Final 1: "Are we as good as we say we are?"

Introduction
Morals are one of mankindÕs most intriguing creations. The idea that one person can do wrong to another is a unique facet of humanity. After all, humans are simply another mammal. Many will claim that animals merely act upon instinct Ð there is no good and evil about their actions because they cannot rationalize it, and it is an act of personification to claim an animals actions as good or evil. Humans, on the other hand, have the capacity to reason Ð to examine the pros and cons of an action, and act accordingly. Crime, personal space, morality, good, and evil are all words which arise from this, for man has evolved beyond running purely on instinct to a state where selfish actions are no longer merely a mechanism for survival.
It is written in our Declaration of Independence that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights, to be upheld by our decreed government. This idea of being above all other creatures is an interesting one, for through it derives morals, and through morals we derive society. While culture creates society, morals allow it by enabling us to know what codes of behavior we must live by. Without morals, humans are another animal, acting towards whatever is in their own self-interest, no matter what the cost to others.
SocietyÕs basic structure is supported by laws and codes of behavior, creating a system around what is "generally accepted as good". What is Ògenerally accepted as good" is based on a foundation of basic morals of society (don't steal, don't kill, etc.). While these laws are all generally conducive to the continuance and maintenance of society, there seems to remain a disconnect between the actions of individuals and the general moral values of society. While society may have determined particular actions are "wrong", this does not necessarily hold true in all situations. If one is offered a glass of champagne at a wedding to toast the newly weds, one may not consider it immoral of them to drink, even if they are underage. Similarly, just because an individual believes certain actions may be morally wrong does not mean they will always adhere to this code of behavior. The same underage individual may drink at a wedding, despite believing it to be immoral in other social situations.
Wishing to examine the dissonance between those moral codes of society and the moral framework of an individual, we asked ourselves: Why do individuals hold themselves and society to different moral standards? An adult may believe that kids under the age of 17 should not be allowed to see a rated-R movie, while they allow their own kids to see the same movie. Perhaps this is because they feel that they are more accountable for their own children than society in general is. In Moral Psychology (2004), Peggy DesAutels writes:
ÒThere are many reasons why our day-to-day moral lives may fail to reflect our moral commitments. We may have selfish moments, we may quite consciously choose to override our moral commitments when we have other priorities, or we may attempt to follow through on our moral commitments but be incompetent in doing so,Ó (pg. 69).
It is this question of why an individual deviates from their moral schema that we wish to answer. Through literary study, examination, and comparison of books, research, and court cases we hope to analyze the ways in which American society creates and justifies laws based upon the morals of those individuals within the society, and whether or not these laws can be accurately applied to individual situations. This research will draw on moral philosophy, ethics, law, psychology, and religion.
As a point of interest and second question, we wished to examine how people would deploy their morals in specific scenarios. Through empirical research and survey, we hope to determine the basic morals of an individual. Then by asking questions about what decisions an individual would make in a particular situation, we hope to see to what extent an individual will adhere to their own framework when placed in such situations. This survey will aid in our research because the morals of individuals within a society are the basis of that society's laws, and the laws of society are what "should" determine an individual's actions in particular situations. This means that, because laws are based on the general moral values of a society, an individual should ideally always adhere to those laws. Morals are a uniquely human quality, and shape society in many ways. Influenced by both psychological and sociological factors, it is a driving force in culture, and intriguing in many ways.
We predict our research will show that society will pay much more attention to the fact of a crime or other immoral action, and less attention to situational evidence. On the other hand, we believe we will see that individuals will pay much more attention to situation, and merely use laws and morals as guidelines for how they will act in a situation. It is our hypothesis that in our survey, we will see that the individualÕs stated moral framework will mostly parallel that of society. However, when placed in morally ambiguous situations, their stated actions will deviate from that framework to some extent.

