By Dr Ragnar Purje
Irrespective of culture or social circumstances, there is one universal principle that applies to all cultures: every human being is responsible for what they think, do, say, learn, and choose. And choices always have consequences.
Cultures differ in their customs, expectations, and social norms, but they do not differ in the fundamental universal human capacities that make thinking and action possible. In every culture, at all times, individuals think, act, and exercise agency in the same universal way. This is not a philosophical or social claim; it is an immutable structural sociological and neurobiological fact of human consciousness and the universal human condition.
No culture can remove an individual’s neurobiological and conscious capacity to think independently and make choices, because agency is not conferred by culture; it is inherent in being human. Viktor Frankl, who endured unimaginable circumstances, remains a powerful authority on the universality of independent thinking, choices, and consequences.
With clarity and insight, Frankl wrote in Man’s Search for Meaning: “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Frankl’s insight shows that although culture shapes context, it cannot eliminate the self-reflective, conscious space in which every person chooses their response.
All rational beings – across all cultures – share the same universal neurobiological structural capacities for independent conscious thought and agency. Ethical and moral responsibility and agency arise from these universal capacities.
Agency, independent thinking, and the choice of action—ethical or unethical—arise from a person’s autonomy rather than from external authority or punishment. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative (1785/1996) rests on a simple truth: ethical and moral principles apply to everyone because we all share the same universal capacities for autonomous thought, agency, and freely chosen action. As such, ethical and moral agency apply universally, to every individual, collective, and culture.
In this context, while culture can shape what individuals believe, value, or practise, it cannot eliminate the universal human neurobiological capacity for conscious agency, autonomous thought, and choice.
Agency – which involves self-authorship and personal responsibility – is therefore a constant feature of human life, present in every individual, in every culture, and in every circumstance. This unity between the universal human condition and the categorical imperative shows that the neurobiological fact of agency and the philosophical duty of responsibility arise from the same source: rational autonomy, the universal human capacity to govern oneself, i.e., to direct one’s own thinking, choices, and actions through reason.
From this foundation of reason and self-governance, the ethical and moral demand of the categorical imperative naturally follows. The categorical imperative holds that every person, in every culture, should act in ways they could reasonably expect everyone else to act; it is the universal ethical and moral principle of treating others as equals, never as objects to be used or as a means to an end. This universal ethical and moral requirement becomes real in the choices we make.
From the moment we wake up, we make choices, and each choice has consequences. Blaming others for the choices we make is an attempt to avoid our universal responsibility for what we think, do, say, learn, and choose. This blame is unethical and immoral. These universal principles apply to all circumstances and situations. The universal principle of personal responsibility was also presented by the psychiatrist and educator William Glasser.
In his book Control Theory, Glasser (1986) argues that an individual’s intrinsic motivation and personal attitude have the greatest influence on what the individual will do, say, and achieve. By examining and reporting on student behaviour and attitudes in relation to their learning outcomes, Glasser found that unless a student was personally motivated to behave and learn, there was very little anyone else could do except offer advice.
Consequently, in universal terms, it is the student who is responsible for their behaviour and learning. In this, Glasser acknowledges that “[w]hile there is no doubt that some teachers are more skilful at motivating than others, there is no teacher, no matter how skilled, who can teach a student who does not want to learn.” Therefore, don’t blame the teacher if you choose not to learn.
This is also emphasised in Responsibility Theory. In the Responsibility Theory classroom, the student is presented with the following self-focusing question: “What am I responsible for, and what power do I have?” The universal self-focusing and self-reflective answer to that question is: “I am responsible for, and I’ve got the power over what I think, do, say, learn, and choose” (Purje, 2014).
Therefore, from a categorical imperative perspective, it is time to stop blaming teachers. Students are responsible for what they think, do, say, learn, and choose. Further to this, Glasser informs us that there is no point in trying to force a student (or anyone else, for that matter) to behave or learn. This is because learning and all behaviours are choices, and these choices belong to the student.
As noted above, all a teacher (or anyone else) can do is continue to encourage, support, and advise. It is the student who must want to learn, open the book, pick up the pencil, do the writing, and, self-evidently, do the thinking. No one else can think for another, nor can anyone else learn for another (Purje, 2014).
All of these actions are self-initiated thoughts that belong to the student. Ultimately and universally, as noted in Responsibility Theory, the student is responsible for and has power over their thoughts, actions, behaviours, utterances, choices, and desire to learn. These immutable universal principles are evident in the following Glasser quotes:
• All living creatures, from simple to complex, control themselves.
• The only person whose behaviour we can control is our own.
• It is an axiom of Control Theory that no one does anything, simple or complex, because someone tells them to do it.
• We can force students to stay in school, but we can no more make those students work than we can make the proverbial horse drink even though we tether him to the water trough.
• [Stimulus Response] theory declares that if we threaten a person enough, we can force them to do what we want; the evidence is quite clear that punishment is not a good long term motivator for anyone, and it is long term, not short term, motivation that is needed in school.
• Teaching is a hard job when students make an effort to learn. When they make no effort, it is an impossible one.
Accordingly, the universal evidence is irrefutable: students are responsible for what they think, do, say, learn, and choose, and it is time to stop blaming teachers when students do not want to learn. Ultimately, it is the student who decides how they behave; therefore, students are accountable for their thoughts, attitudes, actions, behaviour, choices, and learning.
Consequently, it is not the teacher’s fault if a student chooses not to do the work. Learning only occurs when the student chooses to engage. Teachers present information, and it is up to the student to look, listen, and undertake the required learning actions (Purje, 2014).
Anita Woolfolk (1998) supports this view, noting that it is the student who must engage in the learning process to benefit from the information presented. This means students are not only responsible for their learning but also the masters of their own educational and personal destinies.
This indicates that responsibility and the ability to learn remain with the student; no one can learn for someone else. The intention, the action, and the engagement in learning are a self-directed, self-motivated journey of the self, by the self, and for the self. All of this aligns with Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wrote: “The only person you are destined to become is the person you decide to be.”
This is further supported by a study conducted by Cathleen Stasz (1994), which found that, in terms of work-related attitudes, the classrooms where successful learning was taking place were those in which students expressed positive attitudes and displayed self-motivated academic engagement. In these classrooms, teachers emphasised the importance of students taking responsibility for their learning.
Subsequently, and universally, the first steps towards school attendance and ongoing daily attendance at school, as well as learning and school attendance responsibilities, all begin at home. Therefore, the responsibility and accountability for ensuring the student attends school every day remain, in absolute terms, with the family.
In terms of attendance, once a student is at school, irrespective of culture or social circumstances, there is one universal principle that applies to all: every person, in all social structures, is responsible for what they think, do, say, learn, and choose. And choices always lead to consequences, for which the student is responsible. Learning takes place when the student wants to learn. Therefore, it is time to stop blaming teachers for what students are universally responsible for: their learning, their attitude, their choices, and their consequences.
Dr. Ragnar Purje (PhD; M.Ed.; M.Ed.(Guid.& Couns.); M.Ed.(Lead.&Man.); B.A. (Psych.); B.App.Sc. (P.E.); Grad.Dip.Ed.; Grad.Dip.SportSci.; Grad.Dip.Ex.&SportSci.; Grad.Cert.(Comm.); Grad.Dip.(Health Couns.); Certificate IV in Assess.&Workplace Training). Author of Responsibility Theory®. Adjunct Senior Lecturer at CQUniversity. Classroom Behaviour Specialist.