Rights-based ethics is an ethical approach that judges whether an action respects or violates the rights of others. In IB ESS, it is also called a deontological approach because the morality of an action depends primarily on duties and rules, not only on its consequences.
This is HL-only content from subtopic HL.c Environmental ethics. The mechanism involves three steps:
- Identify which entities have moral standing, meaning they deserve moral consideration.
- Establish the rights associated with those entities, such as a person's right to clean water or an animal's proposed right not to suffer.
- Determine whether an action respects those rights and duties, including when different rights conflict.
| Possible rights-holder | Example of a rights-based claim |
|---|---|
| Individual humans | People have a right to clean air, safe water and protection from environmental harm. |
| Communities or future generations | Development should not remove the ability of future generations to meet their needs. |
| Non-human animals | Animals may have a right not to experience unnecessary suffering. |
| Ecosystems or natural entities | A river or forest may be granted legal rights to strengthen its protection. |
For example, New Zealand recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person in 2017. This reflects the Māori perspective that the river is an integrated living whole, although legal personhood and moral rights are not identical concepts.
Rights can conflict. A community may claim a right to economic development, while downstream communities claim rights to clean water and health. Rights-based ethics requires examining whose rights receive recognition, which connects directly to environmental justice.
A common misconception is that rights-based ethics selects the action producing the greatest overall benefit. That describes consequentialist ethics. Rights-based reasoning may reject a beneficial outcome if achieving it violates a fundamental right.
Exam technique: For an “evaluate” or “discuss” question, identify the rights-holders, explain the conflicting rights, apply a named example, consider another ethical perspective, and reach a supported conclusion. Do not merely state that an action is “unfair.”