Relevance
As society progresses, we continue to become increasingly social beings. However, there is still a solitary and independent nature prominent within many individuals. While past research has shown ancestral humans to have clan-like tendencies, to what extent does that hold true today? Are we better suited to individual lifestyles, or is man more of a social creature? Whatever the case may be, due to today's society we are now all forced to interact with other humans in order to survive. Through our research, we hope to further examine this disconnect between the social and individualistic nature of humans. Our primary research question examines this dissonance, as well as the formation of the difference between separate people's values. Our secondary question analyzes the individual's personal values, how they are constructed, and how they are employed. Because society has an effect on how an individual's morals are formed, we are interested in examining whether an individual will always uphold those values, or whether they will work towards what they perceive as beneficial to themselves. We believe these questions are important because it will help lead to a better understanding of why peopleÕs actions do not always reflect their moral ideology.
In The Roots of Ethics, Richard Alexander (1981) writes of his frustration with the question ÒWhat is justice?Ó (pg. 280). As a culturally ambiguous word, justice is tied to many facets of society. Our own American government strives for justice as a central tenet of its foundation. Through the study of morals, we gain a more thorough understanding of the values of society, how individuals use those morals, and how society interprets those moral choices.
Background
Morals are defined as Òarising from conscience or the sense of right and wrongÓ, (dictionary.com). As individuals, we use morals to determine the proper course of action in situations where we are presented with a choice about whether or not to do something potentially harmful to another. Ethics, which are defined as Òa theory or a system of moral valuesÓ (dictionary.com), are thus the accepted cultural standard moral model. Both are systems which influence each other, as societal values help to shape an individualÕs values, while individualÕs morals are what are used to define a cultureÕs ethics. Both are shaped by a variety of things, including religion, science, and philosophy. In our study, we question how these morals and ethics are created, and how they are adhered to in specific situations. To better understand and answer these questions, we examined each individual field, and the various claims they make about morals and ethics.
The moral philosopher Henry Sidwick Òtook it to be the task of moral philosophy to articulate, to systematize, and to bring into a coherent rational whole our prephilosophical moral intuitionsÓ (MacIntyre, pg. 7, 1981). It is through moral philosophy that we seek to understand what it is that drives our morality. Moral philosophy permeates all of the sciences, as it seeks to explore morals socially, religiously, and psychologically. Additionally, it is what interprets the findings of those various fields for use in laws and for the individual. Thus moral philosophy is the lens by which we describe morals, and through which this project works, as well as the lens which focuses this work for others. We feel this is an important distinction, for while those sciences are the how and the why, moral philosophy is the language we use to describe this.
An alternative role of moral philosophy is to take to task those morals of society, and to question their merit, value, and effectiveness. Many forms of moral philosophy exist, as we all have our own ideas and opinions. For example, if we are in a situation in which we are able to save either a group of people, or our own single child, what actions do we take? It is in this field of thought that our question Òto what extent do people adhere to their own stated moral framework?Ó arises. Ethics, and many religions, would claim that the right course of action would be to save the group of people, because it preserves the largest amount of life. However, is it wrong to act selfishly and save your own child in this situation? Sociobiologists may claim that it is irrelevant, for it is more likely that one will act to save their own child Ð it is the best course of action for the continuance of oneÕs genes. It is not whether this was the better course of action, but simply that an action took place that concerns these scientists. It is in this vein of thought that our first question arose: ÒWhy is there a dissonance between individual and societal values?Ó
The role of religion in morals is another extremely important facet. While there are many forms of religion throughout the world, all with varying beliefs and ideals, the basic feature of all religions is a code of behavior, dictating those ethics which a certain religion claims to be right and true. In America, freedom of religion is a tenant of society, and has created a culture with a wide variety of religious beliefs and ethics. Whatever their prescribed values are, the key influence of religion in America and much of the world is ethics Ð the idea that there is a right and a wrong form of behavior. As written by Taylor (1985) in Ethics, Faith, and Reason, religion Ò[nourishes] the idea that there is a kind of obligation higher, more authoritative, and more demanding than the obligations that arise among persons,Ó (pg. 78). Thus religion has shaped ethics into the idea of Òlove they neighborÓ and Òdo unto othersÓ. Its basic claim is not that humans are moral and ethical because it is imperative to the continuance of society, but rather that we should act morally because it infringes the freedom of others.
This stance of religion Ð particularly Judeo-Christian religions Ð is a somewhat backwards one, assuming that man is an immoral creature, and must be held accountable to a higher power than himself. It is in science, and particularly sociobiology, in which we see the idea that we are moral creatures because it works to maintain biologically the human race. In The Moral Animal, Robert Wright (1994) claims that DNA is the driving function of any species, and that whatever social constructs have been created are there because they work to maintain that species. Thus, we are moral creatures because it is a necessity to the continuance of society. As social beings, humans are tied to this continuance, because we require one another for survival.

