as an
instrument for the oppression of the exploited class.
4.2.3 The Leviathan State
The image of the state-serving as monster leviathan ‗intent on expansion and (in aggrandizement)
is one associated in modern politics with the New Right. Such a view is rooted in early or classical
liberalism and, in particular, a commitment to a radical form of individualism. The New Right, or
at least its neoliberal wing, is distinguished by a strong antipathy towards state intervention in
economic and social life, born out of the belief that the state is parasitic growth that threatens both
individual liberty and economic security. In this view, the state, instead of being, as pluralists
suggest, an impartial umpire or are meddle in every aspect of human existence. The central feature
of this view is that the state pursues interests that are separate from those of society (setting it apart
from Marxism), and that those interests demand an unrelenting growth in the role or
responsibilities of the state itself. class tensions but, rather, the internal dynamics of the state.

4.2.4 The Patriarchal State

Modern thinking about the state must, finally, take account of the implications of feminist theory.
However, this is not to say that there is a systematic feminist theory of the state. Feminist theory
encompasses a range of traditions and perspectives, and has thus generated a range of very
different attitudes towards state power. Moreover, feminists have usually not regarded the nature
of state power as a central political issue, preferring instead to concentrate on the deeper structure
of male power centered on institutions such as the family and the economic system.

Page 22
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

4.4. The Role of the State

Contrasting interpretations of state power have clear implications for the desirable role or
responsibilities of the state. With the exception of anarchists, who dismiss the state as
fundamentally evil and unnecessary, all political thinkers have regarded the state as, in some
sense, worthwhile. Dictatorship of the proletariat Nevertheless, there is profound disagreement
about the exact role the state should play, and therefore about the proper balance between the state
and civil society. Among the different state forms that have developed are the following:
 Minimal states
 Developmental states
 Social-democratic states
 Collectivized states
 Totalitarian states
 Religious states

4.4.1Minimal States
The minimal state is the ideal of classical liberals, whose aim is to ensure that individuals enjoy
the widest possible realm of freedom. This view is rooted in social-contract theory, but it
nevertheless advances an essentially ‗negative‗ view of the state. F that it has the capacity to
constrain human behavior and thus to prevent individuals encroaching on the rights and liberties
of others. The state is merely a protective body, its core function being to provide a framework of
peace and social order within which citizens can conduct their lives as they

4.4.2. Developmental States

The best historical examples of minimal states were those in countries such as the UK and the
USA during the period of early industrialization in the nineteenth century. As a general rule,
however, the later a country industrializes, on comic role the. In Japan more and ext. Germany,
for instance, the state assumed a m developmental state is one that intervenes in economic life
with the specific purpose of promoting industrial growth and economic development. This does
not amount to an attempt to replace the market with a socialist‗ system of planning partnership
between the state and major economic interests, often underpinned by conservative and
nationalist priorities.

4.4.3. Social Democratic (Welfare) States

Whereas developmental states practice interventionism in order to stimulate economic progress,
social-democratic states intervene with a view to bringing about broader social restructuring,

Page 23
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

usually in accordance with principles such as fairness, equality and social justice. In countries such
as Austria and Sweden, state intervention has been guided by both developmental and social
democratic priorities. Nevertheless, developmentalism and social democracy do not always go
hand-in-hand. As Marquand (1988) pointed out, although the UK state was significantly extended
in the period immediately after World War II along social-democratic lines, it failed to evolve into
a developmental state. The key to understanding the social-democratic state is that there is a shift
from a negative‗ view of the state, which s view of the state, in which it is seen as a means of
enlarging liberty and promoting justice.

