Rigterink and louzecky argue that if the virtues were really, seriously taught in college: students may become unhappy, since virtuous behavior does not create a quality life or a life that isworth living. (this is, they argue, completely opposed to socrates' maxim, "the unexamined life is notworth living.") studies show that those without a moral compass report being happier people with more

Choosing not to impart virtues to pupils, according to Rigterink and Louzecky, would be a negative decision.

Though Rigterink and Louzecky's thesis may be accurate to some extent, putting it into practice with kids would be foolish because if virtues are not taught, the rate of propensity toward bad and unethical behavior will increase.

Although it is difficult to put qualities into practice, this does not negate the need of instilling them in the minds of students.

To know more about the Rigterink and Louzecky arguments, refer to the link below:

link

Favoring the argument by Rigterink and Louzecky, deciding to not teach virtues to students would be a bad decision.

Explanation:

could you show the options for the answers? : )

answer; the intervening variable;