Most environmental arguments are not really arguments about facts. Two people can agree completely on what a new road will do to a wood and still disagree fiercely about whether it should be built. That gap is where ethics lives — and this page is about how to think and write clearly inside it.
📚 What you need to know
Ethics is the branch of philosophy dealing with moral principles: what is right and what is wrong.
An ethical code is shaped by formal ethical systems, religion, family, tradition, education, media and personal reflection.
Because those influences differ, ethical codes differ, so disagreement is normal rather than a sign someone is wrong about the facts.
An ethical dilemma arises when two things you value pull in opposite directions.
Environmental ethics applies moral principles to the environment and our relationship with it.
Intrinsic value means something is valuable in itself; instrumental value means it is valuable for what it does for us.
Environmental ethics emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, criticising traditional ethics for its anthropocentric bias.
Ethics, in one paragraph
Ethics is the part of philosophy that deals with moral principles. It helps us work out which actions count as right and which as wrong, and it gives us a framework for judging human behaviour and decision-making. It does not tell you what will happen — that is science. It tells you what you ought to do about it.
Where your ethical code comes from
Nobody arrives at their moral views from nowhere. Different cultures, traditions and individuals hold different ethical codes, and those codes are built from a mix of influences.
Formal ethical systems such as utilitarianism and deontology are only one input among eight. Most people never consciously choose one.
Two formal systems are worth knowing by name. Utilitarianism judges an action by its consequences, aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number. Deontology judges it by duties and rules, so some acts are wrong regardless of outcome. Applied to a wetland: a utilitarian weighs the total benefit of draining it, while a deontologist may argue we simply have no right to destroy it.
Ethical dilemmas
An ethical dilemma is a situation where the things you value conflict, so any choice sacrifices something you think matters. Notice that a dilemma is not the same as a hard decision — it is hard precisely because both sides have a real moral claim.
Endangered species conservation
A conservation project to protect an endangered animal requires restricting human activity in the area — farming, fishing, grazing or building. Is it right to prioritise the project? Preserving biodiversity has to be weighed against the economic impact on local communities, who may lose their livelihoods. This is the central tension of the whole subject: conservation against human welfare and development.
Medical ethics
Healthcare constantly involves choices about patient care, treatment options and resource allocation. When intensive care beds are limited, deciding which critically ill patients receive them is an ethical decision, not a medical one.
Business ethics
Companies face decisions about corporate responsibility, fair treatment of employees and environmental sustainability. A firm may choose between maximising profit at the cost of environmental damage, or adopting sustainable practices that cost more.
Why the non-environmental examples are in your syllabus. They show the same structure appearing everywhere: a limited resource, two groups with legitimate claims, and no option that harms nobody. If you can analyse the hospital bed problem, you can analyse the wetland problem.
What environmental ethics adds
Definition
Environmental ethics is the branch of ethical philosophy
concerning the environment and our relationship with it.
It explores the moral arguments around pollution, resource depletion and habitat destruction, and it aims to build ethical frameworks that help societies address those problems and act sustainably. Central to it is sustainability: meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.
It also insists on interconnectedness — that living things and ecosystems are linked, so harm rarely stays where it was caused. And it argues that nature has value beyond its usefulness to us.
Intrinsic and instrumental value
Question
Instrumental value
Intrinsic value
What is it?
Worth something because of what it does for us
Worth something in and of itself
A forest is valuable because…
it stores carbon, supplies timber, filters water and attracts tourists
it exists, and would still matter with no humans to use it
How is it measured?
Can often be given a monetary figure
Cannot meaningfully be priced
What follows if it disappears?
Replace it with something that does the same job
Nothing can replace it, because it was not doing a job
Typical argument style
Cost-benefit analysis
Rights, duties and moral status
Watch what happens in a real planning dispute. Both sides usually argue instrumentally, because money is the shared language: the developer counts jobs, the campaigners count flood protection and tourism. Whoever believes the wood has intrinsic value often ends up arguing in a currency that cannot express what they actually think. Spotting that is a genuinely sophisticated exam point.
How far does your moral concern reach?
Almost every environmental ethical position can be described by one question: who or what counts? Everyone draws a boundary somewhere. Where you draw it determines almost everything else you will conclude.
The circle is a useful test in an exam. When you read an argument, ask which ring the writer has stopped at, and the rest of their position usually becomes predictable.
Where the subject came from
Environmental ethics emerged as a distinct field in the 1960s and 1970s. Growing alarm about pollution, deforestation and species extinction prompted a re-evaluation of humanity’s relationship with the natural world, and a recognition that environmental decisions needed ethical reasoning, not just technical fixes.
The criticism of traditional ethics
Critics argued that traditional ethical theories, mostly rooted in Western philosophy, were built almost entirely around human-to-human interactions. Utilitarianism and deontology were designed to settle questions about how people should treat one another, so they carry an anthropocentric bias and struggle with:
the intrinsic value of nature, since both frameworks tend to value things through their effects on people;
the moral status of non-human beings, which have no obvious place in a system built around human interests;
harms spread across generations, where the people affected do not yet exist and cannot be consulted;
harms with no identifiable victim, such as the loss of a species nobody was using.
