RESEARCH STARTER

Environmental ethics and Earth's resources

Environmental ethics is a branch of philosophy that examines the moral relationship between humans and the natural world, including how we value and utilize Earth's resources. It encompasses various perspectives on the responsibilities humans bear towards nature, each with unique strengths and limitations. One prominent viewpoint is anthropocentrism, which prioritizes human interests and often justifies resource use based on its benefits to human well-being, while also recognizing the natural world as essential for sustaining human life. In contrast, individualism extends moral concern to individual animals and advocates for their rights based on shared qualities with humans, such as sentience.

Another perspective, ecocentrism, argues for the intrinsic value of nature itself, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all living beings and the importance of preserving ecosystems. This view often encompasses concepts like the land ethic, which assesses resource use based on its impact on land health, and deep ecology, which encourages a profound reevaluation of human lifestyles in relation to the environment. Ecofeminism addresses societal attitudes toward domination, asserting that environmental degradation is linked to broader social hierarchies and promoting empathetic relationships with nature.

Lastly, established cultural and religious traditions, including those from American Indian philosophies and Western religions, provide diverse insights into environmental ethics, often advocating for a respectful and harmonious relationship with the natural world. Overall, environmental ethics invites a rich dialogue among differing beliefs about humanity's role and responsibilities toward Earth's resources.

Full Article

Environmental ethics encompasses a variety of perspectives on the relationship between humans and their environment, ranging from anthropocentrism to individualism to ecofeminism; each perspective has its own view of the appropriate ways to use the Earth’s resources.

Background

Ethics is concerned with what people value; specifically, it is concerned with proper behavior toward things with intrinsic value. Things valued in and of themselves are said to have intrinsic value; human beings, for example, generally are considered to have intrinsic value. (Things valued for what they can help humans accomplish—money, for example—are said to have instrumental value.) Environmental ethics is the field of inquiry that evaluates the ethical responsibilities humans have for the natural world, including natural resources. There are many different, and often conflicting, perspectives on appropriate human responsibilities toward nature and natural resources; each has strengths and weaknesses, and each can be advocated by thoughtful and articulate scholars.

The field of environmental ethics continues to grow in importance as the world experiences the effects of global climate change. Reducing the future damage to both humans and their environment may require substantial lifestyle changes to reduce the average person's carbon footprint. Should humanity fail to make these adjustments, scientists believe that changes in weather patterns will cause a mass extinction of animal species, as well as a mass migration of humans, as many parts of the world become more difficult to inhabit.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is a human-centered philosophy whose adherents believe that moral values should be limited to humans and should not be extended to other creatures or to nature as a whole. A justification for this perspective is that moral relationships are sets of reciprocal rules followed by humans in their mutual relationships. Nonhumans cannot participate in these relationships because they lack comprehension of the rules; moreover, to the extent their behaviors can be understood, they often appear to live by different rules. Anthropocentrists also argue that, from an evolutionary perspective, successful species do not work for the net good of another. Species behave purposefully for their own survival; those that fail to do so have become extinct.

Some anthropocentrists oppose restrictions on natural resource use because restrictions seem to have negative impacts on human well-being—impacts such as the loss of jobs or products beneficial to humans. However, other anthropocentrists stress that the natural world is a critical life-support system for humans and a significant source of aesthetic richness; such anthropocentrists advocate careful environmental controls so that the natural world and its resources will maintain their full value for present and future generations. This anthropocentric regard for the environment is based on the belief that the natural world has important instrumental value for meeting human needs rather than on a belief in the intrinsic value of the natural world.

