Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 15, No 3A, 1404–1421 (2014)

Environmental education and training

TEACHING OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: CARING

THINKING

M. A. DOMBAYCI
Gazi Faculty of Education, Philosophy and Related Sciences Education
Department, Gazi University, 06 500 Ankara, Turkey
E-mail: dombayci@gazi.edu.tr

Abstract. The purpose of this study is to suggest content and methods as to how environmental eth-
ics could be taught through ‘caring thinking’. The paper has two main parts. The first part focuses
on environmental ethics in the scope of the relationship between man and nature, while the second
part deals with the teaching of environmental ethics through caring thinking. In this frame, there is
an effort to establish the relationship between man and nature. Following the historical perspective
of this relationship, the relationship between ethics and environment wish is discussed. The points
of view, which ethics that is relatively young when compared to other disciplines of philosophy
has dealt with since it was established, are presented. An analysis of how human-centered ethics,
environment-centered ethics, and holistic ethics have dealt with opinions regarding the relationship
between man and nature is made. In this context, it has been emphasised that holistic ethics regards
nature with all its living and non-living components, and that this situation is being examined in the
scope of values. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the central concept is ‘care’ rather than
protect, conserve, keep, sustain, save, maintain, defend, and a link is established between care and
ethics. As an answer to how ethical inquiry, which is a sub-category of philosophical inquiry, can
be realised through caring thinking, has been introduced from different perspectives. Characteristics
and dimensions of caring thinking are emphasised and several examples of caring thinking practices
that could be subject to environmental ethics in the frame of story books have been presented.
Keywords: environmental ethics, caring thinking, philosophy for children, quadruple thinking,
ethical inquiry.

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

As we approach the next century, today’s man, whom we try to define as modern
human, feels the need to re-define himself and the nature, which surrounds him and
which he is a part of. He questions the relationship between man and nature once
again. He is stripped off from the profit-loss perspective which he has fallen into
and which is becoming more and more egoistic day by day and he tries to embrace
the nature and make sense of it. However, before dealing with this question he
needs to inquire to what extent he knows about himself. What is man?
Man has tried to answer this question about himself for centuries by attach-
ing high values a superior adjectives to his existence, and he even compared and
identified himself with gods. With all these definitions and identifications, he

1404
drew himself to a privileged and lonely state and experienced a complete break
off with the nature and other living things. It is not, therefore, problematic at all
to place the isolation and alienation of man and his separation from nature at the
core of the environmental problems today. Man, who started to gain control over
nature as Homo Faber (tool-making man) in the First Age and then transformed
into Homo Economicus (producing-consuming man) with industrialisation and
urbanisation and to Homo Desperade (desperate man) with the ecological crisis
is testing whether he is a Homo Rasionalis (reationalist man) and Homo Sapiens
(wise man) in his relationship with the nature in our age. If this is approved, the
Homo Santos (reputable man) of the 21st century gives a new meaning to his
relationship with the nature and becomes Homo Oecologicus (man who can think
and act ecologically)1.
The scientific world view which emerged as an outcome of the scientific
revolutions of the 17th century can be considered as the breaking point in the
human-nature relationship. This point of view profoundly affected our percep-
tion of ourselves and the natural world. It placed human being at the core of any
thought and led to a human-cantered perception of nature. Scientific philosophy
of F. Bacon, Cartesian dualism and metaphysics of Descartes, and the modern and
mechanical physics of Newton, which replaced the Aristotle physics, caused the
ancient and dominant view of the middle ages to withdraw and be replaced by the
perspective of the modern age. As this transformation and the resulting modern
identity are the main determinants of human-nature relationship, it was criticised
by many environmentalist thinkers2.
Gore3 describes the reflection of the crisis, in terms of nature, caused by mod-
ern identity in his statement ‘The deeper I went while investigating the roots of
the environmental crisis, the more I came to believe that it is an expression of an
inner crisis which could be described as spiritual’. Taking this as a starting point,
attention should be drawn to the fact that modern identify and the resulting prob-
lems do not solely rise from political, economic and social factors; on the contrary,
they are rather triggered by man intellectual, psychological and moral crises. It is
almost impossible for a person who has lost his/her inner peace to be in harmony
with the nature. Hence, the main responsible of nature pollution is social, political,
cultural, intellectual, linguistic and moral degradation. In that respect, we need to
turn to man and his morality before focusing on the nature4. This requirement is
supported by the Heiddeger emphasis5 on man need of a new ethos regarding his
place and position in nature.
Ethics, as a discipline of philosophy, is the most effective instrument of this
need. The ancient power and influence of philosophy would provide a platform of
discussion beyond sciences when problems concerning nature and environment
are discussed with respect to philosophy of ethics. Ethics inquires about what we
should do, how we should behave, what kind of a person we should be. This kind

