Environmental ethics is a well-known area of study in environmental philosophy. It examines the different ways people argue for protecting nature and using natural resources wisely. The main different viewpoints include anthropocentrism, physiocentrism (also called ecocentrism), and theocentrism. Environmental ethics affects many areas of study, such as environmental law, environmental sociology, ecotheology, ecological economics, ecology, and environmental geography.
People make many ethical choices about the environment. These choices lead to many questions. For example: /think
History
The field of environmental ethics developed because of the work of Rachel Carson and Murray Bookchin, as well as events like the first Earth Day in 1970. At this time, environmentalists asked philosophers to think about the moral issues related to environmental problems. Before the 1970 Earth Day, Aldo Leopold’s important book A Sand Country Almanac was reprinted by Ballantine Books and the Sierra Club. This book included his essay "The Land Ethic," which stated that the cause of the ecological crisis was a philosophical problem (1949). Two articles in the journal Science had a major influence: Lynn White’s "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967) and Garrett Hardin’s "The Tragedy of the Commons" (December 1968). In 1972, Norwegian environmentalist and philosopher Arne Næss introduced the idea of "Deep Ecology," which promoted an environmental ethic that gave value to all non-human life. In 1973, Australian philosopher Richard Routley (now known as Sylvan) presented his paper "Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic?" at the 15th World Congress of Philosophy.
Næss’s journal Inquiry was the first worldwide journal to focus on environmental ethics. The first journal in the United States was Environmental Ethics, started in 1979. Canada’s The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy began in 1983. The first journal in the United Kingdom of this type, Environmental Values, was launched in 1992.
Marshall's categories
Some scholars have tried to classify the different ways people value the natural environment. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two examples of this, as mentioned by Peter Vardy in The Puzzle of Ethics. According to Marshall, three main ethical approaches have developed over the past 40 years: Libertarian Extension, Ecologic Extension, and Conservation Ethics.
Marshall’s Libertarian Extension is based on the idea of extending equal rights to all members of a community. In environmentalism, this community includes both humans and non-humans.
Andrew Brennan supported a view called ecologic humanism, which argues that all living and non-living things have ethical value simply because they exist. The work of Arne Næss and his collaborator Sessions also fits under Libertarian Extension, though they used the term "deep ecology" instead. Deep ecology argues that the environment has intrinsic value, meaning it is valuable in itself. This idea is linked to both Libertarian Extension and Ecologic Extension.
Peter Singer’s work falls under Marshall’s Libertarian Extension. He believed the "circle of moral worth" should include the rights of non-human animals. He argued that excluding them would be speciesism, or favoring humans over other species without good reason. In his first book, Practical Ethics, Singer did not include non-sentient (non-conscious) things in this circle. This approach focuses on living things, making it bio-centric. Later, after reading Næss and Sessions, Singer acknowledged that the idea of intrinsic value for non-sentient things might be possible, though he remained unsure. Singer supported a human-centered ethics.
Marshall’s Ecologic Extension focuses on the interconnectedness of all living and some non-living things. It emphasizes their diversity and how they depend on each other. Unlike Libertarian Extension, which is based on political ideas, Ecologic Extension is based on scientific understanding. This approach is similar to Michael Smith’s eco-holism, which argues that ecosystems and the global environment have intrinsic value as whole systems. Scholars like Holmes Rolston have supported this view.
This category may include James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, which suggests Earth adjusts its physical and chemical processes to maintain balance between living and non-living matter. Earth is seen as a unified, whole system with its own ethical value, independent of human importance.
Marshall’s Conservation Ethics extends the idea of usefulness to the non-human world. It values the environment only in terms of how it benefits humans. This contrasts with the intrinsic value of deep ecology and is often called "shallow ecology." It argues for protecting the environment because it helps humans, not because it has its own value. Conservation is a way to achieve human goals, focusing on human needs and future generations. This approach influenced agreements made at the Kyoto summit in 1997 and the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
Humanist theories
Peter Singer supported the protection of "world heritage sites," areas of the world that remain untouched and become more valuable as they become rarer over time. These sites are a gift for future people, as they were inherited from earlier generations and should be passed on so that future people can choose whether to enjoy natural landscapes or fully developed urban areas. An example of a world heritage site is the tropical rainforest, a special type of environment that took many years to develop. Cutting down rainforests to make farmland often doesn't work because of poor soil, and once damaged, it can take thousands of years to recover.
