Philosophy 120 (Spring 2022)
Environmental Ethics[i]
Class Meets: Olin 184, Monday and
Wednesday, 1-2:20
Prof. Patrick Frierson
Office Hours: In my office (Olin 192)
on Mondays 10-noon, or over zoom on Tuesday 9-10 PM at https://whitman.zoom.us/j/92189368747,
or
by appointment. These office hours give
a chance to ask any questions you have about the class, or even just to come
ask what sorts of questions to ask. They
are also very important for groups preparing for debates, so you should plan to
visit my office prior to your debate days (see “Flow of Class” below). I am also setting aside a timeslot from 6-7
PM on Mondays specifically to meet with groups preparing for debates.
Course
GOALS:
The purpose of this course to
introduce you to the main philosophical issues and debates in the field of
environmental ethics. You will learn the
central arguments of those debates, and you will also learn various
intellectual skills for doing philosophical ethics. In particular, you will learn to carefully
read and reread difficult texts, to analyze arguments for soundness, to express
yourselves in writing and orally, and to work collaboratively and respectfully
to further your understanding of complex issues. The central question we will be looking at
throughout the course is what sort of ethical obligations we have with regard
to the natural environment, and in particular, to what or who we have ethical obligations. Over the course of the term, we will consider
such issues as what sorts of entities deserve moral consideration, whether we
have any moral obligations to future generations, animals, plants, species, or
ecosystems, whether the natural environment has “intrinsic value” (and what
this might mean), and what sorts of policy implications our answers to these
questions might have. Our readings will
primarily be contemporary, although a few older philosophical texts will also
be included.
REQUIRED
TEXTS:
All readings for this course will be
online and linked from the syllabus. You
should bring printed copies of the readings to class each day. (For those with good eyes, printing 2
pages/sheet and double-sided is a good way to save paper.) If printing the documents poses a hardship
for you, please let me know.
ACCOMMODATIONS:
If
you are a student with a disability who will need accommodations in this
course, please meet with Antonia Keithahn, Associate
Director of Academic Resources (Memorial 326, 509.527.5767,
keithaam@whitman.edu) for assistance in developing a plan to address your
academic needs and ensure that you are best able to meet the requirements for
this course. All information about disabilities is considered private; if I
receive notification from Ms. Keithahn that you are
eligible to receive an accommodation due to a verified disability, I will
provide it in as discreet a manner as possible.
Note: If you need accommodations for this course, you need to contact
Ms. Keithahn during the first week of the semester to
ensure that she and you and I can work out a plan that will allow you to
successfully complete the work for this class.
Likewise, in accordance with the
College’s Religious Accommodations Policy, I will provide reasonable
accommodations for students who, because of religious observances, have
conflicts with scheduled exams, assignments, or required attendance in class.
Please review the course schedule at the beginning of the semester to determine
any such potential conflicts and give me written notice
(email is acceptable) by the end of the second week of class about your
need for religious accommodations. While I am happy to provide such
accommodations, I understand that asking a faculty member for assistance can be
intimidating; if that’s the case, you can contact your academic advisor or Adam
Kirtley, Whitman’s Interfaith Chaplain, for support
in making this request. If you believe that I have failed to abide by this
policy, here is a link to the Grievance
Policy, where you can pursue this matter.
ELECTRONIC DEVICES POLICY:
We have spent a lot of time over the
past couple of years focused on screens.
I want us to minimize the use of screens in our class. Every class, I expect you to put away your
electronic devices when you enter the classroom. Don’t check your phones. Don’t turn on computers. Focus on your classmates and our shared space
together. If you need to take notes,
take them by hand. For each day’s class,
I will assign one student who may have a laptop for googling information that
we as a class decide we want to look up.
If you want to look something up, ask the googler
in the context of our class discussion.
(This will also give us a chance to talk about what’s worth looking
up.)
On debate days (see below), I
encourage debaters to bring computers to class.
Googledocs can provide a good way for debaters
to organize their concluding remarks collaboratively during class
discussion. However, you should be
careful to pay close attention to the people in the class, and you should have
good eye contact (so not reading from your computer screen).
