environmental ethics topics for research paper

Research Topics & Ideas: Environment

F inding and choosing a strong research topic is the critical first step when it comes to crafting a high-quality dissertation, thesis or research project. Here, we’ll explore a variety research ideas and topic thought-starters related to various environmental science disciplines, including ecology, oceanography, hydrology, geology, soil science, environmental chemistry, environmental economics, and environmental ethics.

NB – This is just the start…

The topic ideation and evaluation process has multiple steps . In this post, we’ll kickstart the process by sharing some research topic ideas within the environmental sciences. This is the starting point though. To develop a well-defined research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , along with a well-justified plan of action to fill that gap.

If you’re new to the oftentimes perplexing world of research, or if this is your first time undertaking a formal academic research project, be sure to check out our free dissertation mini-course. Also be sure to also sign up for our free webinar that explores how to develop a high-quality research topic from scratch.

Overview: Environmental Topics

• Ecology /ecological science
• Atmospheric science
• Oceanography
• Soil science
• Environmental chemistry
• Environmental economics
• Environmental ethics
• Examples  of dissertations and theses

Topics & Ideas: Ecological Science

• The impact of land-use change on species diversity and ecosystem functioning in agricultural landscapes
• The role of disturbances such as fire and drought in shaping arid ecosystems
• The impact of climate change on the distribution of migratory marine species
• Investigating the role of mutualistic plant-insect relationships in maintaining ecosystem stability
• The effects of invasive plant species on ecosystem structure and function
• The impact of habitat fragmentation caused by road construction on species diversity and population dynamics in the tropics
• The role of ecosystem services in urban areas and their economic value to a developing nation
• The effectiveness of different grassland restoration techniques in degraded ecosystems
• The impact of land-use change through agriculture and urbanisation on soil microbial communities in a temperate environment
• The role of microbial diversity in ecosystem health and nutrient cycling in an African savannah

Topics & Ideas: Atmospheric Science

• The impact of climate change on atmospheric circulation patterns above tropical rainforests
• The role of atmospheric aerosols in cloud formation and precipitation above cities with high pollution levels
• The impact of agricultural land-use change on global atmospheric composition
• Investigating the role of atmospheric convection in severe weather events in the tropics
• The impact of urbanisation on regional and global atmospheric ozone levels
• The impact of sea surface temperature on atmospheric circulation and tropical cyclones
• The impact of solar flares on the Earth’s atmospheric composition
• The impact of climate change on atmospheric turbulence and air transportation safety
• The impact of stratospheric ozone depletion on atmospheric circulation and climate change
• The role of atmospheric rivers in global water supply and sea-ice formation

Topics & Ideas: Oceanography

• The impact of ocean acidification on kelp forests and biogeochemical cycles
• The role of ocean currents in distributing heat and regulating desert rain
• The impact of carbon monoxide pollution on ocean chemistry and biogeochemical cycles
• Investigating the role of ocean mixing in regulating coastal climates
• The impact of sea level rise on the resource availability of low-income coastal communities
• The impact of ocean warming on the distribution and migration patterns of marine mammals
• The impact of ocean deoxygenation on biogeochemical cycles in the arctic
• The role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in regulating rainfall in arid regions
• The impact of ocean eddies on global ocean circulation and plankton distribution
• The role of ocean-ice interactions in regulating the Earth’s climate and sea level

Tops & Ideas: Hydrology

• The impact of agricultural land-use change on water resources and hydrologic cycles in temperate regions
• The impact of agricultural groundwater availability on irrigation practices in the global south
• The impact of rising sea-surface temperatures on global precipitation patterns and water availability
• Investigating the role of wetlands in regulating water resources for riparian forests
• The impact of tropical ranches on river and stream ecosystems and water quality
• The impact of urbanisation on regional and local hydrologic cycles and water resources for agriculture
• The role of snow cover and mountain hydrology in regulating regional agricultural water resources
• The impact of drought on food security in arid and semi-arid regions
• The role of groundwater recharge in sustaining water resources in arid and semi-arid environments
• The impact of sea level rise on coastal hydrology and the quality of water resources

Topics & Ideas: Geology

• The impact of tectonic activity on the East African rift valley
• The role of mineral deposits in shaping ancient human societies
• The impact of sea-level rise on coastal geomorphology and shoreline evolution
• Investigating the role of erosion in shaping the landscape and impacting desertification
• The impact of mining on soil stability and landslide potential
• The impact of volcanic activity on incoming solar radiation and climate
• The role of geothermal energy in decarbonising the energy mix of megacities
• The impact of Earth’s magnetic field on geological processes and solar wind
• The impact of plate tectonics on the evolution of mammals
• The role of the distribution of mineral resources in shaping human societies and economies, with emphasis on sustainability

Topics & Ideas: Soil Science

• The impact of dam building on soil quality and fertility
• The role of soil organic matter in regulating nutrient cycles in agricultural land
• The impact of climate change on soil erosion and soil organic carbon storage in peatlands
• Investigating the role of above-below-ground interactions in nutrient cycling and soil health
• The impact of deforestation on soil degradation and soil fertility
• The role of soil texture and structure in regulating water and nutrient availability in boreal forests
• The impact of sustainable land management practices on soil health and soil organic matter
• The impact of wetland modification on soil structure and function
• The role of soil-atmosphere exchange and carbon sequestration in regulating regional and global climate
• The impact of salinization on soil health and crop productivity in coastal communities

Topics & Ideas: Environmental Chemistry

• The impact of cobalt mining on water quality and the fate of contaminants in the environment
• The role of atmospheric chemistry in shaping air quality and climate change
• The impact of soil chemistry on nutrient availability and plant growth in wheat monoculture
• Investigating the fate and transport of heavy metal contaminants in the environment
• The impact of climate change on biochemical cycling in tropical rainforests
• The impact of various types of land-use change on biochemical cycling
• The role of soil microbes in mediating contaminant degradation in the environment
• The impact of chemical and oil spills on freshwater and soil chemistry
• The role of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in shaping water and soil chemistry
• The impact of over-irrigation on the cycling and fate of persistent organic pollutants in the environment

Topics & Ideas: Environmental Economics

• The impact of climate change on the economies of developing nations
• The role of market-based mechanisms in promoting sustainable use of forest resources
• The impact of environmental regulations on economic growth and competitiveness
• Investigating the economic benefits and costs of ecosystem services for African countries
• The impact of renewable energy policies on regional and global energy markets
• The role of water markets in promoting sustainable water use in southern Africa
• The impact of land-use change in rural areas on regional and global economies
• The impact of environmental disasters on local and national economies
• The role of green technologies and innovation in shaping the zero-carbon transition and the knock-on effects for local economies
• The impact of environmental and natural resource policies on income distribution and poverty of rural communities

Need a helping hand?

Topics & Ideas: Environmental Ethics

• The ethical foundations of environmentalism and the environmental movement regarding renewable energy
• The role of values and ethics in shaping environmental policy and decision-making in the mining industry
• The impact of cultural and religious beliefs on environmental attitudes and behaviours in first world countries
• Investigating the ethics of biodiversity conservation and the protection of endangered species in palm oil plantations
• The ethical implications of sea-level rise for future generations and vulnerable coastal populations
• The role of ethical considerations in shaping sustainable use of natural forest resources
• The impact of environmental justice on marginalized communities and environmental policies in Asia
• The ethical implications of environmental risks and decision-making under uncertainty
• The role of ethics in shaping the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable future for the construction industry
• The impact of environmental values on consumer behaviour and the marketplace: a case study of the ‘bring your own shopping bag’ policy

Examples: Real Dissertation & Thesis Topics

While the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a research topic, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual dissertations and theses to see how this all comes together.

Below, we’ve included a selection of research projects from various environmental science-related degree programs to help refine your thinking. These are actual dissertations and theses, written as part of Master’s and PhD-level programs, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.

• The physiology of microorganisms in enhanced biological phosphorous removal (Saunders, 2014)
• The influence of the coastal front on heavy rainfall events along the east coast (Henson, 2019)
• Forage production and diversification for climate-smart tropical and temperate silvopastures (Dibala, 2019)
• Advancing spectral induced polarization for near surface geophysical characterization (Wang, 2021)
• Assessment of Chromophoric Dissolved Organic Matter and Thamnocephalus platyurus as Tools to Monitor Cyanobacterial Bloom Development and Toxicity (Hipsher, 2019)
• Evaluating the Removal of Microcystin Variants with Powdered Activated Carbon (Juang, 2020)
• The effect of hydrological restoration on nutrient concentrations, macroinvertebrate communities, and amphibian populations in Lake Erie coastal wetlands (Berg, 2019)
• Utilizing hydrologic soil grouping to estimate corn nitrogen rate recommendations (Bean, 2019)
• Fungal Function in House Dust and Dust from the International Space Station (Bope, 2021)
• Assessing Vulnerability and the Potential for Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) in Sudan’s Blue Nile Basin (Mohamed, 2022)
• A Microbial Water Quality Analysis of the Recreational Zones in the Los Angeles River of Elysian Valley, CA (Nguyen, 2019)
• Dry Season Water Quality Study on Three Recreational Sites in the San Gabriel Mountains (Vallejo, 2019)
• Wastewater Treatment Plan for Unix Packaging Adjustment of the Potential Hydrogen (PH) Evaluation of Enzymatic Activity After the Addition of Cycle Disgestase Enzyme (Miessi, 2020)
• Laying the Genetic Foundation for the Conservation of Longhorn Fairy Shrimp (Kyle, 2021).

Looking at these titles, you can probably pick up that the research topics here are quite specific and narrowly-focused , compared to the generic ones presented earlier. To create a top-notch research topic, you will need to be precise and target a specific context with specific variables of interest . In other words, you’ll need to identify a clear, well-justified research gap.

Find The Perfect Research Topic

How To Choose A Research Topic: 5 Key Criteria

How To Choose A Research Topic Step-By-Step Tutorial With Examples + Free Topic...

Research Topics & Ideas: Automation & Robotics

A comprehensive list of automation and robotics-related research topics. Includes free access to a webinar and research topic evaluator.

Research Topics & Ideas: Sociology

Research Topics & Ideas: Sociology 50 Topic Ideas To Kickstart Your Research...

Research Topics & Ideas: Public Health & Epidemiology

A comprehensive list of public health-related research topics. Includes free access to a webinar and research topic evaluator.

Research Topics & Ideas: Neuroscience

Research Topics & Ideas: Neuroscience 50 Topic Ideas To Kickstart Your Research...

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

12 Comments

research topics on climate change and environment

Researched PhD topics on environmental chemistry involving dust and water

I wish to learn things in a more advanced but simple way and with the hopes that I am in the right place.

Thank so much for the research topics. It really helped

the guides were really helpful

Research topics on environmental geology

Thanks for the research topics….I need a research topic on Geography

hi I need research questions ideas

Implications of climate variability on wildlife conservation on the west coast of Cameroon

I want the research on environmental planning and management

I want a topic on environmental sustainability

It good coaching

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• JME Commentaries
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 49, Issue 6
• Reimagining research ethics to include environmental sustainability: a principled approach, including a case study of data-driven health research
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8111-2730 Gabrielle Samuel 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7885-9136 Cristina Richie 2
• 1 Department of Global Health and Social Medicine , King's College London , London , UK
• 2 Philosophy and Ethics of Technology Department , Delft University of Technology , Delft , Netherlands
• Correspondence to Dr Gabrielle Samuel, Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London - Strand Campus, London, London, UK; gabrielle.samuel{at}kcl.ac.uk

In this paper we argue the need to reimagine research ethics frameworks to include notions of environmental sustainability. While there have long been calls for health care ethics frameworks and decision-making to include aspects of sustainability, less attention has focused on how research ethics frameworks could address this. To do this, we first describe the traditional approach to research ethics, which often relies on individualised notions of risk. We argue that we need to broaden this notion of individual risk to consider issues associated with environmental sustainability. This is because research is associated with carbon emissions and other environmental impacts, both of which cause climate change health hazards. We introduce how bioethics frameworks have considered notions of environmental sustainability and draw on these to help develop a framework suitable for researchers. We provide a case study of data-driven health research to apply our framework.

• research ethics

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2022-108489

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Dominant research ethics paradigms often revolve around ethics principles that are concerned with the protection, rights, safety and welfare of individual research participants. These paradigms can be traced back to a number of historical ethics frameworks developed in response to atrocities in biomedical/clinical research in the 20th century, 1 and include the 1968 Declaration of Helsinki 1 and the subsequent 1979 Belmont Report. 2 These frameworks aim to guide physicians and researchers in appropriate clinical research ethics conduct, with relevant ethical principles including the need for research to respect individual research participants in group or individual settings; the need to ensure that research design minimises individual risk while maximising potential societal benefit; and the need to ensure fair practices in the selection of individuals for participation in research studies.

