Official Syllabus
PHI 3682: Honors Environmental Philosophy
WAC
Daniel White
Please see my web page for
office hours and other syllabi: http://wise.fau.edu/~dwhite.
(Please note: this syllabus
is subject to regular updates; you should check this online version weekly.)
Office: HC 146, Office Hours, Spring
2012: TWR 2:00-4:00 PM, or by appointment
Email: dwhite@fau.edu,
telephone 6-8651.
Course
Description: PHI 3682: Spring 2012, T & R 4:00-5:20 PM, HC 114; fulfills Environmental Studies requirement in the HC
Core Curriculum and counts
toward the Environmental Studies
Concentration and the V,S, or D
requirement in the Philosophy Concentration; also fulfills the WAC writing requirement. Students
interested in further study of the ethical foundations of environmental
philosophy might consider taking the Interdisciplinary
Ethics Minor. Prerequisites or Corequisites: none.
This course provides a study of contemporary
environmental philosophy, emphasizing ethical issues related to the natural
environment. The course focuses the
history of ideas regarding nature, on the relevance of traditional ethical
standpoints to environmental issues, and on the significance of both for
current scientific reportage regarding the ecological crisis. We will study
contributions of the European philosophical tradition as well as those of other
world cultures to the ideas of nature, humanity, community, and morality
underlying environmental issues. We will consider ecological ideas from an
interdisciplinary perspective, including those from the natural and social
sciences as well as the humanities. The contributions of ecological feminism to
the study of gender and the environment will also be an important theme. Our
discussion will be both theoretical and practical, encouraging each class
participant to explore options for a viable ecological ethic. Each of you will
be responsible for developing your own point of view based on the study of
primary and secondary sources. Each
person will participate in and lead class discussion, write essays and
dialogues, cooperate in a group presentation, and explore the range of sources
available in environmental studies. We will pay special attention to the
widening range of electronic media relevant to ecological issues. Our study
will be historical, thematic, multicultural and interdisciplinary, as the
character of environmental thinking requires.
Honors Work: As this is an Honors Seminar students are responsible
for the careful study of a challenging list of sources; preparing for active
discussion of assigned texts including the preparation in writing of key
questions relevant to each reading; a series of critical essays and an occasional
creative piece in response to key issues in Nietzsche’s writings; a final essay
written in two drafts, providing an arguable perspective on Nietzsche’s work in
light of assigned secondary sources. Each student is expected to develop her or
his own intellectual perspective articulated in discussion and various modes of
writing. Written assignments will be graded in terms of content and
composition, the quality of which should be commensurate with the composition
of a successful Honors Thesis.
Assignments and Grades: see WAC criteria below for a
more detailed explanation.
Requirements, Grades, and Methods of Evaluation:
1) Series
of five brief critical essays (750 words apiece): totaling 50%
of final grade; evaluated for content
and composition as described under WAC criteria below;
2) Final
Presentation: 20% of final grade; on same
topic as final essay, evaluated in terms of style, organization, and
content.
3) Final
essay (at least 1,500 words) submitted in
two drafts: 20% of final grade and including library research based on the
list of sources below as well as a brief extemporaneous presentation of key
ideas during final examination period; the essay will be evaluated for content and composition as described below.
4) Class Participation: 10%; including
preparation of “reading presentations”; discussion; attendance; and other daily
work.
Late Work and Make-up Policy: Unexcused late work will be downgraded in accordance with
the degree of lateness at the professor’s discretion. Excused late work
(supported by a doctor’s note or other appropriate documentation) must be made
up at the earliest possible opportunity after the due date; it is the student’s
responsibility to arrange a schedule for completion of work with the professor
and to finish the work accordingly.
Learning Objectives & Outcomes: this
course includes study of Nietzsche’s major works in translation as well as
relevant critical texts; learning will be pursued and evaluated in terms of
critical reading, discussion, and writing based on primary and secondary
sources. Thus the class is designed:
1)
To allow student
to become critically informed about the philosophical issues related to
environmental questions.
2)
To help students
specifically to understand different ethical perspectives relevant to the
evaluation of options for environmental action.
3)
To lead students
to reflect on the ethical status of different species of living organisms.
4)
To develop each
student’s own intellectual perspective on key philosophical issues in light of
readings in environmental philosophy and related issues in science.