Individualism

An individualist perspective is that humans should extend moral concern beyond humans to encompass individual animals of certain species. Examples of individualists include adherents of the animal liberation and animal rights movements. Individualists accept that all humans have intrinsic value; they argue further that the distinctions between humans and nonhumans are often vague and that many of the qualities valued in humans, such as rationality, complex communication, intelligence, or self-awareness, are shared to some degree by other species. Thus, it becomes arbitrary to include all humans but exclude all nonhumans from moral concern. Rather, individualists say that humans have a duty to identify and respect the morally relevant qualities of all species. Animal liberationists define the capacity for pleasure and pain (sentience) as the morally relevant feature to be most considered. Animal rightists value more complex features, including desires, self-consciousness, a sense of the future, intentionality, and memories, which they associate with most mammals.

Like anthropocentrists, individualists generally are not directly concerned with the environment; rather, they are concerned with the well-being of individuals of those species they believe deserve moral concern. Individualists would not be concerned about natural resource use unless that resource use involved a direct threat to individuals of a species deserving moral concern, such as through hunting or trapping.

Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism is based on the perspective that the natural world has intrinsic value. The term ecocentrism has been applied to both the land ethic and deep ecology. Land ethic advocates believe that moral concern should be extended beyond humans and individual animals, with a major focus on natural units such as ecosystems, watersheds, habitats, and bioregions. In contrast to anthropocentrism and individualism, in which an emphasis is often placed on the rights of individuals deserving moral concern, land ethic advocates emphasize respect for the natural world. Moral concern for the natural world and the environment may be justified by drawing on insights from evolutionary theory and ecology. From evolutionary theory, it is evident that all living things have a common origin and history. From ecology, it is argued that all living things are connected and interdependent in the biosphere. These notions of common origin and history and of interdependence in the natural world are viewed as analogous to the human concept of “family.” Ecocentrists view humans as members of a very large family comprising all of nature. Family relationships entail not only privilege but also responsibilities for the well-being of the other family members and their environment. Thus, humans are responsible for the natural world.

Impact on land health is an important criterion by which natural resource use is assessed according to a land ethic. Aldo Leopold, one of the first to articulate a land ethic, stated, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Land health can be assessed by the occurrence of natural ecological functioning; examples include maintenance of soil fertility, absence of erosion, and having all the original species properly represented at a site (biodiversity). Natural resource use should have minimal long-term impact on land health, or even enhance land health, from a land ethic perspective.

Deep ecology is also an ecocentric perspective. However, rather than containing specific ethical rules of behavior, deep ecology often is viewed as an “ecosophy”—an ecological wisdom that calls for a deep questioning of lifestyles and attitudes. While there are no specific ethical rules, several precepts regularly occur among its adherents; these include living lives that are simple in means but rich in ends, honoring and empathizing with all life-forms, and maximizing the diversity of human and nonhuman life. Supporters of deep ecology advocate a lifestyle of minimal impact on the Earth, including the way natural resources are used.

Ecofeminism

A perspective called ecofeminism emerged in the 1970s. Many ecofeminists believe that a desire for domination is an underlying problem in Western society. Environmental problems are tied to a desire to dominate nature, and this desire is closely linked with the problem of the domination of women and other groups in Western society. Ecofeminists believe that these problems would decline with a transformation in societal attitudes from dualistic, hierarchical, and patriarchal thinking to an enrichment of underlying relationships and a greater focus on egalitarian, nonviolent, and empathetic attitudes. Ecofeminism also calls for a greater integration of nature and culture, reason and feeling, mind and body, and theory and practice. Ecofeminism emphasizes less intrusive and more gentle use of natural resources.

