This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 20 November 2014, At: 01:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Researchin Geographical andEnvironmental EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgee20

An Ecological Approach toEnvironmental EthicsJ. Mitchell O'ToolePublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: J. Mitchell O'Toole (2002) An Ecological Approach toEnvironmental Ethics, International Research in Geographical and EnvironmentalEducation, 11:1, 48-53, DOI: 10.1080/10382040208667463

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382040208667463

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

51 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

ForumAn Ecological Approach to EnvironmentalEthics

J. Mitchell O’TooleUniversity of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia

This paper serves as an introduction to the Forum on Environmental Ethics. The Forumis built around contributions to the Environmental Ethics Symposium within the 10thPacific Science Inter-Congress, held in Guam, USA 1–6 June 2001. The contributions tothe Symposium differed in commitment and intent and this diversity has beenenhanced by the addition of several additional papers to this Forum. The papersuggests a view of action as resulting from the interaction between often unexaminedvalues, goes on to comment on the role of values in science classrooms,and applies bothto a general treatmentof Environmental Ethics. The paper then positions the remainingcontributions to the Forum and concludes with a substantial bibliography whichshould prove useful to any readers wishing to dip deeper into Environmental Ethics.

Values are a Problematical Area in Modern Pluralist SocietiesEthics and values often seem too difficult for secular educational institutions

in pluralist societies. There is no doubt that explicit discussion of them canprovoke such controversy that cautious managers often resolve to avoid futureopen value judgements. However, this is a futile hope. Values drive the decisionswe make and we leave them implicit at our peril. The interaction of unexaminedvalues have a habit of producing behaviour which we later come to regret(Bracey, 2001; Vincent, 2000).

1038-2046/02/01 0048-06 $20.00/0 © 2002 J.M. O’TooleInternational Research in Geographical and Environmental Education Vol. 11, No. 1, 2002

48

Figure 1 Action is the result of an interplay of values

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

51 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Much of the conflict and controversy comes from the fact that action resultsfrom interacting values which may not always be consistent (see Figure 1). Thisproduces discomfort which in turn produces anxiety which then can producestrong responses in defence of internal confusion. There is an ecology of valueswhich leads to action. The things people do are often the product of temporaryresults of multi-dimensional tensions.

Education in particular is a value-soaked undertaking, and this is increasinglyrecognised by those responsible for state-sanctioned schooling (see e.g. Boston,2000; Cavalier & Winder, 1988). The role our schools play in forming the char-acter of those who attend them is also widely recognised (Doyle, 1977; Hill, 1991;Kohn, 1997ab; Lickona, 1998; McHenry, 2000; Ruetschlin, 2001; Sizer & Sizer,1999).

Science teachers, in particular, have long resisted explicit treatment of ethicalissues. This is somewhat surprising, as they have been more enthusiastic thanmost in their use of Bloom’s taxonomy and ‘values and attitudes’ form the heartof his affective domain (Krathwohl et al., 1964: 30). One of the early reviewers ofthis field described her work as ‘searching for a literature’ (Solomon, 1990:106).

Explicit discussion of values in science classes began, and continues, as thediscussion of ‘social’ or ‘controversial’ issues (Dawson, 2001; Evans & McCann,1993; Pike, 1993; Van Rooy, 1993, 1994, 2000) such as mining (Pedretti, 1999),biotechnology (Nicholas, 2001; Romeo, 2000; Spenceley, 1997) and other interac-tions of science, technology and society (Smith, 1991). Environmental Educationwas one of the first areas to firmly push science teachers in the direction ofexplicit treatment of values (see e.g. DofE, 1990: 8, 66–74; Marek & Chiodo, 1994).Issues of value in science are now being more deliberately addressed (Allchin,1999; Reiss, 1999). There has been interest from some predictable quarters(Ashrif, 1998; Fysh & Lucas, 1998; Gauld, 2000; Hill, 1996, 2000; Poole, 1995) butconcern is by no means limited to people writing from positions of religiouscommitment. Gender concerns lead science teachers to consider value issuesdirectly (Ashley, 1999), as does consideration of technological development(Pinkus et al., 1997), the status of science in modern societies (Corones, 2000), itsrole in development (Cross & Price, 1992, Crosthwaite, 2001, Istock & Hoffman,1995), issues of the nature of science itself (Cross, 1999), people’s attitudes to it(De La Rue & Gardner, 1996) and its potential for the promotion of rationality(Knain, 1999; Volkmann & Eichinger, 1999). Those interested in issues of valuesand ethics in science education need no longer search for a literature.