FLOW OF THE
CLASS:
For most of the semester, the class
will have a distinctive “flow.” Weekends will be spent reading and
thinking through several texts (usually articles) on a particular topic in
environmental ethics. There will
typically be a lot of reading, so you should budget time accordingly. In reading through the material, you should
seek to figure out what the central issues are – that is, what people disagree
about and what positions they are trying to defend – as well as what the most
important arguments for each author’s position are. For each article, try to identify a central thesis (the position defended) and to articulate in your own words the central
argument for that thesis. At the
start of any given class, I may call on any student to identify the thesis or
sketch the argument of an article. At my
discretion, I may also give short quizzes at the beginning of classes on
Mondays. Your performance on these
quizzes will affect your participation grade.
In addition, you should pay
attention to the relevance of each article to the “resolved” issue on the
syllabus, and you should briefly sketch an answer to any questions on the midterm study sheet that are related to that
reading.
Monday classes will
typically be a combination of lecture and discussion, but may also involve
quizzes, small group work, or other pedagogical exercises. The goal of these classes will be to equip
all students with a good grasp of the readings and to begin our discussion of
the key issues in them. Wednesday classes will consist in
debates about a particular topic related to the readings. For those classes, there will generally not
be any reading beyond the argument briefs (see below) you will receive from
debaters. It is essential that you read these briefs before class. The debate format is described below.
In addition to this regular flow
week-to-week, every student will be responsible for debating twice during the
semester. During weeks that you are a
debater, you will need to meet with your debating partners over the latter part
of the week and/or the weekend to put together a draft of your arguments, and
then again with them after class on Monday to revise that draft in the light of
class discussion and my comments on your draft, and then again after
Wednesday’s class to revise the draft into the “final version.” I also strongly recommend that debaters meet
with me either Monday evening (I will make special office hours from 6:15-7 for
those who want to schedule an in person meeting at
that time) or Tuesday mornings before 10am (over zoom), before turning in the
“public draft” of their briefs), to talk about any issues or questions they
have. Those will be intense weeks, so
plan accordingly.
debate days: For most of the semester, Wednesday
classes will be organized as debates about whether or not to accept a
particular statement. For each debate,
two or three students (the Proponents) will lay out the argument in favor of
the statement and two or three (the Opposition) will lay out the case against
it, and we will end each class with a vote (by “secret” ballot). Before each debate day, the Proponent and
Opposition students will send out brief explanations of their key arguments,
which must be read by the entire class before class. On debate days, class will begin with opening
statements for each side in the debate.
I will randomly decide which position will go first. After opening statements, which will be
strictly limited to 5 minutes for each side, there will be brief rebuttals,
limited to 2 minutes for each side.
(Whoever gave the first opening statement will give the second
rebuttal.) Then we will discuss the
arguments as a class for a little less than an hour, during which time the
Proponents and Opposition may not speak.
At the end of our discussion, there will be an opportunity for
concluding remarks by the Proponents and Opposition. Each side will have no more than 5 minutes to
lay out their closing case and no more than two minutes for short
rebuttals. The order of presentation at
the end of class will be the opposite of what it was at the beginning. After closing arguments, the rest of the
class will write out their ballots, voting either for or against the
proposition. At the top of your paper,
you should write either “Yay” if you agree with the proposition, or “Nay” if
you do not. You must then, very briefly,
lay out what you found to be the most compelling argument for your
position. Your vote and your
justification should reflect your own considered judgment about the issue, not
your opinion about which side presented their case better. You can include arguments not mentioned by
any of the debaters (though I would hope that you would have mentioned such
arguments in our discussions!)
At the END OF THE SEMESTER, we will have the extraordinary opportunity to
experience a Plateau peoples long tent, which will be
set up on campus to facilitate educational and cultural engagement with the
peoples on whose ancestral homelands, meeting grounds, and crossroads Whitman
College now sits. In that context, we
will reflect on indigenous perspectives on environmental ethics, particularly
those of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. We will also spend some time at the end of
the semester specifically reflecting on Whitman College’s academic theme for
this year, namely Climate Change.
Course Requirements:
Note: All written work should be
emailed to be as a word (.docx) document, with your name in the filename. DO NOT SEND ME GOOGLE DOCS OR SUBMIT WORK ON
CANVAS.
All
work you send should be your own and all quotations or borrowed ideas should be
clearly marked and cited. Consult Whitman
College’s plagiarism statement.