4.4.4Collectivized States
While developmental and social-democratic states intervene in economic life with a view to
guiding or supporting a largely private economy, collectivized states bring the entirety of
economic life under state control. The best examples of such states were in orthodox communist
countries such as the USSR and throughout Eastern Europe. These sought to abolish private
enterprise altogether, and set up centrally planned economies administered by a network of
economic ministries and planning committees. So-called ―commanders ‗we Conroe therefore
establish a system of ―directive‗planning that was u communist party. The justification for state
collectivization stems from a fundamental socialist preference for common ownership over
private property. However, the use of the state to attain this goal suggests a more positive attitude
to state power than that outlined in the classical writings of Marx and Engels (1820–95).
Marx and Engels by no means ruled out nationalization; Engels, in particular, recognized that,
during the ‗dictatorship of the proletariat‗, banks, transportation and so on. Nevertheless, they
envisaged that the proletarian state would be strictly temporary, and that it would ―withe
collectivized state in the USSR became permanent, and increasingly powerful and bureaucratic.

4.4.5Totalitarian States
The most extreme and extensive form of interventionism is found in totalitarian states. The essence
of totalitarianism is the construction of an all-embracing state, the influence of which penetrates
every aspect of human existence.

4.4.6Religious States
On the face of it, a religious state is a contradiction in terms. The modern state emerged largely
through the triumph of civil authority over religious authority, religion increasingly being confined
to the private sphere, through a separation between church and state. The advance of state
sovereignty thus usually went hand in hand with the forward march of secularization. In the USA,

Page 24
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

the secular nature of the state was enshrined in the First Amendment of the constitution,

4.5. Understanding Government

Government can also refer to political organization comprising individuals and institutions
authorized to formulate public policies and conduct affairs of state. Governments are empowered
to establish and regulate the interrelationships of the people within their territorial confines, the
relations of the people with community as a whole, and the dealings of the community with other
political entities. Thus, government applies both to the governments of national states, for
instance the federal government of Ethiopia and to the governments of subdivisions of national
states such as the regional states, provinces, and municipal governments, etc. of Ethiopia. Any
form of government, to be stable and effective, must possess two essential attributes: authority
and legitimacy In other words,.

Authority: In politics, the word authority implies the ability to compel obedience. It can simply
be defined as legitimate power the behavior.‗ While of others, authority power is the right to do so.
Authority is therefore, based on an acknowledged duty to obey rather than on any form of
coercion or manipulation. Thus, authority is the legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that
power. Authority can be expressed as naked force and terror as was the case in many undemocratic
governments or through a series of more or less transparent public hearings as in the case of most
democratic states.
Legitimacy: The term legitimacy (from the Latin word legitimate are, meaning to broadly means
rightfulness. Thus, legitimacy is the attribute of government that prompts the governed to comply
willingly with its authority. It confers on an order or commands an authoritative or binding
character, thus transforming power in to authority. Thus, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a
governing regime or law as an authority. Legitimacy is considered as a basic condition to rule;
without at least a minimal amount of legitimacy, a government will deadlock or collapse. Thus, as
long as legitimacy stays at a certain level, stability is maintained, if it falls below this level it is
endangered.
4.5.1 Purposes and Functions of Government
One of the central questions of political philosophy is the purpose of government. Many great
political philosophers have conceived themselves with this question. One common formulation is
that the main purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice. There are several
ways to conceive the differences between the different political views. to be respected and
obeyed. The concept legitimacy differs from legality in the sense that the term legality does not

Page 25
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

necessarily guarantee that a government is respected or that its citizens acknowledge a duty of
obedience. The major purposes and functions of government include, among other things, the following:
 Self-Preservation: Nearly all governments at least claim to have as their purposes the
establishment of an order that permits predictability, which in turn promotes a sense of security
among the governed. This may be true whether a government is authoritarian or democratic.
 Distribution and Regulation of Resources: All governments invariably play the role of
distributing resources in their societies. In addition, governments are the only institutions that
determine whether resources are going to be controlled by the public or private sector. Some
governments may decide that the resources should be controlled by the public, which commonly
known as socialist states and others may decide to be controlled by the private sector, which are
capitalist states.

Management of Conflicts: Governments usually develop and consolidate institutions and
procedures for the management of conflicts. These may include the legislative, executive, and
judicial institutions with established procedures for the supervision and resolution of conflicts
that may arise in the society.