While individualised risk has long been a focus of research ethics frameworks, strong criticism exists around it. In an interconnected world it is difficult to argue that the impacts of individual research treatment would not affect others, particularly in the closer communities of friend and family groups. Carol Gilligan’s work on care ethics 4 and the notion of relational autonomy both point to the networks that impact ethical decision-making within healthcare. Furthermore, concerns have long been raised about the appropriateness of placing individual risk ahead of communitarianism , especially in research areas that are less concerned with individual health, such as global health research. Public health scholars have long pointed to the moral status of the community in research ethics considerations, 5–8 whereby community harms are more than the sum of individual values and interests and relate to questions associated with whether communities will be beneficiaries of the research, or even whether they share the same goals as the researchers. 9–11 Multiple authors have pointed to the abusive practices and problematic studies conducted with tribes, indigenous populations, and minoritised and marginalised communities worldwide over the past decades, which have failed to consider community harms associated with violating widespread trust or taking ownership of a community’s stories. 10 For these reasons Emmanuel and Weijer 9 emphasise the importance of an ethical principle of ‘respect for community’ alongside more individual principles related to risk and exploitation, such that scholars need to devote careful attention to understanding the sociopolitical impact of research on communities as a whole and not only to individuals, 7 12 13 remembering that individuals are part of the whole community.

While concerns about community harm have expanded moral status considerations beyond those focused on individual risk alone, they are anthropocentric and have stopped short of considering environment-related harms associated with the research process. The environmental impact of the medical industry and health research can be measured by carbon emissions and resource use. The carbon emissions of global healthcare activities, including research, make up 4%–5% of the total world emissions. 14 The Lancet reports that the Sustainable Clinical Trials Group calculated nearly 350 000 national and international trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ‘using the average…(to) give a carbon consumption of an estimated 27.5 million tonnes, which is just under a third of the total annual carbon emissions of Bangladesh, a country of 163 million people’. 15 The impact of carbon emissions includes not only climate change, but also health hazards like pollution, significant environmental destruction, use of scarce resources, loss of biodiversity and diminished quality of life for humans. 16 People affected by climate change require medical care, which is predicated on medical research. 17 These treatments release more carbon, locking healthcare into a self-destructive cycle whereby medical research, care and treatments cause medical needs. Hence, healthcare research has a special interest in carbon reduction, not only as a matter of international priority, but also as a commitment to health. In this paper we draw on the concept of sustainability to provide an ethical basis for the inclusion of such environmental harms in health research.

Environment and (bio)ethics

In 1927 Fritz Jahr described bioethics (German: bio-ethik ) as ‘the assumption of moral obligations not only towards humans, but towards all forms of life’. 18 Jahr drew on Rudolf Eisler’s Bio-Psychik , declaring: ‘Respect every living being on principle as an end in itself and treat it, if possible, as such!’ (p230). Almost half a century later in 1971, the term ‘bioethics’ appeared in English with a parallel scope when Van Rensselaer Potter used it to describe a life-ethic for an industrialised society in a precarious ecosystem. For Potter, bioethics was rooted in an intrinsically practical approach to ecologically sustainable life, inclusive of the earth and other organisms. 19 20 Despite bioethics’ environmental origins, since Beauchamp and Childress’ 21 1979 proposition of ‘biomedical ethics’, which focused on the patient–physician relationship through four principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice, ‘bioethics’ has become widespread conflated with ‘biomedical ethics’. This has erased the ecological origins of bioethics while simultaneously giving rise to the ‘new’ discipline of environmental bioethics. 22

Nevertheless, an increasing number of scholars have advocated bioethics readopt a broader perspective that aims to explore the relationships between individuals and the natural environment. 23–29 They reject that the land and ecosystems are just instrumentally valuable—good because of how humans can use them—but rather argue that our moral sentiments need to extend to the biotic community, to the soils, waters, plants and animals that make up our planet 30 since nature is both inherently valuable—good in itself—and because humans are a part of, not separate from, nature. 30 Most widely recognised ethical theories acknowledge interconnectedness (with people and communities), and it makes moral sense to include the biotic community within this moral framework. 31 They call for a systems approach that considers individuals, populations and environmental factors in understanding (health) practices and policies (for instance, see Lee 25 ; also see Richie 32 ).

Some effort has ensued in the research ethics community in this regard. The European Commission’s Ethics for Researchers —designed for researchers who are preparing an application for research funding from the European Union—includes respect for biodiversity, the environment and ecological balance as one of its 12 golden rules to ethical research conduct. 33 Equally, the All European Academies Code of Conduct for Research Integrity points to the need not to ‘waste resources and [expose the] environment to unnecessary harm’ during research. 34 The National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) Carbon Reduction Guidelines ‘highlight areas where sensible research design can reduce waste without adversely impacting the validity and reliability of research’.[ 2 ] Similarly, the UK’s research funding body, UKRI (UK Research and Innovation), emphasises that ‘public funds should be deployed with due consideration to value for money and environmental impact across all activities’. 35

At the same time, a recent review of international research ethics frameworks by RAND suggests that such environmental concerns are primarily applied in non-human-centric disciplines; within human participant research, harm is generally considered anthropocentrically in human terms only. 36 If moral reflections are to consider the environment, key unanswered questions include how we should give respect to non-human worlds, especially since human endeavours will always inevitably lead to the destruction of at least some of the biotic community and ecosystems, and how this respect should or could be weighed next to humans (p235). 37 [ 3 ] Despite this, moral obligations to the environment still exist, even if they are anthropocentric and instrumentalising for reasons of self-preservation. The planet and its ecosystems sustain us. Without these ecosystems, humans can neither survive nor flourish, 37 and indeed the destruction of our ecosystem has led to a diminished quality of life for billions of people, including early death, increased morbidity and psychological suffering. 38

In the following section we argue that in research ethics frameworks, moral decision-making should extend to the environment. Drawing on the concept of sustainability, we map out what such a research ethics framework would look like.

A research ethics framework based on sustainability

As scholars in healthcare increasingly shift to a broader vision of bioethics and take into account factors associated with non-humans and ecosystems, sustainability has become an important concept. 27 31 32 39–47 Following from the well-cited ‘Brundtland Report’, sustainability is viewed as a forward-looking concept for guiding a wide variety of choices that are grounded on the commitment to the well-being of both current and future populations. 48 , 4

In her work on green bioethics, Richie 26 draws on environmental ethics to propose a green bioethics framework for evaluating the sustainability of medical developments, techniques and procedures. This framework includes four normative principles: distributive justice takes a broad view of the moral community and requires the allocation of basic medical resources before special interest access; resource conservation to provide healthcare needs before healthcare wants; simplicity to reduce dependence on medical interventions; and ethical economics to promote humanistic healthcare instead of financial profit. 26 We draw on this and other frameworks of restraint and justice from environmental bioethics (eg, see Potter and Lisa 49 in Jameton and Pierce 31 ). We modify it to be more aligned with current research ethics frameworks (eg, see Weinbaum et al 36 and Emanuel et al 50 ), thus making it intelligible and persuasive for researchers. In the following sections we map our research ethics framework of five substantive ethics principles: social value, scientific quality, respect for persons, communities and environment, justice, and favourable risk to benefit ratio.

Scientific quality

Proposed research must be conducted in a methodologically rigorous manner, using reliable and valid research design and methods. 51 52 Special attention to possible sample bias or underpowered research is important. Execution of the study is also important to ensure results are valid and answer the research question. A lack of quality leads to wasted resources and time. All research has a carbon footprint even if the results of the study are not published, or unusable for reasons of lack of replicability or lack of reproducibility. Hence, the NIHR suggests a thorough literature review prior to developing a research proposal.[ 5 ]

Social value

Research must be beneficial to the participants, community, society 50 51 and environment. More than just refraining from harming the individual, community, society or environment, it should proactively lead to improvements in health, the environment or well-being, or act as a preliminary step towards this. Anything short of this could expose individuals to harms without there being a worthy pursuit (especially if clinical research), or more broadly divert resources from other valuable pursuits. Since all research requires resources, maximal benefits should be prioritised since the consequence of research is increased carbon emissions and risks of climate change health hazards.

Respect for persons, communities and environment

Respect for persons extends further than respect for autonomy, and considers one’s moral attitude towards others and the actions towards others that result from and exemplify this attitude. 53 Respect for communities allows a broadening of this concept to include a variety of cultural norms, including those which place less emphasis on individual autonomy and autonomous decision-making than is the norm in some cultures. 54 Procedural principles to help with respecting persons and communities include, for example, the need for trustworthiness, transparency, privacy and ownership, accountability, autonomy, engagement, the need for consent, and the right to withdraw. 36 51 53 Respect for the environment includes taking environmental destruction into consideration by considering the environmental impacts associated with the research endeavour, particularly when that destruction occurs in places which may not directly benefit from the outputs, for example, clinical trials in the developing world, or in places where natural resources are used, not replenished and not properly compensated for (eg, harvesting of medicinal plants in a rainforest, mining).

This has historically referred to fair participant selection based on the scientific goals of the proposed research. 50 51 This also refers to the fair treatment of individuals and communities beyond research-based activities to ensure that those individuals or communities who take part in research are those most likely to benefit. It also refers to environment-associated harms and benefits associated with the research endeavour. This adheres to Nancy Fraser’s 54 work on justice, which proposes an ‘all subjected principle’, such that ‘all those who are subject to a given governance structure have moral standing as subjects of justice in relation to it’ and that ‘for any such governance structure, the all subjected principle matches the scope of moral concern to that of subjection’. Brock’s work is useful here too. She sees a role for both state-bound and global justice when considering duties in healthcare. 55 She explains that we should give special attention to those within our own state, but we have a moral obligation to make low or reasonable modifications to our own governance structures because of the negative duty to refrain from harming others. Following this premise, if low or reasonable modifications to our own governance structures would decrease harm caused to others, we have a moral responsibility to make these modifications. This is particularly pertinent for people living in affluent countries and their obligations for those who live in extreme poverty in developing countries, and particularly links to the risk to benefit ratio principle that requires finding the optimum research methodology that allows these risks to be minimised.[ 6 ]

Favourable risk to benefit ratio

This is a key aspect of research ethics frameworks that is also related to principles of proportionality, beneficence and non-maleficence. Historically, a favourable risk to benefit ratio involves weighing the individual risk versus individual and/or collective benefit from the research in a utilitarian way (and more recently assessing community risk/benefit). To be truly utilitarian, and to consider all links within a consequentialist pathway, risk to benefit ratios must include environment-related risks. 31 Jameton and Pierce 31 argue that when these harms are put into the research ethics risk/benefit balance, ‘everyday decisions unquestioned by ethicists and regarded as rational and even praiseworthy may be seen as questionable and possibly maleficent’ (p119). 31

Our proposed principles have direct relevance for health research. In the next section, we present a case study and then apply the principle to demonstrate the feasibility and agility.

Case study: data-driven health research

Health research is becoming increasingly data-intensive. Through the capture and analysis of vast swaths of clinical, imaging and genomic data, other biomarkers, as well as data from wearable devices, social media and environmental exposures, researchers aim to improve detection, diagnosis and treatment of patients and the public. While data-driven health research and any technologies that emerge are viewed as a panacea towards better health and healthcare, they have adverse environmental impacts. This is because they rely on digital infrastructures that are not ‘virtual’ as implied by the metaphors describing them, but have materiality—they involve mining, manufacturing, transport, use and waste, all of which have carbon emissions, and all of which produce toxic and hazardous chemicals as well as other environmental and public health impacts. For health research approaches that rely on artificial intelligence (AI), such as diagnostic tests and healthcare disease prediction, we know that the largest AI models are doubling in necessary compute every 3–4 months, thereby severely outpacing the increasing efficiency of hardware.[ 7 ] Mining and e-waste also have associated environmental, health and well-being harms. 56 58 For example, unregulated resource recovery from e-waste landfills has led to the generation of hazardous by-products shown to be present in those living around informal e-waste sites, at levels vastly exceeding recommended safety levels (see Gabrys 59 and Ngo et al 60 ).

Over the past decades, the digital sector has worked hard to drive efficiency gains.[ 8 ] However, the most recent estimate of the sector’s contribution to global carbon emissions has been calculated between 2.1% and 3.9% global emissions. 61 While health research only comprises a small proportion of all digital technology, health is the fastest growing sector in the datasphere 62 and will become an increasingly important contributor, with proteomics, metabolomics and genomics all data-intensive solutions. Communication and media scholar Mel Hogan emphasised that by 2025, between 100 million and 2 billion human genomes will have been sequenced globally, using some 40 exabytes of data. 63 The UK 100,000 Genomes Project, which has sequenced 100 000 genomes, is 21 petabytes, 64 and by 2025 the UK Biobank database—a leading biobank internationally—is expected to grow to 15 petabytes, an amount of data equivalent to that created annually by the Large Hadron Collider.[ 9 ]

Moreover, as other sectors decrease their environmental impacts, the digital sector, including the digital aspect of health research, will increase consumption as it acts as an enabling technology. Backfire is also a concern, whereby the move towards increased digital efficiency, without constraints, results in more, not less, consumption. For example, app-based ridesharing increases use of vehicles instead of carbon neutral forms of transportation like walking and biking, thus ‘cancelling out 68% to 77% of CO 2 emission reductions and 52% to 73% of aggregated social benefits (including congestion, air quality, carbon dioxide emissions, noise) expected from ridesharing’. 66 While increasing the efficiency of digital technologies has historically been drawn upon as a solution to increased consumption, these efficiency gains are slowing.