Environmental EthicsThe environment, and questions surrounding its exploitation and/or conser-

vation, has been a continuing source of controversial issues for the scienceclassroom. It has also been an area of educational research in its own right (Hart& Nolan, 1999). Ecology has changed the way we think about our place in theworld by increasing our understanding of the connections between the livingand non-living components of the environments which sustain us. There aresome who claim that it needs also to change the values we hold and the ways wemanage the interaction between them (Suzuki & McConnell, 1997).

Forum 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

51 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

We are an intrusive species. The first people to live in the geological basin onwhich I grew up reached an understanding with their land, but they did not leavetheir environment unchanged. They changed as that environment changed andthey could do this because they were few and the changes they caused were slow.The present inhabitants of that basin are many and the changes they bring aboutare very rapid. We will change the land we occupy and we need to decide howbest to do so. We need to decide which changes are necessary to minimise unin-tended consequences. Such decisions will be driven by tension between thevalues held by different sections of our complex community. Resolving thetensions can be made simpler if the values driving the different sections are madeclear and rational choice between them is possible. Our community will choosewhich way to act, but whether that choice will be made after free flow of informa-tion and informed debate is less sure. Environmental campaigns depend onforming the opinions of voters and policy makers (Hutton & Connors, 1999) andoften that depends on clever use of scientists and the informationthey produce.

There is an extensive literature on environmental education and much of itdeals with the connections (and disjunctions) between knowledge, value andaction. A recent review of the field referred to the ‘change towards more positiveenvironmental attitudes among people of all ages after exposure to some form,almost any form, of environmental education experience whether short or longterm’ (Hart & Nolan, 1999:7). However, this hopeful prognosis raises the distinc-tion between ‘espoused’ and ‘enacted’ values. Attitudinal change may well bemerely at the level of espoused value and not have sufficient force to draw theindividual’s value web towards change in action. Hart and Nolan’s usefulsurvey of environmental education research leads them to the same thought.They note a ‘rhetoric-reality gap’ (Hart & Nolan, 1999: 25) and that some studiesdo not show comfortably positive student outcomes, teacher courses do notalways lead to classroom change, student enjoyment does not guaranteeincreased motivation beyond the classroom, and that disjunctions betweenknowledge, value and action may not be overcome simply (Hart & Nolan, 1999:8, 14, 21, 28). They note the assumption that ‘appropriate information from acredible source and a legitimate opportunity to act will result in action’ (Hart &Nolan, 1999: 19) does not appear to be well founded.

Recognition of the complexity of the situation may give us a handle on theproblem we face. People differ but there are generalisations which can allow us toact. Knowledge alone will not change values but knowledge and experience can.Espoused values need not change action but further experience can transformespoused values into enacted ones. This process is made more transparent ifpeople are given the tools to explicitly discuss their values and recognise those ofothers when they are put into action. Much of this work has been done withbiomedical ethics, where the four values of ‘autonomy’, ‘justice’, ‘beneficence’and ‘non-maleficence’ have been found to be useful starting points (Beauchamp& Childress, 1994; Engebretson & Elliott, 1995: 94). A recent study of adolescentgirls’ responses to bioethical dilemmas (Dawson & Taylor, 1999) suggested thatparticipants may have placed greater weight on autonomy than they did uponthe other three values. That adolescents should base their decisions on their owninterests and those of people with whom they identify is hardly a revolutionaryfinding. However, it does give some insight into why changing their knowledge

50 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

51 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

base may not bring about a change in their behaviour (see also Ratcliffe, 1998).Earlier studies of adolescent opinion regarding biotechnology (reported inGunter et al., 1998) indicated that student exposure to detailed cases which theyare able to discuss in some detail can result in movement towards socially domi-nant positions. This may not give much comfort to those of us who wish ourstudents to move against such positions!