Fulfillment of Social or Group Aspirations: In addition to the aforementioned purposes and
functions, governments also strive to fulfill the goals and interests of the society as a whole
and of various groups within the society. These aspirations may include the promotion of
human rights, common good, and international peace.

Protection of Rights of Citizens: Some governments, especially those of constitutional and
democratic governments, are established for democratic, political, social, economic and
cultural rights. Constitutional and democratic governments are created to serve and protect

Protection of Property: States or governments provide means such as police and the court
systems that protect private and public property. As such, protection of private and public
property is, therefore, one among the major purposes and functions of any government.

Implementations of Moral Conditions: Some governments‗ attempts conditions of their
citizens that is why, in all countries, laws and institutions are designed to shape citizens
character in accordance with some standard of morality

Provision of Goods and Services: Some governments, especially those of the poor countries,
participate heavily in the provision of goods and services for the public. Some of the necessary
common goods and services provided by governments may include, provision of healthcare,
education, development of public works, provision of food, shelter, clothing for the public,
Developing social services, etc.

Page 26
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

4.6. Understanding Citizenship

4.6.1. Defining Citizenship.

citizenship refers to the rules regulating the legal/formal relations between the State and the
individual with respect to the acquisition and loss of a given country‗s nationality.
Several countries refer to the term citizenship in their national language as expressing merely the
judicial relationship between the citizen and the State while others denote it with the social roles of
citizens in their society.
 Generally, the concept of citizenship varies from society to society, depending on the
place, the historical moment and political organization. Although differences may exist,
there are common elements such as rights, duties, belonging, identity and participation one
can find in definitions of the term.
i) Citizenship as a Status of Rights: The mere fact of being a citizen makes the person a
creditor of a series of rights. Current political discourse often tends to identify citizenship
with rights. Marshall 1998, distinguishes three types of rights that historically have been
established in succession: the civil, or the rights necessary for the development of
individual liberty; political, i.e. the right to participate in the exercise of political power,
as an elected member or as a voter and social rights, which are those that guarantee the
right to public safety, health, the right to education.
There are four components of Citizenship as a Status of Rights known as “the Hohfeldian
incidents‗namely, liberty (privilege), claim, power and immunity.
 Liberty (privilege) right: - is a freedom given for the right-holder to do something
and there are no obligations on other parties to do or not to do anything to aid the
bearer to enjoy such rights.
 claim right:- Is the inverse of liberty rights since it entails responsibility upon
another person or body
 power right:- are rights regarding the modification of first-order rights.
 Immunity Right: - are the opposite of power rights. Immunity rights entail the
absence of a power in other party to alter the right-holder‗s normative situation in
some way.
ii) Membership and Identity: Citizenship is associated with membership of a political community.
iii) Participation: Participation occupies a key position in citizenship.
iv) Inclusion and Exclusion: All individuals living in a particular state do not necessary mean that
all are citizens.

Page 27
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

4.6.2 Theorizing Citizenship

Citizenship is not an eternal essence rather a cultural artifact mold by people through time and that
is why the notion of citizenship and the meaning attached to it changes with the change in political

4.6.3. Citizenship in Liberal Thought

Liberal theory of citizenship begins with the individual person (the self). The self exists as the true
symbol of liberal theory. Accordingly, it gives a strong emphasis to the individual liberty of the
citizen, and rights that adhere to each and every person. The self is represented as a calculating
holder of preferences and rights in a liberal society. Hence, in liberalism the primary political unit
as well as the initial focus of all fundamental political inquiry is the individual person.
Liberals insist that individuals should be free to decide on their own conception of the good life,
and applaud the liberation of individuals from any ascribed or inherited status. Advocators of this
though argue that individual citizens act rationally, corresponding to the constitutions and laws of
the State, to advance their own interests.
Critics of Liberal Theory of Citizenship
First, how can individuals be/are prevented from destroying each other and from destroying the
basis of their mutually beneficial interaction? The most common problems related with
advocating individualism are free-raiders problem and the tragedy of the commons.