TWo Argument Briefs (25% total). Most Wednesday classes will be
organized as debates about whether or not to accept a particular
statement. For each debate, two students
will lay out the argument in favor of the statement and two will lay out the
case against it. The students who will
lead the debate for a given week are required to write argument briefs laying
out their position and arguments. Each
group will have to submit three drafts
of these briefs, due as follows:
First
draft, due the Sunday before the debate, by 5 PM: The
first draft will be based on your own reading and processing of the material in
the readings and will be due the Sunday before the debate. I will partly base our class meetings on
Mondays on these briefs, as they will give me a sense for what you understand
well and what you do not. You should
make these as polished as possible, and their quality will partly determine
your overall grade on the brief, but you should also feel free to add footnotes
or comments expressing questions, confusions, and so on. I will return these drafts with comments as
quickly as possible (for drafts turned in on time). Drafts must be emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu
in .doc or .docx format. The filename
should include the last names of all students who contributed to it, the date,
and the word “draft” if it is a draft or “final version” if it is the final
version (e.g., “Egoism Proponents Frierson Ireland Jenkins 9-2-2019
Draft.docx”).
Public
draft, due the Tuesday before the debate, by 5 PM: The
day before the debate, you must turn in your “public draft.” This should incorporate changes made in the
light of my comments and our class discussion on Monday. I encourage groups to meet with me on Monday
evening or Tuesday morning to discuss issues that remain after Monday’s
class. All students will be required to
read these briefs before class on Wednesday.
This draft should be emailed to the entire class (including me) no later
than 5PM on the evening before the debate.
If this draft is submitted late,
you cannot receive higher than a C on the assignment. If it is not submitted by noon on the day of
the debate, you will fail this portion of the assignment.
Final
draft, due the Sunday after the debate, by 9 PM: The final draft of the brief should reflect
any modifications made in the light of the debate itself, and you should “track
changes” (in Word) so that I can easily see what these changes are. You will be evaluated in this draft on its
overall quality, not on whether (or how many) changes you make. If you think that the public draft was
sufficiently excellent, you need not change it for the final version. I will not comment on the public draft; the
purpose of this additional draft is to give you a chance to improve based on
your peers’ discussion of your position.
This draft should be emailed to me.
If I do not receive it by 9PM on Sunday, I will grade your public draft.
These briefs should lay out the best
arguments for your position and respond to likely arguments against it. They should make use of the readings we have
done in class, with clear textual references for key claims. Brevity is a virtue, so you should make as many
points as effectively as possible in as few words as possible. The briefs may not exceed 2000 words.
NOTE: This is a course in philosophy,
not in rhetoric. The arguments laid out
these briefs, while they should be persuasive to your classmates, will be
evaluated in terms of the soundness, sophistication, clarity, and precision of
argument as well as their effective use of the material we have read in class,
not in terms of rhetorical flourish or general persuasiveness. For example, deliberately presenting
opponents’ arguments as straw men (that is, as weaker than they really are) may
be rhetorically effectively but is not philosophically respectable.
NOTE: Each pair/group of students will submit a single brief, and you will be graded on it as a group. If you believe that you did considerably more
work than your partner or that your partner was in any other way deficient,
please let me know and I will factor that into your partner’s final grade. If your partner was particularly good, please
let me know that as well.
Two Oral arguments (15% Total). During
the debate, you and your partner(s) must present your case orally. You should clearly lay out your position and
key arguments for it. YOU SHOULD NOT
SIMPLY READ YOUR BRIEFS OUT LOUD. Even
if you are going to read a statement, it should not be identical to what
everyone in the class has already read.
The best arguments will draw attention to the key points in your brief
but present them in a more intuitive way.
Also, the goal of these statements is to actually communicate your ideas
orally. If you speed through or mumble a
lot of very good points, you will not get a good grade for your oral
argument. Just as a paper that makes
good points but with poor grammar or bad style is not an excellent paper, an
oral presentation that makes excellent points in too quiet or loud or meek or
obnoxious or fast or boring a voice is not a good oral argument.
As with your briefs, this part of
your grade will be shared with your partner.
If you give an excellent opening statement but your partner bungles the
closing, you will both get the same grade for oral arguments. This means that you need to work very hard to
equip your partner to do well in class.
Again, if you think that your partner is not pulling his or her weight
during the preparations for class, you should let me know. Especially with regard to oral arguments, I
will take these comments much more seriously if submitted before the class
discussion (even by a matter of seconds) than after. (That is, I want to know that your partner
didn’t prepare well, even if she happens to do well in class, and I don’t
really want to hear excuses for poor performance after the fact.)