1405
of questioning may have two directions. The first one is the practical level at which
a decision is made as to what we do and how we live, and the second one is the
theoretical level which involves contemplating on how we think and what we value.
In this context, environmental moralists try to re-define ‘moral responsibility’.
When considered in the frame of environmental philosophy and environmental
ethics, the problem is that wildlife, unmanned nature, is threatened by man and
his man-made and his natura naturata (a Latin term coined in the Middle Ages,
mainly used by Baruch Spinoza meaning ‘Nature natured’, or ‘Nature already
created’) and destroyed by the modern man6. This destruction can be defined as
the destruction of human morality, which just appears to be the destruction of the
environment.
Environmental ethics, as a discipline of philosophy, in general terms deals with
‘environmental morality’ which can be defined as the ‘inner environment’ of human.
Unless our inner environment is fixed/repaired, the broken ties with nature are not
renewed, it would be wrong to consider environmental issues, modern identity and
its way of life as the main convict and responsible. Nurturing ‘inner environment’
with sensitivity to life will facilitate the solution of problems. Sensitivity to life is
a feeling emerging from the awareness obtained from living experience. It is not
mere consciousness, an emotion, or an act by itself, but it encompasses conscious-
ness, emotion, and act at the same time. With a particular approach, it could be
called ‘gonul’ (heart-soul). Sensitivity to life is a state in which I as ‘I’, experience
myself, feeling myself and while living as such, I recognise other people as ‘You’
and increasingly discern the universe, and I feel them in me and with me7.
This study will present a trial to provide the teaching of environmental ethics
in the context of ‘caring thinking’. The teaching and method of philosophy is an
important tool for environmental ethics and its teaching. Teaching of environmental
ethics in the context of caring thinking will facilitate the bringing up of caring,
reasonable and autonomous individuals, and contribute to environmental education
by helping the analysis of the relationship of dependence and interdependence to
nature.

EXPERIMENTAL
In order to achieve the main objective of the study, data were collected from
domestic and foreign literature, and a proposal for the teaching of environmental
ethics was presented. Within the framework of this proposal, the concept of ‘car-
ing thinking’, which is thought to bring a new breath of philosophical inquiry, is
discussed. Basic data of the study comprise books and articles on environmental
philosophy, environmental ethics, and caring thinking. However, works associated
with the topic were also included. This study is intended to illustrate an existing
situation, and thus it is a descriptive study based on scanning8. All documents were

1406
collected for data analysis, data relevant to the purpose of this study were noted
down. These notes were carefully examined and categorised so as to establish
the relationship between environmental philosophy, basic concepts and topics of
environmental ethics, caring thinking and environmental ethics. Data analysed
and interpreted in the scope of the aim of the study were synthesised in the form
of proposals.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Environmental ethics is a sub-discipline of environmental philosophy. From this
perspective, understanding environmental ethics will not be possible without grasp-
ing environmental philosophy. Environmental philosophy emerged in the early
1970s with the establishment of political parties which focused on environmental
problems. Nass9 used environmental philosophy for a philosophical inquiry examin-
ing the natural world and man relationship with the natural world. Environmental
philosophy being a new discipline of philosophy does not indicate that its efficacy
is new. Anyone who deals with nature philosophy, and contemplates on what the
appropriate attitude of man towards nature should be is dealing with environmental
philosophy. Environmental ethics, also called ecological ethics, questions how
the relationship between man and the nature around himself should be, and tries
to determine what correct behaviour should be. In other words, environmental
ethics tries to demonstrate what are the moral values of the man mean in the face
of nature. Therefore, environmental ethics question what kind of responsibility
people have towards the nature. Some of the questions of environmental ethics
can be listed as follows10: Does nature have any value other than meeting the
needs of people? Are some parts of nature more valuable than others? What is the
man responsibility towards nature and what is natural? Various answers to these
questions were given by different environmental ethics. When environmental eth-
ics is examined, it is possible to list them under three main headings. These are
human-centred/anthropocentred environmental ethics, life-centred/biotic ethics
and holistic environmental ethics11.
Anthropocentric ethics. According to anthropocentric ethics, whose roots date
back to ancient Greece, plants, animals and inanimate things do not have a value
themselves. Rather, have a right to exist as long as they serve man. Their values are
determined accordingly. Hence, as nature is nothing but something that surrounds
man, it is not in the centre, on the contrary, it is off-centre. When considered from
this point of view, if man is to protect nature, this is because it provides benefits
to him. What is important in anthropocentric perspective is man and his needs,
so its fundamental values have been shaped accordingly. Indeed, if human inter-
vention in nature brings further benefits to man, he can even intervene in nature.
Human-centred ethics can be explained through four core values: (1) man has

