Introduction

Traditional ethics education in the United States is increasingly seen as inadequate for the complexities of the 21st century. Critics argue that conventional curricula and teaching methods have not kept pace with contemporary moral dilemmas or advances in our understanding of moral psychology[3][2]. In his book Critical Moral Reasoning: An Applied Empirical Ethics Approach, Mark T. Holcombe contends that standard ethics courses rely on outdated content and pedagogies that fail to develop practical moral reasoning skills for today’s world[3]. This report examines five major dimensions of this inadequacy – curricular gaps, pedagogical issues, empirical deficiencies, institutional constraints, and the impact of emerging technology – drawing on Holcombe’s critiques and other scholarly research. A synthesis of these insights illustrates why reform is needed and how ethics education can evolve to better prepare students for modern ethical challenges.

Curricular Gaps in Content and Relevance

One prominent concern is that many ethics curricula are outdated and lack relevance to contemporary issues. Traditional ethics courses often focus on canonical topics (e.g. debates on abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment) and philosophical texts that, while important, may omit pressing 21st-century dilemmas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and digital privacy. Holcombe observes that “most contemporary moral issues textbooks are not very contemporary.” Many rely on decades-old readings and case studies, leading to discussions that do not reflect current realities[3]. For example, standard anthologies frequently reprint classic essays containing empirical claims that have since been debunked[3]. Garrett Hardin’s 1974 essay “Living on a Lifeboat,” hinged on factual assumptions that were false even at the time of writing[3]. Including such dated material can mislead students or reduce the credibility of the course, especially when “empirical claims… no longer hold”[3].

Furthermore, traditional courses often emphasize “big” ethical issues in the abstract but neglect everyday relevance. Holcombe argues that many standard topics (e.g. cloning or stem-cell research) are “irrelevant to the daily lives of most students”, who may find such issues distant or overly theoretical[3]. He intentionally omits several common topics from his own curriculum for this reason, aiming instead “for relevance over ‘big issues’.” In practice, this means incorporating quotidian ethical problem, such as the ethics of tipping or digital piracy, that students might actually encounter in their lives[3]. By contrast, a traditional syllabus may leave students feeling that ethics is only about grand philosophical dilemmas, failing to connect moral reasoning to the kinds of decisions they face regularly.

The lack of up-to-date content is especially problematic given the rapid emergence of new ethical frontiers. The rise of AI and digital technology has created moral questions around algorithmic bias, data privacy, deepfakes, employment discrimination, and autonomous systems. A 21st-century ethics curriculum must grapple with such topics, yet many programs have been slow to integrate them. Commentators in higher education stress that modern challenges (climate change, technological disruption, etc.) demand a more holistic and contemporary approach. As Minz notes, today’s complex problems “demand integrative thinking, ethical reasoning and the ability to draw connections across disciplines”, going beyond fragmented, antiquated course content[4]. Traditional ethics education, rooted in static canonical issues, often fails to provide this broader context. In summary, curricular gaps manifest in both outdated material and a mismatch with current ethical dilemmas, leaving students underexposed to the moral questions that define their generation.

Pedagogical Issues: Theory vs. Practice

A second dimension of inadequacy lies in how ethics is taught. Traditional pedagogy tends to overemphasize theoretical abstraction and lecture-based instruction at the expense of practical engagement and skill-building. In a conventional ethics class, students might spend most of their time reading philosophical theories (e.g. utilitarianism, Kantian deontology) and listening to professors explicate these ideas. While understanding theory is important, critics argue that this approach often becomes too abstract and passive, failing to cultivate the ability to reason through real-world moral problems [1][3][4].