5)
To allow students
to explore different cultural perspectives in regard to environmental issues.
6)
To develop new
interdisciplinary insights across the arts and sciences based on 1-5
above.
7)
To improve skills
in critical discussion, writing, and enquiry consistent with the composition of
a successful Honors Thesis.
8)
To contribute to the critical sensibility,
enlightened understanding, and open mind of the liberally educated individual.
9)
To fulfill the
goals of FAU’s WAC Program as described below.
Students enrolled in this course agree to
abide by the Honors College Honor Code and the FAU Code of Academic Integrity: please review these documents.
Classroom Etiquette: Students in Honors College classrooms are to maintain an atmosphere of cordiality and collegiality. Each of you should feel free to raise questions, comment on issues under consideration, and join in a group conversation. Each person is expected both to speak her or his mind freely and to listen to the views of others politely. Please keep in mind that ideas are open to debate but that personal criticisms of individuals (ad hominem arguments) are bad etiquette as well as poor logic. Let’s maintain an open democratic culture here with respect for everyone’s opinions.
Students with Disabilities: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act(ADA), students who require reasonable accommodations due to a disability to
properly execute coursework must register with the Office for Students with
Disabilities (OSD) -- in Boca Raton, SU 133 (561-297-3880); in Davie, LA240
(954-236-1222); in Jupiter, SR 110 (561-799-8010); or at the Treasure Coast, CO
117 (772-873-3441) – and follow all OSD procedures.
Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC)
General Requirements:
This writing-intensive course serves as
one of the two “Gordon Rule” classes at the 2000-4000 level that [you must
take] after completing ENC 1101 and 1102 or their equivalents. You must receive
a grade of “C” (not C-minus) or better to receive credit. Furthermore, this
class meets the University-wide Writing Across the
Curriculum (WAC) criteria, which expect you to improve your writing over the
course of the term. The University’s WAC program promotes the teaching of
writing across all levels and all disciplines. Writing-to-learn activities have
proven effective in developing critical thinking skills, learning
discipline-specific content, and understanding and building competence in the
modes of enquiry and writing for various disciplines and professions.
If this class is selected to
participate in the university-wide WAC assessment program, you will be required
to access the online assessment server, complete the consent form and survey,
and submit electronically a first and final draft of a near-end-of-term-paper.
Specific
WAC Requirements:
Writing Portfolio: all of your assignments
for the term are to be collected in a writing portfolio, which you should
submit during the final examination period, along with your final essay. You
should organize the portfolio in reverse, with the most recent work on top.
Please use a simple paper file folder for this purpose (no plastic).
Maintenance of your portfolio is to be considered as part of your class
participation grade.
Guidelines
for writing reading responses and formal and informal essays, including
examples of essay quest1`ions:
1)
General principles: Informal
and formal essays should be organized in deductive, inductive, or
dialogical form; one paper during the term will be in narrative
form (you will have the opportunity to write your own philosophic myth, as in
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave). The
principal differences between your informal responses and
your formal essays will be in length of development and in the process
of revision.
2) Specific
guidelines:
a) deductive or
thesis-support organization: this essay will be organized into an introduction,
a body, and a conclusion:
The introduction
should present the subject of your essay for a wide, educated audience
who are somewhat familiar with environmental ethics and may know of a work or
two, but who will need you, the writer, briefly to explain how each idea fits into Nietzsche’s philosophy, what
key terms mean, and why the issues you deal with in your essays should be of
interest; the introduction will culminate in a thesis which is a
succinct statement of the principal argument of your essay. Thesis: “Lynn
White’s thesis that the environmental crisis is the direct result of Christian
attitudes toward nature amplified by technology is tenable only based on Max
Weber’s view of capitalism as the secular expression of the Protestant Ethic.”
