Environmental Ethics in Action

Environmental ethics is a field of study that seeks to understand what is right and wrong when it comes to the human relationship with the environment. There are many different philosophies within environmental ethics, and each one argues for a different way of understanding our moral obligation to the natural world.

Environmental ethics can shape how we respond to a variety of issues we face today, from agriculture and meat production to housing to industrial manufacturing. Today, we’ll review a few examples of how different environmental ethical philosophies might respond to a specific issue in environmental ethics.

What Is Environmental Ethics?

Environmental ethics are a series of philosophies that are concerned with where humans stand in relation to the environment, including animals and ecosystems. Environmental philosophies (“ecosophies”) help us make moral decisions when it comes to our treatment of the environment. 

Most environmental philosophies are based in a slightly different understanding of where humans stand in relation to the environment. Answers to ethical questions concerning the environment can then be answered based on this understanding.

For example, if you believe that humans are superior to animals (an anthropocentric viewpoint), then you believe that it’s morally acceptable to use animals to meet human needs. However, if you believe that humans and animals are equal, then it would not be morally acceptable to kill an animal to meet human needs (like killing an animal for meat).

For more details, read: What Is Environmental Ethics?

Examples of Environmental Ethics in Action

There are an extreme amount of ethical issues and questions related to our interaction with the environment. A few examples are:

• Are humans superior to animals, and if so, why? If not, how does this change our treatment of animals?
• Is it morally permissible to use animals for meat?
• Is it morally acceptable to cut down trees? To mine the Earth for metals or oil?
• Do humans have a responsibility to protect animals?

Read more: Current Issues in Environmental Ethics

Let’s take just a single issue in environmental ethics, the morality of cutting down trees, and review what different environmental ethical philosophies would say about this example.

Environmental Ethics Case Study: Is It Morally Permissible to Cut Down Trees?

Today, deforestation is one of the biggest environmental issues we face.Trees are a major habitat for a huge number of species and provide humans with wood and other ecosystem services, such as prevention of flooding or erosion. Additionally, as a major carbon sink, maintaining forests around the world is extremely important to fighting climate change.

Learn more about forest conservation: The Importance and History of Forest Conservation

We know trees are important and, practically, we shouldn’t cut them all down. But is it ethical to cut down any trees, even if we cut them down for helpful purposes? Let’s explore this question by reviewing how prominent environmental ethical philosophies view the morality of cutting down trees.

Anthropocentrism: Anthropocentrists believe that humans are morally superior to other living things and the environment. This helps justify using natural resources to meet human needs. Anthropocentrists would argue that it is not morally wrong to cut down trees because they are not deserving of moral consideration. However, anthropocentrists may still argue that we should protect some trees in order to continue to use them as a natural resource in the future – or to prevent climate change’s impacts on human societies.

Biocentrism: Biocentrism is an environmental philosophy that believes all life deserves equal moral consideration. Under biocentrism, not just humans, but all living beings are considered to have intrinsic value. Therefore, cutting down trees is not morally justifiable under biocentrism because trees are living beings with their own interests, such as growing and thriving, that must be protected.

Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism argues that the most moral actions are those that result in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.While an anthropocentric reading of this philosophy would argue that cutting down trees is morally acceptable because it results in helpful resources for people, you could also argue that cutting down trees results in an overall negative if you account for the long term impacts of deforestation, such as increased climate change.

Some environmental ethical philosophers interpret utilitarianism through a biocentric lens, arguing that the most moral actions are those that create the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of living things. Under this view, you’d have to weigh the harm to trees (a living being) against the potential benefits to humans of cutting down the trees. For utilitarians, the question is not “is it ethical to cut down trees,” but rather, “does the harm to trees outweigh the benefits trees provide to humans?” This is a question that each utilitarian must answer for themselves.

Ecocentrism: Ecocentrism is an environmental ethic that argues that all parts of an ecosystem, including non-living things like land or water, have inherent value. The interests of all parts of the ecosystem must be considered in any moral question. Ecocentrists would likely argue that the interests of trees are equally important to human interests, and that it is not morally acceptable to cut down the trees. 