Holcombe’s experience led him to question what students were actually learning in typical ethics courses. He found that many courses lacked clear learning objectives focused on how to make moral decisions; instead, they often devolved into surveying opinions on whether various issues are right or wrong[3]. This theoretical focus was not matched with equally rigorous practice in reasoning. As Holcombe bluntly concluded, “the textbook and pedagogy [did not] promote [the core] learning objective” of improving moral reasoning skills[3]. One major shortcoming he identifies is the limited use of active, case-based learning. Empirical evidence supports using case studies and realistic scenarios (a casuistry approach) to teach ethics effectively[1][3]. Confronting concrete dilemmas and working through them helps students learn to apply moral concepts. Yet, Holcombe notes, only a “minority of textbooks” offer even a few case studies, usually tucked away as supplemental examples[3]. Traditional courses rarely center their pedagogy on case analysis; instead, cases are treated as optional illustrations rather than a primary teaching tool.

Over-reliance on lectures is another pedagogical issue. In many ethics classes, instructors primarily tell students about ethical theories or famous moral debates, with students as passive note-takers. Research on education has shown that passive lecture formats are generally less effective than active learning for developing skills.

This holds true in ethics education: a meta-analysis found that case-method teaching produces better knowledge acquisition and skill development than straight lecturing[1]. Active learning strategies (like facilitated discussions, small-group exercises, or problem-based learning) engage students in doing ethics – formulating arguments, debating with peers, and reflecting on their own values. Holcombe advocates shifting class time toward such interactive practice. He deliberately structured his textbook so that “class time… may be largely spent in small group discussions of the cases rather than explaining readings”[3]. This is a direct response to the lecture-heavy norm: by making the reading material clear and including numerous cases, he aims to free instructors from rehashing theory at the chalkboard and instead have students actively grapple with moral problems.

Another critique is that traditional ethics pedagogy is seldom evidence-based. In other words, course designs rarely follow research on teaching effectiveness. For instance, despite studies favoring case-based learning, many curricula persist with content-heavy lectures and abstract debates. When Holcombe helped evaluate Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training programs, he discovered that “often [they] lacked clear learning objectives” and were not tailored to learners’ needs[3]. This prompted him to overhaul his own teaching methods to align with what education research indicates is more effective. The traditional model’s resistance to pedagogical innovation means that methods proven to enhance moral reasoning, such as case discussions, role-playing ethical decision-making, or other experiential learning, are underutilized in favor of the familiar lecture-and-essay format.

In summary, the pedagogical shortcomings of traditional ethics education include an overemphasis on theory (learning about ethics) rather than practicing ethical reasoning. Traditional ethics pedagogy is a passive lecture format that limits student engagement and a general failure to adopt evidence-based teaching practices. Together these issues mean that even when students learn ethical theories in the abstract, they may struggle to apply them in concrete situations, Which is exactly the skillset needed to navigate moral challenges outside the classroom.

Empirical Deficiencies: Ignoring Moral Psychology

A critical and oft-noted deficiency in traditional ethics instruction is the lack of integration with empirical findings about how people actually make moral decisions. This is perharps the most sever oversight of traditional ethical pedagogy. Over the past few decades, fields like cognitive science, social psychology, and neuroscience have greatly expanded our understanding of moral cognition, how emotions, intuition, reasoning, and social context influence ethical judgments. However, much of this knowledge has not filtered into standard ethics curricula, which remain rooted in normative theories and philosophical argumentation. The result is a disconnect between what students learn in an ethics class (how one ought to reason or what theories say) and the realities of human moral behavior (how people tend to reason in practice).

Holcombe highlights this gap by pointing out that traditional textbooks almost never incorporate relevant data from the social and behavioral sciences. He argues that “practically no other textbook on the market includes relevant empirical data related to the moral issues” discussed[3]. For example, an ethics textbook might present a debate on altruism vs. egoism citing David Hume or Ayn Rand, but ignore modern psychological research on empathy, prosocial behavior, or cognitive biases that affect moral choices. In Holcombe’s view, “well-reasoned moral decisions cannot be made without considering relevant facts”, including empirical facts about human nature and society[3]. By excluding empirical data and moral psychology, traditional courses present ethics as a purely theoretical or logical enterprise divorced from real-world knowledge.