The free raiders problem occurs when those who benefit from resource or service do not pay for
it, which results in an under provision of the resource/service. Particularly it occurs when
property rights are not clearly defined and imposed.

4.6.4 Citizenship in Communitarian Thought

Communitarianism is as an approach emphasizes on the importance of society in articulating the
good. The communitarian (also known as the nationalist) model argue that the identity of citizens
cannot be understood outside the territory in which they live, their culture and traditions, arguing
that the basis of its rules and procedures and legal policy is the shared common good. The political
subject, above all, belongs to a community, a community to which he/she owes allegiance and
commitment. Thus, rather than viewing group practices as the product of individual choices,
communitarians view individuals as the product of social practices.

4.6.5 Citizenship in Republican Thought

Republican citizenship theory put emphasis on both individual and group rights. Means republican
though attempts to incorporate the liberal notion of the self-interested individual within the

Page 28
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

communitarian framework of egalitarian and community belonging. Like communitarian thought,

it emphasizes on what bind citizens together in to a particular community. Citizenship should be
understood as a common civic identity, shaped by a common public culture. It requires citizens to
bring together the facets of their individual lives as best they can and helps them to find unity in
the midst of diversity.

4.6.6 Multicultural Citizenship

The increasing diversity in States challenges particularly the liberal conceptions of citizenship.
The liberal view the rights of the individual as paramount and group identities and rights as
inconsistent with and inimical to the rights of the individual. A number of factors have caused
scholars to raise inquires about the liberal analysis and expectations for identity groups in
democratic States.

4.7. Modes/Ways of Acquiring and Loosing Citizenship

Citizenship right was one of the rights guaranteed to individuals by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights adopted in 1948. According to AR a nationality and that no one shall be are
following sections we will discuss the ways of acquiring and loosing citizenship.

4.7.1 Ways of Acquiring Citizenship

Since the grant of citizenship remains within the discretion of the state concerned, the means of
acquiring a particular State ‗however, citizenship the common ways vat of acquiring citizenship
can be grouped in to two: citizenship by birth and citizenship through naturalization/law.
i) Citizenship from birth/of Origin: individuals can get citizenship status of a particular State
either because he/she is born in the territorial administration of that or his/her mother and/or
father are citizens of the State in question. That is, there are two principles of citizenship from
birth commonly known as Jus Soli (law/right of the soil) and Jus Sanguinis (law/right of blood).
Whereas Jus Soli is a principle whereby an individual is permitted to obtain citizenship status of a
particular a norm where citizenship acquired claiming one‗s parents not apply to children born
from diplomats and refugees live in a host State. Children born from diplomats in a host State
where jus soli is allowed do not have the right to claim citizenship status of the host country
because of two special principles (international diplomatic immunities): extraterritoriality and
inviolability principles.
ii) Citizenship by Naturalization/Law: is the legal process by which foreigners become citizens of
another country. The common sub-principles of acquiring citizenship through naturalization are the
following. Political case (secession, merger and subjugation), grant on application, marriage,

Page 29
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

legitimatization/adoption, and reintegration/restoration. Citizenship by political case is a process by

which an individual person acquires citizenship of a certain State following the conquest or cession

4.7.2. The Modes of Acquiring Ethiopian Citizenship

1) Acquisition by Descent: the 1930 Ethiopian nationality law asserted Ethiopia or abroad, whose
father or mother is the 1995 FDRE constitution stated that anywhere both or either parent is
Ethiopian.‖ In proclamation ascribed two principles under the acquisition of Ethiopian citizenship
by decent. One,
2) Acquisition by Law (Naturalization): Article 6(2) of the 1995 FDRE constitution also avers
that aliens can get Ethiopian citizenship. Under naturalization, there are various ways of
acquiring Ethiopian citizenship in accordance with of the amended Ethiopian nationality
proclamation of

