Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay about environmental education
Approaches used in environmental education
Rationale behind environmental education
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay about environmental education
Environmental Education
When forming a curriculum, teachers need to determine three types of objectives- fact, skill, and appreciation for something. The “appreciation for” objective is the one that an environmental class stresses. Environmental courses emphasize the importance of conserving the Earth by creating environmental responsibility, evokes morals. In conservation, we have to decide what is important and certain actions we want to take to preserve what we feel is important. That’s why it is crucial for teachers to decide what is necessary to include in an environmental curriculum to create sensitivity and teach ethical problems. Teachers need to teach the three viewpoints that one could take on the environment. Once these ideas are taught, they need to be explained according to the logic behind the ideas; the students themselves need to be shown realistic examples and to feel connected to the environment. By doing this, the teacher is helping the student to form environmental morals that are necessary to form an opinion on issues that affect the Earth.
The first part of the curriculum that needs to be established is a clear definition of each viewpoint. Anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and egocentrism need to be clearly defined in order to provide the students with the basics to form a knowledgeable decision as to which paradigm they are going to adopt.
Anthropocentrism is defined as “a world view that considers humans to be the most important factor and value in the Universe” (Anthropocentrism). Students need a clear understanding how this definition extends to worldview; so, more than a definition, they need to know what details compose this view. They need to know that anthropocentrism is primarily a mechanistic ...
... middle of paper ...
...ing sustainably, and having environmental sensitivity.
Works Cited
• “Could Coccolithophores Save the Earth from Global Warming?" http://www.dofollownet.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010. .
• "Anthropocentrism ." Science Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010. .
• Attfield, Robin. "Biocentrism." Oracle ThinkQuest Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010. .
• Factor, Lance. "Ethical Worldviews." Environmental Ethics . Knox College. GDH, Galesburg. 25 Mar. 2010. Lecture.
• Rowe, J. Stan. "Ecocentrism: The Chord that Harmonizes Humans and Earth." Ecospherics Ethics. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2010. .
All teachers have the responsibility to develop skills and qualities in their pupils that are beneficial to their lives and the lives of others. Works Cited Quinn, D (1995), Ishmael, Bantam/Turner Book Publication. United Nations Educational (UNESCO 1995-2009), Scientific and Cultural Education, Education for Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/en/esd/ (Date accessed 21/12/09).
In the spirit of Karen Warren, Gould's perspective on environmentalism 'feels right' to me, as I can connect with acts of respect and benevolence towards humans and can easily extend that feeling to the rest of the earth (especially on a personal level where I see the golden rule as the basis for my religious beliefs). However, upon closer examination, I find the suggestion to 'just follow the golden rule' as an environmental ethic problematic when examined in a practical, non-idealized light. Harkening back to the problems encountered in previous discussions of biocentric and ecocentric ethics, I am troubled by the potential outcomes of an environmental ethic such as this.
J. Baird Callicott is probably most famously known as an advocate for Aldo Leopold's The Land Ethic (1949.) The Land Ethic is an environmental ethic which Callicot strongly posits is a holistic and non-anthropocentric ethical theory. In other words, The Land Ethic should, if Callicotts position is correct, be an ethical theory that places collectives, as opposed to just individual living things, as having intrinsic value. It should also be an ethical theory that does not focus on, or allow, Homo sapiens to be considered the only “things” as having moral significance. The Land Ethic, originally sketched out by Leopold is a very concise, yet intricate, piece of literature and Callicott has written many pieces of literature which attempt to explain, unfold, apply and defend Leopold's Land Ethic. The purpose of this essay is to, as clearly and precisely as possible, provide an explanation as to what The Land Ethic consists of, with both references to Leopold and several of Callicot's literatures. Following this an identification of any problems that can be extracted from the theory will then be juxtaposed with Callicott's attempt to defend The Land Ethic and remedy these issues. Finally, after the presentation and analysis of The Land Ethic a decision will be made as to whether The Land Ethic is, what Callicott claims, truly an adequate non-anthropocentric environmental ethic.
Zsolnai, L. (2011). Environmental ethics for business sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics, 38(11), 892-899. doi: 10.1108/03068291111171397
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Leopold, Aldo. “The Land Ethic” in Environmental Ethics edited by David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott. Oxford University Press, New York. 2002. p. 27-32.
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
Such ploys seek to undermine any legitimate eco-consciousness in the audience, replacing it with rhetoric that is ultimately ambivalent toward the health of ecosystems, but definitively pro-business. These tactics assume a rigidly anthropocentric point of view, shutting out any consideration for the well-being of non-human existence; they seem to suggest that nature lies subordinate to our base desires. In addition to upholding the subordination of nature to business and leisure activities, this view establishes nature as something privately owned and partitioned (243), rather than something intrinsic to the world. Our relationship with nature becomes one of narcissism.
Political ecology began in the 1960s as a response to the neglect of the environment and political externalities from which it is spawned. Political ecology is the analysis of social forms and humans organizations that interact with the environment, the phenomena in and affecting the developing world. Political ecology also works to provide critiques and alternatives for negative reactions in the environment. This line of work draws from all sorts of fields, such as geography, forestry, environmental sociology, and environmental history in a complex relationship between politics, nature, and economics. It is a multi-sided field where power strategies are conceived to remove the unsustainable modern rationality and instead mobilize social actions in the globalized world for a sustainable future. The field is focused in political ethics to refresh sustainability, and the core questions of the relationships between society and ecology, and the large impacts of globalization of humanized nature.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
Before taking my philosophy self-assessment, I was sure my highest score would fall somewhere in humanistic or social change. I was surprised when I saw that all of my scores fell within six points of each other in all five of the philosophies. After thinking about this, I have determined that I have come to see the benefits of each of the philosophies of education and have drawn pieces from each one in order to shape my own philosophy of education and teaching. Behavioral, progressive and humanistic are the three philosophies that I scored highest in and I will attempt to show how my philosophy relates to ethical teaching of each in today’s classroom. In Nodding’s Philosophy of Education he says, “Thoughtful people continue to examine the old responses, to generate new ones induced by changing conditions and to reflect on current responses in the interest of making education as good as it can be.”
Description: Students will learn the importance to take care of the environment. They will gain knowledge on recycle, reuse, and reduce. They will also learn to be creative and to persuade other people around school and outside school for protecting the environment. Moreover, students will increase their vocabulary and critical thinking.
Sustainability development has three components: environment, society, and economy. If you consider the three to be overlapping circles of the same size, the area of overlap in the center is human well-being. As the environment, society, and economy become more aligned, the area of overlap increases, and so does human well-being. Therefore, education for sustainable development (ESD) is the use of education as a tool to achieve sustainability. Simply put, ESD is a way to make the world a safer, healthier, and more livable place for us and future generations (McKeown, 2002, pgs 7-9).