The move to renewables is also only a partial solution because of its large dependency on mining, as well as its poor recycling prospects. Finally, while health research promises to lead to better health, there is often a lack of clarity about whose health and whether those who will benefit are those who are already experiencing greater access to healthcare. For those not receiving these benefits, health research may amount to only health risks in the form of environmental impacts. 67

In the following sections we map out how researchers, ethicists and healthcare professionals can think about these issues through our principle-based research ethics framework.

Data should not be collected and analysed without ensuring that the research outputs will be of sufficient quality (considering issues of bias, etc). The storage and processing of data are not harm-free and should only be collected and/or analysed if there is an appropriate reason for doing so, such as translatability to significant medical progress, deep gains in knowledge, and the potential for widespread and just dissemination of any developments.

Research should cobenefit humans, communities, society and environment. Social value could mean prioritising more low-tech research rather than energy-hungry data analyses, especially when low-tech research is likely to produce positive health benefits that are equal or greater than high-tech. For example, addressing social, economic, commercial and political determinants of health is likely less impactful on the environment. This is because it is often based on preventive medicine and low-tech interventions, rather than high-tech, reactive solutions that may only lead to benefit for the few who have access to medical infrastructures and sophisticated medical care.

Respect for persons, communities and the environment

For data-driven health research, respect for persons and communities entails respecting all of those affected by the research. It involves community and individual engagement, the availability of readable and digestible information, transparency on how the data are regulated and the protections in place for individuals and communities whose data may be used, and accountability pathways. 53 This can be collected and published online in an easily searchable database. Moreover, how this is used should be part of open-access articles and reports for the benefit of those in the broader scientific community.

Respect for the environment includes awareness of the environmental impact of the research and taking steps to reduce this. At one level, this could involve, for example, optimising algorithms to ensure they have as minimal impact on resource use and carbon emissions or choosing data centres with considerations of sustainability in mind (eg, if the energy they use to power them is ‘dirty’ or ‘clean’, non-renewable or renewable). A range of calculators can help researchers assess the environmental impact of their data-driven practices, and there are various guidelines and frameworks to assist. 68 At a higher level, as researchers use more data, consumption and environmental impact will increase and this must be considered. Respecting the environment means minimising our data use as much as feasibly possible.

For data-driven health research, this refers to, for example, the fair collection, storage, use, linkage and sharing of data, 53 as well as attention to equity and benefit sharing of research outcomes. Consideration must also be given to environment-related harms. This includes those involved in mining minerals used in digital technologies, manufacturing them and recycling/disposing of them. This also includes aspects of social justice, for example, questioning the inequalities associated with the use of turks to analyse data. Justice must also consider how research results will be used in terms of the long-term implications and carbon expenditures.

Risk to benefit ratios need to include weighing up individual, community and environmental risk against benefit. As historically noted, this decision will include some measure of subjectivity, but overall should focus on minimising harm as much as possible. This can be achieved by, for example, buying repurposed machines where possible, using data centres that are powered by renewables and having appropriate recycling infrastructures for digital technologies. However, reliance on ‘recycling’ still requires resources. Hence, the familiar environmental manta ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ is relevant: recycling should be the last resort on the path to sustainability, not the default.

As the levels of atmospheric carbon are already over safe levels of 350 parts per million, 69 research must be done parsimoniously in ways that neither suppress scientific invention and creative nor threaten the health of people and the planet. We have mapped out a research ethics framework that allows us to do this.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not required.

• World Medical Association
• National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research
• Kraft SA , et al
• Buchanan DR ,
• Adashi EY ,
• Walters LB ,
• Menikoff JA
• Gbadegesin S ,
• Emmanuel EJ ,
• Friesen P ,
• Redman B , et al
• Tsosie KS ,
• Yracheta JM ,
• Dickenson D
• Nelson RM , et al
• Emanuel EJ ,
• Karliner J ,
• Slotterback S
• Adshead F ,
• Al-Shahi Salman R ,
• Aumonier S , et al
• McMichael AJ
• Knowlton K ,
• Rotkin-Ellman M ,
• Geballe L , et al
• Van Rensselaer P
• Beauchamp T ,
• Childress J
• ↵ Richie C. a brief history of environmental bioethics . AMA J Ethics 2014 ; 16 ( 9 ): 749 – 52 . doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.9.mhst2-1409 OpenUrl
• Jennings V ,
• Jameton A ,
• European Commission
• Weinbaum C ,
• Landree E ,
• Blumenthal MS
• Cunsolo A ,
• ten Have H ,
• Lucivero F ,
• Lucassen AM
• Health Care without Harm
• Buettner PG ,
• Eckelman MJ ,
• Mortimer F ,
• Isherwood J ,
• Wilkinson A , et al
• Social Care Institute for Excellence
• Oxford University Press
• Potter VR ,
• Wendler D ,
• Tsoka-Gwegweni JM ,
• Wassenaar DR
• Owen Schaefer G ,
• Mancini L ,
• Eslava NA ,
• Traverso M , et al
• Dorninger C ,
• Wieland H , et al
• Watchalayann P ,
• Nguyen DB , et al
• Freitag C ,
• Berners-Lee M ,
• Widdicks K , et al
• Reinsel D ,
• Somavilla L
• Coulombel N ,
• Boutueil V ,
• Liu L , et al
• Hardcastle F ,
• Grealey J ,
• Lannelongue L ,

Funding This work received funding from Wellcome (222180/Z/20/Z).

Competing interests None declared.GS is the guarantor. CR's research was partially funded by the Technology University of Delft/ Erasmus Medical College Convergence ethics project.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

↵ Such as World War II, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Henrietta Lacks case. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was a longitudinal study conducted by the US Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Alabama, in which approximately 600 African Americans participated between 1932 and 1972. In 1972 it was revealed that the participants had received a dishonest explanation for their involvement in the research, and despite existing treatment for their condition—penicillin—they had been prevented from getting this treatment so that the research could continue. Lacks was an African American woman whose biospecimens were collected during a cervical cancer biopsy and later developed into the profitable HeLa cell line without her consent. 3

↵ See https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/the-nihr-carbon-reduction-guidelines/21685 .

↵ Holmes Rolston III discusses that obligations to protect non-human worlds are perhaps better understood at the species and ecosystem level. 30 He also provides more detail on the various ways in which value is ascribed to non-humans.

↵ In this report, sustainable development is defined as ‘meet(ing) the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

↵ https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/the-nihr-carbon-reduction-guidelines/21685 .

↵ Also see Mancini et al 56 and Hickel et al . 57

↵ Open AI, “AI and Compute,” May 16, 2018, at https://openai.com/blog/ai-and-compute/ .

↵ Mainly for business reasons, but more recently to address considerations of the environment. 65

↵ https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/learn-more-about-uk-biobank/news/uk-biobank-creates-cloud-based-health-data-analysis-platform-to-unleash-the-imaginations-of-the-world-s-best-scientific-minds .

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• Environmental sustainability and the paradox of prevention Cristina Richie, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2023
• What would an environmentally sustainable reproductive technology industry look like? Cristina Richie, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2014
• Call for sustainable food systems including (medical) nutrition for hospitalised children and their families Sascha C A T Verbruggen et al., Frontline Gastroenterology, 2024
• Health justice in the Anthropocene: medical ethics and the Land Ethic Alistair Wardrope, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2020
• Environmental sustainability and the carbon emissions of pharmaceuticals Cristina Richie, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• Climate change and cattle farming Jonathan Statham et al., In Practice, 2017
• Assessing the impact on chronic disease of incorporating the societal cost of greenhouse gases into the price of food: an econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study Adam D M Briggs et al., BMJ Open, 2013
• Carbon footprinting for the gastroenterologist Sandeep Shivananda Siddhi et al., Frontline Gastroenterology, 2024
• Integrating climate action for health into covid-19 recovery plans Kristine Belesova et al., BMJ, 2020
• Carbon footprint of hospital laundry: a life-cycle assessment Joseph John et al., BMJ Open, 2024

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its non-human contents. This entry covers: (1) the challenge of environmental ethics to the anthropocentrism (i.e., human-centeredness) embedded in traditional western ethical thinking; (2) the development of the discipline from the 1960s and 1970s; (3) the connection of deep ecology, feminist environmental ethics, animism and social ecology to politics; (4) the attempt to apply traditional ethical theories, including consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, to support contemporary environmental concerns; (5) the broader concerns of some thinkers with wilderness, the built environment and the politics of poverty; and (6) the ethics of sustainability and climate change.

1. Introduction: The Challenge of Environmental Ethics

2. the development of environmental ethics, 3.1 deep ecology, 3.2 feminism and the environment, 3.3 disenchantment and the new animism, 3.4 social ecology and bioregionalism.

Supplementary Document: Biodiversity Preservation

5. Wilderness, the Built Environment, Poverty and Politics

• Supplementary Document: Pathologies of Environmental Crisis – Theories and Empirical Research

Other Internet Resources

Related entries.

Suppose putting out natural fires, culling feral animals or removing some individual members of overpopulated species is necessary for the protection of the integrity of a certain ecosystem. Will these actions be morally permissible or even required? Is it morally acceptable for farmers in non-industrial countries to practise slash and burn techniques to clear areas for agriculture? Consider a mining company which has performed open pit mining in some previously unspoiled area. Does the company have a moral obligation to restore the landform and surface ecology? And what is the value of a humanly restored environment compared with the originally natural environment? Many people think that it is morally wrong for human beings to pollute and destroy parts of the natural environment and to consume a huge proportion of the planet’s natural resources. If that is wrong, is it simply because a sustainable environment is essential to human existence and well-being? Or is such behaviour also wrong because the natural environment and/or its various contents have certain values in their own right so that these values ought to be respected and protected in any case? These are among the questions investigated by environmental ethics. Some of them are specific questions faced by individuals in particular circumstances, while others are more global questions faced by groups and communities. Yet others are more abstract questions concerning the value and moral standing of the natural environment and its non-human components.

In the literature on environmental ethics the distinction between instrumental value and intrinsic value (in the sense of “non-instrumental value”) is of considerable importance. The former is the value of things as means to further some other ends, whereas the latter is the value of things as ends in themselves regardless of whether they are also useful as means to other ends. For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends in themselves. We can likewise think of a person who teaches others as having instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge. Yet, in addition to any such value, it is normally said that a person, as a person, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in their own right independently of their prospects for serving the ends of others. For another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an aesthetic object for human observers. But if the plant also has some value in itself independently of its prospects for furthering some other ends such as human health, or the pleasure from aesthetic experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value. Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in itself, it is commonly agreed that something’s possession of intrinsic value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it (see O’Neil 1992 and Jamieson 2002 for detailed accounts of intrinsic value).

Many traditional western ethical perspectives, however, are anthropocentric or human-centered in that either they assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than to any non-human things such that the protection or promotion of human interests or well-being at the expense of non-human things turns out to be nearly always justified (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a weak sense). For example, Aristotle ( Politics , Bk. 1, Ch. 8) apparently maintains that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man”. Such purposive or teleological thinking may encourage the belief that the value of non-human things in nature is merely instrumental. It is difficult for anthropocentric positions to articulate what is wrong with the cruel treatment of non-human animals, except to the extent that such treatment may lead to bad consequences for human beings. Immanuel Kant (“Duties to Animals and Spirits”, in Lectures on Ethics ), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint, cruelty towards non-human animals would be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong. Likewise, anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such destruction might damage the well-being of human beings now and in the future, since our very existence and well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable environment. This argument was made in the previous century (see Passmore 1974; Bookchin 1990; Norton et al . (eds.) 1995), and seems subsequently to have garnered wide public support (see the results of surveys in Pew 2018).

When environmental ethics emerged as a new sub-discipline of philosophy in the early 1970s, it did so by posing a challenge to traditional anthropocentrism. In the first place, it questioned the assumed moral superiority of human beings to members of other species on earth. In the second place, it investigated the possibility of rational arguments for assigning intrinsic value to the natural environment and its non-human contents. It should be noted, however, that some theorists working in the field see no need to develop new, non-anthropocentric theories. Instead, they advocate what may be called enlightened anthropocentrism (or, perhaps more appropriately called, prudential anthropocentrism). Briefly, this is the view that all the moral duties we have towards the environment are derived from our direct duties to its human inhabitants. The practical purpose of environmental ethics, they maintain, is to provide moral grounds for social policies aimed at protecting the earth’s environment and remedying environmental degradation. Enlightened anthropocentrism, they argue, is sufficient for that practical purpose, and perhaps even more effective in delivering pragmatic outcomes, in terms of policy-making, than non-anthropocentric theories given the theoretical burden on the latter to provide sound arguments for its more radical view that the non-human environment has intrinsic value (cf. Norton 1991, de Shalit 1994, Light and Katz 1996). Furthermore, some prudential anthropocentrists may hold what might be called cynical anthropocentrism, which says that we have a higher-level anthropocentric reason to be non-anthropocentric in our day-to-day thinking. Suppose that a day-to-day non-anthropocentrist tends to act more benignly towards the non-human environment on which human well-being depends. This would provide reason for encouraging non-anthropocentric thinking, even to those who find the idea of non-anthropocentric intrinsic value hard to swallow. In order for such a strategy to be effective one may need to hide one’s cynical anthropocentrism from others and even from oneself. The position can be structurally compared to some indirect form of consequentialism and may attract parallel critiques (see Henry Sidgwick on utilitarianism and esoteric morality, and Bernard Williams on indirect utilitarianism).

