Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I teach philosophy at an open-access community college, which primarily serves students filling general-education requirements for transfer
to four-year college, and students entering the workforce. For most
of my students, my class is their first and only course on the subject.
That they signed up for philosophy at all means their curiosity already
got them past two popular conceptions of philosophy that stops many
a student short of walking through our doors: that Philosophys only
for those high-brow, intellectual types, not for me (and anyway, I dont
even own a pipe or a tweed jacket); and, of course, that Philosophy
is useless. I cant get a job with that. 1
Teaching philosophy as a general education course for non-majors
also means that my colleagues and I see a broad range of student
capabilities and interests. On the one hand, we see some very gifted
students who are well-prepared to succeed, who received a high-quality
secondary education that insured their college-readiness, are invested in
their intellectual endeavors, and face few obstacles to their educational
commitments. On the other hand, we also (and much more often) teach
students faced with college-readiness challenges, financial burdens,
Teaching Philosophy. All rights reserved. 0145-5788
JANE DREXLER
JANE DREXLER
like Peter Singer and Tom Regan; and a holistic approach like Aldo
Leopolds Land Ethic. Theoretically, and practically, these two approaches can create conflicting obligations: for instance, what do we do
when preserving the integrity, stability and beauty of an ecosystem
requires intervention, and individual sacrifice, within in that system?
Not only do students explore the deep tensions between individualism
and communalism, they also grapple with the difficulties of prioritizing
multiple, conflicting obligations.
Section 3: Oppression, Globalization, and Activism
In this third major section, students are introduced to theories regarding
Environmental Racism, Environmental Law, and Participatory Justice,
among other things. Students explore one of the more valuable insights
coming out of Social and Political Philosophy: that oppression is
structural and systemic, deeply interwoven within the fabric of culture,
rather than the product of direct intention, and is, thus, often very hard
to recognize and understand, and even harder to address effectively.
Exploring privatization of natural resources, international economic
policy, and other issues pertaining to global environmental justice, students not only come to recognize the ways that political and economic
policies and practices affect and often dictate the development (and to
varying degrees the over-development, exploitation, and exhaustion)
of natural resources and local economies, they interrogate the very
concepts of progress and development that underlie our global
economy.
JANE DREXLER
JANE DREXLER
JANE DREXLER
Approaching complex issues through a relativist paradigm guarantees that the student will move no further than their initial, surface,
gut position. It means that even if they do recognize that there are
other viewpoints that might be valid, they will not seriously consider
those viewpoints because they dont feel right for me.
Thus, another major goal for me in teaching philosophy at the introductory level is to start breaking down this relativistic paradigm, and
to show students strategies for seeing difference deeply by keeping
ideas embedded in conversations and multi-layered.
For instance, when I choose the content for our unit on animal
rights and welfare, I set it up as a conversation between Tom Regan
and Peter Singer, rather than use only of them as a representative of the
individualist approach to the moral status of animals. Now, that may
be a given in a graduate or senior seminar, but more often than not,
introductory level Ethics anthologies or textbooksif they include a
section on animals at allwill only offer an essay by Regan or Singer,
but not both. One becomes a sort of a representative theorist for the
individualist approach to the moral status of animals. And I understand
why: we have sixteen weeks to cover everything we feel we need to.
Somethings got to give. Indeed, I am often navigating the pressure
to be uber-efficient, cover material survey-style and not get mired in
details. So I understand the impetus. And isnt one animal theorist
enough, anyway?
But heres why its worth it to me to give substantial attention to
Singer and Regans theoretical conversation with each other. Far from
being interchangeable just because they both care about individual
animals, the way they come at moral reasoning differs deeply, at the
fundamental source of animals moral status. Because both theorists
come at moral reasoning from two different conceptual frameworks
Singer from The Good (mostly) and Regan from the Rightstudents come to see that the differences in views can be subtle but still
far-reaching, and can be grounded in value systems and conceptual
apparatuses that underlie the surface of argument. Engaging Regan
and Singer together in conversation is therefore valuable for students.
It opens up conversations, not ends them: difference is the beginning
of where we go, not the end of the line of inquiry.
JANE DREXLER
JANE DREXLER
Notes
1. Of course, we know that the latter preconception is false: even if you dont major
in philosophy, philosophical skills are highly valued by employers. For example, the annual survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers consistently shows
that the majority of the top skills sought by employers center on the kinds of critical
thinking, problem-solving and case-making skills emphasized in our field: evaluating and
processing information, influencing and persuading others, identifying and evaluating
problems and their solutions, communicating verbally and in writing at multiple levels
inside and outside an institution, and more. (see the National Association of Colleges
and Employers, November 18, 2014; https://www.naceweb.org/about-us/press/class2015-skills-qualities-employers-want.aspx). And as for the former popular conception,
I flat out reject it. Unfortunately, its all too prevalent in todays student population, and
we dont do enough to disrupt it. While philosophy often wears that high-brow, elitist
reputation well, it is one of the reasons too few voices from beyond the most privileged
social locations sound out from our bookshelves. The culture, assumptions, questions,
perspectives, and experiences of privilege tend to harmonize comfortably with traditional
philosophy; and anyone who comes at it differently must convince the establishment that
JANE DREXLER
a) they really are carrying a tune, even if it doesnt harmonize with theirs; and b) that tune
is worth learning to sing. Too often, non-traditional thinkers end up being told that they
dont fit into the established chorus. So its no surprise that many would-be philosophers
end up feeling inadequately intelligent.