Methods
Through literary study of biological, psychological, sociological, ethical, and religious writings we intend to gain an understanding of how society creates laws. This research will entail the reading of various books, research articles, and journals. Through this research we wish to theorize an answer our primary question: What is the cause of the dissonance between society and an individual of that society's moral values? While this is our primary question, it is our belief that no "true" answer to this question exists; it is simply too broad a question. Thus as a secondary question, yet still important to the idea of a dissonance between society and individuals, we have asked to what extent will an individual adhere to their own stated morals.
To answer this secondary question, we anonymously surveyed 17 individuals. Subjects were given a questionnaire and told that by completing the questionnaire, they were granting their informed consent. The survey is attached as Appendix A. In the survey, subjects were asked to rank the severity of various crimes on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the most severe. They were then asked to define each of these crimes by circling any of a number of different descriptions for the various crimes. Subjects were also asked to define a number of drugs as being either a ÒlightÓ or a ÒheavyÓ drug. After ranking and defining the various crimes, subjects were given various reasons for which they might commit the crime, and asked to circle any reason for which they would commit that crime. Finally, subjects were given specific scenarios, and asked to make a choice between two actions. Subjects were also asked to rationalize these responses on a separate sheet of paper.
Through analysis of each subjectÕs survey, we have compared the responses subjects gave for the various crime scenarios to the definitions and rankings of the corresponding crime. In this comparison, we analyzed whether each subjectÕs response to the scenarios correlated with their definition and ranking of the corresponding crime. We also took into account rationalizations if any were given. As an attempt to minimize confusion and get the most honest answers from subjects, subjects were told to please ask any and all questions they had about any part of the survey. They were also instructed to attempt to place themselves within the various scenarios, in an effort to make subjects respond with what they truly believe their actions would be in the given scenario, and not simply the most moral action to take in the situation.
The purpose of the format of the study was to gain as much information about the beliefs of the subject, and then to challenge those beliefs and compare the responses of the subjects with those beliefs. It is difficult to find ambiguous situations for many of these crimes, particularly since due to their nature some of these crimes are fairly straightforward morally. Additionally, without actually being in some situations, it is difficult to say what actions one would take in that situation. Thus we also take into account a subjectÕs rationale for a response to their actions in a specific scenario.
Research was conducted over three different days, the week of April 9th through 15th. Surveys were distributed throughout the WCP 261 class, as well as throughout the architecture studio. Of some 60 distributed surveys, 17 were returned. Surveys were analyzed using Microsoft Excel, as well as by each member of the group. In each survey, we compared the subjectÕs response to the given scenarios with the subjectÕs definitions and rankings of the corresponding crime. Data sheets are attached as Appendix B.

Results
Surveys were divided into a total of four sections. The first section asked subjects to rank crime on a scale of one to five, five being the most severe form of crime. Subjects were in almost complete agreement in this section, with few deviations in responses, and none greater than a two point difference. The average response for each crime is depicted in Graph 1.
Graph 1
In the second part of the survey, subjects were asked to define these crimes from a list of several definitions. Subjects were asked to circle each definition they felt was appropriate, even if that were multiple definitions. These results are illustrated in Graphs 2a-2e in Appendix B. Subjects were also asked to indicate whether they believed a specific drug was a ÒheavyÓ or ÒlightÓ drug. These results appear as Chart 1.
Subjects were then asked to indicate reasons they would commit these crimes by circling any reasons on the survey for which they would commit that crime. These results can be seen in Chart 2 in Appendix B. Finally, subjects were asked to indicate the action they would take in specific scenarios detailed within the survey. These results can be viewed in Chart 3 in Appendix B.

