Preview
IB DP ESS — HL Lenses: Environmental Ethics | HL Only | Paper 2B
🎯 Learning Intentions By the end of this note, you will be able to:
- Define instrumental value and intrinsic value using IB-aligned ESS ethical terminology.
- Distinguish between instrumental and intrinsic value as applied to non-human species, ecosystems, and abiotic components of the environment.
- Explain the concept of moral standing and the criteria used to extend or restrict it to non-human entities.
- Analyse how different ethical frameworks (anthropocentrism, biocentrism, ecocentrism) assign value and moral standing to environmental entities.
- Evaluate the implications of different value frameworks for environmental policy, conservation decisions, and resource management.
- Discuss contrasting worldviews regarding the moral status of species, ecosystems, and future generations in the context of real-world environmental decisions.
- Justify a position on whether nature has value independent of human perception, using named real-world examples and ethical reasoning.
Real-World Context & Relevance
In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to enshrine the rights of nature — Pachamama — directly into its national constitution. Articles 71–74 of the Ecuadorian Constitution grant nature the right to exist, be maintained, and regenerate its vital cycles. This was not merely symbolic: in 2011, a provincial court ordered the Ecuadorian government to restore a river damaged by road construction, citing the constitutional rights of the river itself. The legal standing granted to a river in Ecuador raises a profound question that sits at the heart of environmental ethics: does nature have value — and therefore rights — in and of itself, or only insofar as it serves human needs?
This question is not abstract. In 2019, the Whanganui River in New Zealand was granted legal personhood under the Te Awa Tupua Act, recognising the river as an ancestor of the Māori people and as an entity with its own interests. Meanwhile, in the Amazon basin — which stores an estimated 150–200 Gt of carbon and hosts approximately 10% of all species on Earth — deforestation decisions are routinely made on the basis of economic return, treating the forest purely as a resource. The tension between these two approaches — one granting the natural world inherent worth, the other measuring it only in human utility — is the central tension of environmental ethics, and it shapes every major conservation and sustainability debate of our time.
💡 Why This Matters How we assign value to the natural world determines what we protect, how we protect it, and who has the authority to make those decisions. Whether a wetland is worth preserving depends entirely on whether we believe it has value only because humans benefit from it, or whether it has value regardless of human interests. Environmental ethics provides the philosophical foundation for all environmental law, policy, and conservation practice.
Core Concepts & Definitions
Consider a mature old-growth forest in British Columbia, Canada. A logging company sees it as timber — board-feet of lumber, jobs, and revenue. A water utility sees it as a watershed — a natural filtration system that keeps drinking water clean. A pharmaceutical researcher sees it as a library of undiscovered compounds. A hiker sees it as a place of beauty and spiritual renewal. In every one of these cases, the forest is valued for what it provides to humans. But a forest ecologist might argue that the forest has value simply because it exists — because it is a living system with its own complexity,