Environmental Ethics

A human-centred worldview that values nature primarily for its usefulness to humans. Nature is seen as a resource to be managed for human benefit.

The right action produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Environmental decisions should maximise overall welfare — weigh costs vs benefits for all affected.

The principle that current generations have a responsibility to ensure future generations can meet their needs. High discount rates in economics undermine this principle.

Anthropocentric: nature for human use. Ecocentric: all life has intrinsic value. Technocentric: technology solves environmental problems.

An ecosystem-centred worldview that gives intrinsic value to all living things and ecological systems. Nature has value in itself, not just for human use.

Utilitarian: "What produces the most good?" Deontological: "What is my duty?" Virtue: "What would a good person do?"

Some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of consequences. Humans may have a moral duty to protect the environment regardless of economic cost.

1) Present vs future generations. 2) Local development vs global protection. 3) Indigenous rights vs national priorities. 4) Individual freedom vs collective responsibility. 5) Rich nations' history vs developing nations' right to grow.

Different ethical frameworks lead to different conclusions. An anthropocentrist may support a dam for energy; an ecocentrist may oppose it for river ecosystem rights.

Focuses on the character of the decision-maker. A virtuous person would show care, responsibility, and respect for nature in their choices.

Utilitarian: if restricting reduces suffering globally, yes. But equity lens says: rich nations caused the problem — developing nations have a right to grow. Fairness requires differentiated responsibility.

A worldview that believes technology and human innovation can solve environmental problems. Optimistic about human ability to manage and fix ecological issues.

Anthropocentric: conserve forests for timber, medicine, recreation, carbon storage — human benefits. Ecocentric: forests have a right to exist regardless of human use — intrinsic value.

Utilitarian: if benefits (clean energy, jobs) outweigh costs (habitat loss), then build it. Deontological: if species have a right to exist, damming may be wrong regardless of benefits.

Sustainable development IS intergenerational equity in action — meeting present needs without compromising future generations. Both require long-term thinking over short-term gains.

High discount rates make future environmental damage seem unimportant in present-value terms, effectively valuing current needs far above future generations' wellbeing.

Anthropocentrism, ecocentrism, technocentrism, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics. Plus: intergenerational equity and common but differentiated responsibility.

The principle that all nations share responsibility for the environment, but wealthy nations that historically emitted more should bear greater costs of addressing problems like climate change.

Apply at least two different frameworks to the same issue and compare conclusions. Show how different starting points lead to different decisions.

Technology can solve it: carbon capture, geoengineering, nuclear power, renewable energy innovation. Human ingenuity will find solutions without sacrificing economic growth.

The value something has in itself, for its own sake, independent of its usefulness to anyone else. An ecocentric perspective — nature matters regardless of human benefit.

A philosophy arguing all life forms have intrinsic value and human interference with nature is excessive. Goes beyond conservation to question fundamental human-nature relationships.

Species with clear economic value (pollinators, medicinal plants) get more funding. "Unattractive" species without obvious human use may be neglected despite ecological importance.

Intrinsic: nature is valuable in itself. Instrumental: nature is valuable for what it provides humans. Effective conservation uses both arguments.

The value something has because of its usefulness as a means to achieve some other end. An anthropocentric perspective — nature valued for what it provides humans.

Traditional laws treat nature as property. Rights of Nature gives legal standing to ecosystems, allowing them to be defended in court. It reflects a shift toward ecocentric values.

A legal framework giving ecosystems or natural entities legal standing, similar to human rights. Nature can be represented in court and protected by law.

Uses charismatic species (pandas, tigers) to attract public attention and funding — instrumental value. Protecting flagship habitat benefits other species as an umbrella effect.

Deep ecology says all life has intrinsic value → this leads to the idea that nature deserves legal rights → Rights of Nature gives ecosystems legal personhood to protect that value.

1) Ecuador (2008) — first constitutional rights of nature. 2) New Zealand (2017) — Whanganui River as legal person. 3) Bolivia — Law of Mother Earth. 4) Colombia — Atrato River given rights.

Intrinsic arguments appeal to ethical motivation. Instrumental arguments appeal to economic and political decision-makers. Using both maximises support and funding.

The value people place on knowing something exists, even if they never use or see it. E.g., valuing blue whales without ever seeing one.

Intrinsic: protects ALL species equally, not just useful ones. Instrumental: easier to communicate to policymakers and justify economically.

It was the first country in the world to include rights of nature in its constitution, recognising that nature has the right to exist, persist, and regenerate.

Difficult to enforce, may conflict with economic development, legal systems vary between countries, and it is unclear who speaks for nature in court.

Protects whole ecosystems rather than individual species, capturing both intrinsic value (all species matter) and instrumental value (combined ecosystem services).

Define intrinsic and instrumental value. Give examples of each in conservation. Explain how they lead to different priorities. Evaluate which approach is more effective and why.

Many deep-sea invertebrates have no known human use (low instrumental value) but have evolved over millions of years and play roles in ocean ecosystems (high intrinsic and ecological value).

Mainstream: protect nature for human benefit (shallow ecology). Deep ecology: all life has equal right to exist, humans must fundamentally change their relationship with nature.

Species with no obvious economic use may be neglected. If a species isn't "useful", there's no economic argument to save it — but it may have crucial ecological roles.