caffeine tobacco marijuana cocaine heroine ecstasy speed narcotics mushrooms alcohol
L L L L H L L L L L
L L H H H H H H H H
L L L H H H L L L L
L L L H H H L H H L
L L L H H H H H H L
L L L H H H H H H x
x x H H H x x x x L
L L L H H H H H H L
L x H H H H H L H L
L L H H H H H L H L
L L L H H H H H H L
L H L H H H H H H H
L H L H H H H H H H
L L L H H H H L H L
L L L H H H L L H L
L H L H H H H H H L
L L L H H H H H H L

H 100% 20.00% 23.53% 94.12% 100.00% 93.75% 75.00% 62.50% 87.50% 18.75%
L 0% 80.00% 76.47% 5.88% 0.00% 6.25% 25.00% 37.50% 12.50% 81.25%
H = Heavy Chart 1
L = Light

Discussion
Society is wrought with morally ambiguous situations, from the simple question of jaywalking to the uneasy thoughts of abortion and capital punishment. We wished to determine why it was that often, an individualÕs and societyÕs morals will clash. After all, shouldnÕt the morals of the individual parallel society? Likewise, shouldnÕt society draw on the morals of that individual?
In our research, we found evidence that aligned with this concept. Very general trends arose in the ranking of crimes, with few deviations from the average rank. Crimes were defined similarly, and the reasons subjects gave for which they might commit those crimes were for the most part the same. By definition, ethics is a moral schema by which we live our lives, influenced and developed through the culture an individual lives in.
The process by which these morals form into societal values, and eventually laws, is outlined by Richard Taylor (1985) in Ethics, Faith, and Reason. In his text, Taylor writes that law is derived from custom, and crime is a violation of this custom. This gives meaning to the word justice which Alexander struggled with so much Ð justice was a Òrespect for these laws,Ó (pg. 17). Yet at this definition is where the root of our question lies, for Taylor also continues on from his definition of justice:
ÒWhat we haveÉare the basic ideas of (1) right and wrong that apply to those actions permitted or forbidden by custom, and (2) of justice and in justice that apply to those actions or policies that are in accordance with or in violation of the commands of lawmakers,Ó (pg. 17).
Thus the dissonance between laws and morals is that they are not one in the same. Justice does not entail morality, just as morality does not entail justice, and within this distinction a dissonance between society and the individual will arise.
In our survey, subjects were asked whether they would kill another person to take revenge for the murder of one of their close friends or relatives. Every subject responded that they would not kill the murderer to get revenge. In the justifications section, three subjects responded that they would Òcontact the proper authoritiesÓ, and one respondent stated they would simply wish to Òhurt the murderer, not kill themÓ. In TaylorÕs writings, he discusses benefits and injury, and perceived gain. As the murder in the given scenario is already a criminal, one would think that more of the subjects would have taken advantage of the opportunity to cause harm. There is little gain to the subject beyond a possible satisfaction, but there is also no loss. The only losing party in this scenario is the criminal, and the criminal is after all a criminal. Do we concern ourselves with what he loses? In terms of pure gain and loss, assuming the subject has no guilt, we may as well take advantage of the opportunity to gain some satisfaction through revenge. However, enter in the concept of right and wrong, and all respondents reply that they do not take this opportunity.
This is a curious position, particularly in a capitalist society where we each seek to gain, regardless of anotherÕs loss. The criminal has already, undoubtedly, committed a murder and is thus sentenced to life imprisonment Ð perhaps even death. Contacting the authorities is a promising answer, for will justice not be properly served? But is it for society to determine what justice in this situation is? Issues of safety aside, the public has no gain by properly trying the criminal, and either way the outcomes are the same Ð the criminal is incapacitated and unable to commit another crime. The subjectÕs potential gain, on the other hand, is much higher than that of society at large. Or is there a potential best plan Ð maximize justice, maximize gain Ð by simply hurting the criminal?
It is here that our research has struck the root of the dissonance. Human beings are not a ÒgreaterÓ being, are not being held to a different scale by nature. We are all mammals, and thus it is instinct to seek maximum gain. In The Moral Animal Robert Wright (1994) discusses Òparental investmentÓ and the energy required in raising children. He claims that it is instinctual for man to seek as many Òsex-providing, child making machinesÉand women want to maximize the resources available to their children,Ó (pg. 96). Apply this to other facets of human life Ð justice, work, and leisure time Ð and we see that we are still the selfish creatures, seeking the most of whatever it is we are trying to get. Yet society has placed limits on the amount we are able to gain through laws and customs. The price we have paid for our comfortable lives is a lack in freedom towards selfish gains.
This is perhaps why we end up with the response ÒI would want to hurt themÓ. Society has decreed that our rights should not be infringed on by another Ð not even those considered criminal. It is this war between the religious and humanitarian Òobligation to a higher power (God or society)Ó against the biological instinct to maximize gain. What our survey has demonstrated is not how an individual deploys their morals, but rather what society has determined the correct actions in a given situation are.

