HL.c Environmental ethics

Define ethics as principles for right action.

Ethics is the study of moral principles used to judge actions, duties and consequences.

Choosing whether to drain a wetland requires a reasoned account of whose interests and duties matter.

Separate a factual prediction from the moral principle used to evaluate it.

Key idea: Define ethics as principles for right action.

Ethics is not simply personal preference.

Environmental ethics applies moral reasoning to human relationships with ecosystems, species, non-human entities and future generations.

It developed as a distinct field in the 1960s and 1970s as environmental awareness grew and philosophers questioned Western traditions focused mainly on duties between humans.

A forest may be protected for human water security, for the rights or welfare of organisms, for future generations, or because destroying it is considered wrong in itself.

Ask who or what is morally considered, which value or duty applies, and whether the framework includes non-human or non-living entities.

Environmental ethics is broader than environmental law: legality does not settle moral standing or responsibility.

Environmental ethical frameworks differ because they begin with different beliefs about the relationship between humans and nature.

The same river project may be opposed for ecosystem integrity, redesigned as responsible stewardship, or supported for jobs and energy; classify the justification rather than the technology alone.

Real people may combine frameworks, but an argument must make its underlying moral belief explicit.

Identify instrumental value.

Instrumental value is value as a means to human goals, such as goods, services, protection or development opportunities.

A wetland has instrumental value when it reduces flood damage or supplies fish.

Name the human benefit and the ecological function that produces it.

Key idea: Identify instrumental value.

Instrumental value does not mean the thing has no other value.

Intrinsic value is value attached to an entity simply for what it is, independent of its usefulness to humans.

A rare species or culturally significant mountain may be protected even without a known market or ecosystem-service benefit.

Intrinsic value is a moral valuation, not a price or proof that every conflict has one simple answer.

Allow instrumental and intrinsic values together.

Instrumental and intrinsic value are not mutually exclusive; one entity can matter for human benefits and for its own sake.

Whales can be valued as living beings and also for cultural, aesthetic or tourism benefits.

When evaluating a decision, list both kinds instead of forcing a single category.

Key idea: Allow instrumental and intrinsic values together.

Recognising an economic benefit does not erase intrinsic value.

Explain moral standing.

Moral standing means an entity’s interests must be considered directly in moral reasoning; some frameworks extend it to animals, ecosystems or future people.

A proposal that affects a future community can be assessed as a duty to people who cannot vote today.

Name the entity, its relevant interests and the framework granting standing.

Key idea: Explain moral standing.

Moral standing is a philosophical claim, not a biological measurement.

Distinguish three ethical approaches.

Virtue ethics judges character, consequentialism judges outcomes, and rights-based ethics judges respect for rights or duties.

A wetland decision might ask whether officials act responsibly, which option produces least harm, or whether a community’s rights are violated.

Use the question each framework asks: who are we, what results follow, and what must not be done?

Key idea: Distinguish three ethical approaches.

These approaches can reach different conclusions from the same facts.

Apply virtue ethics to environmental choices.

Virtue ethics asks what a good, responsible and compassionate person or community would characteristically do.

A council choosing restraint and care for a vulnerable watershed may be acting from stewardship rather than short-term gain.

Judge the character and habits expressed, not only the outcome.

Key idea: Apply virtue ethics to environmental choices.

A good intention does not guarantee a good environmental result.

Apply consequentialist ethics.

Consequentialism judges an action by its expected consequences, often seeking the greatest overall benefit or least harm.

A dam may be supported if its total benefits exceed harms after affected communities and ecological losses are counted.

Include distribution, uncertainty and time horizon in the consequence comparison.

Key idea: Apply consequentialist ethics.

A large total benefit does not automatically justify severe harm to a minority.

Apply rights-based ethics.

Rights-based ethics asks whether an action violates duties or the rights of people, animals or nature, regardless of aggregate benefit.

A project may be rejected if it violates a community’s consent or a recognised right even when total output increases.

Identify whose right is claimed, who has the duty and what conflict must be resolved.

Key idea: Apply rights-based ethics.

Rights-based reasoning is not simply a calculation of the largest total gain.

Reject the appeal-to-nature fallacy.

The appeal-to-nature fallacy treats whatever is natural as automatically good or morally right.

A disease is natural but harmful; a synthetic water filter may protect health better than a natural contaminant-removal process.

Evaluate consequences, rights and evidence rather than the origin label.

Key idea: Reject the appeal-to-nature fallacy.

Natural and good are different categories.

Environmental and social justice movements developed from different histories but increasingly seek equitable societies in which environmental benefits, harms, participation and recognition are fairly distributed.

Both challenge structures that treat some beings or groups as superior and others as available for exploitation; environmental decisions can intersect with racism, sexism, Indigenous rights, poverty and obligations to future generations.

A clean-energy project may cut emissions yet displace a low-income or Indigenous community; a just approach includes consent, participation, benefit sharing and recognition of local knowledge.

Check who bears risk, who receives benefit, who decides, whose knowledge counts and whether present gains transfer costs to future people.

An environmentally beneficial aggregate outcome can still be unjust in distribution, recognition or process.