1407
priority over other creatures; (2) unlike other creatures, man is more intelligent
than other creatures with his ability to determine his own goals and make an effort
in this direction; (3) man exploits natural resources for his own purposes, and (4)
one way or the other, man will find a solution to any kind of problem arising in
the nature. Value and dignity are human-specific phenomena. Therefore, objects
apart from man who has a moral responsibility as a subject do not have any moral
responsibility. Therefore, it is natural for man to take advantage of other animate
and inanimate beings/creatures.
Biotic/life-centred ethics. Biotic ethics criticises human-centred ethics for valu-
ing man only, and for considering all living creatures other than man as a tool. It
does not accept the importance of man as the only and superior value in the face
of nature. All organisms are valuable regardless of any circumstances. With this
point of view, plants and lower level organisms are considered to have a moral
value. Biotic ethics regards the ethical life itself as the most important supporting
point. Living things in nature are evaluated independent of the value attached by
man. Biotic ethics can be explained through three core values: (1) all beings in
nature should be at the core of nature preservation/protection. In particular, hu-
man activity can trigger such a risk at any moment; (2) within the framework of
nature protection some rare species may compete with others. This condition does
not necessarily make rare species more advantageous, and (3) in terms of being
respected, if there are no compelling justifications for non-living things, it might
be a priority to protect living things. The pessimistic picture put forward by the
understanding ‘Man is the measure of all things’ led to the emergence of biotic
ethics. Along with this approach, along with man, other living things and plants
were also considered when dealing with human behaviour.
Holistic ethics. While biotic ethics is an approach which encompasses all living
creatures, in holistic environmental ethics, everything, including non-living things
is included in the subject of ethics. The holistic approach considers the existence
of all beings in the world sufficient in order to be eligible. Every being in nature,
including man, is a part of the whole without being subjected to any discrimina-
tion. In holistic approaches, as in biotic approach, man is not given any superiority.
On the other hand, those components which make up living ecosystems are not
separable and they are in continuous relationship with the whole and through this
relationship they become distinctive beings. Thus, a network of relationships that
underlines both uniqueness and togetherness is formed. Organisms are separate
from each other and at the same time they are connected to one another. The most
important holistic approaches are earth ethics, deep ecology, social ecology, bi-
oregionalism and eco-feminism.
Does enlisting the approaches of environmental ethics ensure the teaching of
environmental ethics? Certainly, the answer to this question would be ‘no’. Indeed,

1408
teaching environmental ethics to students would not mean providing them with a
set of rules. Instead, it would be appropriate to structure their moral responsibility
which is activated by critical thinking, which is also helpful in mobilising their
self-reflect. What is important here is which environmental ethics approach is
taken as a basis. The difference in the perspective of such a teaching should not be
contextual, but operational. The primary role of environmental ethics teaching is to
make models and metaphors that shape our understanding of the world clear12.
When we examine all environmental ethics, the question whether it is possible
to talk about the value of nature, independent of man or its importance to man,
emerges as the main question to ask. However, before this question we should
answer the question ‘What is value?’ In this sense, environmental ethics can be
addressed at two levels. The first one is the practical level at which a decision is
made as to what we do and how we live, and the second one is the abstract/theo-
retical level which involves contemplating on how we think and what we value13.
In this study, there is an effort to suggest affective teaching for new generations in
the context of environmental ethics and recommendations will mostly focus on the
second level will be more. ‘Caring thinking’ is the basis of such a proposal.

WHY CARE?
From a very general perspective, expressions such as protect, conserve, keep,
sustain, save, maintain, and defend are frequently used in some disciplines in-
cluding philosophy of ecology, environmental ethics, and ecology and so on. In
the teaching of any subject, three types of areas of knowledge, skills and attitudes
need to be developed. They respectively correspond to cognitive, affective and
psychomotor domains14. Psychomotor domain is addressed more often in the area
of vocational and technical education. In this regard, we encounter cognitive and
affective distinctions more frequently. Concepts like protect, conserve, keep, etc,
keeping their nuances apart, do not sufficiently point at the affective domain. Ac-
tually, addressing and teaching any area in terms of ethics requires dealing with
the affective domain rather than the cognitive one.
Cognition can not be regarded as knowledge but the processes of acquiring
knowledge, just as affection can be explained as the process of affection, rather than
an emotion. Bacanli15 likens cognition to a plastic sphere in a sense. Assuming that
plastic spheres move on a plush ground, after a certain time they will accumulate
electric charge. In this case, if we take plastic spheres as cognition, then the electric
charge is affection. Thus, cognitions turns into affection the more it is used. These
electrical charges will attract some spheres, while pushing some others away. In
other words, knowledge content turns into emotional content after a certain time.
We define the general names of emotional content as values.

1409
 The concept we use to express our relationship with nature will determine our
relationship with it. On this sequential relationship, Mahatma Gandhi expressed
‘Carefully watch your thoughts, for they become your words… Watch your words,
for they will become your actions… Consider your actions, for they will become
your habits… Acknowledge and watch your habits, for they shall become your
values… Be careful about your values, for they will become your character… Be
careful about your character, for it will become your destiny’. Many principles,
methods and perspectives were introduced in the restructuring of nature-human
relationships. However, as these principles grow in number, it becomes more
difficult to extract what is more complex. Here it should not mean the reducing
the complicated principles down to simpler ones. Complex processes can only
be grasped as a whole through simple principles. Against the meticulous concep-
tualism of the Middle Ages, it would be wise to stick to the Occam razor. When
the Occam principle and Gandhi words are taken into consideration, it could be
argued that the ‘care’ is a more comprehensive concept embracing other concepts.
The concept of care puts direct emphasis on values and the relationship between
environmental ethics and values. Therefore, ‘caring thinking’ should be at the
centre of the teaching of environmental ethics.