The body of your essay
should be organized into a series of paragraphs each of which is organized into
a topic sentence and a series of examples illustrating the topic, evaluating
the topic in terms of pros and cons, or analyzing the topic in terms of its
components. Each topic sentence should be logically connected to the thesis
statement; you should remind your reader explicitly of how each topic is
relevant to your thesis. Based on the thesis stated above, one topic sentence
might say: “Nietzsche’s Will to Power was meant to explain not only the
independence of judgment preferred in a philosophic ‘free spirit,’ but also the
generative force of nature as it is expressed in the individual;” another might
say, “White’s argument that developments in technology such as the cross-plow
that augmented perceived human dominion over nature must be understood in light
of Weber’s argument that the rationalization of economy and technology derived
from Protestant asceticism.” Each of these topics could itself be broken down
into subtopics, either for the organization of complex paragraphs or for the
development of separate paragraphs. Thus you could write an entire paragraph on
the topic, “White thought that the idea that humanity should strive for
salvation through virtuous earthly toil becomes fully intelligible in light of
Weber’s analysis of the reorganization of economic and technological activity
by early Protestant entrepreneurs.” Examples clearly supporting this assertion
and counterexamples seeming to refute it (and therefore requiring explanation
if your thesis is to be consistent) should be drawn from Nietzsche’s texts.
Supporting arguments and possible counterarguments (which you’ll be trying to
refute) should be drawn from critical secondary sources relevant to the topic.
The conclusion of your essay should summarize key points made in terms
of the topics and examples of the body in light of the introduction, and return
to reiterate your thesis in light of the ideas presented overall. You should
leave your readers with a refined understanding of our original argument and
some lasting food for thought. Remember here as in your introduction who your
audience is and what their interests are likely to be. You might of course
address the philosophers among them, as well as those less initiated into the
difficulties of this discipline, striking a balance between the serious and the
merely curious student of your work.
b) inductive
organization: arguing to derive a reasonable thesis from evidence via a
guiding question.
c) dialogical
form: developing an argument in terms of a conversation among interlocutors
who represent different points of view.
c) narrative
order: developing your idea in terms
of a “story” (plot, character, imagery, symbol).
3) Grading
criteria: formal: A, B, C, D, F; informal:
√++ √+ √
√ - √ - -; the same
qualitative measures (below) will be applied under both formal and informal
criteria, but under the informal the content of writing (its ideas and
reasoning) will be emphasized while its composition (grammar, mechanics,
organization, and style) will be noted but not emphasized; under the formal
criteria, both content and composition will be emphasized; thus it’s easier to
get a √++ than an A, but any compositional problems noted in the √++
essay and not corrected in the formally graded essay will likely prevent the
latter from receiving an A; thus informal writing will serve to provide
feedback about composition which should be incorporated into the writing of
formal assignments. The following descriptions of grades are exemplary but
not definitive: they do not constitute exclusive criteria for the receipt of
grades in each category; they are meant to provide guidelines for judgment, not
to determine it.
A / √++: the essay argues a clear thesis in terms of a series of
topics and supporting examples; it is organized coherently into introduction,
body, and conclusion, with logical transitions between paragraphs; it is based
on a careful and through reading and presentation of textual and historical
evidence; it not only answers the question but also offers its own, distinctive
insight into the problem posed; there are few if any errors in grammar and
mechanics; it is written in lucid language with varied sentence structure,
versatile vocabulary, and astute word choice. A key indicator is that the
language used is consistent with the writing of a distinguished Honors
Thesis in the senior year. In inductive,
dialogical, or narrative writing the same qualitative standards will apply but
in terms of each distinct form of organization: inductive: the detailed,
consistent, derivation of general principles from evidence, leading in clear
steps toward the answer to a question; dialogical: the dialectical
working out of ideas through their interchange, particularly conflicting views
of a problem, leading toward a reasonable resolution; narrative: the
controlled use of plot, character, imagery, and symbol to represent ideas iconically, clearly illustrating concepts or problems,
including intellectual conflicts and their resolutions, allegorically, as in
Plato’s famous story of the Cave.
B / √+: the essay has a
clear thesis with good support (or question and derivation of answer, or
dialectical interplay of ideas, or ideational narrative); but it does not
represent its ideas as clearly, utilize evidence as thoroughly and precisely
based on the most discerning standards of reading; its organization is clear
but not as tightly interlinked as in the A paper; its language is
reasonably communicative but not lucid; its sentences are more repetitive and
less varied in organization; its word choice is less diverse and less exactly
keyed to the concepts expressed; there are more frequent errors in grammar and
mechanics, though the writing on the whole is commensurate with the production
of a successful Honors Thesis in the senior year.