Environmental Ethics in Established Cultures and Religions

Many westerners have reexamined established cultural and religious perspectives for inspiration and insights in developing an environmental ethic. American Indian cultures often are seen as a source of moral insights on human relationship to the environment. Although it is difficult to generalize for such a large and complex set of cultures, several perspectives appear common to many American Indian groups. These include a strong sense of identity with a specific geographic feature, such as a river or mountain. Another common theme is that all the world is inspirited: Everything has being, life, and a self-consciousness. In many cultures, the Earth itself is perceived as a living being deserving respect. Further, most American Indian groups have developed a strong sense of kinship with the natural world. Such views generally have led to relatively harmonious relations with the natural world and have reduced the impact of American Indians on natural resources.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share common traditions; each has elements that scholars have drawn upon for insights into environmental responsibility. Some scholars emphasize portions of Genesis in which the world is seen as God’s creation, and they interpret that as meaning that humans should be free to use and enjoy the environment; subjugation, use, and development are acceptable, but one must also appreciate and protect the land as belonging to God. Others emphasize the special role of humans as caretakers or stewards. Some scholars draw on themes of Francis of Assisi and advocate close relationships with the natural world. Still others have used the Promised Land story as a metaphor for viewing the natural world as generously given to an undeserving people who have an opportunity to show their gratitude by obedience to God and care for the creation. Additional themes emerging in literature include pantheism and process theology. Attitudes toward the natural world and natural resource use may vary widely within various subgroups of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Some Eastern philosophies contain insights for environmental ethics. Daoism includes nature as a part of a great impersonal reality that links all beings in an equal-status relationship and encourages a sense of virtuous behavior toward nature. Buddhism, which focuses on reducing human suffering, leads to a gentle and nonaggressive attitude toward nature, including a focus on reducing the desire for material gain.


Bibliography

Armstrong, Susan J., and Richard G. Botzler, editors. Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence. 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 2003.

"Environmental Ethics: Guiding Our Moral Responsibility to the Natural World." ACTenviro, 22 Aug. 2025, www.actenviro.com/environmental-ethics. Accessed 17 Jan. 2026.

Jamieson, Dale. Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction. 2nd ed., Cambridge UP, 2024.

Jenkins, Willis. Ecologies of Grace: Environmental Ethics and Christian Theology. Oxford UP, 2008.

Kheel, Marti. Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.

Minteer, Ben A., editor. Nature in Common? Environmental Ethics and the Contested Foundations of Environmental Policy. Temple UP, 2009.

Pierce, Christine, and Donald VanDeVeer, editors. People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees: Basic Issues in Environmental Ethics. 2nd ed., Wadsworth, 1995.

Pojman, Louis P., editor. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application. 7th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, 2017.

Sheather, Julian, et al. "Ethics, Climate Change, and Health - a Landscape Review." Welcome Open Research, 14 Aug. 2023, doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19490.1. Accessed 17 Jan. 2026.

Traer, Robert. Doing Environmental Ethics. 3rd ed., Westview Press, 2020.

VanDeVeer, Donald, and Christine Pierce. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book: Philosophy, Ecology, Economics. 3rd ed., Wadsworth, 2002.

Zimmerman, Michael E., et al., editors. Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. 4th ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005.

Full Article

Environmental ethics encompasses a variety of perspectives on the relationship between humans and their environment, ranging from anthropocentrism to individualism to ecofeminism; each perspective has its own view of the appropriate ways to use the Earth’s resources.

Background

Ethics is concerned with what people value; specifically, it is concerned with proper behavior toward things with intrinsic value. Things valued in and of themselves are said to have intrinsic value; human beings, for example, generally are considered to have intrinsic value. (Things valued for what they can help humans accomplish—money, for example—are said to have instrumental value.) Environmental ethics is the field of inquiry that evaluates the ethical responsibilities humans have for the natural world, including natural resources. There are many different, and often conflicting, perspectives on appropriate human responsibilities toward nature and natural resources; each has strengths and weaknesses, and each can be advocated by thoughtful and articulate scholars.

The field of environmental ethics continues to grow in importance as the world experiences the effects of global climate change. Reducing the future damage to both humans and their environment may require substantial lifestyle changes to reduce the average person's carbon footprint. Should humanity fail to make these adjustments, scientists believe that changes in weather patterns will cause a mass extinction of animal species, as well as a mass migration of humans, as many parts of the world become more difficult to inhabit.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is a human-centered philosophy whose adherents believe that moral values should be limited to humans and should not be extended to other creatures or to nature as a whole. A justification for this perspective is that moral relationships are sets of reciprocal rules followed by humans in their mutual relationships. Nonhumans cannot participate in these relationships because they lack comprehension of the rules; moreover, to the extent their behaviors can be understood, they often appear to live by different rules. Anthropocentrists also argue that, from an evolutionary perspective, successful species do not work for the net good of another. Species behave purposefully for their own survival; those that fail to do so have become extinct.