CARING THINKING AS AN ETHICAL INQUIRY

The relationship between ethics and care has been put forward by some thinkers.
Notable among them is ‘the ethics of care’, also known as ‘moral theory’. This idea
asserts that relationships and defences are determinants of human life. Noddings16
is among the most important representatives of this view. He defines caring think-
ing as the pedagogical pre-requisite of moral education, and considers care as the
centre and purpose of education method. For this propose, he proposes four key
activities: modelling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation. Lipman17, on the other
hand, considers caring thinking as the third component (together with creative and
critical thinking) of high level thinking, which he refers to as multidimensional
thinking. According to him, the basis of judgment is emotions. Each emotion is a
choice, a decision and a judgment. Despite the fact that the emotions express judg-
ments, other ways of thinking should also be examined, evaluated, criticised, and
made subject of education18. A. M. S. Sharp, on the other hand, argued that in the
trio-thinking model laid down by Lipman, caring thinking has a shadowing effect
on critical and creative thinking. Sharp also claimed that the dimension of caring in
this inquiry is not reflected on curricula at the same level by Lipman, and stressed
that the ‘community of inquiry’, which is the learning environment of P4C should
be brought to the foreground. Sharp, reflecting the views of Noddings, focused
more on the pedagogical aspect of caring thinking than its emotional and popular
qualities and attached greater importance to the consensus, community, and care

1410
trio. Sharp states that Noddings considers care as regard to others opinions and
interests, and underlines that care must be reciprocal19. The Philosophy for Children
(P4C) Program introduced by Lipman is defined as multidimensional thinking, and
comprises critical, creative and caring thinking. P4C, which has been designed
for the practice of philosophical inquiry with children, was found insufficient by
Dombayci and others, and it was reconsidered in the model of Quadruple thinking
(QT) and was structured in terms of its various dimensions/aspects.
The word ‘care’ as different meanings and connotations depending on the context.
These are discussed in five different ways. First, it means to care about or have an
interest in a person or a thing: ‘I care about Mark.’ Second, it means to be careful
or protect someone: ‘Take care of yourself’ or ‘be careful’. Third, it means to meet
the needs of someone or something: ‘To take care of a cactus’. Fourth, it means
to deal with something: ‘I am taking care of the cleaning’. Fifth, it means to ask
for something: ‘Do you care for some beer?’ When different meanings of this
term are analysed, ‘care’ is sometimes used as an adjective sometimes as a verb.
Sometimes it is used with an object or a subject20. It is useful to recall the Engster21
emphasis on care as defined by Tronto and Fisher: ‘On the most general level, we
suggest that caring be viewed as a species activity that includes every-thing that
we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well
as possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, all
of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life-sustaining web’. In fact, this
definition of care answers the question ‘what kind of a world’.
Care comes from man heart and values. People care more about the things
that they value. Caring thinking strengthens an individual’s value system. Along
with caring thinking, various types of excitement and stimulation emerge, includ-
ing emotional excitement, intensity and deep sensitivity. Caring thinking has five
interrelated features: appreciative thinking, affective thinking, active thinking,
normative thinking and empathetic thinking.
Appreciative thinking. To appreciate means paying attention to what matters and
what is important to us. Things in nature are neither better nor worse than others.
However, when we evaluate their similarities and differences, we take care to
value these similarities and differences in addition to our own outlook. From this
perspective, we can draw a parallelism between appreciating and rewarding. There
are two parts of appreciative thinking. The first one is to appreciate tangible things
because they are sensual and aesthetic. Appreciating the objects of nature and art
is of this type. The other one is more associated with abstract things. Investigat-
ing what such situations mean to us and to people or in societies is to develop an
in-depth perspective about our personal values22.
Affective thinking is a way of thinking in which affection and emotion are at the
centre. In this way of thinking, ‘care’ focuses on affection and emotion. Although

1411
based on emotions, affection is a broader concept. Emotions, sensations, prefer-
ences, remarks, identification, roles, social skills, and so on are within the scope
of affection. For example, you have observed that the trees were cut for no reason
in a certain region, and therefore you are furious. Is there a nature of thinking in
our thinking of our anger? Of course there is because here the anger embodies the
awareness that it is not good to cut trees unnecessarily without a proper reason and
it also encompasses the consciousness that we are right in getting furious. Anger
can not be triggered by an ordinary event. There must be a cause. Even if the
reason is not really good or strong, it should be accepted as a cause. Moreover it
is not a result. This is usually ignored for moral education. In general, our actions
follow our feelings directly. Men hate and destroy, men love and act friendly, etc.
Consequently, if we can temper with anti-social feelings, we can also temper with
anti-social management. Sensitivity in a way that is unaccustomed to emotions in
the thinking process and advanced thinking in moral judgments can be listed as
the outcomes of affective thinking20.
Active thinking. Active thinking occurs when the activity of the mind, translated
into action. When thinking occurs about any topic, we have a number of criteria
and our values related to this action. A person compliance with these existing
criteria and values is active thinking. Caring thinking is also active thinking since
it is an ongoing way of thinking. In active thinking values are activated. Active
thinking can be explained as caring about one own thoughts. A person taking ac-
tion to put his/her thoughts into practise is related to his/her care about his/her
own thoughts23.
Normative thinking. Normative thinking can be defined as having a consciousness
about how an incident should take place rather than being aware of the reality of
the incident, or how it happened. Here care is given to what should happen because
if there is sufficient inquiry regarding what has been done, then a draft a plan
or an idea about what should be done could also be developed. A caring person
continually takes the possibility of an ideal into account. This will also help us
to think about the nature we want to live in and we should be living in instead of
accepting the nature as it is. Normative thinking can take place at a local or global
level. Encountering clear inconsistencies and worrying about negative situations
actually result from a person care for the required/ideal situation. Sensitivity to-
wards discrepancies between ideas and behaviour, the ability to conceptualise and
proposing solutions to the problems of the society, and having profound interest
in issues regarding humanity and the world are the general qualities of normative
thinkers24.
Empathic thinking. The term ‘empathy’ may have a broad range of meanings.
However, in the context of caring thinking, the importance of empathy lies in the
meaning of being able to put ourselves in someone else shoes and think as if we