C / √: the essay presents a
thesis but its components could be clearer and more carefully conceived: e.g.,
“St Francis of Assisi provides an alternative Christian view of nature as a
spiritual community of fellow species all of whom are worthy of respect,
according to White.” instead of, “St. Francis offered a view of nature more
friendly to environmental ethics, according to White.” The thesis,
moreover, is not developed in terms of clear and consistent
topics supported by appropriate evidence (or does not pursue a key
question consistently in terms of a careful presentation of evidence, or does
not construct a dialogue with clear thematic development, or does not create a
clear narrative based on characters and images that effectively convey ideas).
There are several (at least) errors in English composition per page (see
grading symbols below). In general, the essay is not clearly argued and not
well written, though it is just “passable” by common standards of literacy.
D / √ - : The essay does not have a clear thesis;
its paragraphs are not organized into identifiable topic sentences and, if
topics are present, they are not logical components of the thesis; nor are
topics supported by useful evidence; thus the essay does not develop a clear
theme (whether deductively, inductively, dialogically, or narratively); there
are multiple errors in composition per page; thorough revision is required
targeting the organization, argumentation, evidencing, and composition of the
text.
F / √ - -: The essay presents no clear arguments, it is disorganized
and its ideas, when discernible, are not supported by evidence; the study
reveals little or no familiarity with the assigned texts; there are also
typically numerous errors in composition throughout; the writer has clearly not
taken the assignment seriously or clearly has not studied the relevant
material.
Grading
symbols for grammar and mechanics: English Grammar Online.
CS = “comma splice”
D = “diction” or “word choice”
DOC = “documentation style”
frag = “sentence
fragment”
M = “mood” (indicative,
subjunctive, interrogative, imperative)
PA = “pronoun-antecedent agreement”
or PR “pronoun reference”
A/PV = “active or passive voice”
SV = “subject-verb agreement”
T = “verb tense” (either the
wrong tense or an inappropriate tense shift)
Sample
Essay Questions including brief Grading Criteria:
Reading Response:
to be graded based on the clarity of your
argument, the inventiveness of your surmise(s) about the basic assumptions in
question, and the overall quality of your English composition, including grammar and mechanics. Sample Prompt: “Peter
Singer argues that ‘all species are equal’ and therefore that prejudice in
favor of humankind is an example of ‘speciesism.’ Explain Singer’s
concept of speciesism and argue whether his view can provide an adequate
defense of the redwood tree “Luna” (soon to be chopped down) in Doug Wollens’ film Butterfly.”
Final Essay: 1,500 words minimum, out of class: this essay
is to be written in two complete drafts.
The key contents of this essay will have been explored in terms of your weekly
Responses thus far (on which you have received written feedback on content and
composition). Based on these shorter essays, you should construct the first
draft of the Final. This should be a serious attempt to develop an argument in
environmental philosophy based on primary sources in ethics and environmental
sciences. Your argument should be in clear deductive (thesis-support),
inductive (evidential enquiry leading to a conclusion), or dialogical form; you
should discuss this draft with me (by appointment); the final draft
should be a revision of the first based on our discussion; both drafts must be
submitted together for a final grade; the assignment will be graded based on:
a) the clarity of your (or your characters’) argumentation; b) the
reasonableness of your claims about the key ideas in the texts studied in light
of evidence you present to support your arguments; c) the quality of your
insights into the problems of Nietzsche’s philosophy; Oxford University
Press: Environmental Ethics: David Schmidtzd) the quality of
your English composition, including grammar, mechanics, organization, and
style.
Sample
Prompt: “How can environmental
philosophy be reconciled with the theory of animal rights so as to defend both
the Manatee and the ecology to which it is adapted in the Indian River? Base your answer
on a combination of sources in environmental ethics and the scientific analysis
of the behavior and ecology of the Indian River manatees.” Make sure that you
cite all sources in a recognized documentation style and ague a coherent thesis
based on them.
Students enrolled in this course agree to
abide by the Honors College Honor Code. Please review this important document: http://www.fau.edu/divdept/honcol/students/honorcode.html.
Required Texts
and Sources:
1) Schmidtz, David and Elizabeth Willott,
eds., Environmental Ethics (Oxford UP) Second Edition (abbreviated EE)
2) Environmental
Ethics. Leading journal in the titular field, available in our library in electronic and hard copy formats; also
see Philosophy Documentation Center Collection.