2. Hanstedt, General Education Essentials, 2021. (Hanstedt is referencing the work
of Edmund Ko in his exploration of Wicked Problems and Wicked Competencies.)
3. Unfortunately, the discipline of philosophy has been, and continues to be, susceptible to the charge of disconnecting from reality: of taking philosophic thought so far from
the concrete and the embeddedness of real contexts and conversations, that it too often
ceases to seem relevant or meaningful. If youve ever attended a philosophy conference,
youve probably seen how good we can be at getting so mired in the details that we forget
(to explain) whats at stake, what issue or question we started out trying to grapple with,
who we are responding to and why what were saying matters.
4. Regan, Animal Rights, Human Wrongs.
5. Perry, Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development.
6. Ironically, this dualistic thinking seems to be especially prevalent in introductory
Moral Philosophy classes, as so many people approach moral decision-making as if we
are opening a rulebook handed down by an Authority: as long as we follow the rules,
we are right, we are morally good. Indeed, a significant amount of traditional moral
philosophy itself arguably comes at morality this way. Im thinking here of Hannah Arendts reflections on the moral theory of Immanuel Kant (and we could also include St.
Augustine here, or others). While the origin of the rules may differ (e.g., God or Reason),
morality is nevertheless, at bottom, about following rules. Arendt argued that Kants moral
theory was so focused on the question What ought I do?, that conspicuously absent
was How do I judge? (See Arendt, Lectures on Kants Political Philosophy.) (see also
Elizabeth Anscombe and Alisdair McIntyre for similar arguments.)
7. Graff, Why Johnny Cant Argue, particularly page 171.
8. Earl, The Four-Sentence Paper.
9. William Perry identifies several learning positions that move beyond Basic Duality,
but that move into a kind of relativism which too must be transcended. (See Perry, Forms
of Ethical and Intellectual Development, especially his chapter on Positions 25.)
10. Here, Im not really offering a critique of (or support for) theoretical relativism, that is, the philosophical and anthropological study of materially- and culturallyconstructed difference. Nave relativism is not a theoretical relativism. Nave relativism
holds the view that opinions have no depth or underlying structure. They just are: its the
Disneyland version of relativism: we are different and unique and lets just all celebrate diversity! (but we dont have to think too much about it). Theoretical Relativism,
in contrast, requires us to see difference deeply: to understand the conceptual frameworks,
context (cultural and material) for belief systems. One need not accept or reject the notion
that there are more-or-less universal standards that apply across cultural landscapes in
order to appreciate the general imperative offered by theoretical relativism that we see
difference deeply.
11. Clinchy, Toward a More Connected Vision. Clinchys epistemological positions of learning build off of her work on Perrys model.
Bibliography
Arendt, Hannah. Lectures on Kants Political Philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992).
Bain, Ken. What the Best College Teachers Do (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press, 2004).
Clinchy, Blythe McVicker. Toward a More Connected Vision of Higher Education, New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 82 (Summer 2000).
Earl, Dennis. The Four-Sentence Paper: A Template for Considering Objections and
Replies, Teaching Philosophy 38(1) (March 2015): 4976.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20151730
Graff, Gerard. Why Johnny Cant Argue, Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obsures
the Life of the Mind (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003).
Hanstedt, Paul. General Education Essentials: A Guide for College Faculty. An American
Association of Colleges and Universities publication. (San Francisco: Wiley Press,
2012).
Merchant, Carolyn. The Death of Nature, in Environmental Philosophy: From Animal
Rights to Radical Ecology, 1st edition, edited by Michael Zimmerman (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1993).
Perry, William. Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years (San
Francisco: Wiley and Sons, 1999).
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves To Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin, 1985).
Regan, Tom. Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, Environmental Ethics 2(2) (Summer
1980): 99120. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19802225
Singer, Peter. All Animals Are Equal, Philosophic Exchange 1(5) (Summer 1974).
Jane Drexler is associate professor of philosophy at Salt Lake Community College. She
earned her Ph.D. at SUNY-Binghamton, specializing in ethics and feminist political
theory. She continues to pursue research interests in the philosophy of Hannah Arendt,
and has published several essays on Arendt and feminist theory. But when she wears
her generalist hat, she likes to publish essays on ethics and the history of philosophy for
general audiences in non-academic journals and magazines. She earned a Blackboard
Exemplary Course award for her fully-online version of Introduction to Environmental
Ethics. jane.drexler@slcc.edu