Deep Ecology: Deep ecology is an ecocentrist philosophy that focuses especially on the interconnected workings of an ecosystem, arguing that every part of the ecosystem plays an equally important role in keeping the ecosystem functioning. The philosophy notes that because all parts of an ecosystem must function as a whole, with any part of an ecosystem dependent on another, we should seek to protect all parts of an ecosystem from harm, and allow each being to pursue what is in its own best interest. Thus, cutting down trees cannot be morally justified, because trees play an important role within the ecosystem.

It’s important to note that there’s no simple answer to the question of whether it’s ethical to cut down trees, even within one single ethical philosophy. While these philosophies answer the question of how humans relate to the environment (i.e. whether humans are equal to nature), it’s up to the individual to decide how these relationships actually impact our decision making. For example, while biocentrism may argue that trees are living beings with their own inherent value that’s equal to the value of humans, it’s up to us to decide how to balance those relationships in a practical way when we apply the ethic to real life.

Applying Environmental Ethics To Real Life

The Outdoor Recreation Example

Environmental ethics gives us a framework to reflect on how we recreate in natural spaces. It helps us look at the quiet consequences of our actions and consider how to do better. Let’s explore some of the common environmental impacts of river recreation and how different ethical philosophies might view them.

Common Environmental Impacts of River Recreation

Whether we’re fishing, kayaking, swimming, boating, or tubing, our presence along the river often leads to environmental disruption—even if we don’t mean for it to.

Litter and Debris

Plastic bottles, food wrappers, broken sandals, beer cans, fishing line—these items get left behind or lost and slowly accumulate along the riverbanks and in the water.

Erosion and Plant Damage

Entering and exiting the river in popular spots causes wear on the banks. Vegetation gets trampled. Roots are exposed. Over time, this contributes to erosion and habitat loss.

Wildlife Disturbance

Loud voices, boat motors, and groups of people can scare off birds, displace animals, and interrupt natural behavior patterns like feeding or nesting.

Water Pollution

Sunscreen, soap, spilled drinks, fuel from boats, and other contaminants make their way into the water. Even small amounts add up, especially on heavily trafficked rivers.

These issues aren’t always obvious. But taken together, they show that even low-impact recreation isn’t impact-free.

Ethical Lenses on River Recreation

Different environmental philosophies offer different ways to think about our moral obligations in these spaces. Here’s how a few major ethical lenses would view river recreation.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism places humans at the center of moral concern. From this viewpoint, nature has value because it serves human needs.

Under this lens, river recreation is morally acceptable as long as it benefits humans and doesn’t undermine future human use. Leaving trash, destroying riverbanks, or polluting water would be wrong—not because it harms nature itself, but because it threatens human health, enjoyment, and long-term use of the river.

The goal is sustainable recreation: protecting the river so we can continue to enjoy it.

Biocentrism

Biocentrism argues that all living things—fish, insects, birds, humans—deserve equal moral consideration.

From this perspective, river recreation is only ethical if it does not harm the living beings that rely on the river ecosystem. Leaving trash behind, disturbing fish habitats, or creating excess noise that scares wildlife would all be morally wrong, because they disrupt the life and well-being of other creatures.

Biocentrism asks us to consider the experience of non-human life. What does the fish experience when the river is clogged with sunscreen and beer cans? What happens to the bird’s nest when people crowd the riverbank?

Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism takes a broader view. It sees moral value not just in individual life forms, but in the entire ecosystem—including the river, the rocks, the soil, and the flow itself.

According to this view, the river has value simply because it exists and functions as part of an interconnected whole. Ethical river recreation, then, must respect the balance and health of the entire system.

That means being mindful of the cumulative effects of erosion, noise, and waste. It means asking: How does my presence here shape the integrity of the river ecosystem?

Thinking About The Ethics of Recreational Use of The Environment

When we float a river, we often think of it as ours. A place to play, unwind, drink, laugh. And it is that. But it’s also a living system. A habitat. A corridor for birds, fish, and insects. A source of drinking water for towns downstream.

Environmental ethics doesn’t say we can’t enjoy the river. It just asks us to enjoy it differently—more carefully, more humbly, more in tune with the system we’re entering. It’s a mindset shift: from using the river to being with the river.

That’s the beginning of ethical recreation.