Jim wrote:
> Another concern is the pedagogical issue as Paul suggests of teaching
> values. There are better and worse ways of doing this. If your
> "teaching" is simply indoctrination, *especially* at the college
> level, then I'd say it might be best to avoid teaching environmental
> ethics altogether. Stick to teaching human ethics. At lower
> educational levels indoctrination may have more of a (generally
> accepted) place, but indoctrination at early ages sure makes it more
> difficult to "re-educate" when people get older. :-) It's a real
> puzzle.
What I meant is that if I wanted to ensure that environmental values were
'available' in the academic life of learners, then it need's to be there
early. Even as early as pre-school.
I had a friend here last summer who said that she like bats and snakes so
much that she one day put a large garter snake around her neck.
Unfortunately the snake gave off an 'emission' of gas, and this gas arrested
her breathing to the extent that her mom found her 'blue in the face' and
she was wisked off the hospital where she was designated 'code blue'....near
death. She was revived, and later she learned that garter snakes give off
some type of cyanide gas. Her snake was wrapped around her neck. She did not
kill the snake, and still likes snakes.
Buddy out west wrote in a book one day: "It is easier to kill a man than a
snake" [Desert Solitaire]
She likes bats too, and used to live in her grandparents century old house,
sleeping there in the dark, listening to the bats flying in and out. Her son
who is only 5 years old, knows more than the average adult about many
animals.
Youngsters whose educational development includes this 'great love' for the
'great chain' of being, will definately have developed their own
'environmental values' long before they reach universities. This was why I
thought it was somewhat 'useless' as a course for most people.
Of course someone may insist that this view only regards animal ethics,
rather than environmental ethics.
john
> These are good questions, Paul. What do YOU think?
>
> :-)
>
> An analogy that came to mind was teaching about abortion
> ethics/ethics of abortion. I'm not sure that teaching abortion
> ethics would entail the promotion of a commitment to a particular
> abortion ethic. Once could remain essentially agnostic on the
> question of abortion and still do an absolutely fine job of teaching
> what various philosophers have argued on the question of abortion.
> And that would similarly be the case in other areas of applied ethics
> . . . .
>
> Good questions, good questions.
>
> Jim T.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >What do we think?
> >
> >Should values be taught?'
> >Since we are human is it possible to teach without our personal values
> >colouring what we do?
> >What would a society become if it did not teach values?
> >But How do we decide who's values should be perpetuated?
> >Should education be about how to think rather than what to believe?
> >
> >Any takers?
> >
> >Yours PK
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
|