Although nature was the focus of much nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, contemporary environmental ethics only emerged as an academic discipline in the 1970s. The questioning and rethinking of the relationship of human beings with the natural environment over the last thirty years reflected an already widespread perception in the 1960s that the late twentieth century faced a human population explosion as part of a serious environmental crisis. Among the accessible work that drew attention to a sense of crisis was Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1963), which consisted of a number of essays earlier published in the New Yorker magazine detailing how pesticides such as DDT, aldrin and dieldrin concentrated through the food web. Commercial farming practices using these chemicals to maximize crop yields and profits, Carson speculates, are capable of impacting simultaneously on environmental and public health. Their use, she claims, can have the side effects of killing other living things (besides the targeted insects) and causing human disease. While Carson correctly fears that over-use of pesticides may lead to increases in some resistant insect species, the intensification of agriculture, land-clearing and massive use of neonicotonoid pesticides has subsequently contributed to a situation in which, according to some reviews, nearly half of insect species are threatened with extinction (Sánchez-Bayo and Wickhuys 2019, and compare van der Sluijs and Vaage 2016, Komonen, Halme and Kotiaho 2019). Declines in insect populations not only threaten pollination of plant species, but may also be responsible for huge declines in some bird populations (Goulson 2021) and appear to go hand in hand with cascading extinctions across ecosystems worldwide (Kehoe, Frago and Sanders 2021).

In a much cited essay (White 1967) on the historical roots of the environmental crisis, historian Lynn White argued that the main strands of Judeo-Christian thinking had encouraged the overexploitation of nature by maintaining the superiority of humans over all other forms of life on earth, and by depicting all of nature as created for the use of humans. White’s thesis was widely discussed in theology, history, and has been subject to some sociological testing as well as being regularly discussed by philosophers (see Whitney 1993, Attfield 2001). Central to the rationale for his thesis were the works of the Church Fathers and The Bible itself, supporting the anthropocentric perspective that humans are the only things on Earth that matter in themselves. Consequently, they may utilize and consume everything else to their advantage without any injustice. For example, Genesis 1: 27–8 states: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Likewise, Thomas Aquinas ( Summa Contra Gentiles , Bk. 3, Pt 2, Ch 112) argued that non-human animals are “ordered to man’s use”. According to White, the Judeo-Christian idea that humans are created in the image of the transcendent supernatural God, who is radically separate from nature, also by extension radically separates humans themselves from nature. This ideology further opened the way for untrammeled exploitation of nature. Modern Western science itself, White argued, was “cast in the matrix of Christian theology” so that it too inherited the “orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature” (White 1967: 1207). Clearly, without technology and science, the environmental extremes to which we are now exposed would probably not be realized. The point of White’s thesis, however, is that given the modern form of science and technology, Judeo-Christianity itself provides the original deep-seated drive to unlimited exploitation of nature. Nevertheless, White argued that some minority traditions within Christianity (e.g., the views of St. Francis) might provide an antidote to the “arrogance” of a mainstream tradition steeped in anthropocentrism. This sentiment is echoed in later Christian writings on attitudes to nature (see for example Berry 2018, chs 10, 11, and compare Zaheva and Szasz 2015).

Around the same time, the Stanford ecologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich warned in The Population Bomb (Ehrlich 1968) that the growth of human population threatened the viability of planetary life-support systems. The sense of environmental crisis stimulated by those and other popular works was intensified by NASA’s production and wide dissemination of a particularly potent image of Earth from space taken at Christmas 1968 and featured in the Scientific American in September 1970. Here, plain to see, was a living, shining planet voyaging through space and shared by all of humanity, a precious vessel vulnerable to pollution and to the overuse of its limited capacities. In 1972 a team of researchers at MIT led by Donella Meadows published the Limits to Growth study, a work that summed up in many ways the emerging concerns of the previous decade and the sense of vulnerability triggered by the view of the earth from space. In the commentary to the study, the researchers wrote:

We affirm finally that any deliberate attempt to reach a rational and enduring state of equilibrium by planned measures, rather than by chance or catastrophe, must ultimately be founded on a basic change of values and goals at individual, national and world levels. (Meadows et al. 1972: 195)

The call for a “basic change of values” in connection to the environment (a call that could be interpreted in terms of either instrumental or intrinsic values) reflected a need for the development of environmental ethics as a new sub-discipline of philosophy. The aim of facing up to the challenge of limited resources was fostered subsequently by studies of the growing human “ecological footprint” on the earth (Rees 1992, Wackernagel et al . 2018) and by the exploration of “planetary boundaries” and the concept of a “safe operating space for humanity” (Rokström et al . 2009, Biermann and Kim 2020).

The new field emerged almost simultaneously in three countries—the United States, Australia, and Norway. In the first two of these countries, direction and inspiration largely came from the earlier twentieth century American literature of the environment. For instance, the Scottish emigrant John Muir (founder of the Sierra Club and “father of American conservation”) and subsequently the forester Aldo Leopold had advocated an appreciation and conservation of things “natural, wild and free”. Their concerns were motivated by a combination of ethical and aesthetic responses to nature as well as a rejection of crudely economic approaches to the value of natural objects (a historical survey of the confrontation between Muir’s reverentialism and the human-centred conservationism of Gifford Pinchot (one of the major influences on the development of the US Forest Service) is provided in Norton 1991; also see Cohen 1984 and Nash (ed) 1990). Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac (1949), in particular, advocated the adoption of a “land ethic”:

That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics. (Leopold 1949: vii–ix) 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. (Leopold 1949: 224–5)

However, Leopold himself provided no systematic ethical theory or framework to support these ethical ideas concerning the environment. His views therefore presented a challenge and opportunity for moral theorists: could some ethical theory be devised to justify the injunction to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biosphere?

The land ethic sketched by Leopold, attempting to extend our moral concern to cover the natural environment and its non-human contents, was drawn on explicitly by the Australian philosopher Richard Routley (later Sylvan). According to Routley (1973 (cf. Routley and Routley 1980)), the anthropocentrism imbedded in what he called the “dominant western view”, or “the western superethic”, is in effect “human chauvinism”. This view, he argued, is just another form of class chauvinism, which is simply based on blind class “loyalty” or prejudice, and unjustifiably discriminates against those outside the privileged class. Echoing the plot of a popular movie some three years earlier (see Lo and Brennan 2013), Routley speculates in his “last man” (and “last people”) arguments about a hypothetical situation in which the last person, surviving a world catastrophe, acts to ensure the elimination of all other living things and the last people set about destroying forests and ecosystems after their demise. From the human-chauvinistic (or absolutely anthropocentric) perspective, the last person would do nothing morally wrong, since his or her destructive act in question would not cause any damage to the interests and well-being of humans, who would by then have disappeared. Nevertheless, Routley points out that there is a moral intuition that the imagined last acts would be morally wrong. An explanation for this judgment, he argues, is that those non-human objects in the environment, whose destruction is ensured by the last person or last people, have intrinsic value, a kind of value independent of their usefulness for humans. From his critique, Routley concluded that the main approaches in traditional western moral thinking were unable to allow the recognition that natural things have intrinsic value, and that the tradition required overhaul of a significant kind.

Leopold’s idea that the “land” as a whole is an object of our moral concern also stimulated writers to argue for certain moral obligations toward ecological wholes, such as species, communities, and ecosystems, not just their individual constituents. The U.S.-based theologian and environmental philosopher Holmes Rolston III, for instance, argued that species protection was a moral duty (Rolston 1975). It would be wrong, he maintained, to eliminate a rare butterfly species simply to increase the monetary value of specimens already held by collectors. Like Routley’s “last man” arguments, Rolston’s example is meant to draw attention to a kind of action that seems morally dubious and yet is not clearly ruled out or condemned by traditional anthropocentric ethical views. Species, Rolston went on to argue, are intrinsically valuable and are usually more valuable than individual specimens, since the loss of a species is a loss of genetic possibilities and the deliberate destruction of a species would show disrespect for the very biological processes which make possible the emergence of individual living things (also see Rolston 1989, Ch 10). Natural processes deserve respect, according to Rolston’s quasi-religious perspective, because they constitute a nature (or God) which is itself intrinsically valuable (or sacred).

Meanwhile, the work of Christopher Stone (a professor of law at the University of Southern California) had become widely discussed. Stone (1972) proposes that trees and other natural objects should have at least the same standing in law as corporations. This suggestion was inspired by a particular case in which the Sierra Club had mounted a challenge against the permit granted by the U.S. Forest Service to Walt Disney Enterprises for surveys preparatory to the development of the Mineral King Valley, which was at the time a relatively remote game refuge, but not designated as a national park or protected wilderness area. The Disney proposal was to develop a major resort complex serving 14000 visitors daily to be accessed by a purpose-built highway through Sequoia National Park. The Sierra Club, as a body with a general concern for wilderness conservation, challenged the development on the grounds that the valley should be kept in its original state for its own sake.

Stone reasoned that if trees, forests and mountains could be given standing in law then they could be represented in their own right in the courts by groups such as the Sierra Club. Moreover, like any other legal person , these natural things could become beneficiaries of compensation if it could be shown that they had suffered compensatable injury through human activity. When the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was determined by a narrow majority that the Sierra Club did not meet the condition for bringing a case to court, for the Club was unable and unwilling to prove the likelihood of injury to the interest of the Club or its members. In dissenting minority judgments, however, justices Douglas, Blackmun and Brennan mentioned Stone’s argument: his proposal to give legal standing to natural things, they said, would allow conservation interests, community needs and business interests to be represented, debated and settled in court. Stone’s work was later cited in the successful arguments to grant personhood to rivers and other natural features in various parts of the world. In some of these cases, Stone’s arguments—along with those of Arne Næss (see below)—have been said to provide analogues to indigenous understandings of the intrinsic value of the land and the interconnections of such understandings with human actions and ancestral spirituality (Morris and Ruru 2010, Kramm 2020). Similar suggestions have also been made about Leopold’s work, but such claims need to be interpreted with caution (White 2015).

Reacting to Stone’s proposal, Joel Feinberg (1974) raised a serious problem. Only items that have interests, Feinberg argued, can be regarded as having legal standing and, likewise, moral standing. For it is interests which are capable of being represented in legal proceedings and moral debates. This same point would also seem to apply to political debates. For instance, the movement for “animal liberation”, which also emerged strongly in the 1970s, can be thought of as a political movement aimed at representing the previously neglected interests of some animals (see Regan and Singer (eds.) 1976, Clark 1977, and also the entry on the moral status of animals ). Granted that some animals have interests that can be represented in this way, would it also make sense to speak of trees, forests, rivers, barnacles, or termites as having interests of a morally relevant kind? This issue was hotly contested in the years that followed. Meanwhile, John Passmore (1974) argued, like White, that the Judeo-Christian tradition of thought about nature, despite being predominantly “despotic”, contained resources for regarding humans as “stewards” or “perfectors” of God’s creation. Skeptical of the prospects for any radically new ethic, Passmore cautioned that traditions of thought could not be abruptly overhauled. Any change in attitudes to our natural surroundings which stood the chance of widespread acceptance, he argued, would have to resonate and have some continuities with the very tradition which had legitimized our destructive practices.

In sum, then, Leopold’s land ethic, the historical analyses of White and Passmore, the pioneering work of Routley, Stone and Rolston, and the warnings of scientists, had by the late 1970s focused the attention of philosophers and political theorists firmly on the environment. The confluence of ethical, political and legal debates about the environment, the emergence of philosophies to underpin animal rights activism and the puzzles over whether an environmental ethic would be something new rather than a modification or extension of existing ethical theories were reflected in wider social and political movements. The rise of environmental or “green” parties in Europe in the 1980s was accompanied by almost immediate schisms between groups known as “realists” versus “fundamentalists” (see Dobson 1990). The “realists” stood for reform environmentalism, working with business and government to soften the impact of pollution and resource depletion especially on fragile ecosystems or endangered species. The “fundies” argued for radical change, the setting of stringent new priorities, and even the overthrow of capitalism and liberal individualism, which were taken as the major ideological causes of anthropogenic environmental devastation. It is not clear, however, that collectivist or communist countries do particularly well in terms of their environmental record (see Dominick 1998). At the same time, the rise of “environmental authoritarianism” in some non-democratic countries appears to show that liberal democracies may not have a monopoly on effective action to support sustainability and biodiversity (Beeson 2010, Shahar 2015).

Underlying these political disagreements was the distinction between “shallow” and “deep” environmental movements, a distinction introduced in the early 1970s by another major influence on contemporary environmental ethics, the Norwegian philosopher and climber Arne Næss. Since the work of Næss has been significant in environmental politics, the discussion of his position is given in a separate section below.