4.7.3. Dual Citizenship

Dual citizenship is the condition of being a citizen of two nations. Of course, a person may
acquire more than two States which is called multiple citizenship. Duality/multiplicity arises
because of the clash among the Jus Soli, Jus Sanguini and naturalization. For example, a baby
born to a French family visiting the United States would acquire U.S. citizenship by Jus Soli and
French citizenship by Jus Sanguinis. A child born from a mother and father of two different
countries could acquire dual citizenship through decent. Besides, on the one hand, a State may
allow its naturalized citizens to keep their original citizenship, an on the other, a State may
refuse its citizen to revoke his/her citizenship for various reasons which are cause for
dual/multiple citizenship. People who declared that they no longer were citizens of such a
country and became naturalized in another still would be claimed as citizens by the original
nation.

4.7.4Ways of Loosing Citizenship

Citizenship can be lost when a State provides for lapse or withdrawal of citizenship under certain
conditions, or when a citizen voluntary renounces it. The primary rational for loss of citizenship is
the absence of a genuine link with the state. Many citizenship laws also provide for loss if there
has been fraud in the course of acquiring citizenship. Some States have provisions for depriving
people of citizenship in cases where their behavior is considered to demonstrate disloyalty towards
the state.
Deprivation is an involuntary loss of citizenship which arises while government authorities or court
take a decision to nullify an individual‗s c justification for the loss of citizenship of an individual

Page 30
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

lies on the state. The citizen may be deprived of his/her citizenship for reasons of uncovering
national secrets, non-compliance with citizenship duties (duty of loyalty), loss of genuine link with
his/her state, flawed acquisition of citizenship, promising loyalty to and/or serving in armed force
of another country, trying to overthrow the government by force, seriously prejudicial behavior,
and becoming naturalized in another country.
Lapse/expiration is another way of losing citizenship which is not applicable to Ethiopia. Lapse is
a mode whereby a person loses his/her citizenship because of his/her permanent residence or long
term residence abroad beyond the number of years permitted by the country in question. For
example, if an Indian citizen stays outside his/her country continuously for more than seven years,
he/she automatically loses his/her Indian nationality by the principle of lapse.

Renunciation is the voluntary way of losing citizenship. The UDHR (1948) guarantees the right of
a person to change his/her nationality. Loss of citizenship is voluntary only if it is intended and
initiated by the individual concerned
Substitution: citizenship may be lost when the original citizenship is substituted by another state,
where it is acquired through naturalization. On the other side, this may also take place when a
particular territory is annexed by another s territory will be replaced by the citizenship of the
subjugator.

4.7.5. Statelessness
Statelessness is the condition of having citizenship of any country and with no government from
which to ask protection. According to the international law, stateless person is a person who is
not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law. Statelessness almost
always results when state failure leads people to flee –be it due to invasion and conquest by
another state, civil war, famine, or an oppressive regime –from their home country. Individuals
could also become stateless persons because of deprivation and when renouncing their citizenship
without gaining nationality in another State. Some people become stateless as a result of
government action. To settle such conditions, the UN has adopted a convention on the protection
and reduction of stateless persons.

Page 31
 Moral and Citizenship Education (MCED 1011)

References

Bunbongkarn, S., 2001. The role of civil society in democratic consolidation in

Asia. Center for International Exchange, p.230.
Camara, M. S. (2008). Media, civil Society and political culture in West Africa,
African Journalism Studies, 29(2), 210-229.
Dorsen, N., Rosenfeld, M., Sajó, A., & Baer, S. (2003). Comparative
constitutionalism: cases and materials.
Gashaw, A. (2015) Constitution, constitutionalism and foundation of democracy in
Ethiopia. Getahun, K. (2007). Mechanisms of Constitutional Control: A
preliminary observation of the
Ethiopian system. Afrika Focus, 20(1-2).
Hannum, H., 1995. The status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
national and international law. Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 25, p.287.
Ibrahim Idris (2000) ‗The place of International Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Constituti

Page 32
MRAL AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION (MCED 1011