4) Journal of Environmental Philosophy
8) Films:
a) Waters of Destiny
(on the Kissimmee River Restoration Project)
b) Bill Moyers, Earth on Edge. See the PBS Website for the program: http://www.pbs.org/earthonedge/ .
c) Butterfly
e) Nova: Goddess of the Earth: The Gaia Hypothesis
f) Al Gore An Inconvenient Truth
h) Frontline: Hot Politics
Links for Further
Reflection: please see
online syllabus for updates.
NOVA | Extreme Ice
12/27/11
From
Snowstorms to Heat Waves, How Global Warming Causes Extreme Weather and Climate
Instability
Climate change warning at UN Cancun summit BBC News 12/08/2010
Union of Concerned Scientists Periodic Table of
Scientific Abuses
Living on
Earth Public Radio Environmental
Journalism
Wangari Maathai: A Watering Can,
Some Seedlings, and the Greening of a Nation / Ingrid Lobet
Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005
Nova: World in the Balance 2005
The Online NewsHour: Rebuilding the Gulf Coast | PBS
Holistic Darwinism by Peter A Corning
Enemy of the Planet - New York
Times
Ecological Footprints of
China, India, Japan, Europe, and US
Arundhati Roy on Politics and
Environment
United States Supreme Court
Ruling on Wetlands 2006
"Earth Faces
'Catastrophic Loss of Species'"
Climate change and global
justice: a letter to Al Gore by Camilla Toulmin - openDemocracy
Europe's Underwater Chemical Dump--Der
Spiegel
President Bush's UN speech:
Full text
Chavez Calls Bush 'Devil,' Assails U.S. Policies
Global Warming Update: Siberia is Melting
The Politics of Climate Change
Environmentalists Reconsider Nuclear Energy
Wars
Hamper Social Progress Across Africa
Forsaken
Mermaids: the Manatees from Living
on Earth
BBC:
Climate Costs, the Global Picture
Climate
Scientists say its time for Plan B
The
dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent
decline in the ocean's phytoplankton
Global phytoplankton decline over the past
century (Daniel G. Boyce, Nature 466, 591-596
[29 July 2010])
Exposed:
The long, cruel road to the slaughterhouse
1) Jan.
10-12
Introductory
perspectives: Schmidtz and Willott, “Rules & Principles” EE xv—xxiii; White: “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”[1]
in EE, 5-10. Film and discussion: Waters
of Destiny (on the Kissimmee River Project); Cobb John B. Cobb, Christian Existence in a World of Limits, Environmental Ethics (1979) vol.
1, no. 2, pages 149 - 158, 1979
Reading Presentations: Manussos Marangudakis: “The
Medieval Roots of Our Environmental Crisis,” Environmental Ethics 23
(Fall 2001); Thousands March at U.N. Climate Summit in
Durban to Demand Climate Justice.
2) Jan. 17-19
Animal Liberation and the Land Ethic: Singer, “All Animals are Equal,” Leopold,
“The Land Ethic,” (Ch. 3) Rolston III, “Values in and Duties to the Natural World,”
Sagoff, “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick
Divorce” EE, Ch. 2; Extending the Realm of Rights; “Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?” Butterfly Reading Presentations: Feinberg, “The Rights of Animals,” Attfield, “The Good of Trees,” EE ch. 3; Elisa Altola,
“Personhood & Animals,” Environmental
Ethics vol. 30, no. 2 (Summer 2008).
3) Jan. 24-26
Response 1 due: Butterfly and animal rights. Species Equality, Respect
for Nature and Consumer Society: “Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature,” Schmidtz,
“Are all Species Equal?” EE, Ch. 2;
Reading Presentations: Kimberly
K. Smith, “Animals & the Social Contract,” Environmental Ethics vol. 30, no. 2 (Summer 2008);
3)
Jan. 31-Feb. 2
Environmental Holism: Film:
Nova: The Gaia Hypothesis. “Varner, “Biocentric Individualism,” Naess, “The Shallow and the Deep,” Sober, “Philosophical
Problems for Environmentalism,” EE ch. 5;
Reading Presentations: Emily
Brady, “Aesthetic Character and Aesthetic Integrity in Environmental
Conservation,” Environmental Ethics
24 (Spring 2002); Dana Anderson, “Ethical Sight,” Environmental Ethics 29, no. 2 (Summer 2007): NPR Special Report:
Global
Warming Is Irreversible.