Some general tips for these
arguments:
PRACTICE. Your presentation in class should not be the
first time that you present your material.
Even your initial rebuttal can be practiced ahead of time, since you
will have access to your opponent’s arguments in their brief. When I make a presentation, I usually present
it at least twice in front of a blank
wall. It’s even better if you practice
it with your team, or in front of friends.
do not read
your briefs. Everyone in the class is required to
read your briefs before class, so you should present your arguments, but not read your briefs out loud. Even if you are going to read something, it
should not be identical to what everyone has already read. (That said, you might draw particular
attention to particular parts of your brief, reading short sections from it, if
you can do this in a non-redundant and non-boring way.)
Eye-contact
and clear voice.
You should look at the class as much as possible. Find a couple of sympathetic faces in two or
three different parts of the room and speak to them. Also gauge your audience. If they look confused, repeat or clarify your
point. If they look bored, liven things
up. (Relatedly, and despite the cost to
trees, it’s almost always better to read from index cards or paper than from a
computer.)
Listen. Particularly for rebuttals and closing statements,
it’s important to modify what you had planned to say in the light of what
others have said. Don’t respond to an
argument that your opponents have already disavowed.
Googledocs. Often,
groups communicate through googledocs while other
students are talking. You should do this
with care, since you need to actually listen to what is going on, but googledocs can provide a nice way to work on closing
arguments together. (If anyone needs a
laptop, ask me as soon as possible – at least 24 hours – before the debate and
I can get you one for that class period.)
Paper on practical ethics (20%). Over
the course of the semester, you should take up a practical issue in
environmental ethics or policy and write a term paper analyzing that issue in
terms of the topics we’ve discussed in class. You may choose any issue you
like. For example, for more
personal/individual ethical issues, you might consider whether to be a
vegetarian (or vegan), whether hunting is ethically acceptable, to what extent
(and why) recycling might be morally required, etc. For a more social/political
policy issue, you might consider the appropriateness of removing dams (in
general or in the context of a particular dam), the right approach to species
preservation (e.g. how should the endangered species act be applied), how
national parks/wilderness areas/etc should be managed
(and for whose sakes), whether nuclear energy should be supported, etc. For
issues that cross over ethical and political, you might consider the ethically
and/or politically appropriate response to global warming, biodiversity loss,
etc. For these papers, you are
responsible for doing the requisite research to get the facts right, but I am
primarily interested in the philosophical
richness of your argument, how effectively you draw from the relevant facts to
give valid arguments for well-reasoned, well-supported, ethical
conclusions. These papers are not to be
advocacy papers nor autobiographical narratives but genuinely thoughtful
considerations of the issues, so you should give the best arguments for all of
the most plausible positions, and then provide rationally justifiable arguments
to show why you settle for the view you end up agreeing with. Drafts of these papers will be due on May 1st and should be
emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu. Final versions of these papers will be due on
the last day of class. During the last
two weeks of class, we may spend class time discussing and/or debating the
topics of these practical papers, and you should be prepared to orally defend
your thesis for the class.
Exam (25%). About
2/3 of the way through the semester, there will be a cumulative exam. This will be a take-home, closed-book,
closed-note, no-internet, timed exam. I
will hand out the exams on April 13th
in an unsealed envelope, and you will turn them in the following class (April 18th). You will have four (4) hours to take the
exam. You should study as long as you
need to, find a comfortable quiet place, turn off your wifi/internet
connection, settle down with your exam, and open the envelope. You should write
down your start time and take up to four hours to answer the questions on the
exam. Then you should email me a copy of
your answers (to frierspr@whitman.edu), print out your answers, staple them to
your exam, put your name and end-time on the exam, write out the honesty
statement, put the exam back in the envelope, and celebrate finishing the mid-term. You should not talk to anyone else about the
content of the mid-term until after I have collected them all. (If any of you are concerned about the
integrity of your classmates and do not think that I should trust them with
this sort of take-home exam, please let me know and we will have the mid-term
in class.) A study sheet for the
mid-term is available here. I recommend that you prepare answers for each
question as you complete the relevant readings; this will make your study for
the exam much more effective.
