Key Idea: Very little is tested yet: one 3-mark Paper 2 part on rights-based ethics, plus value questions filed under other topics. Learn rights, instrumental and intrinsic value and conflicting views, and expect a Paper 1 'Through the lens of ethics, suggest how...' [6] or a Paper 2 Section B (c) [9].
1. Rights-based ethics (most marks)
- Some acts are right or wrong in themselves, because they respect or break rights (Kant).
- In 2022 the UN General Assembly made a healthy environment a human right (161 votes to 0).
- Rights clash: farming feeds people, but uses 70% of the world's fresh water.
2. Instrumental and intrinsic value
- Instrumental: useful to people. Whale watching drew 13 million people in 2008.
- Intrinsic: valuable in itself, such as the Wollemi pine, with fewer than 100 adult trees.
- The two are not exclusive: a species can earn tourist money and have a right to exist.
3. Conflicting values
- Yasuni, Ecuador: in 2023, 58.95% of voters chose to leave its oil in the ground.
- Three approaches: virtue (what would a good person do?), consequences, rights.
- Ecocentrists widen moral standing to nature: the Whanganui River became a legal person in 2017.
How it is examined:
| Question | How to score |
|---|---|
| [3] Discuss how a rights-based view of an impact may be controversial | Why it respects rights [1], why it breaks rights [1], then why people disagree. Without the disagreement, at most [2]. |
| [2] Discuss how instrumental and intrinsic value are not exclusive | One use value (tourism, money) and one intrinsic value (native, a right to exist, cultural). |
| [9] Paper 2 Section B (c), with a lens: how do ethical views lead to different ways of conserving? | Ecocentric: whole ecosystems in reserves. Technocentric: seed banks. Anthropocentric: useful species. A judgement. |
| [6] Paper 1: Through the lens of ethics, suggest how X could lead to Y | A chain of linked points; name a value, right or approach in each step. Without the ethics link, at most [4]. |
| [9] Paper 2 Section B (c), with a lens: do the three approaches lead to different decisions? | Virtue, consequences and rights applied to one case, such as Kenya's 2016 ivory burn; a judgement. |
Key terms, one line each:
| Term | In one line |
|---|---|
| Ethics | reasoning about what is right and wrong, and what we ought to do |
| Instrumental value | the value of something because it is useful to people |
| Intrinsic value | the value of something in itself, whether or not it is useful |
| Moral standing | being something whose interests count when we decide what is right |
| Virtue ethics | judging acts by whether a good person would do them |
| Consequentialist ethics | judging acts by their results: the greatest good for the greatest number |
| Rights-based ethics | judging acts by whether they respect rights and duties, whatever the results |
Last-minute check: answer, then tap to see.
Is whale watching an instrumental or intrinsic value? Instrumental: the whales are useful to people for money and enjoyment.
What did Ecuador's voters decide in 2023? 58.95% voted to leave the Yasuni oil in the ground.
Which approach asks what a good person would do? Virtue ethics, from Aristotle.
How would a consequentialist judge the Three Gorges Dam? Weigh 22,500 MW of power and flood control against about 1.3 million people moved.
A 2022 survey counted about 19,000 feral horses in Kosciuszko National Park, Australia. They trample bogs and streams where rare frogs live. In 2023 the state approved shooting horses from helicopters, to reach 3,000 horses by 2027. Through the lens of ethics, suggest how the values people hold could lead to the culling of feral horses in the park.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Exam tips
- Through the lens of ethics: name the value or approach in every step of the chain.
- For a rights-based [3], give both sides, then say why people disagree.
- Use real cases: Yasuni, Kosciuszko's horses, Kenya's ivory burn, the Whanganui River.
- In a [9], compare at least two approaches, then give a clear judgement.