Critical Thinking, Moral Courage, and Sustainable …
177
lead people to a higher level of moral consciousness. But Max Weber, in his 1917–
1919 lectures on vocation, points out that in the modern world, specialization is a
reality of the university, of scholarly work. So, the idealism and the moral ground
of the scholar is no longer to be found. In this “disenchanted” world, the purpose
of universities is to educate students by pursuing knowledge in an open-ended way.
Scholars are to exercise self-restraint and not transmit beliefs and ideals to their
students. If they act differently, they will undermine the legitimacy of academic
freedom. The purpose of the university is the acquisition and creation of new
knowledge without questioning the use and social impact of the knowledge thus
generated.
However, in the light of the overwhelming scientific proof that the environment is
suffering irreparable damage, it is argued here that the university should put sustainability at the top of its moral culture, and ask itself how, if at all, the knowledge
taught by its scholars and their new research findings contribute to sustainability.
Nowadays academia is “disenchanted” from its greater purpose; it has to “let
the facts speak for themselves”, independent of morals or values. Max Weber (2020)
identified the essential values of scholarship, among them being: inclusiveness, intellectual integrity, courage, and a principled commitment to intellectual and value
pluralism. For Weber, training in research should include the imparting of these
values, which are at the same time both scholarly and moral (Reitter and Wellmon
2020).
The university should have a moral ground for its activity and purpose. This
moral infrastructure of academia should be based on sustainability. In the interests
of intergenerational justice, it is necessary to nurture and promote programs and
research projects committed to sustainability, and which contribute to the fulfillment
of the seventeen sustainability Goals.
If universities were to seek to develop critical thinking skills without developing
dispositions, the result “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996).
As Reitter and Wellmon (2020) argue, “reason [has] failed to guide us to universal
peace and prosperity. To read Weber’s vocation lectures today is to be reminded of
the moral urgency of sober, unglamorous, disciplined thinking in times of crisis. It
is to be reminded, as Weber put it in ‘The Politician’s Work,’ that ethics can be and
often is ‘used in morally disastrous ways’ in both the academic and political spheres,
ways that preclude an honest and responsible reckoning with the world in which we
find ourselves” (Reitter and Wellmon 2020, p. 288/2312).
The SDGs are far easier to pursue than any other declarations of commitment,
signed or assumed publicly, but ignored in actions and policies. Based on the 2030
Agenda, the Goals are concrete pieces of action and they can be embedded in universities’ educational programs as learning outcomes and in university presidents’ policies in their twofold roles: as leaders of educational institutions and as managers of
educational businesses.
We must not forget about this bizarre status of HEIs, as educational agents (with
a humanistic orientation, sometimes incompatible with obtaining profit) and as business and market-oriented agents (oriented toward profit). It is time for universities
to assume the role of change-makers even though this task means renouncing profit
177
lead people to a higher level of moral consciousness. But Max Weber, in his 1917–
1919 lectures on vocation, points out that in the modern world, specialization is a
reality of the university, of scholarly work. So, the idealism and the moral ground
of the scholar is no longer to be found. In this “disenchanted” world, the purpose
of universities is to educate students by pursuing knowledge in an open-ended way.
Scholars are to exercise self-restraint and not transmit beliefs and ideals to their
students. If they act differently, they will undermine the legitimacy of academic
freedom. The purpose of the university is the acquisition and creation of new
knowledge without questioning the use and social impact of the knowledge thus
generated.
However, in the light of the overwhelming scientific proof that the environment is
suffering irreparable damage, it is argued here that the university should put sustainability at the top of its moral culture, and ask itself how, if at all, the knowledge
taught by its scholars and their new research findings contribute to sustainability.
Nowadays academia is “disenchanted” from its greater purpose; it has to “let
the facts speak for themselves”, independent of morals or values. Max Weber (2020)
identified the essential values of scholarship, among them being: inclusiveness, intellectual integrity, courage, and a principled commitment to intellectual and value
pluralism. For Weber, training in research should include the imparting of these
values, which are at the same time both scholarly and moral (Reitter and Wellmon
2020).
The university should have a moral ground for its activity and purpose. This
moral infrastructure of academia should be based on sustainability. In the interests
of intergenerational justice, it is necessary to nurture and promote programs and
research projects committed to sustainability, and which contribute to the fulfillment
of the seventeen sustainability Goals.
If universities were to seek to develop critical thinking skills without developing
dispositions, the result “would be deficient and perhaps dangerous” (Ennis 1996).
As Reitter and Wellmon (2020) argue, “reason [has] failed to guide us to universal
peace and prosperity. To read Weber’s vocation lectures today is to be reminded of
the moral urgency of sober, unglamorous, disciplined thinking in times of crisis. It
is to be reminded, as Weber put it in ‘The Politician’s Work,’ that ethics can be and
often is ‘used in morally disastrous ways’ in both the academic and political spheres,
ways that preclude an honest and responsible reckoning with the world in which we
find ourselves” (Reitter and Wellmon 2020, p. 288/2312).
The SDGs are far easier to pursue than any other declarations of commitment,
signed or assumed publicly, but ignored in actions and policies. Based on the 2030
Agenda, the Goals are concrete pieces of action and they can be embedded in universities’ educational programs as learning outcomes and in university presidents’ policies in their twofold roles: as leaders of educational institutions and as managers of
educational businesses.
We must not forget about this bizarre status of HEIs, as educational agents (with
a humanistic orientation, sometimes incompatible with obtaining profit) and as business and market-oriented agents (oriented toward profit). It is time for universities
to assume the role of change-makers even though this task means renouncing profit