Abstract

In this ‘Reply’, I am critical of several aspects of Michael Hand’s paper ‘Moral education in the community of inquiry’. I do not agree that such terms as ‘standards’' 'and ‘directive' 'teaching’' 'are consistent with a proper understanding of 'inquiry 'generally, and 'philosophical inquiry', 'moral inquiry 'and 'community of inquiry', in particular. I also argue that the idea of 'openness', duly modified, remains central to all forms of inquiry, whether philosophical or otherwise. Finally, I cast doubt on Hand’s characterisation of the distinctions between controversial and uncontroversial, on the one hand, and justified' 'and unjustified, on the other, by reflecting critically on his own examples.