Key Idea: Topic 9.2 asks a question the environmental crisis makes urgent: do we owe nature anything, or is it simply there for us to use? Behind every argument about climate and conservation sits a philosophical choice about where value lives. This is the HL extension. It feeds Paper 3 (HL only), the 'Philosophy and contemporary issues' extension — a response that brings philosophical method to a live contemporary issue, so you argue about our duties to nature rather than just describe the crisis.
🧠 The four big questions, one card each
Topic 9.2 at a glance
- 9.2.1 · Do we owe nature anything? — Is protecting nature a duty or just a wise choice? Three pictures of our place in nature: over it, part of it, or one strand in it. Anthropocentrism says only humans matter and nature counts only as a resource for us.
- 9.2.2 · Does nature have value in itself? — Instrumental value (useful to us) vs intrinsic value (worth in itself). Deep ecology: every living thing has intrinsic worth. Social ecology (Bookchin): the root problem is humans dominating other humans, which spills over into dominating nature.
- 9.2.3 · Non-Western environmental wisdom — Many traditions start from harmony, not mastery. In Taoism, living with the flow of nature (the Tao) rather than forcing it; in Indian traditions, ahimsa — non-harm to all living beings. Some thinkers read the crisis as spiritual, and argue for rights for nature itself.
- 9.2.4 · Can philosophy help the planet? — Philosophy reframes the crisis: not only a technical problem but a question of what we value and how we should live. But it has limits — it builds no solar panels, passes no laws, and can be ignored. Its contribution is clearer thinking, not direct action.
Instrumental value — something matters because it is useful for another end (a forest matters as timber, clean air, or tourism). Intrinsic value — something matters in itself, whether or not it is useful to anyone (the forest matters even if no human ever benefits). Whether nature has intrinsic value, or only instrumental value, is the fault-line running through the entire topic.
✍️ Bring it together — a Paper 3 question
Evaluate the claim that nature has value only because it is useful to human beings.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Important: Describing the environmental crisis instead of evaluating a claim. Reciting facts about warming or extinction earns almost nothing. Paper 3 wants philosophical method applied to the issue: state the claim, give the strongest case for and against, weigh them, and conclude. Bring in non-Western traditions accurately — as reasoned ethics, never as a vague 'they respect nature' aside.
✅ Check yourself
If you can answer these six, you have the spine of the whole topic.
Instrumental vs intrinsic value? Instrumental: valuable because useful for another end. Intrinsic: valuable in itself, whether or not it is useful to anyone.
What is anthropocentrism? The view that only humans (or human interests) ultimately matter, and nature has value only as a resource for us.
What does deep ecology claim? That all living things have intrinsic worth, not just usefulness to humans — so nature's value doesn't depend on us.
What is social ecology's core idea? Bookchin: the environmental crisis grows out of humans dominating other humans; that habit of domination is then turned on nature.
What is ahimsa, and what does Taoism add? Ahimsa = non-harm to all living beings (Indian traditions). Taoism urges living in harmony with the flow of nature rather than mastering it.
What can philosophy add here — and what can't it? It reframes the crisis as a question of values and how we should live. It can't build technology, pass laws, or force anyone to act.
Exam tips
- Paper 3 is the HL 'Philosophy and contemporary issues' extension — an applied response, so argue about our duties to nature, not the science of climate change.
- Anchor the whole answer on the intrinsic vs instrumental value distinction — it is the fault-line of the topic.
- Represent non-Western traditions (Taoism, ahimsa) accurately as reasoned ethics — never as a stereotype.
- For an 'Evaluate' command, argue both sides then judge — end on a reasoned conclusion, never a balanced fence-sit.