3. Environmental Ethics and Politics

“Deep ecology” was born in Scandinavia, the result of discussions between Næss and his colleagues Sigmund Kvaløy and Nils Faarlund (see Næss 1973 and 1989; also see Witoszek and Brennan (eds.) 1999 for a historical survey and commentary on the development of deep ecology). All three shared a passion for the great mountains. On a visit to the Himalayas, they became impressed with aspects of “Sherpa culture” particularly when they found that their Sherpa guides regarded certain mountains as sacred and accordingly would not venture onto them. Subsequently, Næss formulated a position which extended the reverence the three Norwegians and the Sherpas felt for mountains to other natural things in general.

The “shallow ecology movement”, as Næss (1973) calls it, is the “fight against pollution and resource depletion”, the central objective of which is “the health and affluence of people in the developed countries.” The “deep ecology movement”, in contrast, endorses “biospheric egalitarianism”, the view that all living things are alike in having value in their own right, independent of their usefulness to others. The deep ecologist respects this intrinsic value, taking care, for example, when walking on the mountainside not to cause unnecessary damage to the plants.

Inspired by Spinoza’s metaphysics, another key feature of Næss’s deep ecology is the rejection of atomistic individualism. The idea that a human being is such an individual possessing a separate essence, Næss argues, radically separates the human self from the rest of the world. To make such a separation not only leads to selfishness towards other people, but also induces human selfishness towards nature. As a counter to egoism at both the individual and species level, Næss proposes an alternative relational “total-field image” of the world. According to this relationalism, organisms (human or otherwise) are best understood as “knots” in the biospherical net. The identity of a living thing is essentially constituted by its relations to other things in the world, especially its ecological relations to other living things. If people conceptualise themselves and the world in relational terms, the deep ecologists argue, then people will take better care of nature and the world in general.

As developed by Næss and others, the position also came to focus on the possibility of the identification of the human ego with nature. The idea is, briefly, that by identifying with nature I can enlarge the boundaries of the self beyond my skin. My larger—ecological—Self (the capital “S” emphasizes that I am something larger than my body and consciousness), deserves respect as well. To respect and to care for my Self is also to respect and to care for the natural environment, which is actually part of me and with which I should identify. Næss quotes the example of Saami people and their identification with the rivers on which they depend for sustenance. Recognition of such identification has underpinned the establishment in New Zealand of legal personhood for some rivers and other natural areas (Kramm 2020). “Self-realization” is thus the realization of a wider ecological Self. Næss maintains that the deep satisfaction that we receive from identification with nature and close partnership with other forms of life in nature contributes significantly to our life quality. (One historical antecedent to this kind of nature spiritualism is the romanticism of Jean-Jacques Rousseau as expressed in his last work, the Reveries of the Solitary Walker )

When Næss’s view crossed the Atlantic, it was sometimes merged with ideas emerging from Leopold’s land ethic (see Devall and Sessions 1985; also see Sessions (ed) 1995). But Næss—wary of the supposed totalitarian political implications of Leopold’s position that individual interests and well-being should be subordinated to the holistic good of the earth’s biotic community (see section 4 below)—took care to distance himself from advocating any sort of “land ethic”. (See Anker 1999 for cautions on interpreting Næss’s relationalism as an endorsement of the kind of holism displayed in the land ethic; cf. Grey 1993, Taylor and Zimmerman 2005). Some critics have argued that Næss’s deep ecology is no more than an extended social-democratic version of utilitarianism, which counts human interests in the same calculation alongside the interests of all natural things (e.g., trees, wolves, bears, rivers, forests and mountains) in the natural environment (see Witoszek 1997). However, Næss failed to explain in any detail how to make sense of the idea that oysters or barnacles, termites or bacteria could have interests of any morally relevant sort at all. Without an account of this, Næss’s early “biospheric egalitarianism”—that all living things whatsoever had a similar right to live and flourish—was an indeterminate principle in practical terms. It also remains unclear in what sense rivers, mountains and forests can be regarded as possessors of any kind of interests. This is an issue on which Næss always remained elusive.

Biospheric egalitarianism was modified in the 1980s to the weaker claim that the flourishing of both human and non-human life has value in itself, without any commitment to these values being equal. At the same time, Næss declared that his own favoured ecological philosophy—“Ecosophy T”, as he called it after his Tvergastein mountain cabin—was only one of several possible foundations for an environmental ethic. Deep ecology ceased to be a specific doctrine, but instead became a “platform” of eight simple points on which Næss hoped all deep green thinkers could agree. The platform was conceived as establishing a middle ground, between underlying orientations, whether indigenous, Christian, Buddhist, Daoist, process philosophy, or whatever, and the practical principles for action in specific situations, principles generated from the underlying philosophies. Thus the deep ecological movement became explicitly pluralist both morally and epistemologically (see Brennan 1999; c.f. Light 1996, Akamani 2020).

While Næss’s Ecosophy T sees human Self-realization as a solution to the environmental crises resulting from human selfishness and exploitation of nature, some of the followers of the deep ecology platform in the United States and Australia further argue that the expansion of the human self to include non-human nature is supported by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, which is said to have dissolved the boundaries between the observer and the observed (see Fox 1984, 1990, and Devall and Sessions 1985; cf. Callicott 1985). These “relationalist” developments of deep ecology are, however, criticized by some feminist theorists. The idea of nature as part of oneself, they argue, could justify the continued exploitation of nature instead. For one is presumably more entitled to treat oneself in whatever ways one likes than to treat another independent agent in whatever ways one likes. According to these feminist critics, the deep ecological theory of the “expanded self” is in effect a disguised form of human colonialism, unable to give nature its due as a genuine “other” independent of human interest and purposes (see Plumwood 1993, Ch. 7, 1999, and Warren 1999).

Meanwhile, other critics accuse deep ecology of being elitist in its attempts to preserve wilderness experiences for only a select group of economically and socio-politically well-off people. Ramachandra Guha (1989, 1999) for instance, depicts the activities of many western-based conservation groups as a new form of cultural imperialism, aimed at securing converts to conservationism (cf. Bookchin 1987 and Brennan 1998a). “Green missionaries”, as Guha calls them, represent a movement aimed at further dispossessing the world’s poor and indigenous people. “Putting deep ecology in its place,” he writes, “is to recognize that the trends it derides as “shallow” ecology might in fact be varieties of environmentalism that are more apposite, more representative and more popular in the countries of the South.” Although Næss himself repudiates suggestions that deep ecology is committed to any form of imperialism (see Witoszek and Brennan (eds.) 1999, Ch. 36–7 and 41), Guha’s criticism raises important questions about the application of deep ecological principles in different social, economic and cultural contexts. Finally, in other critiques, deep ecology is portrayed as having an inconsistent utopian vision (see Anker and Witoszek 1998).

Broadly speaking, a feminist issue is any that contributes in some way to understanding the oppression of women. Feminist theories attempt to analyze women’s oppression, its causes and consequences, and suggest strategies and directions for women’s liberation. By the mid 1970s, feminist writers had raised the issue of whether patriarchal modes of thinking encouraged not only widespread inferiorizing and colonizing of women, but also of people of colour, animals and nature. Sheila Collins (1974), for instance, argued that male-dominated culture or patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars: sexism, racism, class exploitation, and ecological destruction.

Emphasizing the importance of feminism to the environmental movement and various other liberation movements, some writers, such as Ynestra King (1989a and 1989b), argue that the domination of women by men is historically the original form of domination in human society, from which all other hierarchies—of rank, class, and political power—flow. For instance, human exploitation of nature may be seen as a manifestation and extension of the oppression of women, in that it is the result of associating nature with the female, which had been already inferiorized and oppressed by the male-dominating culture. But within the plurality of feminist positions, other writers, such as Val Plumwood (1993), understand the oppression of women as only one of the many parallel forms of oppression sharing and supported by a common ideological structure, in which one party (the colonizer, whether male, white or human) uses a number of conceptual and rhetorical devices to privilege its interests over that of the other party (the colonized: whether female, people of colour, or animals). Facilitated by a common structure, seemingly diverse forms of oppression can mutually reinforce each other (Warren 1987, 1990, 1994, Cheney 1989, and Plumwood 1993).

Not all feminist theorists would call that common underlying oppressive structure “androcentric” or “patriarchal”. But it is generally agreed that core features of the structure include dichotomies, hierarchical thinking, and a “logic of domination”, which are typical of, if not essential to, male-chauvinism. These patterns of thinking and conceptualizing the world, many feminist theorists argue, also nourish and sustain other forms of chauvinism including human-chauvinism (i.e., anthropocentrism), which is responsible for much human exploitation of, and destructiveness towards, nature. Writers comment on dichotomous forms of thinking which depict the world in polar opposite terms, such as male/female, masculinity/femininity, reason/emotion, freedom/necessity, active/passive, mind/body, pure/soiled, white/coloured, civilized/primitive, transcendent/immanent, human/animal, culture/nature. When these dichotomies involve hierarchy and domination they are often labelled "dualisms". Under the influence of such dualisms all the first items in these contrasting pairs are assimilated with each other, and all the second items are likewise linked with each other. For example, the male is seen to be associated with the rational, active, creative, Cartesian human mind, and civilized, orderly, transcendent culture; whereas the female is regarded as tied to the emotional, passive, determined animal body, and primitive, disorderly, immanent nature. These interlocking dualisms are not just descriptive dichotomies, according to the feminists, but involve a prescriptive privileging of one side of the opposed items over the other. Dualism confers superiority to everything on the male side, but inferiority to everything on the female side. The “logic of domination” then dictates that those on the superior side (e.g., men, rational beings, humans) are morally entitled to dominate and utilize those on the inferior side (e.g., women, beings lacking in rationality, non-humans) as mere means.

The problem with dualistic modes of thinking, however, is not just that they are epistemically unreliable. It is not just that the dominating party often falsely sees the dominated party as lacking (or possessing) the allegedly superior (or inferior) qualities, or that the dominated party often internalizes false stereotypes of itself given by its oppressors, or that stereotypical thinking often overlooks salient and important differences among individuals. More important, according to feminist analyses, the very premise of prescriptive dualism—the valuing of attributes of one polarized side and the devaluing of those of the other, the idea that domination and oppression can be justified by appealing to attributes like masculinity, rationality, being civilized or developed, etc.—is itself problematic.

Feminism represents a radical challenge for environmental thinking, politics, and traditional social ethical perspectives. It promises to link environmental questions with wider social problems concerning various kinds of discrimination and exploitation, and fundamental investigations of human psychology. However, whether there are conceptual, causal or merely contingent connections among the different forms of oppression and liberation remains a contested issue (see Green 1994). The term “ecofeminism” (first coined by Françoise d’Eaubonne in 1974) or “ecological feminism” was for a time generally applied to any view that combines environmental advocacy with feminist analysis. However, because of the varieties of, and disagreements among, feminist theories, the label may be too wide to be informative (see the entry on feminist environmental philosophy ).

An often overlooked source of ecological ideas is the work of the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School of critical theory founded by Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno (Horkheimer and Adorno 1969). While classical Marxists regard nature as a resource to be transformed by human labour and utilized for human purposes, Horkheimer and Adorno saw Marx himself as representative of the problem of “human alienation”. At the root of this alienation, they argue, is a narrow positivist conception of rationality—which sees rationality as an instrument for pursuing progress, power and technological control, and takes observation, measurement and the application of purely quantitative methods to be capable of solving all problems. Such a positivistic view of science combines determinism with optimism. Natural processes as well as human activities are seen to be predictable and manipulable. Nature (and, likewise, human nature) is no longer mysterious, uncontrollable, or fearsome. Instead, it is reduced to an object strictly governed by natural laws, which therefore can be studied, known, and employed to our benefit. By promising limitless knowledge and power, the positivism of science and technology not only removes our fear of nature, the critical theorists argue, but also destroys our sense of awe and wonder towards it. That is to say, positivism “disenchants” nature—along with everything that can be studied by the sciences, whether natural, social or human.

The progress in knowledge and material well-being may not be a bad thing in itself, where the consumption and control of nature is a necessary part of human life. However, the critical theorists argue that the positivistic disenchantment of natural things (and, likewise, of human beings—because they too can be studied and manipulated by science) disrupts our relationship with them, encouraging the undesirable attitude that they are nothing more than things to be probed, consumed and dominated. According to the critical theorists, the oppression of “outer nature” (i.e., the natural environment) through science and technology is bought at a very high price: the project of domination requires the suppression of our own “inner nature” (i.e., human nature)—e.g., human creativity, autonomy, and the manifold needs, vulnerabilities and longings at the centre of human life. To remedy such an alienation, the project of Horkheimer and Adorno is to replace the narrow positivistic and instrumentalist model of rationality with a more humanistic one, in which the values of the aesthetic, moral, sensuous and expressive aspects of human life play a central part. Thus, their aim is not to give up our rational faculties or powers of analysis and logic. Rather, the ambition is to arrive at a dialectical synthesis between Romanticism and Enlightenment, to return to anti-deterministic values of freedom, spontaneity and creativity.