Specific Interactions of Values in Environmental ContextsIssues involving ethics and values are rarely simple. Environmental ethics are

often the product of cultural commitments and these can impact on individualsas they act in response to the tensions between their particular differing values.Commentatorsfrom outside the culture concerned need to take care as they try tounderstand the actions taken by particular groups of people. The first pair ofpapers which follows deals with situations in Micronesia and Polynesia,pointing out that actions which may seem inexplicable or unwise to outsidershave their own internal logic. Perhaps we should be readier to listen and slowerto advise. The second pair of papers deals with responses to environmentaldegradation which draw on explicitly religious commitments. The tendency ofacademic ethicists to distance themselves from more unsophisticated beliefswhich are widely held can blind us to the depth of impact of religious belief onvalue ecologies. The third pair of papers deals with the legal frameworks withinwhich environmental decisions are made and the role which coercion, or itsabsence, can have upon the environmental context upon which we all depend.Gentle persuasion may not be enough to protect the common basis of our life andcomfort in the places we live. The fourth, and final, pair of papers looks at theclassroom context, calling for a sensitive response to the cultural diversity ofmodern classrooms and providing a specific example of classroom materialwhich can encourage moral reasoning among students.

Increased knowledge is not enough to lead to changed action. However, it canform an important part of the insight into experience which does change enactedvalues. Students, and the citizens into which they grow, often act on unexaminedvalues which rest on incorrect or incomplete information. Those of us who workin school contexts have the opportunity to supply better information and to havesome impact on students’ experiences over a period of years. Those of us whowork in tertiary contexts have less access to our students’ lives, but the access is ofthe same sort. Those of us who produce the information for others who will makeeffective decisions have particular responsibilities. All of us will benefit if wemake our values explicit and learn to manage the tensions between them. Theethical web need not remain unconscious.

ReferencesAllchin, D. (1999) Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education 8, 1–

12.Ashley, M. (1999) Toys for the boys whilst the girls learn science and technology. School

Science Review 81 (295), 29–31.Ashrif, S. (1998) Science teaching, culture and religious values. School Science Review 79

(288), 51–4.Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (1994) Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Forum 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

51 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Boston, K. (2000) A character building assignment for the nation. Sydney Morning Herald(21 August), 12.

Bracey, G.W. (2001) Question authority. Phi Delta Kappan 83 (3), 191–2.Cavalier, R.M. and Winder, R.B. (1988) The Values We Teach. Sydney: New South Wales

Department of Education.Corones, A. (2000) On learning respect: Science, values and attitudes. In M. Matthews

(ed.) History, Philosophy and New South Wales Science Teaching, Third Annual Conference(pp. 95–100). Sydney: School of Education, University of New South Wales.

Cross, R.T. (1999) Scientific understanding: Lacey’s ‘critical self-consciousness’ seen asechoes of J.D. Bernal. Science & Education 8, 67–78.

Cross, R.T. and Price, R.F. (1992) Teaching Science for Social Responsibility.Sydney: St LouisPress.

Crosthwaite, J. (2001)Teaching ethics and technology – what is required? Science & Educa-tion 10, 97–105.

Dawson, V. (2001)Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. AustralianScience Teachers Journal 47 (4), 38–44.

Dawson, V. and Taylor, P. (1999)Teaching bioethics in science: Does it make a difference?Australian Science Teachers Journal 45 (1), 59–64.

De La Rue, P. and Gardner, P.L. (1996) Development of an instrument to measure tech-nology studies teachers’ attitudes to environmental and social issues. Research in ScienceEducation 26 (1), 33–53.

DofE. (1990) Environmental Education Curriculum Statement K-12. Sydney: NSW Depart-ment of Education.

Doyle, D.P. (1997) Education and character: A conservative view. Phi Delta Kappan 78 (6),440–43.

Engebretson, K. and Elliott, R. (1995) Chaos or Clarity: Encountering Ethics, WentworthFalls: Social Science Press.

Evans, C. and McCann, M. (1993) Issues in Science. Port Melbourne: Rigby Heinemann.Fysh, R. and Lucas, K.B. (1998) Science and religion: Acknowledging student beliefs.

Australian Science Teachers Journal 44 (2), 60–68.Gauld, C. (2000) Teaching science: Part 2 – science teaching and the Christian. Journal of

Christian Education 43 (3), 27–35.Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J. and Beyleveld, D. (1998) Teenagers and biotechnology: A

survey of understanding and opinion in Britain. Studies in Science Education 32, 81–112.Hart, P. and Nolan, K. (1999) A critical analysis of research in environmental education.