Conclusion
Our original hypothesis stated the individuals would adhere to their stated moral framework except in morally ambiguous situations. We predicted that individuals would follow closely to the laws of society, ranking and defining crimes similar to what one would expect any person to do. Our research supports this hypothesis Ð in fact it would seem common sense that this would be the natural conclusion. By our own claim, society is built upon those common morals. In addition, through empirical research we were able to isolate a cause for the dissonance between societal laws and individual values. However, problems exist in many facets of the research.
A major flaw in this research was the restrictive form in which the scenarios were presented. Because vague wording was used, and few options were given for each scenario, we cannot claim to have shown that individuals would adhere to a moral standard in that scenario. We had hoped to alleviate this concern by allowing subjects to respond to scenarios in an open writing form. However, only five subjects actually took advantage of this forum, and little insight was given into the thought process for the justification behind the individualÕs chosen action.
Secondly, the number of subjects was of great concern. While we were able to begin to see trends in the data collected, it is folly to conclude that the average person in our society would most likely adhere to the morally high ground in some of the given scenarios. To truly represent any aspect of ÒsocietyÓ it is our belief that one would need a sample size of thousands to gain an accurate idea of societyÕs morals.
Finally, this research does not allow for any actual emotional ties to the scenarios. Research conducted by Jonathan Haidt (2001) at the University of Virginia describes a different form of moral reasoning, called the social intuitionist model. Traditional reasoning models work as a straight line, in which the subject is presented with a scenario, goes through the logical reasoning circuit (their moral schema) and comes to a deciscion. In HaidtÕs now model, he argues that we do not normally go through a reasoning process, but more commonly act on intuition. In this model, judgment and reasoning occur only after the scenario has occurred. Thus, because none of the subjects were actually present in the given scenarios, there is no way to determine whether they would have acted on the same reasoning, or on an intuitive judgment which would be realized later.
Laws are a foundation for society, composing the moral and ethical ideology of a given culture. Founded in custom, laws seek to define what we call ÒrightÓ and ÒwrongÓ, and the proper justice to be administered for given actions. Morals are tied to laws in that they serve as the basis of laws, mandating what is and is not permissible, acceptable, and conducive in society. Through this research, we have determined that individuals will primarily base their actions on the morals of their society. They will also define these morals in a similar manner, deviating little from their societyÕs basic moral framework. However, a dissonance between the morals of society and the individual will arise when the idea of gain is entered into the equation. Because humans are biologically programmed to seek the most gain for themselves, they will not always adhere to their stated morals. Additionally, conflict will arise when individuals seek gain outside the means deemed acceptable by society.
To further build upon this research and study, we propose a similar survey in which the work of Jonathan Haidt is taken into account. This survey could take the form of a survey similar to the one we presented, or be conducted in an entirely different manner, such as placing the subject into an actual physical scenario, and afterwards writing about the process they used to come to decisions in the scenario. Finally, for further study into the idea of gain, we would again site Richard TaylorÕs Ethics, Faith, and Reason, from which we have drawn a large part of our empirical research.

Callahan, D. and Enghardt, T (editor). (1976). The Roots of Ethics: Science, Religion, and Values. Plenum Publishing. New York.

Coles, R. (1997). The Moral Intelligence of Children. Random House. New York.

DesAutels, P. and Walker, M. U. (2004). Moral Psychology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lanham, MD.

Green, T. F. (1985). The Formation of Conscience in an Age of Technology. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionists Approach to Moral Judgment. American Psychology Association. University of Virginia.

Lapsley, D. K. and Laskey, B. (2001). Prototypic Moral Character. Ball State University.