Applied theology
The Christian worldview teaches that God created the universe and that humans are responsible to God for how they use the resources given to them. People believe that what is valuable comes from being useful to God. This includes caring for others, as shown in the Bible (Matthew 25), and protecting the environment, such as keeping nature clean (Deuteronomy 22.8; 23.12-14). It also involves being motivated by love for Christ (2 Corinthians 5.14f) and addressing the spiritual problem of sin, which causes selfishness and carelessness. In many places, people show this responsibility by giving thanks during harvest seasons. (B.T. Adeney: Global Ethics in New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology 1995 Leicester)
Religious leaders from Abrahamic faiths, such as Christianity and Judaism, have used religious teachings to influence people. John L. O'Sullivan, who created the term "manifest destiny," and others like him used these ideas to support actions during America's growth. Historically, religious writers, journalists, and politicians used these beliefs to explain why young America used natural resources heavily during the Industrial Revolution. To support the idea that humans are meant to use Earth's resources, religious leaders and environmental writers said humans are separate from nature and placed above it. Some people question this, like John Muir, who asked in his book A Thousand Mile Walk to the Gulf why the natural world has dangers like poisonous plants and disasters. The answer given is that these dangers came from Adam and Eve's mistakes in the Garden of Eden.
Starting in the early 1900s, religious ideas about the environment split into two groups. One group believes religion is the foundation for protecting the environment. The other group uses religion to explain why humans use natural resources without limits. Lynn White and Calvin DeWitt represent these two different views.
John Muir saw nature as a peaceful place far from busy cities. He and others believed that nature was a sacred place, like a temple. Using religious ideas helped Muir and the Sierra Club gain support for creating early public nature preserves.
Writers like Terry Tempest Williams and John Muir shared the belief that God can be found in nature, not just in churches. This idea helps people connect art, such as paintings from the Hudson River School and photographs by Ansel Adams, with their religious or spiritual beliefs. Believing that nature has value because of religion is a key part of a belief system called deep ecology.
Normative ethical theories
Normative ethics is a part of moral philosophy that studies how people should behave. It explores what actions are morally right or wrong and how moral standards are decided. At first glance, this approach may seem focused only on humans. However, ideas from traditional normative ethical theories are still used in modern environmental ethics.
Consequentialist theories focus on the results of actions. These theories do not only ask what is "right" but also what is "valuable" or "good." For example, act utilitarianism says that an action is right if it increases well-being and reduces suffering. Actions that lead to more well-being are seen as required or allowed. This view is called "instrumentalist" because it treats the environment as a tool to achieve human goals. However, this may not fully address the complex needs of ecosystems. Rule utilitarianism suggests that following certain rules always leads to the best results. This is an improvement over act utilitarianism because people do not need to think about each action’s effects individually. Instead, they check if an action follows a specific rule and act accordingly.
Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic (1949) avoids treating the environment as a tool by proposing a more complete view of the relationship between humans and the "biotic community" (all living things). He argues that an action is right if it helps protect the health, balance, and beauty of the biotic community. Using natural resources is allowed as long as it does not harm the ecosystem’s stability. Some philosophers say Leopold’s ideas fit within consequentialism, but it is unclear if he intended this. Other consequentialist views, like those of Peter Singer, include non-human animals in ethical decisions. Singer argues that all beings capable of feeling pleasure or pain deserve equal moral consideration because of their intrinsic value. However, non-sentient beings like plants or rivers are seen as tools rather than ends in themselves.
In the "Handbook of the Philosophy of Climate Change," Mattia Cecchinato from the University of Oxford discusses challenges in consequentialist thinking about the environment. He highlights the "No Difference Problem," which says that individual choices, like eating a vegan burger instead of a beef burger, may not significantly affect the climate. Under act utilitarianism, there is no reason to change such choices, even though many people doing so could help the environment. This issue is made worse by "indirect emissions," like flying on a plane. If a plane flies regardless of one person’s decision to board, that person has no duty to avoid flying under act utilitarianism. Some consequentialists, like Shelly Kagan, argue that small actions might push the world past environmental "tipping points," causing major harm. Others suggest that individual actions could inspire others to make similar changes, creating a chain of impact. "Virtue consequentialism," supported by philosopher Dale Jamieson, says that a virtuous person acts in ways that promote the most good. A virtuous person would care for the environment, but this idea also faces the "No Difference Problem," as flying might not directly harm the environment.
