Yes, strong philosophical arguments support a human moral obligation to protect the natural environment. However, the basis and extent of that obligation depend on whether nature has instrumental value, intrinsic value, or both.
The Reasoning
An anthropocentric argument values the environment primarily because it supports human life and flourishing. Pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss threaten health, resources and future generations, so humans have indirect duties to preserve nature. A challenge is that this approach may permit environmental destruction whenever short-term human benefits appear greater.
Non-anthropocentric theories extend moral consideration beyond human interests:
| Ethical position | Basis of environmental obligation | Main challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Sentientism | Sentient animals can suffer, so humans must prevent environmental damage that harms them. | Non-sentient plants, species and ecosystems may lack direct moral status. |
| Biocentrism | All living organisms possess intrinsic value or a good of their own. | Equal concern for all life may make ordinary human survival morally problematic. |
| Ecocentrism | Species, ecosystems and ecological relationships have value as wholes. | Protecting an ecosystem may require harming individual organisms. |
A further argument concerns intergenerational justice. Present humans benefit from environmental resources but can impose serious costs on people who do not yet exist. If future people have morally relevant interests, current generations must avoid leaving them an environment incapable of supporting comparable opportunities.
The common misconception is that proving humans depend on nature automatically proves that nature has intrinsic value. Dependence establishes a strong instrumental argument, but intrinsic value requires the separate claim that nature matters independently of its usefulness to humans.
IB Exam Technique
For an HL response on philosophy and the environment, define moral status and distinguish instrumental from intrinsic value. Present at least two competing positions, develop an objection and counterargument, and reach a justified conclusion about both the existence and scope of the obligation. Avoid merely listing environmental problems: the examiner expects philosophical argument and evaluation.