Some anthropocentrists oppose restrictions on natural resource use because restrictions seem to have negative impacts on human well-being—impacts such as the loss of jobs or products beneficial to humans. However, other anthropocentrists stress that the natural world is a critical life-support system for humans and a significant source of aesthetic richness; such anthropocentrists advocate careful environmental controls so that the natural world and its resources will maintain their full value for present and future generations. This anthropocentric regard for the environment is based on the belief that the natural world has important instrumental value for meeting human needs rather than on a belief in the intrinsic value of the natural world.

Individualism

An individualist perspective is that humans should extend moral concern beyond humans to encompass individual animals of certain species. Examples of individualists include adherents of the animal liberation and animal rights movements. Individualists accept that all humans have intrinsic value; they argue further that the distinctions between humans and nonhumans are often vague and that many of the qualities valued in humans, such as rationality, complex communication, intelligence, or self-awareness, are shared to some degree by other species. Thus, it becomes arbitrary to include all humans but exclude all nonhumans from moral concern. Rather, individualists say that humans have a duty to identify and respect the morally relevant qualities of all species. Animal liberationists define the capacity for pleasure and pain (sentience) as the morally relevant feature to be most considered. Animal rightists value more complex features, including desires, self-consciousness, a sense of the future, intentionality, and memories, which they associate with most mammals.

Like anthropocentrists, individualists generally are not directly concerned with the environment; rather, they are concerned with the well-being of individuals of those species they believe deserve moral concern. Individualists would not be concerned about natural resource use unless that resource use involved a direct threat to individuals of a species deserving moral concern, such as through hunting or trapping.

Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism is based on the perspective that the natural world has intrinsic value. The term ecocentrism has been applied to both the land ethic and deep ecology. Land ethic advocates believe that moral concern should be extended beyond humans and individual animals, with a major focus on natural units such as ecosystems, watersheds, habitats, and bioregions. In contrast to anthropocentrism and individualism, in which an emphasis is often placed on the rights of individuals deserving moral concern, land ethic advocates emphasize respect for the natural world. Moral concern for the natural world and the environment may be justified by drawing on insights from evolutionary theory and ecology. From evolutionary theory, it is evident that all living things have a common origin and history. From ecology, it is argued that all living things are connected and interdependent in the biosphere. These notions of common origin and history and of interdependence in the natural world are viewed as analogous to the human concept of “family.” Ecocentrists view humans as members of a very large family comprising all of nature. Family relationships entail not only privilege but also responsibilities for the well-being of the other family members and their environment. Thus, humans are responsible for the natural world.

Impact on land health is an important criterion by which natural resource use is assessed according to a land ethic. Aldo Leopold, one of the first to articulate a land ethic, stated, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Land health can be assessed by the occurrence of natural ecological functioning; examples include maintenance of soil fertility, absence of erosion, and having all the original species properly represented at a site (biodiversity). Natural resource use should have minimal long-term impact on land health, or even enhance land health, from a land ethic perspective.

Deep ecology is also an ecocentric perspective. However, rather than containing specific ethical rules of behavior, deep ecology often is viewed as an “ecosophy”—an ecological wisdom that calls for a deep questioning of lifestyles and attitudes. While there are no specific ethical rules, several precepts regularly occur among its adherents; these include living lives that are simple in means but rich in ends, honoring and empathizing with all life-forms, and maximizing the diversity of human and nonhuman life. Supporters of deep ecology advocate a lifestyle of minimal impact on the Earth, including the way natural resources are used.