4)
Feb. 7-9
Response 2 due: the Gaia
Hypothesis. How Wild Does Nature Have to Be?—How are we to interact with
ecosystems? Krieger, “What’s Wrong with Plastic Trees?” EE, ch. 6; Katz, “The Call of the Wild,” (Blackboard reading), Light, “Ecological Restoration and the Culture
of Nature,” BB; Light,
“Climate Ethics,” Ch. 12. Jessica
Woodlands, “Designing Cities as if they were Ethical Choices,”; EE Ch. 13;
Reading Presentations: J.
Baird Callicott, “What ‘Wilderness’ in Frontier
Ecosystems?” Environmental Ethics,
vol. 30, no. 3 (Fall 2008); Robert Froderman,
“Philosophy Unbound,” Environmental
Ethics, vol. 30, no. 3 (Fall 2008).
6)
Feb. 14-16
Ecofeminism in Theory and Practice:
Hessler and Willott,
“Feminism and Ecofeminism,” Warren, “The Power and the Promise of Ecological
Feminism,” Sen, “Women, Poverty, and Population,” Rao, “Women Farmers of India’s Deccan Plateau: Ecofeminists Challenge World Elites,” Gaard
and Gruen, “Ecofeminism, Global Justice, and
Planetary Health,” EE Ch. 4;
Reading Presentations: Trish Glazebrook,
Anthony Kola-Olusanya Justice, Conflict, Capital, and Care: Oil in the Niger Delta vol.
33, no. 2, pages 163 - 184, 2011Vrinda Dalmiya, “Cows and Others: Toward Constructing Ecofeminist Selves,” Environmental
Ethics vol. 24 no. 2 (Summer 2002); Elizabeth Skakoon,
“Nature and Human Identity,” Environmental Ethics vol. 30, no. 1 (Spring 2008); Annie L. Booth, “Beyond Mothering Earth”
(Book Review), Environmental Ethics vol.
30, no. 1 (Spring 2008).
7)
Feb. 21-23
Response
3 due: Ecofeminism.
Multicultural Perspectives: Film: In Light of Reverence: Cultural conflict between Native and Euro
America over the significance and use of the land: Thompson: “Environment as Cultural Heritage,”
Environmental Ethics 22 (Fall 2000); “Nature Religion and the Ethics of Authenticity: ‘I Won’t Speak for All of
You’” Environmental Ethics vol.
33, no. 3, pages 295 - 305, 2011
Reading Presentations: Foltz: “Is There an Islamic Environmentalism?” Environmental Ethics 22 (Spring 2000) Eugene C. Hargrove, “A Traditional and Multicultural Approach to Environmental Ethics at Primary and Secondary School Levels,” Environmental Ethics vol. 30, no 3 (Fall 2008).
8)
Feb. 28-March 2
Environmentalism, Multiculturalism,
& Education. Bookchin, “Social Ecology vs. Deep Ecology,” EE,
pp.
126-136; Lloyd Steffen, “What
Religion Contributes to Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Ethics 29, no. 2 (Summer 2007); “Ties that Bind: Native
American Beliefs as a Foundation for Environmental Consciousness,” Environmental Ethics vol.
12, no. 1 ((1990), pages 27 – 43.
Reading Presentations: So-Young Lee, “Korean Environmental Thought
and Practice: A Case Study of the Indramang
Community,” Environmental Ethics vol.
30, no. 2 (Summer 2008); Sung-Hae Kim, “The Immortal
World: The Telos
of Daoist Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Ethics vol. 30, no. 2 (Summer 2008).
Spring Break,
March 5-11 Spring Break
9) March 13-15
Response 4: In Light of Reverence—environment and
culture.
Rethinking the Good Life: Film: Earth on Edge; Hill, “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,”
Gambrell and Cafaro, "The Virtue of Simplicity," Sagoff, “Do We Consume Too Much?” Matthews, “Letting the World Grow
Old,” EE ch.
7.
