The big idea: Think about a forest being cleared for a car park. Most people feel something is being lost.
Duty or choice?: But is that feeling a real duty — do we actually owe the forest anything? Or is protecting nature just a nice choice we make when it suits us? That question is where philosophy of the environment begins.
The word doing the work is obligation. Asking whether we have an obligation to nature forces a prior question: what is our relationship to nature in the first place?
Hold onto this: Keep two things apart: wanting to protect nature (a preference) and being obliged to (a duty). The whole topic is about whether the second one is real.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
How you answer depends on which picture of humans-and-nature you're carrying — and there are three big ones.
Three ways to see our relationship to nature
Stewardship
Nature is in our care. We're caretakers who must look after it and hand it on.
Dependence
We're part of nature, not above it. Harm the web of life and we harm ourselves.
Domination
Nature is ours to use. It exists for humans, to be mastered and put to work.
Steward · Part · Master
Checkpoint — the three pictures: In one line: steward (nature in our care), part (we're inside nature), master (nature is ours to use). The first two give us duties to nature; the third mostly doesn't.
See how examiners mark answers
Answer exam-style questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
Behind the domination picture sits one very common idea that's worth naming on its own.
Anthropocentrism: Anthropocentrism says that when it comes to what matters, humans are the whole story. A river, a forest or a species has no moral standing of its own — it only counts insofar as it's useful to people.
What it still allows
- We can still have strong reasons to protect nature: clean air keeps us alive.
- Beautiful places make our lives richer.
- But the duty is always ultimately to other humans, never to nature itself.
Go further — higher-level insight: Notice anthropocentrism can be green. A clever anthropocentrist still fights climate change hard — because a wrecked planet is a disaster for humans. So the real dividing line isn't 'do we protect nature?' but 'do we owe anything to nature itself?' Naming that split is a top-band move.
Checkpoint — anthropocentrism: In one line: anthropocentrism says only humans matter morally, so any duty about nature is really a duty to people. The next micro asks whether nature might matter in its own right.