PARTICIPATION,
IN-CLASS QUIZZES, “SECRET” BALLOTS, AND OTHER SHORT ASSIGNMENTS (15%). Because a significant part of this element of
your grade will be based on your secret ballots, I will give these a check,
check-plus, or check-minus, so that you can get a sense for how you are doing
on that part of your grade. I may or may
not give quizzes, depending upon my sense of how well you are keeping up with
the readings.
pROJECTED SCHEDULE:
|
Reading |
Topics for Discussion |
“Resolved” |
Proponents (arguing
for the resolution) |
Opponents (arguing
against the resolution) |
Jan 19 |
“In Defense of Relativism,”
Ruth Benedict "Ethical Relativism," Russ
Shafer-Landau (on Canvas) |
Ethics
in General Ethical Relativism
and Ethical Egoism |
Everyone ought to be
directly concerned for the welfare of others. |
Professor Frierson |
Patrick |
Jan 24 |
"Famine, Affluence and
Morality," Peter Singer “On Duties to Animals and the Poor,”
Colin McGinn “Response to McGinn,” Peter Singer “Starving Children in
Africa: Who Cares?” Lisa Cassidy (Optional: "The
Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin) “Revisiting
the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges,” by
Elinor Ostrom et. al.) (Optional: “Feeding People vs. Saving Nature,” Holmes Rolston III.) |
Obligations
to Existing Humans |
|
|
|
Jan 26 |
|
Obligations
to Existing Humans |
“Until every starving
child in the world is fed, all Whitman students should use discretionary
money they have to alleviate the suffering of others before spending anything
on movies, alcohol, or eating at nice restaurants.” |
Lucy W. Siri L. |
M Hu Charlotte W. |
Jan 31 |
Watch this selection from WGBH’s “Toxic Racism” “Environmental
Justice,” Robert Figueroa and Claudia Mills “The
Dakota Access Pipeline, Environmental Injustice and U.S. Colonialism,” Kyle Powys Whyte Bjorn Lomborg TED talk available here.
Also look at these
two very short videos. Lisa Sun-hee
Park and David Naguib Pellow, The Slums of
Aspen, selection. |
Environmental
Justice |
|
|
|
Feb 2 |
Environmental
Justice |
Even if we also care
about other social justice issues, we should start by focusing our energies
on directly addressing the most pressing environmental problems facing the world
today (particularly climate change). |
Owen S. Brennan K. |
Phillip T. Navi G. |
|
Feb 7 |
Richard and Val Routley, “Nuclear
Energy and Obligations to the Future” John O’Neill, “The Constituency of Environmental Policy” David Roberts, “Discount
Rates” “What
are Social Discount Rates?” Laura Westra,
“Future
Generations’ Rights” Optional: |
Obligations
to Future Generations: Ethics and Economics |
|
|
|
Feb 9 |
|
Our obligations to human beings living
more than 300 years in the future should have a significant impact on our
present-day actions. |
Erik C. Annie S. |
Ellis P. Buckley C. |
|
Feb 14 |
"Energy Policy and the Further Future: The
Identity Problem," Derek Parfit “The Repugnant Conclusion,”
(Arrhenius et. al, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). And these two entries from the 1000-word
philosophy website: |
Obligations
to Future Generations: Metaphysical Considerations |
|
|
|
Feb 16 |
|
Obligations
to Future Generations: Metaphysical Considerations |
Our only obligation to members of
distant future generations is to ensure that they have lives that are at least
minimally worth living. |
Will R. Henry H. |
Jacob R. Ashtin
S. |
Feb 21 |
President’s Day Holiday |
|
|
|
|
Feb 23 |
Listen to these two editions of
the podcast “How We Survive”: |
|
Should
we mind for lithium in Nevada? |
|
|
Feb 28 |
“All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer “The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal
Rights,” Tom Regan “Facing
the Animal You See in the Mirror,” Christine Korsgaard “Difficulties with the
Strong Animal Rights Position,” Mary Anne Warren Elizabeth Anderson, “Animal