Studies in Science Education 34, 1–69.Hill, B.V. (1991) Values Education in Australian Schools. Hawthorn: Australian Council of

Educational Research.Hill, B.V. (1996) Mainstreaming values issues in education. Journal of Christian Education

39 (1), 7–16.Hill, B.V. (2000)Education for a planet in crisis: Old wine for a new millennium? Journal of

Christian Education 43 (1), 9–19.Hutton, D. and Connors, L. (1999) A History of the Australian Environment Movement.

Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Istock, C.A. and Hoffman, R.S. (1995)Storm over a Mountain Island:ConservationBiologyand

the Mt. Graham Affair. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Knain, E. (1999) Sense and sensibility in science education: Developing rational beliefs

through cultural approaches. Studies in Science Education 33, 1–29.Kohn, A. (1997a)How not to teach values: A critical look at character education. Phi Delta

Kappan 78 (6), 429–39.Kohn, A. (1997b)Adventures in ethics versus behaviour control: A reply to my critics. Phi

Delta Kappan 78 (7), 455–60.Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S. and Masia, B.B. (1964)Taxonomy of EducationalObjectives.The

Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: DavidMcKay.

Lickona, T. (1998) A more complex analysis is needed. Phi Delta Kappan 78 (7), 449–54.

52 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

51 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Marek, E.A. and Chiodo, J.J. (1994) Energy, environment, and policy choices. ScienceTeacher 61 (9), 42–5.

McHenry, I. (2000) Conflict in schools: Fertile ground for moral growth. Phi Delta Kappan82 (3), 223–7.

Nicholas, B. (2001) Mapping the moral landscape – bioethics, biotechnology and science.Science Education News 50 (2), 59–62.

Pedretti, E. (1999) Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledgeand social responsibility in schools and science centres through an issues-basedapproach. School Science and Mathematics 99 (4), 174–81.

Pinkus, R.L.B., Shuman, L.J., Humman, N.P. and Wolfe, H. (1997) Engineering Ethics:Balancing Cost, Schedule and Risk – Lessons Learned from the Space Shuttle. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Pike, T. (1993)Teaching ‘issues’ in science. AustralianScience TeachersJournal 39 (3), 47–9.Poole, M. (1995) Beliefs and Values in Science Education. Buckingham: Open University

Press.Ratcliffe, M. (1998) Discussing socio-political issues in science lessons – pupils’ actions

and the teacher’s role’ School Science Review 79 (288), 55–60.Reiss, M.J. (1999) Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education 34, 115–40.Romeo, M. (2000) GM foods: What are the scientific and social issues?’ In M. Matthews

(ed.) History, Philosophy and New South Wales Science Teaching, Third Annual Conference(pp. 247–54). Sydney: School of Education, University of New South Wales.

Ruetschlin, D.M. (ed.) (2001)Ethical leadership camps nurture young leaders. News, Notesand Quotes (PDK) 45 (2), 5.

Sizer, T.R. and Sizer, N.F. (1999) Grappling. Phi Delta Kappan 81 (3), 184–90.Smith, R. (1991) Science, technology and society: Getting to the bottom of the issues.

Australian Science Teachers Journal 37 (2), 54–6.Solomon, J. (1990) The discussion of social issues in the science classroom. Studies in

Science Education 18, 105–26.Spenceley, M. (1997) An opportunity for students to engage in ethical decision making in

senior biology. Australian Science Teachers Journal 43 (1), 53–4.Suzuki, D. and McConnell, A. (1997) The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering our Place in Nature.

Vancouver: Douglass and McIntyre.Van Rooy, W. (1993) Frameworks to support student discussion focussing on surrogacy

and human embryo experimentation. Australian Science Teachers Journal 39 (4), 21–7.Van Rooy, W. (1994) Teaching science using controversial issues: Some guidelines to

enhance student learning and motivation. Australian Science Teachers Journal 40 (1), 25–7.

Van Rooy, W. (2000) Controversial issues within biology: Enriching biology teaching.Australian Science Teachers Journal 46 (1), 20–26.

Vincent, P. (2000) Values added. Sydney Morning Herald, My Career (22 November), p. 5.Volkmann, M.J. and Eichinger, D.C. (1999) Habits of mind: Integrating the social and

personal characteristics of doing science into the science classroom. School Science andMathematics 99 (3), 141–7.

Forum 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

51 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014