1412
are going through his/her experience. When considered from this perspective, the
significance of the term empathy is primarily ethics. Another way to caring is to
think as if we have someone else feelings, perspectives or horizon. As Mark Johnson
expressed, ‘We need not to worry that empathic thinking is a private, personal or
purely subjective activity. It is rather the main act which makes it possible for us to
live in a more or less common world, in the world of shared movements, actions,
perceptions, experiences, meanings, symbols and stories.’ Empathic thinking does
not necessarily mean that the judgement/evaluation of the other person must be
accepted. The person could preserve his/her existing judgements25.
It was previously noted that apart from its features, caring thinking could
be given a dimension in two respects. One of them is the subject of care, and the
other one is the object. Subject is a man, and object something that s/he is directed
towards. These two dimensions can be classified as follows20:
– When care is classified according to its subject;
(a) Following instructions: The person obeys instructions given to him/her
externally. Therefore, as s/he is told, s/he cares. The person is entirely committed
to comply with the instructions, and sometimes s/he is not even aware of what s/
he is doing.
(b) Self-awareness: The person follows the instructions, but at the same time
s/he starts to realise what s/he experiences. Here, the emphasis is more on the
person itself and obeying instructions is a secondary concern.
(c) Own principles: At this stage, the person chooses the instructions to obey
her/himself. S/he Creates them her/himself. In order to reach this phase, the person
has to have developed self-awareness. At this stage, behaviours are at a tangible
level. The person does not have many alternatives.
(d) Ethical rules: The person realises the values and ideas behind creating
instructions. S/he sees the abstract principles behind creating instructions. As long
as they are in line with the values and principles, alternatives could be developed.
S/he gains flexibility both in thinking and in behaviour.
– When care is classified according to its object;
(a) To oneself: The person takes care of his/her body in the first place and then
s/he cares for her/his behaviours. A person who is perceived as ‘such a careful’
takes care of his body, in other words he takes care of himself.
(b) To others: The person helps other people around to take care of themselves
as well. S/he is concerned that they also behave in accordance with some values
and principles and s/he helps them behave in such a way.
(c) To the nature: It is when a person acts for the sake/well-being of the physi-
cal environment s/he is in. It is to make the immediate environment a better place
form an and for the nature. The person does not exploit the nature, of which s/he
is a part, s/he cares and acts accordingly.

1413
 (d) To principles: The person cares about values and principles. At this stage,
the person evaluates behaviours according to the underlying intentions. S/he takes
into account and evaluates the possible outcomes of his/her behaviours. The person
who encountered unexpected situations in previous stages does not come across
with any surprising cases anymore because s/he cares about values and principles
at this stage.
When considered in terms of the characteristics and size, it could be argued
that caring thinking fits very well to environmental ethics. In this context, placing
caring thinking, addressed in P4C and QT, in the centre of the relationship between
man and nature is a more effective option than establishing a link between the
nature and actions such as protecting, conserving, keeping, sustaining, saving,
maintaining, defending, etc.

TEACHING ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICHS THROUGH CARING

THINKING
There are three perspectives for environmental education: education about the en-
vironment, education for his environment and education in or through the environ-
ment. Education about the environment usually corresponds to the environmental
education provided in a school setting. Education for the environment, on the other
hand, aims to support sustainable development. As for education in or through the
environment, it means the kind of education taking place in the nature itself and
the teaching of other content through environment. Caring is somewhere at the
intersection of education about the environment and education for the environ-
ment26. This intersection is, in a way, the answer to the question of ‘the education
of what?’ regarding the environment. Krishnamurti27 re-formulating the same
question in a different way, asked ‘What is the meaning of a correct relationship
with the nature?’ and his response to this question was ‘There is no correct relation-
ship, there is only an understanding of the relationship. A correct relationship, as
in correct thought, requires for a single rule to be accepted’. In that respect, a rule
hat could be accepted in the nature-man relationship could be defined as ‘caring’.
Nature is a reality and we can get into nature only if we appreciate it. When the
relationship with nature is considered from an operational aspect, it will clearly be
seen that there is a collective action, as well as an individual action. When mass
fiction occurs as an indivisible entity, collective action may essentially turn into an
abstraction and an eligible escape route for the individual. Therefore the mass is
made up of this and that, and us. When people do not understand the meaning of
right action, it is highly likely that the mass will turn into something abstract. The
outcome is the deprivation from responsibility. In order to make the right move,
one needs to think right, to think right, one needs to know himself/herself, knowing
oneself is possible not through abstraction, but through relation.

