Matt Ferkany

The Compatibility of Liberalism and Mandatory Environmental Education

Recently scholars have wondered whether liberals can promote mandatory programs of formal environmental education, including education for the environment or sustainable development. Critics maintain that they cannot on grounds that environmental education is a threat to student autonomy or cannot be justified using liberal principles. We argue that the perceived conflict between liberalism and environmental education is exaggerated. Whatever the environmentalist ambitions of environmental education, any complete conception of it must prioritize education for skills and virtues that are consistent with students’ prospective autonomy. Liberalism is also compatible with meeting the demands of intergenerational justice, which arguably will include sustainability education if not other forms of environmental education. Finally, the skills and virtues future citizens need to manage today’s most pressing environmental problems are compatible both with those discussed in international statements on environmental education and with those commonly associated with liberal citizenship. Ultimately, environmental education that will better equip citizens to cope with environmental problems is quite possible for liberal politics.

Legitimizing education in sustainability

J.C. Blokhuis is a former Kluge Fellow at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC and an associate professor in Social Development Studies at Renison University College, University of Waterloo. His work has appeared in Theory and Research in Education, Educational Theory, and Public Affairs Quarterly. He is co-author, most recently, of Education Law, 5e (Routledge, 2014) and The Challenge of Children’s Rights for Canada, 2e (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2018).

In What Sense of ‘Respect’ Should We Respect Nature? A Comment on David Schmidtz's ‘Respect for Everything’

A central contention of David Schmidtz’s ‘Respect for everything’ (Schmidtz, 2011) is that species egalitarianism may be incompatible with respecting nature. Respecting nature is presumably an important virtue of environmentally conscientious persons, so Schmidtz’s charge, if fair, would be pretty damaging for species egalitarianism. Indeed, I believe Schmidtz is right and we should reject species egalitarianism on respect grounds. But some of Schmidtz’s arguments are vulnerable to the very charge he makes against species egalitarianism and generally evade some crucially important underlying questions about respect for nature: in what sense of ‘respect’ ought we respect nature anyway? Is there one sense that is appropriate for all of nature? Or is respect of one kind appropriate in some cases and respect of a different kind appropriate in other cases? According to Schmidtz, species egalitarians are liable to lack respect for nature precisely because they are committed to seeing all life as worthy of equal respect, when sometimes they should see some living things as worthy of differential respect. If one must choose between killing a cow and killing a carrot, being indifferent seems to show a gross lack of respect for the cow. The cow, being sentient, at least cares whether we kill it. The carrot simply has no clue. Schmidtz’s point is not that living things have no value qua living, thus no moral standing, but that sentience grounds a higher kind or degree ofmoral standing. Indeed, according to Schmidtz, we ought to care about some non-sentient beings such as trees in the sameway that we care about sentient ones. This is because failing to do so would exhibit a lack of self-respect. Some species, including non-sentient ones, can strike us as having special, remarkable qualities, such as being especially long-lived or beautiful. Failing to respect them thus becomes ‘a kind of selfeffacement, because the values we thereby fail to take seriously are our values’ (Schmidtz, this issue, p. 133). At the same time, and for the same reasons, according to Schmidtz we have reasons to regard many species as special in some

A developmental theory for Aristotelian practical intelligence

Abstract In Aristotelian virtue theories, phronesis is foundational to being good, but to date accounts of how this particularly important virtue can emerge are sketchy. This article plumbs recent thinking in Aristotelian virtue ethics and developmental theorizing to explore how far its emergence can be understood developmentally, i.e., in terms of the growth in ordinary conditions of underlying psychological capacities, dispositions, and the like. The purpose is not to explicate Aristotle, nor to assimilate Aristotelian ideas to cognitive developmental moral theorizing, but to draw on both to build an independently plausible theory of practical intelligence and its development. It is argued that one fruitful direction attends to the psychology of virtues Aristotle associates with practical intelligence, including comprehension, understanding, sense, and cleverness, instead of Aristotle’s remarks distinguishing fully virtuous persons from the continent, incontinent and the many.

A Review of “Navigating Environmental Attitudes”

teachers make the most of available resources to create an outdoor learning environment for their students to help them learn about nature, hard meaningful work and community values. A new theme for school gardens is emerging. Teachers and students are now focusing on the surrounding environment and the value of the natural world. The author sums this up nicely when she writes, “over the course of one hundred years, popular focus has also shifted from ‘saving’ urban youth to saving the planet”(p. 170). This emphasis leads to urban youth playing an active role in saving rather than being saved and helps development of a sense of caring and empowerment. Roots and Research in Urban School Gardens is focused on the author’s purpose to promote active engagement of young people is sustainable food practices. The author makes a strong case for the need for urban school gardens and provides undeniable evidence of the many benefits they bring to urban students. The quotes from the children involved in the studies are enduring and enjoyable to read. It helps give the reader an insight to the garden from the perspective of the children rather than the teachers, adults, and parents involved. The book’s illustrations provide an interesting, entertaining, and personal feel and help break up the richly developed and detailed text. This book would be valuable to environmental education researchers in the field as well as teachers considering starting their own school garden. For the EE researcher it provides a deep understanding of the importance of place and argues the need for a new perspective on EE research activities. A teacher will find the book interesting and beneficial because it provides some encouragement and enthusiasm for the values associated with the urban school garden. The school garden stories recounted by the author reveal the personal struggles and shared perseverance of growing the gardens. For EE educators these success stories can go a long way in inspiring us to do the same for our children and community.