Contemporary moral psychology has revealed phenomena that challenge simplistic models of moral reasoning. Studies by psychologists like Jonathan Haidt show that people often have instant moral intuitions (“gut feelings”) and then posthoc rationalize them, rather than engaging in step-by-step logical reasoning from the start[2]. Traditional ethical pedagogy exclusively favors a more formal logical procedure. Likewise, research in behavioral ethics demonstrates common ethical pitfalls: cognitive biases, social pressures, and situational factors that lead even wellintentioned individuals to behave unethically. Traditional ethics education, which typically focuses on moral theories and ethical principles, “falls short by overlooking the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind moral decisions.” It seldom teaches students about these psychological dynamics[2]. As a result, students might learn what should be done according to Kant or Mill, but not why they or others might fail to do the right thing in practice. This is a significant blind spot if the goal is to prepare students for real ethical decision-making rather than just philosophical discourse.

There is a growing movement, informed by empirical research, to bridge this gap. For instance, the behavioral ethics approach explicitly incorporates findings from psychology and cognitive science into ethics education. Biasucci and Prentice, in their 2020 book on behavioral ethics, note that by bringing in research on judgment and decision-making, we can “shed light on the common pitfalls that lead even wellintentioned individuals astray”[2]. Understanding phenomena like the framing effect, confirmation bias, or moral disengagement can help students recognize and mitigate their own biases when facing ethical choices. Traditional curricula rarely cover these topics. Holcombe’s Critical Moral Reasoning is an exception in that it weaves in empirical studies and even includes exercises on applying the insights of moral psychologists (for example, one exercise has students “practice applying Haidt’s ideas” about moral intuition and foundations in analyzing cases[3]). He also updates discussions of classic theories with contemporary data – noting, for instance, that emotivism has evolved with new empirical research, making some of the old criticisms obsolete[3].

In short, traditional ethics education suffers from an empirical deficit. It tends to present ethics as if moral reasoning occurs in a vacuum, untouched by psychology. In reality factors like emotion, biology, and culture profoundly shape moral judgment. Addressing this deficiency means teaching ethics in a way that reflects how people actually think and act, not just how they ought to. The incorporation of moral psychology and related empirical fields is increasingly seen as crucial for an ethics curriculum that is both realistic and effective in improving students’ moral decision-making.

Institutional Constraints and Siloed Teaching

Even when the need for curricular and pedagogical reform in ethics education is recognized, institutional barriers in academia can impede progress. Universities are traditionally organized into departments and disciplines that operate in silos, which makes interdisciplinary collaboration – often essential for modern ethics topics – difficult to achieve. Ethics, in particular, is commonly housed within philosophy or religion departments, and this compartmentalization can limit how and where ethical reasoning is taught.

One systemic issue is the rigidity of departmental boundaries. As one professor observes, “Colleges and universities are typically organized into rigid departmental silos, each with its own priorities, funding and governance.” Under such conditions, “collaboration across disciplines is logistically and administratively challenging.” Faculty who wish to co-teach or develop interdisciplinary courses (for example, a joint course on technology ethics between a philosophy professor and a computer scientist) often face significant hurdles: scheduling conflicts, lack of budgetary support, and questions about which department gets credit for the enrollments[4]. An ethics course that tries to span technology, science, and philosophy may end up “falling between the cracks” of departments, with no one unit readily willing to sponsor it. This discourages the kind of integrative ethics instruction that contemporary issues require.