Be fair to the traditional theories. Utilitarianism can be extended to any being capable of suffering, which is exactly how the modern animal welfare argument is built. The criticism is that these frameworks were not designed for environmental questions, not that they are useless for them. Saying this shows balance.
Two live examples
Climate change
Environmental ethics shapes how we think about responsibility for mitigation and adaptation. It raises questions of environmental justice: the countries that emitted the most historically are often not those suffering the worst effects, and the generation making the decisions is not the one that will live with them. Fairness in the distribution of burdens and benefits is an ethical question, not a scientific one.
Biodiversity conservation
Ethical debates run through species preservation and ecosystem protection: which species to save with limited funds, whether to protect a species with no known use, and the rights of Indigenous communities whose land is designated as a reserve, sometimes without consent.
🧩 How to answer an ethics question
State the dilemma. Name the two things in conflict, in one sentence.
Identify the stakeholders. Who gains, who loses, and who has no voice — future generations and non-humans usually do not.
Name the values. Is each side arguing from intrinsic or instrumental value?
Apply a framework. What would a utilitarian conclude? What would a rights-based view conclude? They often disagree, and that is worth saying.
Reach a justified position. Give a clear answer and acknowledge what it costs. An answer with no conclusion cannot score top marks.
WORKED EXAMPLE
A government proposes a reserve to protect an endangered primate. It would ban farming and logging on land used by 3 000 people, most of whom have no other income. Analyse the ethical dilemma and reach a justified position.
Step 1: name the conflictPreserving biodiversity against the livelihoods of local people.Step 2: stakeholders
The 3 000 residents, the government, conservation groups, the primate species, and future generations. Two of those cannot speak for themselves.
Step 3: the values in play
Conservationists may argue the species has intrinsic value. The government may argue instrumentally, citing tourism income. The residents’ claim is instrumental and immediate: food and shelter.
Step 4: apply frameworks
A utilitarian weighs total welfare, and the answer depends heavily on whether the primate’s suffering counts. A rights-based view may hold that the residents’ right to subsistence cannot simply be overridden by a majority benefit.
Step 5: positionProtect the species, but only with compensation and involvement
Extinction is irreversible, which weighs heavily. But a reserve imposed on people with no alternative income is unjust and, in practice, tends to fail because it is resisted. Ranger employment, buffer zones allowing some use, and a share of tourism revenue address both claims.
The strongest answers say what their conclusion costs. Here it costs money and it costs some habitat quality in the buffer zone.
WORKED EXAMPLE
A wetland is threatened by a housing development. Distinguish the intrinsic and instrumental arguments for protecting it, and explain why the distinction matters for the outcome.
Step 1: instrumental arguments
The wetland stores floodwater, filters pollutants, supports fisheries and draws visitors.
All of these can be given a monetary value.Step 2: intrinsic argument
The wetland and its species have worth in themselves, independent of any use to people.
This cannot be priced.Step 3: why it matters
A cost-benefit analysis can only weigh the instrumental case, so the intrinsic argument is effectively invisible to it. If the housing is worth more than the flood storage, the wetland loses.
Step 4: the consequenceThe instrumental case can be outbid; the intrinsic case cannot be enteredThis is why some campaigners push for legal rights for ecosystems: it moves the argument out of a framework where nature can always be outbid.
💡 Exam tip
Define ethics as moral principles concerning right and wrong, and environmental ethics as applying those to the environment and our relationship with it.
Use intrinsic and instrumental value by name. They are the two words this whole topic runs on.
For any dilemma, name the conflicting values first. The analysis then almost writes itself.
Always identify stakeholders who have no voice: future generations, non-human species, people in other countries.
Give the date range for the origins of the field: the 1960s and 1970s.
Reach a conclusion. Ethics questions reward a justified position, not a survey of opinions.
⚠ Common mix-ups
Swapping intrinsic and instrumental. Instrumental means useful as an instrument, a tool, for something else.
Treating ethical questions as factual ones. More data cannot resolve a disagreement about values.
Assuming there is one correct ethical answer. There are better and worse justified positions, which is not the same thing.
Writing that traditional ethics is simply wrong. The criticism is that it was designed for human-to-human questions.
Confusing a dilemma with a difficult decision. A dilemma means both options sacrifice something genuinely valuable.
Describing a dilemma without concluding. “Both sides have a point” on its own scores very little.
Forgetting people in ethics answers. Conservation decisions affect livelihoods, and ignoring that is itself an ethical position.
Up next: Frameworks for Ethical Decisions — the named positions people actually argue from, and how each one answers the question in the circle diagram above.
Want this explained one-to-one?
Book a free session with an experienced IB ESS tutor and get your trickiest topics made simple.
