This article is to explore whether the achievement of moral character is the ultimate goal of higher education from a cross cultural approach. To discuss this study logically, three major research questions are addressed. First, what are the concepts of moral, ethics, and character? Second, what is the achievement of moral character from the Eastern and the Western perspectives? Third, what is the role of higher education for the achievement of moral character? To defend these research questions, the author uses (...) a descriptive content analysis method, with a cross cultural approach. In order to explore the questions, the researcher in this study sets several limitations. Moral character is generally limited to the ancient Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christianity as well as to the classical Chinese thought and religion. Specifically, the study is mainly focused on not only Plato's "Republic" and Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics," but Confucius' "Analects" and Mencius' "Scripture (The Works of Mengzi)." Additionally, this paper also adjusts the lenses on moral theories, especially moral character, cardinal virtues, social harmony, and the common good. Lastly, higher education is focused on the lenses of Canada and South Korea. The significance of this study is to provide basic theories and valuable resources about moral and character education for educational theorists and practitioners, finding the theories of moral and ethics in the Eastern and the Western thoughts and religions. (shrink)

This article examines some aspects of the entanglement between aesthetic injustice and epistemic injustice, paying special attention to how aesthetic injustice can be resisted in the classroom. The article brings into conversation Boal’s notion of aesthetic injustice with Rancière’s work on the overlapping of aesthetics and politics to suggest that a truly democratic education must work on the level of senses, so that students learn how to identify and resist aesthetic injustice in their everyday lives. Specifically, it is argued that (...) the democratic potential of education is inextricably linked to resisting aesthetic and epistemic injustice in practice. The main point of the article is that resistance to aesthetic injustice in the classroom operates as an instance of politics that mobilizes struggle against oppression. In this sense, the nature of political work conducted in democratic education is to undo the oppressive distribution of the senses. (shrink)