In his later work, Adorno advocates a re-enchanting aesthetic attitude of “sensuous immediacy” towards nature. Not only do we stop seeing nature as primarily, or simply, an object of consumption, we are also able to be directly and spontaneously acquainted with nature without interventions from our rational faculties. According to Adorno, works of art, like natural things, always involve an “excess”, something more than their mere materiality and exchange value (see Vogel 1996, ch. 4.4 for a detailed discussion of Adorno’s views on art, labour and domination). The re-enchantment of the world through aesthetic experience, he argues, is also at the same time a re-enchantment of human lives and purposes. Adorno’s work remains largely unexplored in mainstream environmental philosophy, although the idea of applying critical theory (embracing techniques of deconstruction, psychoanalysis and radical social criticism) to both environmental issues and the writings of various ethical and political theorists has spawned the field of “écocritique” or “ecocriticism” (Vogel 1996, Luke 1997, van Wyk 1997, Dryzek 1997, Garrard 2014).

Some students of Adorno’s work have argued that his account of the role of “sensuous immediacy” can be understood as an attempt to defend a “legitimate anthropomorphism” that comes close to a weak form of animism (Bernstein 2001, 196). Others, more radical, have claimed to take inspiration from his notion of “non-identity”, which, they argue, can be used as the basis for a deconstruction of the notion of nature and perhaps even its elimination from ecocritical writing. For example, Timothy Morton argues that “putting something called Nature on a pedestal and admiring it from afar does for the environment what patriarchy does for the figure of Woman. It is a paradoxical act of sadistic admiration” (Morton 2007, 5), and that “in the name of all that we value in the idea of ‘nature’, [ecocritique] thoroughly examines how nature is set up as a transcendental, unified, independent category. Ecocritique does not think that it is paradoxical to say, in the name of ecology itself: ‘down with nature!’” (ibid., 13). In this vein, some thinkers have insisted that environmental ethics makes a mistake in drawing a significant distinction between the natural and the artificial (Vogel 2015). Such an idea, however, has drawn fierce criticism from some Marxist theorists who argue that the “end of nature” thesis is deeply confused (for example Malm 2018). It remains to be seen, however, whether the radical attempt to purge the concept of nature from ecocritical work meets with success. Likewise, it is unclear whether the dialectic project on which Horkheimer and Adorno embarked is coherent, and whether Adorno, in particular, has a consistent understanding of “nature” and “rationality” (see Eckersley 1992 and Vogel 1996, for a review of the Frankfurt School’s thinking about nature, and on rationality see also the entry on critical theory ).

On the other hand, the new animists have been much inspired by the serious way in which some indigenous peoples placate and interact with animals, plants and inanimate things through ritual, ceremony and other practices (for examples see Kimmerer 2020). According to the new animists, the replacement of traditional animism (the view that personalized souls are found in animals, plants, and other material objects) by a form of disenchanting positivism directly leads to an anthropocentric perspective, which is accountable for much human destructiveness towards nature. In a disenchanted world, there is no meaningful order of things or events outside the human domain, and there is no source of sacredness or dread of the sort felt by those who regard the natural world as peopled by divinities or demons (Stone 2006). When a forest is no longer sacred, there are no spirits to be placated and no mysterious risks associated with clear-felling it. A disenchanted nature is no longer alive. It commands no respect, reverence or love. It is nothing but a giant machine, to be mastered to serve human purposes. The new animists argue for reconceptualizing the boundary between persons and non-persons. For them, “living nature” comprises not only humans, animals and plants, but also mountains, forests, rivers, deserts, and even planets.

Whether the notion that a mountain or a tree is to be regarded as a person is taken literally or not, the attempt to engage with the surrounding world as if it consists of other persons might possibly provide the basis for a respectful attitude to nature (see Harvey 2005 for a popular account of the new animism). If disenchantment is a source of environmental problems and destruction, then the new animism can be regarded as attempting to re-enchant, and help to save, nature. More poetically, David Abram has argued that a phenomenological approach of the kind taken by Merleau-Ponty can reveal to us that we are part of the “common flesh” of the world, that we are in a sense the world thinking itself (Abram 1995).

In her work, Freya Mathews has tried to articulate a version of animism or panpsychism that captures ways in which the world (not just nature) contains many kinds of consciousness and sentience. For her, there is an underlying unity of mind and matter in that the world is a “self-realizing” system containing a multiplicity of other such systems (cf. Næss). According to Mathews, we are meshed in communication, and potential communication, with the “One” (the greater cosmic self) and its many lesser selves (Mathews 2003, 45–60). Materialism (the monistic theory that the world consists purely of matter), she argues, is self-defeating by encouraging a form of “collective solipsism” that treats the world either as unknowable or as a social-construction (Mathews 2005, 12). Mathews also takes inspiration from her interpretation of the core Daoist idea of wuwei as “letting be” and bringing about change through “effortless action”. The focus in environmental management, development and commerce should be on “synergy” with what is already in place rather than on demolition, replacement and disruption. Instead of bulldozing away old suburbs and derelict factories, the synergistic panpsychist sees these artefacts as themselves part of the living cosmos, hence part of what is to be respected. Likewise, instead of trying to eliminate feral or exotic plants and animals, and restore environments to some imagined pristine state, ways should be found—wherever possible—to promote synergies between the newcomers and the older native populations in ways that maintain ecological flows and promote the further unfolding and developing of ecological processes (Mathews 2004). Panpsychism, Mathews argues, frees us from the “ideological grid of capitalism”, can reduce our desire for consumer novelties, and can allow us and the world to grow old together with grace and dignity. Again, some of Mathews work echoes indigenous understandings of an enlarged subjectivity. As Deborah Rose puts it: “subjectivity in the form of sentience and agency is not solely a human prerogative but is located throughout other species and perhaps throughout country itself” (Rose 2005, 302).

In summary, if disenchantment is a source of environmentally destructive or uncaring attitudes, then both the aesthetic and the animist/panpsychist re-enchantment of the world are intended to offer an antidote to such attitudes, and perhaps also inspirations for new forms of managing and designing for sustainability. The general project of re-enchanting the world has surprising resonances with the views of others who draw more explicitly on scientific understandings of life on earth. Earth systems science, for example, draws on the Gaia hypothesis proposed by James Lovelock (Lovelock 1972, 1979) suggesting that living things acting together regulate significant aspects of the global environment (Lovelock and Margulis 1974). Later writers describe the Gaia hypothesis as conjecturing that something overlooked by previous scientific thinking was of vital importance to understanding the one thing that supports all life on earth, namely a great stabilizing feedback system which regulates itself in a way that maintains the habitability of the planet (Lenton et al . 2020). This feedback system is itself under threat from a changing climate, human overpopulation and reductions in biodiversity (see further section 6 below and also Latour 2017). In place of a vision of a grand cosmic self, champions of Gaia theory argue for recognizing the value of Life itself, where the capital "L" draws attention to the great feedback system—a single entity comprising all the living things descended from the last universal common ancestor (Mariscal and Dolittle 2008).

Apart from feminist-environmentalist theories and Næss’s deep ecology, Murray Bookchin’s “social ecology” has also claimed to be radical, subversive, or countercultural (see Bookchin 1980, 1987, 1990). Bookchin’s version of critical theory takes the “outer” physical world as constituting what he calls “first nature”, from which culture or “second nature” has evolved. Environmentalism, in his view, is a social movement, and the problems it confronts are social problems. While Bookchin is prepared, like Horkheimer and Adorno, to regard (first) nature as an aesthetic and sensuous marvel, he regards our intervention in it as necessary. He suggests that we can choose to put ourselves at the service of natural evolution, to help maintain complexity and diversity, diminish suffering and reduce pollution. Bookchin’s social ecology recommends that we use our gifts of sociability, communication and intelligence as if we were “nature rendered conscious”, instead of turning them against the very source and origin from which such gifts derive. Exploitation of nature should be replaced by a richer form of life devoted to nature’s preservation.

John Clark has argued that social ecology is heir to a historical, communitarian tradition of thought that includes not only the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, but also the nineteenth century socialist geographer Elisée Reclus, the eccentric Scottish thinker Patrick Geddes and the latter’s disciple, Lewis Mumford (Clark 1998). Ramachandra Guha has described Mumford as “the pioneer American social ecologist” (Guha 1996, 210). Mumford adopted a regionalist perspective, arguing that strong regional centres of culture are the basis of “active and securely grounded local life” (Mumford 1944, 403). Like the pessimists in critical theory, Mumford was worried about the emergence under industrialised capitalism of a “megamachine”, one that would oppress and dominate human creativity and freedom, and one that—despite being a human product—operates in a way that is out of our control. While Bookchin is more of a technological optimist than Mumford, both writers have inspired a regional turn in environmental thinking. Bioregionalism gives regionalism an environmental twist. This is the view that natural features should provide the defining conditions for places of community, and that secure and satisfying local lives are led by those who know a place, have learned its lore and who adapt their lifestyle to its affordances by developing its potential within ecological limits. Such a life, the bioregionalists argue, will enable people to enjoy the fruits of self-liberation and self-development (see the essays in List 1993, and the book-length treatment in Thayer 2003, for an introduction to bioregional thought).

However, critics have asked why natural features should be significant in defining the places in which communities are to be built, and have puzzled over exactly which natural features these should be—geological, ecological, climatic, hydrological, and so on (see Brennan 1998b). If relatively small, bioregional communities are to be home to flourishing human societies, then a question also arises over the nature of the laws and punishments that will prevail in them, and also of their integration into larger regional and global legal, political and economic groupings. For anarchists and other critics of the predominant social order, a return to self-governing and self-sufficient regional communities is often depicted as liberating and refreshing. But for the skeptics, the worry remains that the bioregional vision is politically over-optimistic and is open to the establishment of illiberal, stifling and undemocratic communities. Further, given its emphasis on local self-sufficiency and the virtue of life in small communities, a question arises over whether bioregionalism is workable in an overcrowded planet. Later bioregional proposals have identified ways of connecting with nature by showing stewardship for green infrastructure within cities (Andersson et al. 2014).

Deep ecology, feminism, and social ecology had a considerable impact on the development of political positions in regard to the environment. Feminist analyses have often been welcomed for the psychological insight they bring to several social, moral and political problems. There is, however, considerable unease about the implications of critical theory, social ecology and some varieties of deep ecology and animism. Some writers have argued, for example, that critical theory is bound to be ethically anthropocentric, with nature as no more than a “social construction” whose value ultimately depends on human determinations (see Vogel 1996). Others have argued that the demands of “deep” green theorists and activists cannot be accommodated within contemporary theories of liberal politics and social justice (see Ferry 1995). A further suggestion is that there is a need to reassess traditional theories such as virtue ethics, which has its origins in ancient Greek philosophy (see the following section) within the context of a form of stewardship similar to that earlier endorsed by Passmore (see Barry 1999). If this last claim is correct, then the radical activist need not, after all, look for philosophical support in radical, or countercultural, theories of the sort deep ecology, feminism, bioregionalism and social ecology claim to be (but see Zimmerman 1994).

4. Traditional Ethical Theories and Contemporary Environment Ethics

Although environmental ethicists often try to distance themselves from the anthropocentrism embedded in traditional ethical views (Passmore 1974, Norton 1991 are exceptions), they also quite often draw their theoretical resources from traditional ethical systems and theories. Consider the following two basic moral questions: (1) What kinds of thing are intrinsically valuable, good or bad? (2) What makes an action right or wrong?

Consequentialist ethical theories consider intrinsic “value” / “disvalue” or “goodness” / “badness” to be more fundamental moral notions than “rightness” / “wrongness”, and maintain that whether an action is right/wrong is determined by whether its consequences are good/bad. From this perspective, answers to question (2) are informed by answers to question (1). For instance, utilitarianism, a paradigm case of consequentialism, regards pleasure (or, more broadly construed, the satisfaction of interest, desire, and/or preference) as the only intrinsic value in the world, whereas pain (or the frustration of desire, interest, and/or preference) is the only intrinsic disvalue, and maintains that right actions are those that would produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain (see the entry on consequentialism ).

As the utilitarian focus is the balance of pleasure and pain as such, the question of to whom a pleasure or pain belongs is irrelevant to the calculation and assessment of the rightness or wrongness of actions. Hence, the eighteenth century utilitarian Jeremy Bentham (1789), and later Peter Singer (1993), have argued that the interests of all the sentient beings (i.e., beings who are capable of experiencing pleasure or pain)—including non-human ones—affected by an action should be taken equally into consideration in assessing the action. Furthermore, rather like Routley (see section 2 above), Singer argues that the anthropocentric privileging of members of the species Homo sapiens is arbitrary, and that it is a kind of “speciesism” as unjustifiable as sexism and racism. Singer regards the animal liberation movement as comparable to the liberation movements of women and people of colour. Unlike the environmental philosophers who attribute intrinsic value to the natural environment and its inhabitants, Singer and utilitarians in general attribute intrinsic value to the experience of pleasure or interest satisfaction as such, not to the beings who have the experience. Similarly, for the utilitarian, non-sentient objects in the environment such as plant species, rivers, mountains, and landscapes, all of which are the objects of moral concern for environmentalists, are of no intrinsic but at most instrumental value to the satisfaction of sentient beings (see Singer 1993, Ch. 10). Furthermore, because right actions, for the utilitarian, are those that maximize the overall balance of interest satisfaction over frustration, practices such as whale-hunting and the killing of an elephant for ivory, which cause suffering to non-human animals, might turn out to be right after all: such practices might produce considerable amounts of interest-satisfaction for human beings, which, on the utilitarian calculation, outweigh the non-human interest-frustration involved. As the result of all the above considerations, it is unclear to what extent a utilitarian ethic can also be an environmental ethic. This point may not so readily apply to a wider consequentialist approach, which attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure or satisfaction, but also to various objects and processes in the natural environment.