Rights and the Value of Non-Human Life” |
Animal
Rights |
|
|
|
March 2 |
|
Animal
Rights |
Animals have rights
just as strong as human rights. |
Annie S. Aaron F. |
Faith C. Lucy W. |
March 7 |
"Organisms," Holmes Rolston III "Reverence for
Life," Albert Schweitzer "Competing Claims and Priority Principles,"
Paul Taylor “A Refutation of Environmental
Ethics,” Janna Thompson "Climate
Change, Environmental Ethics, and Biocentrism," by Robin Attfield (Optional: “Should
Trees have Standing?,” Christopher Stone.) |
Biocentrism |
|
|
|
March 9 |
|
Biocentrism |
We should kill
non-native animals solely in order to protect native vegetation. |
Ashtin
S. Ben S. |
Clarissa O. Jacob R. |
March 28 |
“Thinking
like a Mountain,” Aldo Leopold "The
Land Ethic," Aldo Leopold "Animal
Liberation: A Triangular Affair," J. Baird Callicott “Against the Moral Considerability of Ecosystems,” Harley Cahan “Is There a Place for Animals in the Moral
Consideration of Nature,” Eric Katz “Can Animal Rights Activist
Be Environmentalist,” Gary Varner |
Ecocentrism |
|
|
|
March 30 |
|
Ecocentrism |
Individual animals
should sometimes be sacrificed for the good of non-sentient nature, even when
this will not have a net positive impact on sentient beings. |
Buckley C. Faith C. |
Siri L. Ellis P. |
April 4 |
“On
a Monument to the Pigeon” Aldo Leopold "Why Do Species
Matter" Lilly-Marlene Russow “Philosophical Problems for
Environmentalism,” Elliot Sober "The
Golden Rule – A Proper Scale for Our Environmental Crisis," Stephen Jay
Gould Optional: "Defining 'Biodiversity,'" Sahotra Sarkar |
Species
Preservation |
|
|
|
April 6 |
|
Species
Preservation |
Species matter (morally and for their own sakes). |
Henry H. Owen S. |
Will R. Brennan K. |
April 11 |
"Non-Anthropocentric
Value Theory and Environmental Ethics," J. Baird Callicott “On
Being Morally Considerable,” Kennath Goodpaster "Organisms," Holmes Rolston III Freya Matthews,
“Moral Ambiguities of Climate Change” |
Summary:
Environmental Values |
|
|
|
April 13 |
MIDTERM
HANDED OUT |
Summary:
Environmental Values |
Three-way debate, on two
different propositions: Only human beings
have intrinsic value. All and only _____
have intrinsic value. (For this day, one
team will defend Yay, Nay; another Nay, Yay; another Nay, Nay. Whoever chooses Nay, Yay
gets to decide what fills in the blank.) |
Yea, Nay: M Hu Phillip T. Nay, Yea: Aaron F. Clarissa O. |
Nay, Nay: Charlotte W. Ben S. |
April 18 |
MIDTERM DUE Chuck Sams, “Wakanish
Naknoowee Thluma, ‘Keepers
of the Salmon’” Optional: CTUIR Department of Natural Resources, “The Umatilla River
Vision” |
CTUIR Salmon Management |
|
|
|
April 20 |
Long
Tent!! |
Meet at the Long Tent on Ankeny |
|
|
|
April 25 |
Plateau Tribes: Facing Climate Change
(video) CTUIR
Climate Adaptation Plan (Note the links on the right side of the
page. You should read at least Chapter
One.) Optional: "Indigenous
Peoples and Global Climate Change: Intercultural Models of Climate Equity,
" Rebecca Tsosie |
Indigenous Perspectives and
Climate Change |
|
|
|
April 27 |
"Ethics
and Global Climate Change," Stephen Gardiner Optional: "Moral
Foundations for Global Environmental and Climate Justice," by Chukwumerije Okereke Andrew Light, “Does
Public Environmental Philosophy Need a Convergence Hypothesis” (scroll
down to chapter 12, and check out the other book chapters while you are
scrolling) |
Climate Change |
|||
May 2 |
Professor
Victoria Sork visit the class to lead a discussion
about acorns. |
Paper drafts are due by May 1st at
midnight. |
|||
May 4 |
If a Tree Falls: A Story
of the Earth Liberation Front Check
out this website for Deep Green
Resistance |
Ecoterrorism |
|
|
|
May 9 |
“Annie Dillard’s Ecstatic
Phenomenology,” Julia Ireland. Annie Dillard, “Living Like
Weasels,” available here. |
Perspectives
from Whitman philosopher: Julia Ireland FINAL
PAPERS DUE BY 1PM, MAY 9TH. |
|||
|
|
NO FINAL EXAM 😊 |
|
|