In this essay, Paula McAvoy critiques a commonly held view that teaching young people to be good choice makers should be a central aim of sex education. Specifically, she argues against David Archard's recommendation that sex educators ought to focus on the development of autonomy and teaching young people that “choice should be accorded the central role in the legitimation of sexual conduct.” Instead, McAvoy argues that under conditions of gender inequality this view advantages boys and disadvantages girls. Juxtaposing a (...) case of a culturally arranged marriage with a spring break scene from Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, McAvoy shows that focusing on sexual choice making obscures and reifies the unequal social conditions that young people navigate. She concludes by suggesting an alternative that is in line with Sharon Lamb's argument in “Just the Facts? The Separation of Sex Education from Moral Education” that intimate encounters are better governed by attending to our ethical obligations to others. (shrink)

In this article, Lauren Gatti and Paula McAvoy explain the interdisciplinary methods that they used for developing a theory of professional judgment for teachers that they call the Ethical Long View. In developing the theory, they engaged in empirical inquiry through the solicitation of dilemmas from practicing teachers using an online survey (N = 127) and follow-up interviews with a subset of survey participants (N = 11). The interviews were developed into qualitative normative cases, which are richly described vignettes of (...) a teacher's dilemma and thinking. In between analyzing the survey data and developing the cases was a philosophically oriented recursive process that was both iterative and interdisciplinary. The qualitative work helped the authors develop the conceptual framework for the Ethical Long View and, at the same time, positioned participants as co-constructors of the ethical theory. This research draws on the tools of both applied philosophy and social science, but it belongs exclusively to neither. (shrink)