Reading Presentations: Cassandra Y.
Johnson and J. M. Bowker, “African-American Wildland Memories,” Environmental Ethics 26 (Spring 2004); Sudhir Chella Rajan,
“Automobility, Liberalism, and the Ethics of
Driving,” Environmental Ethics 29, no.
1 (Spring 2007); J. M. Dieterie, “Unnecessary Suffering” Environmental Ethics vol. 30, no. 1 (Summmer
2008).
10) March
20-22
Global Warming
Update. NOVA | Extreme Ice 12/26/11. Human Population and Environmental Preservation: Rolston III,
"Feeding People Versus Saving Nature," Shue, "Global Environment and
International Equality," Light,
"Climate Ethics for Climate Action,"
EE chs.
11-12. Film: Al Gore: An Inconvenient Truth; also
see James Burke: After the
Warming.
Reading Presentations: Mark Michael, “Ramachandra Guha: How Much Should a Person Consume?” Environmental Ethics vo. 30, no. 1 (Spring 2008); Sergio Guevara and Javier Laborde, “The Landscape Approach: Designing New Reserves for Protection of Biological and Cultural Diversity in Latin America”; Environmental Ethics vol. 30, no. 2 (Fall 2008); Christopher Be Anderson et al., “Integrating Science & Society through Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research,” Environmental Ethics vol. 30, no. 2 (Fall 2008).
11)
March 27-29
Sustainable
Use, Institutional Structure, and Poverty: Debate: Market
Environmentalism and its Critics: Entrepreneur:
Capitalism Will Save World from Climate Crisis to Preserve Markets for iPads, Coke; Critics:
Rich Polluters—Including U.S.—Should Face Sanctions for Rejecting Binding
Emissions Cuts.
Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” (EE 9)and “Living in a Lifeboat”;
Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Gardiner, "A Perfect Moral Storm," EE 11-12;
Reading
Presentations: Christopher
J. Preston and Steven H. Corey: “Public Health and Environmentalism: Adding
Garbage to the History of Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Ethics 27 (spring
2005).
12)
April 3-5
Vanishing Resources, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Environmental
Policy: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Woolliams, “Designing Cities
as if They Were Ethical
Choices,” Kelman, “Cost-Benefit Analysis:
An Ethical Critique,” Schmidtz, "A Place for Cost-Benefit Analysis,” Brennan, “Moral Pluralism and the
Environment,” Nussbaum, “The Costs of Tragedy,” EE, chs
13, 8; NOW; Learn about one town's plan to make all of
its buildings energy-efficient: Save Energy, Save Money, Save the Planet.
Response 5 due: Earth on Edge, Inconvenient
Truths, and the Durban Summit (due Thursday).
Reading
Presentations: Volume 4 (in our library). Stephen Vogel,
“Environmental Philosophy after the End of Nature,” Environmental Ethics
24 (Spring 2002).
13) April 10-12
Final Essay First Draft Due T: (discussion of papers) in class on Tuesday.
Environmentalism in Practice: Norton, “The Environmentalists’ Dilemma," Norton, “Fragile Freedoms,” Rawles, “The Missing Shade of Green,” Light, “Taking Environmental Ethics Public,”
R: Group Presentations:
Reading Presentations: Eileen Crist,
“Against the Social Construction of Nature and Wilderness” Environmental Ethics 26, spring 2004; Richard J. Evanoff, “Communicative
Ethics and Moral Considerability,” Environmental Ethics 29, no. 3 (Fall
2007). Video: NOW on PBS: "Paradise Lost Revisited"
14) April 17-19
Group Presentations & Discussion T & R
15) April 24 Last Day of Class
April 26th to May 2nd Exam Week: Group Presentations
& Discussion:
[1] Lynn White’s “Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis” was originally published in the journal Science; it may be located under the database JSTOR in FAU’s Electronic Collection. The full citation is Lynn White, Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3767. (Mar. 10, 1967), pp. 1203-1207. Go into the FAU Electronic Collection at www.fau.edu/library ; click on Journals by Title, go to Science; click on the JSTOR (rather than the Ovid) version; search the article in JSTOR by author and (partial) title. Be sure to specify the journal (Science) from the journal list below—you’ll need to click on “advanced list” to find it). When the citation appears click “view article.”