1414
 From the perspective of environmental ethics, in our relationship with nature,
values are generally divided into two: instrumental and essential. In terms of
instrumental values, objects in nature are of no value on their own. People have
valued these with a utilitarian approach. Essential values, on the other hand, is
the state in which nature and the animate and inanimate objects in nature all have
their own value. Given this, environmental education needs to be addressed in a
way to emphasise that nature alone has its own value. In this regard, the content of
education should also be handled as such so that students realise how to attribute
value to what. At this point, the example of Seligman28 and similar ones will be
effective. Let us assume that a person walking along a river hears cries for help.
There are two people who are about to drown and are waiting for help. One is a
scientist who has made an important invention for the treatment of cancer and the
other is an ordinary citizen. Which one should be saved? When asked this question,
people usually prefer to save the scientist. This could be a good example of the
above-mentioned pragmatic utilitarian approach acting through the instrumental
value. What if the ordinary citizen that is about to drown in the river and asks for
help was our father? In this case, with a similar approach, people turn to rescuing
their father. Here, rather than the correct answer to this question, the question qual-
ity in raising awareness about how people appreciate what is crucial. Similarly, a
small forest burned down is better than a large forest; a small animal killed is better
than a large one; a dried marsh to be converted to a plantation is better than drying
a lake, etc.29 Such examples will give the opportunity to discuss these dilemmas
through ‘caring thinking’.
Instead of the complex, multi-component activity processes of educational sci-
ence that requires many steps and preparation, it is more useful to conduct simple,
easy-to-understand and sustainable philosophical debates. The method of P4C and
QT offers students concrete experiences and contributes to their development. In
a way, this method can be described as a climate of philosophical inquiry. In this
climate, students develop their understanding and experience and contribute to the
solution. One of the points to be considered is that in the selection of problems,
social problems related with nature should be selected rather than individual ones,
but when addressing these social problems, individuals own experience should
also be activated. What is meant here is that experience is supported by operations
such as making inferences, creating analogies, making generalisations, making
abstractions, empathising with others or perform, analysing concepts. The concep-
tual analysis of philosophical inquiry, and its metacognitive aspect, and the nature
of philosophical problematising makes it possible to uncover what is beneath the
surface of complex problems and issues30. Conveying this experience out of a story
book and turning the class into a community of inquiry is extremely functional.
In this process, careful thinking will help students’ to develop their autonomy31.
Among the books that could be used as philosophical inquiry environments where

1415
caring thinking will be activated, The Giving Tree, The Lorax and The Little House
are the examples related to environment.
Among these, The Giving Tree is a book by Shel Silverstein focusing on
how an appropriate relationship between man and nature should be. In the book,
transformation of the relationship between a boy and a tree is examined. Each of
the transformation stages is suitable for discussing human needs and desires. In
the book, there is also a discussion as to whether natural world has a number of
rights of its own and whether there is a reason to respect these. In the story, the
child appears as a young man, a young adult and an adult. First he sells the apples
of the tree, then he cuts its branches and eventually he chops down the bark all
together. Based on this story, following questions could be asked concerning the
teaching of environmental ethics through caring thinking32.
The tree keeps on giving to the boy until it has nothing left to give. The boy
on the other hand does not give anything to the tree.
● Do you think the boy is selfish? Why or why not?
● Why do you think the tree is not happy after giving the boy her trunk?
In the story, the tree gives the boy many gifts.
● Is it easier to give something away if the receiver truly appreciates the
gift?
Early in the book, the tree loves the boy.
● Why do you think the tree loved the boy in the beginning? Why do you think
the boy loved the tree? Are the two ‘loves’ the same type of love?
The tree is not really happy after giving the boy her trunk.
● Is the boy happy at the end of the story? Is the tree happy?
The Lorax is another book. The Lorax by Dr. Seuss is a light-hearted message
is a cautionary tale with a critically importance. The Lorax is about the journey
of a teenager, who is looking for a Truffula tree, which is the only thing that can
take the attention of the girl of his dreams. As the story develops, the teenager, in
his search for the tree, explores the story of Lorax, which is a grouchy, but equally
cute, creature fighting to protect its world. The book tells us that if we do not want
to take the responsibility of the environment, we are likely to face with a similar
world to that of Lorax. The story is extremely useful to turn this interconnectedness
of living things in an ecosystem into a philosophical discussion. In this respect, it
could be considered as the embodiment of holistic environmental ethics in a story.
It draws attention to the sustainability aspect of ecosystems. Taking this book as
a starting point, another topic that could be brought up for discussion is social
responsibility. Based on The Lorax following questions can be asked concerning
the teaching of environmental ethics through caring thinking33.
When the Lorax first appears to speak on behalf of the tress, the Once-ler
claims he is doing no harm by cutting down Truffula Trees to make Thneeds (a
peculiar garment).