Munzel, G. F. (1999). Kant's Conception of Moral Character. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Taylor, R. (1985). Ethics, Faith, and Reason. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Walker, L. J. (1989). A Longitudinal Study of Moral Reasoning. Society for Research in Child Development. New York.

Wright, R. (1994). The Moral Animal. Random House, Inc. New York.

Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu

Here is a list of responses that have been posted to this Study...

Respond to this Submission!

IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!

DOWNLOAD the Paper Posting HTML Formating HELP SHEET!

We also have a GUIDE for depositing articles, images, data, etc in your research folders.

Visit the rest of the site!

Site NAVIGATION--Table of Contents

Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro! (Quicktime or MP3)

Search WWW WITHIN-SITE Keyword Search!!

WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES Look Below for.....WEATHERSITES........Use "Pop-Ups"---> Numerical Models & Computer Forecasts --Just The Maps & Views Midwest Weather Hurricanes & Tropical Weather --Spectacular Hurricane Movies and Images--Past and Present --Tropical Satellite Views Radar & Severe Weather --Password Protected Radar Oxford,OH CURRENT Weather Conditions --ARCHIVED Weather Conditions Satellite Movie Uploads! Real Time Satellite Imagery & Movies/ Coastal Radar Main Street Weather Global Climate Change Starting Points (Climate Change Course) TROPICAL ECOSYSTEM FIELD COURSES TROPICAL ECOSYSTEM COURSE SYLLABI......! -----Tropical Ecosystem Syllabi TROPICAL MARINE ECOLOGY of the Florida Keys & Bahamas: Syllabus --(Pg 2): Tropical Marine Ecology of the Florida Keys & Bahamas -Course Announcement: Tropical Marine Ecology -Marine Ecology Course Starting Points--NEW -Marine Ecology LISTserve TROPICAL ECOSYSTEMS of COSTA RICA: Syllabus -Course Announcement: Tropical Ecosystems Costa Rica -Costa Rica Starting Points--NEW -Costa Rica LISTserve TROPICAL ECOSYSTEM IMAGE and MOVIE COLLECTION......! TROPICAL MARINE ECOLOGY Images and Movies --(Cont): Tropical Marine Ecology Images and Movies --Marine Ecology Streaming Video Potpourri --Tropical Marine Ecology Digital Images 2008 --Tropical Marine Ecology Digital Images 2007 --Tropical Marine Ecology Digital Images 2006 --Tropical Marine Ecology Digital Images 2005 --Tropical Marine Ecology Digital Images 2004 --Tropical Marine Ecology Digital Images 2003 --Tropical Marine Ecology Digital Images 2002 --Curacao Coral Reef Ecology Images July 2007 --Curacao Coral Reef Ecology Images July 2006 --Curacao Coral Reef Ecology Images Aug 2005 --Curacao Coral Reef Ecology Images Aug 2004 --Curacao Coral Reef Ecology Images 2003 ---------------------------------------- TROPICAL ECOSYSTEMS of COSTA RICA Images and Movies --COSTA RICA Images and Movie Collection --Earth Expeditions: TRINIDAD 2008 Environmental Education Course Images --Costa Rica 2007 Ecology Course Photos & Images --Costa Rica 2006 Ecology Course Photos & Images --Earth Expeditions: Costa Rica 2006 Ecology Course Images --Costa Rica 2005 Ecology Course Images --Earth Expeditions: Costa Rica 2005 Ecology Course Images --Costa Rica 2004 Digital Images --Earth Expeditions: Costa Rica 2004 Digital Images --Costa Rica 2003 Digital Images --Costa Rica Streaming Video Potpourri EARTH EXPEDITIONS-NAMIBIA: GREAT CAT CONSERVATION 2007 TROPICAL ECOSYSTEMS FIELD COURSE PRESENTATIONS......! MARINE ECOLOGY 2008 --2008-Marine Ecology Paper Outlines --2008-Marine Ecology Papers MARINE ECOLOGY 2007 --2007-Marine Ecology Paper Outlines --2007-Marine Ecology Papers MARINE ECOLOGY 2006 --2006-Marine Ecology Paper Outlines --2006-Marine Ecology Papers MARINE ECOLOGY 2005 --2005-Marine Ecology Paper Outlines --2005-Marine Ecology Papers MARINE ECOLOGY 2004 --2004-Marine Ecology Paper Outlines --2004-Marine Ecology Papers MARINE ECOLOGY 2003 --2003-Marine Ecology Paper Outlines --2003-Marine Ecology Papers Summer 02-Tropical Marine Ecology Summer 01-Tropical Marine Ecology Summer 00-Tropical Marine Ecology Summer 99-Tropical Marine Ecology Summer 98-Tropical Marine Ecology ---------------------------------------- COSTA RICA 2008 --2008-Costa Rica Paper Outlines --2008-Costa Rica Papers COSTA RICA 2007 --2007-Costa Rica Paper Outlines --2007-Costa Rica Papers COSTA RICA 2006 --2006-Costa Rica Paper Outlines --2006-Costa Rica Papers COSTA RICA 2005 --2005-Costa Rica Paper Outlines --2005-Costa Rica Papers COSTA RICA 2004 --2004-Costa Rica Paper Outlines --2004-Costa Rica Papers COSTA RICA 2003 --2003-Costa Rica Paper Outlines --2003-Costa Rica Papers Summer 02-Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica Summer 01-Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica Summer 00-Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica Summer 99-Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica Summer 99-Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica Summer 98-Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica Hays' Marine Ecology Images and Movies Ohio Bird Photo Collection | Tropical Bird Collection | Costa Rica Image Collection | Edge of the Farm Conservation Area | Hays' Tarantula Page | Local Watershed Fish Studies| Wildflowers, Arthropods, ETC in SW Ohio | Earth Science Resources | Astronomy Links | Global Change | Marine Ecology "Creature Study Guide" |

OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF Find the most recent on-campus COURSE SYLLABI......! Fall 2005, WCP 121- Participatory Research in the Environmental Sciences WCP 401/GLG401/501-Global Climate Change, 2005 Fall 2004, WCP 121- Participatory Research in the Environmental Sciences Fall 2004, GLG 205: Evolution and Earth Systems WCP 401/GLG401/501-Global Climate Change, 2004 WCP 261/262-What is Human Nature? 2004 Fall 2003, WCP 121-Research in the Environmental Sciences Fall 2003, GLG 205: Evolution and Earth Systems WCP 401/GLG401/501-Global Climate Change, 2003 WCP 261-Rivers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, 2003 Fall 2002, WCP 121-Participatory Research in the Environmental Sciences Fall 2002, GLG 205: Evolution and Earth Systems 2002, WCP 401/GLG401/501-Global Climate Change 2002, WCP 261-Rivers: Images, Policy and Science 2001, WCP 121-Participatory Research in the Environmental Sciences 2001, WCP 401/GLG401/501-Global Climate Change 2001, WCP 222-The Nature of Human Nature 2000, WCP 121-From the Universe to the Duck Pond: Patterns and Processes in Natural Systems Fall 2000, GLG 205: Evolution and Earth Systems 2000, WCP 401/GLG401/501-Global Climate Change 2000, WCP 222-The Nature of Human Nature Fall'99, WCP 121-From the Universe to the Duck Pond: Patterns and Processes in Natural Systems '99, Critical Reflections on the Life Sciences: Lives in Science '99, Technology in the Inquiry-Based Science Classroom Fall'99, GLG 205: Evolution and Earth Systems '98, The Nature of Human Nature 2003,GLG 412/512/599.T-Tropical Marine Ecology of the Florida Keys, Everglades and Bahamas 2000, GLG 413/513 Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica STUDENT RESEARCH PROJECTS AND FEEDBACK......! Spring 2006-What is Human Nature? Fall 2005-NS1: Participatory Research in Environmental Science Global Change 2005- Peer Review Spring 2005-What is Human Nature? Fall 2004-NS1: Participatory Research in Environmental Science Fall 2004- Evolution and Earth Systems Global Change 2004- Peer Review Global Change 2004- Peer Review Spring 2004-What is Human Nature? Fall 2003-NS1: Participatory Research in Environmental Science Fall 2003- Evolution and Earth Systems Spring 2003-Global Climate Change Peer Review Spring 2003-Rivers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Fall 2002-Natural Systems 1: Participatory Research in Env Sci Fall 2002- Evolution and Earth Systems Spring 2002-RIVERS: IMAGES, POLICY, AND SCIENCE Spring 2002--Global Climate Change Spring 2002--The Nature of Human Nature Spring 2002--NS 1, Chemistry, Ecology and Society Fall 2001-Natural Systems 1 Student Research & Peer Review Spring 2001-The Nature of Human Nature Field Research Spring 2001-Global Climate Change Student Research & Peer Review Fall 2000-Natural Systems 1 Student Research & Peer Review Fall 2000-Evolution & Earth Systems Student Research Spring 2000-The Nature of Human Nature Field Research Spring 2000-Global Climate Change Research & Peer Review Fall 99-Natural Systems 1 Student Research & Peer Review Fall 99-Evolution & Earth Systems Spring 99-Critical Reflections in the Life Sciences Spring 98-The Nature of Human Nature Fall 98-Natural Systems 1 Student Research & Peer Review Fall 97-Natural Systems 1 Research Menu | Educational Philosophy | Discovery Labs: Moon, Geologic Time, Sun, Taxonomy, Frisbee | Project Dragonfly | Vita |Field Course Postings | Student Research Postings | Nature/Science Autobiography | Environmental Programs at Miami University

TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF Visit some terrific DISCOVERY LABS.....! The Frisbee Lab The Moon Lab Geologic Time The Sun Lab The Taxonomy Lab Kepler's Laws and Jupiter's Moons Course DISCUSSION SITES--Add a comment......! Global Climate Change Course Starting Points--New Marine Ecology Course Starting Points--NEW --Marine Ecology LISTserve Costa Rica Course Starting Points--NEW --Costa Rica LISTserve Rivers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective--NEW Evolution & Earth Systems Discussion PRESENT --Evolution & Earth Systems Discussion PAST NS1: Participatory Research in Environmental Science PRESENT --NS1: Participatory Research in Environmental Science PAST Science Center Discussion Site Daily Necessities: Macintosh Resources |Search Engines | Library Resources|Server Stats| Family Album | View My Schedule | View Guestbook | Western College "Multimedia Potpourri" Edge of the Farm Conservation Area Harrison Scholar Hurricane Ike Service Trip 2008 Harrison Scholar Costa Rica Trip 2008 Spider Holding and Sex Education Night, Spring 2008 View Western College Photos/Movies! Spider and Cider Night, Fall 2007 Harrison Scholars New Orleans Service Trip 2007 Harrison Scholar Costa Rica Trip 2007 Harrison Scholars Louisiana Service Trip 2006 Spider and Cider Night, Fall 2006 View Western College Photos/Movies! Crawfish Festival 2006 Human Nature Multiple Intelligences' Lab, March 2006 Popcorn and Pythons Night, Spring 2006 Maple Syrup Festival, 2006 Spider and Cider Night, Fall 2005 Western College Graduation 2005 Spider and Cider Night, Spring 2005 Sharon Long Reception Photos/Movies 2005! Diane Kaufman Retirement Reception, Dec 2004 Spider and Cider Night, Fall 2004 Creek Walk, Natural Systems 1, Fall 2004 Western College Graduation 2004 Winter/Spring Ohio Bird Photo Collection Quicktime Streaming Slideshow Crawfish Festival 2004 Human Nature Multiple Intelligences' Lab, April 2004 Institute of Environmental Sciences Banquet, March 2004 Zoo Visit, Feb 2004 Popcorn and Pythons Slides, Jan 2004 Popcorn and Pythons Movie, Jan 2004 Popcorn and Pythons, Fall 2002 Popcorn and Pythons, Spring 2002 Natural Systems Creek Walk, 2003 Ohio-Louisiana 2003 Crawfish Festival 2001 Louisiana-Ohio Crawfish Festival Movie Western College Graduation Weekend, Spring 2003 Little Miami River Field Trip, April 2003 Collins Run Fish Collecting Trip, 2003 Environmental Effects on Fish Populations in Miami University Creeks Stream Sampling: Fish Diversity Study Slides, 2002 Stream Sampling: Fish Diversity Study MOVIE, 2002 Spring Valley Field Trip 2003 Visiting Southern Louisiana, Spring 2002