Deontological ethical theories, in contrast, maintain that whether an action is right or wrong is for the most part independent of whether its consequences are good or bad (see the entry on deontological ethics ). From the deontologist perspective, there are several distinct moral rules or duties (e.g., “not to kill or otherwise harm the innocent”, “not to lie”, “to respect the rights of others”, “to keep promises”), the observance/violation of which is intrinsically right/wrong; i.e., right/wrong in itself regardless of consequences. When asked to justify an alleged moral rule, duty or its corresponding right, deontologists may appeal to the intrinsic value of those beings to whom it applies. For instance, “animal rights” advocate Tom Regan (1983) argues that those animals with intrinsic value (or what he calls “inherent value”) have the moral right to respectful treatment, which then generates a general moral duty on our part not to treat them as mere means to other ends. We have, in particular, a prima facie moral duty not to harm them. Regan maintains that certain practices (such as sport or commercial hunting, and experimentation on animals) violate the moral right of intrinsically valuable animals to respectful treatment. Such practices, he argues, are intrinsically wrong regardless of whether or not some better consequences ever flow from them. Exactly which animals have intrinsic value and therefore the moral right to respectful treatment? Regan’s answer is: those that meet the criterion of being the “subject-of-a-life”. To be such a subject is a sufficient (though not necessary) condition for having intrinsic value, and to be a subject-of-a-life involves, among other things, having sense-perceptions, beliefs, desires, motives, memory, a sense of the future, and a psychological identity over time.

Some authors have extended concern for individual well-being further, arguing for the intrinsic value of organisms achieving their own good, whether those organisms are capable of consciousness or not. Paul Taylor’s version of this view (1981 and 1986), which we might call biocentrism , is a somewhat deontological example. He argues that each individual living thing in nature—whether it is an animal, a plant, or a micro-organism—is a “teleological-center-of-life” having a good or well-being of its own which can be enhanced or damaged, and that all individuals who are teleological-centers-of life have equal intrinsic value (or what he calls “inherent worth”) which entitles them to moral respect. Furthermore, Taylor maintains that the intrinsic value of wild living things generates a prima facie moral duty on our part to preserve or promote their goods as ends in themselves, and that any practices which treat those beings as mere means and thus display a lack of respect for them are intrinsically wrong. For a summary and overview of Taylor’s biocentric ethic, see Brennan and Lo 2010, 69—86. A biologically detailed defence of the idea that living things have representations and goals and hence have moral worth is found in Agar 2001. Unlike Taylor’s egalitarian and deontological biocentrism, Robin Attfield (1987) argues for a hierarchical view that while all beings having a good of their own have intrinsic value, some of them (e.g., persons) have intrinsic value to a greater extent. Attfield also endorses a form of consequentialism which takes into consideration, and attempts to balance, the many and possibly conflicting goods of different living things (see also Varner 1998 for a defense of biocentric individualism with affinities to both consequentialist and deontological approaches). However, some critics have pointed out that the notion of biological good or well-being is only descriptive not prescriptive (see Williams 1992 and O’Neill 1993, Ch. 2). For instance, even if HIV has a good of its own this does not mean that we ought to assign any positive moral weight to the realization of that good.

Subsequently the distinction between these two traditional approaches has taken its own specific form of development in environmental philosophy. Instead of pitting conceptions of value against conceptions of rights, it has been suggested that there may be two different conceptions of intrinsic value in play in discussion about environmental good and evil. One the one side, there is the intrinsic value of states of affairs that are to be promoted—and this is the focus of the consequentialist thinkers. On the other (deontological) hand there is the intrinsic values of entities to be respected (see Bradley 2006, McShane 2014). These two different foci for the notion of intrinsic value still provide room for fundamental argument between deontologists and consequentialist to continue, albeit in a somewhat modified form.

Note that the ethics of animal liberation or animal rights and biocentrism are both individualistic in that their various moral concerns are directed towards individuals only—not ecological wholes such as species, populations, biotic communities, and ecosystems. None of these is sentient, a subject-of-a-life, or a teleological-center-of-life, but the preservation of these collective entities is a major concern for many environmentalists. Moreover, the goals of animal liberationists, such as the reduction of animal suffering and death, may conflict with the goals of environmentalists. For example, the preservation of the integrity of an ecosystem may require the culling of feral animals or of some indigenous animal populations that threaten to destroy fragile habitats. So there are disputes about whether the ethics of animal liberation is a proper branch of environmental ethics (see Callicott 1980, 1988, Sagoff 1984, Jamieson 1998, Crisp 1998 and Varner 2000).

Criticizing the individualistic approach in general for failing to accommodate conservation concerns for ecological wholes, J. Baird Callicott (1980) once advocated a version of land-ethical holism which takes Leopold’s statement “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” to be the supreme deontological principle. In this theory, the earth’s biotic community per se is the sole locus of intrinsic value, whereas the value of its individual members is merely instrumental and dependent on their contribution to the “integrity, stability, and beauty” of the larger community. A straightforward implication of this version of the land ethic is that an individual member of the biotic community ought to be sacrificed whenever that is needed for the protection of the holistic good of the community. For instance, Callicott maintains that if culling a white-tailed deer is necessary for the protection of the holistic biotic good, then it is a land-ethical requirement to do so. But, to be consistent, the same point also applies to human individuals because they are also members of the biotic community. Not surprisingly, the misanthropy implied by Callicott’s land-ethical holism was widely criticized and regarded as a reductio of the position (see Aiken (1984), Kheel (1985), Ferré (1996), and Shrader-Frechette (1996)). Tom Regan (1983, p.362), in particular, condemned the holistic land ethic’s disregard of the rights of the individual as “environmental fascism”. Since then commentators have noted the links between fascism and conservation thinking (Biehl and Staudenmaier 2011). The subsequent emergence of explicitly ecofascist on-line movements and terrorist acts that claim to be ecologically-inspired (Lawton 2019) lead one writer to declare that there is a danger the world will enter an age of “climate barbarism”(Klein 2019).

Under pressure from the charge of ecofascism and misanthropy, Callicott (1989 Ch. 5, and 1999, Ch. 4) later revises his neo-Leopodian position to maintain that the biotic community (indeed, any community to which humans belong) as well as its individual members (indeed, any individual who shares with us membership in some common community) all have intrinsic value. To further distance himself from the charge of ecofascism, Callicott introduced explicit principles which prioritize obligations to human communities over those to natural ones. He called these “second-order” principles for specifying the conditions under which the land ethic’s holistic and individualistic obligations were to be ranked. As he put it:

... obligations generated by membership in more venerable and intimate communities take precedence over these generated in more recently-emerged and impersonal communities... The second second-order principle is that stronger interests (for lack of a better word) generate duties that take precedence over duties generated by weaker interests. (Callicott 1999, 76)

Lo 2001 provides an overview and critique of Callicott’s changing position over two decades, while Ouderkirk and Hill (eds.) 2002 gives an overview of debates between Callicott and others concerning the metaethical and metaphysical foundations for the land ethic and also its historical antecedents. As Lo points out, the final modified version of the land ethic needs more than two second-order principles, since a third-order principle is needed to specify Callicott’s implicit view that the second second-order principle generally countermands the first one when they come into conflict (Lo 2001, 345). In later work, Callicott follows Lo’s suggestion, while cautioning against aiming for too much precision in specifying the demands of the land ethic (Callicott 2013, 66–7). While Callicott’s reading of Leopold is widely regarded as authoritative, later writers have queried whether Leopold might be better interpreted a a moral pluralist (Dixon 2017) and have also raised doubts about the form of Darwinism that Leopold is supposed to have espoused (Millstein 2015). For further critique of Callicott on Leopold, see also Newman, Varner and Linquist 2017, ch.10.

The controversy surrounding Callicott’s original position, however, has inspired efforts in environmental ethics to investigate possibilities of attributing intrinsic value to ecological wholes, not just their individual constituent parts. Following in Callicott’s footsteps, and inspired by Næss’s relational account of value, Warwick Fox has championed a theory of “responsive cohesion” which aims to give supreme moral priority to the maintenance of ecosystems and the biophysical world (Fox 2007). It remains to be seen if this position escapes the charges of misanthropy and totalitarianism laid against earlier holistic and relational theories of value.

Individual natural entities (whether sentient or not, living or not), Andrew Brennan (1984, 2014) argues, are not designed by anyone to fulfill any purpose and therefore lack “intrinsic function” (i.e., the function of a thing that constitutes part of its essence or identity conditions). This, he proposes, is a reason for thinking that individual natural entities should not be treated as mere instruments, and thus a reason for assigning them intrinsic value. Furthermore, he argues that the same moral point applies to the case of natural ecosystems, to the extent that they lack intrinsic function. In the light of Brennan’s proposal, Eric Katz (1991 and 1997) argues that all natural entities, whether individuals or wholes, have intrinsic value in virtue of their ontological independence from human purpose, activity, and interest, and maintains the deontological principle that nature as a whole is an “autonomous subject” which deserves moral respect and must not be treated as a mere means to human ends. Carrying the project of attributing intrinsic value to nature to its ultimate form, Robert Elliot (1997) argues that naturalness itself is a property in virtue of possessing which all natural things, events, and states of affairs, attain intrinsic value. Furthermore, Elliot argues that even a consequentialist, who in principle allows the possibility of trading off intrinsic value from naturalness for intrinsic value from other sources, could no longer justify such kind of trade-off in reality. This is because the reduction of intrinsic value due to the depletion of naturalness on earth, according to him, has reached such a level that any further reduction of it could not be compensated by any amount of intrinsic value generated in other ways, no matter how great it is.

As the notion of “natural” is understood in terms of the lack of human contrivance and is often opposed to the notion of “artifactual”, one much contested issue concerns the value of those parts of nature that have been touched by human artifice—for instance, previously degraded natural environments which have been humanly restored. Based on the premise that the properties of being naturally evolved and having a natural continuity with the remote past are “value adding” (i.e., adding intrinsic value to those things which possess those two properties), Elliot argues that even a perfectly restored environment would necessarily lack those two value-adding properties and therefore be less valuable than the originally undegraded natural environment. Katz, on the other hand, argues that a restored nature is really just an artifact designed and created for the satisfaction of human ends, and that the value of restored environments is instrumental. He further argues that restoration is a form of the “domination of reality” and controversially compares such domination to Nazi policies of xenophobia, nativism and eliminationsm (Katz 2021). Critics have pointed out that advocates of a moral dichotomy between the natural and the artifactual run the risk of diminishing the value of human life and culture, and fail to recognize that the natural environments interfered with by humans may still have morally important qualities other than pure naturalness (see Lo 1999, and Katz’s response in Katz 2012).

Two other issues central to this debate are that the key concept “natural” seems ambiguous in many different ways (see Hume 1751, App. 3; Mill 1874; Brennan [1988] 2014; Ch. 6; Elliot 1997, Ch. 4), and that those who argue that human interference reduces the intrinsic value of nature seem to have simply assumed the crucial premise that naturalness is a source of intrinsic value. Some thinkers maintain that the natural, or the “wild” construed as that which “is not humanized” (Hettinger and Throop 1999, p. 12) or to some degree “not under human control” (ibid., p. 13) is intrinsically valuable. Yet, as Bernard Williams points out (Williams 1992), we may, paradoxically, need to use our technological powers to retain a sense of something not being in our power. The retention of wild areas may thus involve planetary and ecological management to maintain, or even “imprison” such areas (Birch 1990), raising a question over the extent to which national parks and wilderness areas are free from our control. An anlogy with gardening has sometimes been used to explore the nature of restoration (Allison 2004).

Given the significance of the concept of naturalness in these debates, it is perhaps surprising that there has been relatively little analysis of that concept itself in environmental thought. In his pioneering work on the ethics of the environment, Holmes Rolston has worked with a number of different conceptions of the natural (see Brennan and Lo 2010, pp.116–23, for an analysis of three senses of the term “natural” that may be found in Rolston’s work). An explicit attempt to provide a conceptual analysis of a different sort is found in Siipi 2008, while an account of naturalness linking this to historical narratives of place is given in O’Neill, Holland and Light 2008, ch. 8 (compare the response to this in Siipi 2011). For reflections on how to protect “one nature with several representations” from the perspective of science policy see Ducarme and Couvet 2020.