1416
 ● Was it harmful when the Once-ler cut down the first tree? If so, who, or
what did it harm?
● The Lorax claims that it was harmful for the Once-ler to cut down the tree.
Are trees the kinds of things that can be harmed? Can anything not be harmed?
The Once-ler ignores the Lorax and continues quickly expanding his business,
cutting down more and more trees at a faster and faster clip...
● The Once-ler business making and selling Thneeds is very successful. Is
the Once-ler success a good thing? Why or why not? What might make it good?
What might make it bad?
● Why do the Swomee-Swans leave? How about the Humming Fish? What
happened to their habitats? Why doesn’t the Once-ler care about what is happen-
ing around him?
When the Once-ler realises what has happened, it seems like it is already too
late.
● What happens to the Once-ler factory once all the Truffula Trees are
gone?
● In the beginning of the story, the Once-ler claims that everyone needs
Thneeds, but at the end he claims that what everyone really needs is Truffula trees.
Why does he change his mind? What is different about the value of trees and the
value of Thneeds? What makes trees more valuable?
Another book is the story of Little House by Virginia Lee Burton which is
about Little House which has survived in a big city which originally started out as
a small village. Green grass and blue skies have been replaced by giant skyscrapers
and noisy high-speed trains. As time goes by, the Little House grows shabbier, it
is not happy with its location and has decided to return to the countryside again.
The Little House is personified by an assigned sex, thoughts and emotions and
gives the reader the opportunity to empathise with. Little House focuses on the
balance between nature and human interaction. Urbanisation, industrialisation and
their relationship with nature are dealt with effectively. Following questions about
caring thinking, which could be subject to philosophical inquiry, are important in
terms of environmental ethics34.
The City has developed around the Little House.
● At what point does the house seem dissatisfied with the development that
is happening around her?
● What makes the house sad?
● Do you think the house would have been happy if the environment had not
changed? What about if people noticed her?
● How does the environment affect how we feel?
Compared to how she felt before the city developed around her, the Little
House starts to feel sad and lonely.
● Which would you prefer living in the city or the countryside? Why?

1417
 ● Do you think your happiness is affected by where you live? Why?
● Does returning to a familiar environment make us feel happy?
The countryside around the Little House is destroyed in order to build more
buildings.
● At what point does the degradation of the environment become unaccept-
able?
● At what point does the Little House ‘think’ the development should have
stopped? Is it when the pollution became too excessive, or when she felt discon-
nected from who she was before development?
However, while benefiting from children’s literature, one needs to be care-
ful. Some books give a negative message about nature and our relationship with
it. In the story of Little Red Riding Hood, the path through the forest which is
used by the Little Red Riding Hood to visit her grandmother is dangerous. Here
the forest has been described as a dangerous place to go. Again, the wolf in the
story has been characterised as a malicious, deceitful, destructive, and cunning
animal35. And there is also a lumberjack who becomes a hero for killing the wolf.
This and similar examples of incorrect cases should be taken into consideration
and they should be examined by questions that could initiate a debate. Questions
to be prepared should be associated with the dimensions of caring thinking. It
should be emphasised that nature is not something to be feared, it would be worth
to appreciate and to care.
More examples could be given and questions could be asked. At this point,
the important thing is to take the relationship between caring thinking and envi-
ronmental ethics as a topic for philosophical discussion. It is clear that a close
relationship exists between the levels of environmental education determined by
The North American Association for Environmental Education and Mamedov36
classification and the features of caring thinking. These levels are: (1) environ-
mental sensitivity and interest; (2) information about the functioning of natural
systems; (3) value judgments that allows for an environmentally positive outlook;
(4) gaining skills for active participation and contribution to the environment, and
(5) experience in preventing and resolving environmental problems37. According
to the Mamedov classification, environmental education is possible through; (1)
scientific; (2) value-related; (3) normative, and (4) activeness.
When carrying out training regarding the environment, one should be aware
that there are some factors affecting caring for the environment. Among the main
reasons are the value attached and the meaning attributed to caring for environment
by the traditions, customs and culture of societies. It could also be argued that in
societies where a life close to nature is loved and preferred, nature is appreciated
more. Quality education in advanced societies increases the care given to the
natural environment. Although the restructuring of the economies of developed
societies threaten the natural environment, the scope of education is broad enough

1418
to eliminate this problem. However, when it is considered that the level of educa-
tion in underdeveloped societies is also underdeveloped, it is clear that care for
the natural environment drops accordingly38.
The teaching of environmental ethics through caring thinking will contribute
to the realization of the principles of sustainable living. Building a sustainable
society, respecting and caring for the community of life, improving the quality of
human life, conserving the Earth vitality and diversity, keeping within the Earth
carrying capacity, changing personal attitudes and practices, enabling communities
to care for their own environment and creating a global value-based alliance and
only be accomplished with careful thinking.

CONCLUSIONS
At this point, caring thinking is not a classic perspective, it is a value-based philo-
sophical question about the environment. Ethics and values are in the centre of
caring thinking.
The classical view of philosophy is about conveying a number of philosophi-
cal schools and thoughts of various philosophers. It could also be claimed that
when its specific terminology is added to this classical perspective, philosophy
becomes too difficult to understand. Several novellas and manuals have been writ-
ten to discuss basic philosophical concepts in everyday language with the children,
and as a method classroom is turned into a community of inquiry. Thus, students
will have an opportunity to express their viewpoints with their own expressions
over the opinions and thoughts of others. The teaching of environmental ethics to
be addressed in this context will become more effective with the help of caring
thinking.
The quality of a philosophical investigation lies in to what extent it can reduce
very abstract philosophical problems to concrete concepts and to what extent it
reaches the problem social origins. The conceptual analysis of philosophical inquiry
will provide an examination of the basic concepts subject to the teaching of envi-
ronmental ethics. Therefore, students minds will not bend, on the contrary they will
open up and expand. Caring thinking, which can also be phrased as ethical inquiry,
turning towards the environment and nature will allow for the values establishing
the relationship between man and nature to be questioned and constructed. Thus,
students can deal with values of nature and environment clearly and explicitly, they
will realise how to convert these values to behaviours, how to improve them, and
bring them as close to the ideal as possible, and ultimately they will reintegrate
the values about the nature and environment which they advise to others, while
they either loosen or ignore these themselves.