The traditional structure of the curriculum also plays a role. Many institutions handle ethics education by requiring a standalone course (often in philosophy) to “check the box” for ethics. This can lead to a fragmented educational experience: students learn ethics in isolation, rather than intertwined with their major field or across multiple contexts. For instance, engineering or business students might take one ethics course as a graduation requirement, but ethical reasoning may not be reinforced elsewhere in their program. There is a movement toward “ethics across the curriculum,” aiming to embed ethical discussions in various courses, but implementing this faces resistance and inertia. Holcombe’s commentary on overlapping courses illustrates the silo effect: he chose not to cover certain bioethical issues in his introductory ethics textbook because those topics were “included in bioethics courses” at higher levels[3]. In other words, the expectation of a separate bioethics course led him to omit important content like cloning or genetically modified foods from the general course to avoid redundancy. Also, those issues are not relevant to the daily lives of an incoming freshman taking a 100-level Contemporary Moral Issues course. While pragmatic, this reflects how ethical content gets compartmentalized: students might only encounter those issues if they take the specialized course, which many will not.

Academic culture can also be conservative regarding teaching methods, making reform slow. Graduate training for instructors still emphasizes disciplinary research over pedagogical innovation, and young faculty may feel pressured to stick with traditional teaching in order to be seen as rigorous. Interdisciplinary or experimental teaching approaches (like team-teaching an ethics module in a science class) might not be valued in tenure and promotion decisions[4]. This creates a “cultural” barrier to change: even if individual educators see the shortcomings of the old model, they may lack support or incentives to implement new approaches.

To overcome these constraints, systemic changes are required, such as revising curricular structures and reward systems to encourage integration. The literature suggests steps like building flexibility into general education requirements (so students can take interdisciplinary, theme-based ethics courses that count toward graduation) and adjusting faculty incentives to reward collaborative teaching[4]. Without such changes, traditional ethics education remains stuck in its silo, unable to fully address topics like environmental or AI ethics that bridge multiple domains. Institutional inertia thus contributes to keeping ethics education outdated, even as the world outside academia changes rapidly.

Summary of the Challenges

Across these dimensions, a clear picture emerges: traditional ethics education is misaligned with contemporary needs. Curricula often lag in content, focusing on legacy issues and readings while overlooking urgent modern dilemmas in technology and global ethics. Pedagogically, old habits favor theory-heavy, lecturedriven teaching, which does not effectively cultivate the real-world moral reasoning skills or engagement that students require. Empirically, the failure to incorporate insights from psychology and other sciences leaves a gulf between ethical theory and human behavior, limiting students’ ability to understand and manage how moral decisions happen in practice. Institutionally, siloed academic structures and rigid curricula create inertia and impede the interdisciplinary cooperation needed to refresh ethics education. Finally, the advent of AI and other disruptive technologies underscores all of these gaps (content, method, and framework) by presenting novel ethical questions that the traditional model was never designed to answer.

Holcombe’s critique in Critical Moral Reasoning encapsulates many of these points. He highlights how conventional courses neither define nor achieve robust learning objectives in moral reasoning[3]. Traditional textbooks give scant attention to contemporary case studies or empirical data, and thus fail to engage students with issues relevant to their lives and futures[3]. The end result is an ethics education that can be intellectually rich in theory yet practically poor in application. This disconnect that becomes more untenable as ethical issues grow more complex and interdisciplinary in the 21st century.

Sources:

1. Bayona, J. A., & Durán, W. F. (2024). A meta-analysis of the influence of case method and lecture teaching on cognitive and affective learning outcomes.

The International Journal of Management Education, 22(1), 100935.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100935

2. Biasucci, C. (2020). Behavioral ethics in practice: Why we sometimes make the wrong decisions. Routledge. https://www.thenile.com.au/books/carabiasucci/behavioral-ethics-in-practice/9780367341657
3. Holcombe, Mark T. Critical Moral Reasoning: An Applied Empirical Ethics Approach. Self-published via Amazon KDP, 2025. ISBN: B0FQ35RSX8.
4. Minz, S. (2025, April 25). Big Questions, Bold Answers: A General education curriculum that matters. Inside Higher Ed.

https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/higher-edgamma/2025/04/25/general-education-curriculum-matters