Deontological theories say actions should be based on duties or obligations, not on whether they are good. Unlike consequentialism, this view argues that moral rules are based on reasons unrelated to the results of actions. If something has intrinsic value (value in itself), it must be protected not because it helps achieve a greater good, but because it is valuable on its own. For example, if the natural environment is seen as intrinsically valuable, harming it would be wrong, not just because of a loss of overall value, but because it is valuable in itself. This approach better fits the balance of ecosystems than consequentialism.
Theories of rights are usually deontological. For example, an environmental policy that gives rights to non-human animals would protect them in their natural state, not in artificial ways. Consider ocean fertilization, which aims to reduce CO₂ by growing more marine algae. This method can disrupt local ecosystems. A rights-based ethical view would protect marine animals from such harm. Paul W. Taylor, an environmental deontologist, uses a Kantian idea that all living things deserve rights and respect. He argues that actions should be universal rules that people could rationally accept. Val Plumwood criticized this by saying the universal rule idea focuses on duty rather than respect for others.
Christine Korsgaard is a leading deontologist in environmental ethics. In her 2018 book, "Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals," she uses Kantian deontology to argue that animals have intrinsic value. She says that since humans should be treated as ends in themselves, sentient animals should also be treated as ends in themselves.
Virtue ethics says people should develop good character traits and avoid bad ones. This approach avoids defining what is intrinsically valuable by focusing on acting with the right character. For example, the "Golden Mean" idea says generosity is a virtue, while being too stingy or too wasteful is not. Unlike deontology and consequentialism, virtue ethics focuses on how individuals should act to live a good life. This gives people flexibility in making choices, which might help with sustainability. However, this approach can seem focused only on humans.
Some philosophers, like Philip Cafaro, argue against this human-centered view. They say environmental virtue ethics should not only consider human values but also the value of the environment itself.
Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are the most important part of any situation and that the needs of the human race should always be the main focus. Some people who disagree with anthropocentrism say that Western traditions often place too much importance on humans when discussing environmental ethics. They argue that humans often judge other living things based on how useful they are to people, a concept sometimes called speciesism. Many believe that environmental studies should consider the inherent value of non-human life, which might change how humans see their role in the environment. A recent philosophical article explored the idea that humans might choose to end their existence to help other living things, but the authors say this is only a thought experiment and not a suggestion for action.
Baruch Spinoza believed that if humans looked at the world objectively, they would see that everything in the universe has its own special value. He also thought that focusing only on humans might not be the best way to understand reality, as there could be a larger picture that humans cannot fully grasp.
Peter Vardy divided anthropocentrism into two types. Strong anthropocentrism claims that humans are the most important part of reality and that this is correct. Weak anthropocentrism says that humans can only understand the world from their own perspective, so they must see themselves as the center of reality.
Bryan Norton helped shape a field called environmental pragmatism, which is now an important part of environmental ethics. He does not take sides in debates between those who support anthropocentrism and those who do not. Instead, he separates strong anthropocentrism from a version he calls weak or extended anthropocentrism. He argues that strong anthropocentrism might not fully recognize the many ways humans benefit from nature.
A newer idea connects anthropocentrism to the future of life. Biotic ethics is based on the idea that humans are part of life made of genes and proteins, and their purpose is to help life continue. This means humans have a role in protecting and spreading life. Humans are important because only they can ensure life lasts beyond the time the Sun exists, possibly for billions of years. Biotic ethics values life itself, as seen in living things and their processes. Humans are unique because they can help life continue on a large scale, including keeping sentient life (life that is aware of its own existence) alive. This ability gives humans a purpose in the universe by helping life survive for a very long time.
Status of the field
After 1990, the field of environmental ethics gained official recognition through programs at universities such as Colorado State University, the University of Montana, Bowling Green State University, and the University of North Texas. In 1991, Schumacher College in Dartington, England, was created and now offers a master's degree in Holistic Science.
These programs began to provide master's degrees with a focus on environmental ethics and philosophy. Starting in 2005, the Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies at the University of North Texas introduced a PhD program specializing in environmental ethics and philosophy.
In Germany, the University of Greifswald recently started an international program in Landscape Ecology & Nature Conservation that emphasizes environmental ethics. In 2009, LMU Munich and Deutsches Museum established the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society, an international, interdisciplinary center for research and education in the environmental humanities.
Relationship with animal ethics
Different ideas about how to treat and what responsibilities humans have toward animals, especially those living in the wild, have caused disagreements between two ethical views. Some experts believe these two views cannot agree, while others think the differences can be resolved.