Ecofeminism

A perspective called ecofeminism emerged in the 1970s. Many ecofeminists believe that a desire for domination is an underlying problem in Western society. Environmental problems are tied to a desire to dominate nature, and this desire is closely linked with the problem of the domination of women and other groups in Western society. Ecofeminists believe that these problems would decline with a transformation in societal attitudes from dualistic, hierarchical, and patriarchal thinking to an enrichment of underlying relationships and a greater focus on egalitarian, nonviolent, and empathetic attitudes. Ecofeminism also calls for a greater integration of nature and culture, reason and feeling, mind and body, and theory and practice. Ecofeminism emphasizes less intrusive and more gentle use of natural resources.

Environmental Ethics in Established Cultures and Religions

Many westerners have reexamined established cultural and religious perspectives for inspiration and insights in developing an environmental ethic. American Indian cultures often are seen as a source of moral insights on human relationship to the environment. Although it is difficult to generalize for such a large and complex set of cultures, several perspectives appear common to many American Indian groups. These include a strong sense of identity with a specific geographic feature, such as a river or mountain. Another common theme is that all the world is inspirited: Everything has being, life, and a self-consciousness. In many cultures, the Earth itself is perceived as a living being deserving respect. Further, most American Indian groups have developed a strong sense of kinship with the natural world. Such views generally have led to relatively harmonious relations with the natural world and have reduced the impact of American Indians on natural resources.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share common traditions; each has elements that scholars have drawn upon for insights into environmental responsibility. Some scholars emphasize portions of Genesis in which the world is seen as God’s creation, and they interpret that as meaning that humans should be free to use and enjoy the environment; subjugation, use, and development are acceptable, but one must also appreciate and protect the land as belonging to God. Others emphasize the special role of humans as caretakers or stewards. Some scholars draw on themes of Francis of Assisi and advocate close relationships with the natural world. Still others have used the Promised Land story as a metaphor for viewing the natural world as generously given to an undeserving people who have an opportunity to show their gratitude by obedience to God and care for the creation. Additional themes emerging in literature include pantheism and process theology. Attitudes toward the natural world and natural resource use may vary widely within various subgroups of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Some Eastern philosophies contain insights for environmental ethics. Daoism includes nature as a part of a great impersonal reality that links all beings in an equal-status relationship and encourages a sense of virtuous behavior toward nature. Buddhism, which focuses on reducing human suffering, leads to a gentle and nonaggressive attitude toward nature, including a focus on reducing the desire for material gain.


Bibliography

Armstrong, Susan J., and Richard G. Botzler, editors. Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence. 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 2003.

"Environmental Ethics: Guiding Our Moral Responsibility to the Natural World." ACTenviro, 22 Aug. 2025, www.actenviro.com/environmental-ethics. Accessed 17 Jan. 2026.

Jamieson, Dale. Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction. 2nd ed., Cambridge UP, 2024.

Jenkins, Willis. Ecologies of Grace: Environmental Ethics and Christian Theology. Oxford UP, 2008.

Kheel, Marti. Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective. Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.

Minteer, Ben A., editor. Nature in Common? Environmental Ethics and the Contested Foundations of Environmental Policy. Temple UP, 2009.

Pierce, Christine, and Donald VanDeVeer, editors. People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees: Basic Issues in Environmental Ethics. 2nd ed., Wadsworth, 1995.

Pojman, Louis P., editor. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application. 7th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, 2017.

Sheather, Julian, et al. "Ethics, Climate Change, and Health - a Landscape Review." Welcome Open Research, 14 Aug. 2023, doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19490.1. Accessed 17 Jan. 2026.

Traer, Robert. Doing Environmental Ethics. 3rd ed., Westview Press, 2020.

VanDeVeer, Donald, and Christine Pierce. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book: Philosophy, Ecology, Economics. 3rd ed., Wadsworth, 2002.

Zimmerman, Michael E., et al., editors. Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. 4th ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005.

More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (3)

Related Articles (3)