1419
REFERENCES
1. E. ATASOY: Environmental Education for Children Natural Interaction. Ezgi Bookhouse, Bursa,
2006, p. 39.
2. I. OZDEMIR: Antropocentric (Human-centered) Character of Environmental Problems. Phi-
losophy World, (27), 68 (1998).
3. A. GORE: Earth in the Balance. Sabah Books. Istanbul, 1993, p. 12.
4. E. ATASOY: Environmental Education for Children Natural Interaction. Ezgi Bookhouse, Bursa,
2006, 43–44.
5. M. F. ZIMMERMAN: Toward a Heideggerean Ethos for Radical Environmentalism. Environ
Ethics, 5 (2), 99 (1983).
6. C. CAKMAK: Natural and Technical Understandings from Phusis’ to Res Ekstensa. Philoso-
phylogos, 2 (6), 77 (1999).
7. A. ERDEMLI: Homo abscontitus. Philosophylogos, 2 (6), 109 (1999).
8. A. YILDIRIM, H. SIMSEK: Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences. Seckin Publish-
ing, Ankara, 2006, p. 153.
9. H. UNDER: Environmental Philosophy. Doruk Publishing, Ankara, 1996, p. 14.
10. H. TEPE: Environmental Ethics: Land Ethic or Human Ethics? Philosophylogos, 2 (6), 42
(1999).
11. S. KILIC: Environmental Ethics. Orion Bookhouse, Ankara, 2013, p. 56.
12. R. BENTON, C. BENTON: Why Teach Environmental Ethics? Because Wes Already Do. In:
Teaching Environmenttal Ethics (Ed. C. Palmer). Brill Publishing, Danvers, 2006, 77–92.
13. J. R. JARDINS: Environmental Ethics (R. Keles, Trans.). Imge Bookhouse, Ankara, 2006,
p. 34.
14. B. TIMUR, S. TIMUR: Investigation of Secondary School Students Knowledge of and Attitudes
towards Environment on Different Variables. J Environ Prot Ecol, 14 (3A), 1297 (2013).
15. H. BACANLI: Affective Behaviour Educatıon. Nobel Publication, Ankara, 2006, p. 137.
16. N. NODDINGS: An Ethics of Caring and Its Implications for Instructional Arrangements. Am
J Educ, 96 (2), 215 (1988).
17. M. LIPMAN: Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003, p. 197.
18. M. LIPMAN: Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003, p. 264.
19. S. DAVEY: Consensus, Caring and Community: An Inquiry into Dialouge. Anal Teach, (25), 18
(2004).
20. M. A. DOMBAYCI, M. DEMIR, S. TARHAN, H. BACANLI: Quadruple Thinking: Caring
Thinking. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, (12), 552 (2011).
21. D. ENGSTER: Rethinking Care Theory: The Practice of Caring and the Obligation to Care.
Hypatia, 20 (3), 50 (2005).
22. M. LIPMAN: Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003, p. 265.
23. M. LIPMAN: Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003, p. 267.
24. O. BRENEFIER: Reader’s Corner. Retrieved from Children and Youth Philosophers: http://
www.buf.no/pdf/ob-ct.pdf, (2014).
25. M. LIPMAN: Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003, p. 269.
26. J. PALMER, P. NEAL: The Handbook of Environmental Education. Routledge, New York, 1996,
p. 39.
27. J. KHRISHNAMURTI: On Nature and the Environment (N. Demirdoven, D. Demirdoven,
Trans.). Ayna Publishing, Istanbul, 1011, p. 11.
28. C. SELIGMAN: Environmental Ethics. J Soc Issues, 45 (1), 169 (1989).
29. E. ATASOY: Environmental Education for Children Natural Interaction. Ezgi Bookhouse, Bursa,
2006, p. 192.

1420
30. J. BLEAZBY: Autonomy, Democratic Community, and Citizenship in Philosophy for Children:
Dewey and Philosophy for Children’s Rejection of the Individual/Community Dualism. Anal
Teach, 26 (1), 31 (2006).
31. G. HAYDON: Education, Philosophy and Ethical Environment. Routledge, New York, 2006,
p. 55.
32. T. WARTENBERG: The Giving Tree. Retrieved from Teaching Children Philosophy: http://
www.teachingchildrenphilosophy.org, (2014).
33. J. JOHNSON: The Lorax. Retrieved from Teaching Children Philosophy: http://www.teach-
ingchildrenphilosophy.org, (2014).
34. E. HAN, H. MIFFLIN: The Little House. Retrieved from Teaching Children Philosophy: http://
www.teachingchildrenphilosophy.org, (2014).
35. H. A. BASAL: Applied Environmental Education for Kids. Morpa Publishing, Istanbul, 2005,
p. 15.
36. N. MAMEDOV: Environment Culture and Education (Trans. B. Pasayeva). Environmental
Protection and Research Foundation Publications, Izmir, 1998, p. 10.
37. H. A. BASAL: Applied Environmental Education for Kids. Morpa Publishing, Istanbul, 2005,
p. 16.
38. H. GULAY, A. ONDER: Environment for Sustainable Development in Preschool Education.
Nobel Publishing, Ankara, 2011, p. 48.
Received 28 August 2014
Revised 15 September 2014

1421