Finally, as an alternative to consequentialism and deontology both of which consider “thin” concepts such as “goodness” and “rightness” as essential to morality, virtue ethics proposes to understand morality—and assess the ethical quality of actions—in terms of “thick” concepts such as “kindness”, “honesty”, “sincerity” and “justice”. These, and other excellent traits of character are virtues (see the entry on virtue ethics ). As virtue ethics speaks quite a different language from the other two kinds of ethical theory, its theoretical focus is not so much on what kinds of things are good/bad, or what makes an action right/wrong. Indeed, the richness of the language of virtues, and the emphasis on moral character, is sometimes cited as a reason for exploring a virtues-based approach to the complex and always-changing questions of sustainability and environmental care (Hill 1983, Wensveen 2000, Sandler 2007). One question central to virtue ethics is what the moral reasons are for acting one way or another. For instance, from the perspective of virtue ethics, kindness and loyalty would be moral reasons for helping a friend in hardship. These are quite different from the deontologist’s reason (that the action is demanded by a moral rule) or the consequentialist reason (that the action will lead to a better over-all balance of good over evil in the world). From the perspective of virtue ethics, the motivation and justification of actions are both inseparable from the character traits of the acting agent. Furthermore, unlike deontology or consequentialism the moral focus of which is other people or states of the world, one central issue for virtue ethics is how to live a flourishing human life, this being a central concern of the moral agent himself or herself. “Living virtuously” is Aristotle’s recipe for flourishing. Versions of virtue ethics advocating virtues such as “benevolence”, “piety”, “filiality”, and “courage”, have also been held by thinkers in the Chinese Confucian tradition. The connection between morality and psychology is another core subject of investigation for virtue ethics. It is sometimes suggested that human virtues, which constitute an important aspect of a flourishing human life, must be compatible with human needs and desires, and perhaps also sensitive to individual affection and temperaments. As its central focus is human flourishing as such, virtue ethics may seem unavoidably anthropocentric and unable to support a genuine moral concern for the non-human environment. But just as Aristotle has argued that a flourishing human life requires friendships and one can have genuine friendships only if one genuinely values, loves, respects, and cares for one’s friends for their own sake, not merely for the benefits that they may bring to oneself, some have argued that a flourishing human life requires the moral capacities to value, love, respect, and care for the non-human natural world as an end in itself (see O’Neill 1992, O’Neill 1993, Barry 1999). Not only Aristotle, but also Kant can be used in support of such a position. Toby Svoboda argues, for example, that even indirect duties to protect nature can be the basis of good moral reasons to promote the flourishing of natural things, regardless of whether doing so promotes human interests (Svoboda 2019). Other virtue ethicists claim to be able to provie an account of what it is to feel guilt about damage people have done to the environment and to make sense of the idea of a genuine feeling of gratitude toward nature “for being what it is” (Wood 2019).

Despite the variety of positions in environmental ethics developed over the last thirty years, they have often focused on issues concerned with wilderness and the reasons for its preservation (see Callicott and Nelson 1998 for a collection of essays on the ideas and moral significance of wilderness). The importance of wilderness experience to the human psyche has been emphasized by many environmental philosophers. Næss, for instance, urges us to ensure we spend time dwelling in situations of intrinsic value, whereas Rolston seeks “re-creation” of the human soul by meditating in the wilderness. Likewise, the critical theorists believe that aesthetic appreciation of nature has the power to re-enchant human life. As wilderness becomes increasingly rare, people’s exposure to wild things in their natural state has become reduced, and according to some authors this may reduce the chance of our lives and other values being transformed as a result of interactions with nature. An argument by Bryan Norton draws attention to an analogy with music. Someone exposed for the first time to a new musical genre may undergo a transformation in musical preferences, tastes and values as a result of the experience (Norton 1987. Such a transformation can affect their other preferences and desires too, in both direct and indirect ways (see Sarkar 2005, ch. 4, esp. pp. 82–7). In the attempt to preserve opportunities for experiences that can change or enhance people’s valuations of nature, there has been a move since the early 2000s to find ways of rewilding degraded environments, and even parts of cities (Fraser 2009, Monbiot 2013). Note that such rewilding is distinct from more traditional forms of restoration, since it need not be pursued with the intention of re-creating some original landscape or biological system (duToit and Pettorelli 2019). A spectacular form of rewilding may be associated with efforts to resurrect some long-dead species by using genetic technology to combine the DNA of an extinct species with the DNA of some closely-related contemporary species. For a review of some of the issues about de-extinction see Minteer 2015, and also Siipi and Finkelman 2017. Cautions about thinking of de-extinction as radically different from more conventional conservation and restoration practices are expressed in Novak 2018.

By contrast to the focus on wild places, relatively little attention has been paid to the built environment, although this is the one in which most people spend most of their time. In post-war Britain, for example, cheaply constructed new housing developments were often poor replacements for traditional communities. They have been associated with lower amounts of social interaction and increased crime compared with the earlier situation. The destruction of highly functional high-density traditional housing, indeed, might be compared with the destruction of highly diverse ecosystems and biotic communities. Likewise, the loss of the world’s huge diversity of natural languages has been mourned by many, not just professionals with an interest in linguistics. Urban and linguistic environments are just two of the many “places” inhabited by humans. Some philosophical theories about natural environments and objects have potential to be extended to cover built environments and non-natural objects of several sorts (see King 2000, Light 2001, Palmer 2003, while Fox 2007 aims to include both built and natural environments in the scope of a single ethical theory). Certainly there are many parallels between natural and artificial domains: for example, many of the conceptual problems involved in discussing the restoration of natural objects such as landscapes and ecosystems also appear in the parallel context of restoring human-made objects such as buildings and works of art (Vogel 2015).

Lovers of wilderness sometimes consider the high human populations in some developing countries as a key problem underlying the environmental crisis. Rolston (1996), for instance, claims that (some) humans are a kind of planetary “cancer”. He maintains that while “feeding people always seems humane, ... when we face up to what is really going on, by just feeding people, without attention to the larger social results, we could be feeding a kind of cancer.” This remark is meant to justify the view that saving nature should, in some circumstances, have a higher priority than feeding people. But such a view has been criticized for seeming to reveal a degree of misanthropy, directed at those human beings least able to protect and defend themselves (see Attfield 1998, Brennan 1998a). The empirical basis of Rolston’s claims has been queried by work showing that poor people are often extremely good environmental managers (Martinez-Alier 2002). Guha’s worries about the elitist and “missionary” tendencies of some kinds of deep green environmentalism in certain rich western countries can be quite readily extended to theorists such as Rolston (Guha 1999). Can such an apparently elitist sort of wilderness ethics ever be democratised? How can the psychically-reviving power of the wild become available to those living in the slums of Kolkata or São Paolo? These questions so far lack convincing answers.

Connections between environmental destruction, unequal resource consumption, poverty and the global economic order have been discussed by political scientists, development theorists, geographers and economists as well as by philosophers. Links between economics and environmental ethics are particularly well established. Work by Mark Sagoff (1988), for instance, has played a major part in bringing the two fields together. He argues that “as citizens rather than consumers” people are concerned about values, which cannot plausibly be reduced to mere ordered preferences or quantified in monetary terms. Sagoff’s distinction between people as consumers and people as citizens was intended to blunt the use of cost-benefit analysis as the final arbiter in discussions about nature’s value. Of course, spouses take out insurance on each others’ lives. We pay extra for travel insurance to cover the cost of cancellation, illness, or lost baggage. Such actions are economically rational. They provide us with some compensation in case of loss. No-one, however, would regard insurance payments as replacing lost limbs, a loved one or even the joys of a cancelled vacation. So it is for nature, according to Sagoff. We can put dollar values on a stand of timber, a reef, a beach, a national park. We can measure the travel costs, the money spent by visitors, the real estate values, the park fees and all the rest. But these dollar measures do not tell us the value of nature any more than my insurance premiums tell you the value of a human life (also see Shrader-Frechette 1987, O’Neill 1993, and Brennan 1995). If Sagoff is right, cost-benefit analysis cannot be a basis for an ethic of sustainability any more than for an ethic of biodiversity. The potentially misleading appeal to economic reason used to justify the expansion of the corporate sector has also come under critical scrutiny by globalisation theorists (see Korten 1999). These critiques do not aim to eliminate economics from environmental thinking; rather, they resist any reductive, and strongly anthropocentric, tendency to believe that all social and environmental problems are fundamentally or essentially economic. The development of ecological economics explores the scope for common ground between economists and environmental policy-makers, and also the role of environmental ethics in such discussions (Washington and Maloney 2020).

Other interdisciplinary approaches link environmental ethics with biology, policy studies, public administration, political theory, cultural history, post-colonial theory, literature, geography, and human ecology (for some examples, see Norton, Hutchins, Stevens, Maple 1995, Shrader-Frechette 1984, Gruen and Jamieson (eds.) 1994, Karliner 1997, Diesendorf and Hamilton 1997, Schmidtz and Willott 2002). Many assessments of issues concerned with biodiversity, ecosystem health, poverty, environmental justice and sustainability look at both human and environmental issues, eschewing in the process commitment either to a purely anthropocentric or purely ecocentric perspective (see Hayward and O’Neill 1997, and Dobson 1999 for collections of essays looking at the links between sustainability, justice, welfare and the distribution of environmental goods). The future development of environmental ethics depends on these, and other interdisciplinary synergies, as much as on its anchorage within philosophy (Dereniowska and Matzke 2014).

6. Sustainability and Climate Change

The Convention on Biological Diversity discussed in the supplementary document on Biodiversity Preservation was influenced by Our Common Future , an earlier United Nations document on sustainability produced by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED 1987). The commission was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway at the time, and the report is sometimes known as the Brundtland Report. This report noted the increasing tide of evidence that planetary systems vital to supporting life on earth were under strain. The key question it raised is whether it is equitable to sacrifice options for future well-being in favour of supporting current lifestyles, especially the comfortable, and sometimes lavish, forms of life enjoyed in the rich countries. As Bryan Norton puts it, the world faces a global challenge to see whether different human groups, with widely varying perspectives, can perhaps “accept responsibility to maintain a non-declining set of opportunities based on possible uses of the environment”. The preservation of options for the future can be readily linked to notions of equity if it is agreed that “the future ought not to face, as a result of our actions today, a seriously reduced range of options and choices, as they try to adapt to the environment that they face” (Norton 2001: 419). Note that references to “the future” need not be limited to the future of human beings only. In keeping with the non-anthropocentric focus of much environmental philosophy, a care for sustainability and biodiversity can embrace a care for opportunities available to non-human living things.

However, when the concept “sustainable development” was first articulated in the Brundtland Report, the emphasis was clearly anthropocentric. In face of increasing evidence that planetary systems vital to life-support were under strain, the concept of sustainable development is constructed in the report to encourage certain globally coordinated directions and types of economic and social development. The report defines “sustainable development” in the following way:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of “needs”, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs. Thus the goals of economic and social development must be defined in terms of sustainability in all countries—developed or developing, market-oriented or centrally planned. Interpretations will vary, but must share certain general features and must flow from a consensus on the basic concept of sustainable development and on a broad strategic framework for achieving it. (WCED 1987, Ch. 2, paragraphs 1–2)

The report goes on to argue that “the industrial world has already used much of the planet’s ecological capital. This inequality is the planet’s main ‘environmental’ problem; it is also its main ‘development’ problem” (WCED 1987, Overview, paragraph 17). In the concept of sustainable development the report combines the resource economist’s notion of “sustainable yield” with the recognition that developing countries of the world are entitled to economic growth and prosperity. The notion of sustainable yield involves thinking of forests, rivers, oceans and other ecosystems, including the natural species living in them, as a stock of “ecological capital” from which all kinds of goods and services flow. Provided the flow of such goods and services does not reduce the capacity of the capital itself to maintain its productivity, the use of the systems in question is regarded as sustainable. Thus, the report argues that “maximum sustainable yield must be defined after taking into account system-wide effects of exploitation” of ecological capital (WCED 1987, Ch. 2, paragraph 11).

There are clear philosophical, political and economic precursors to the Brundtland concept of sustainability. For example, John Stuart Mill (1848, IV. 6. 1) distinguished between the “stationary state” and the “progressive state” and argued that at the end of the progressive state lies the stationary state, since “the increase of wealth is not boundless”. Mill also recognized a debt to the gloomy prognostications of Thomas Malthus, who had conjectured that population tends to increase geometrically while food resources at best increase only arithmetically, so that demand for food will ultimately outstrip the supply (see Milgate and Stimson 2009, Ch. 7, and the discussion of Malthus in the Political Economy section of the Spring 2016 version of the entry on Mill ). Reflection on Malthus led Mill to argue for restraining human population growth:

Even in a progressive state of capital, in old countries, a conscientious or prudential restraint on population is indispensable, to prevent the increase of numbers from outstripping the increase of capital, and the condition of the classes who are at the bottom of society from being deteriorated (Mill 1848, IV. 6. 1).

Such warnings resonate with pessimism about increasing human population and its impact on the poorest people, as well as on loss of biodiversity, fresh water scarcity, overconsumption and climate change. In their controversial work The Population Bomb , Paul and Anne Ehrlich, argue that without restrictions on population growth, including the imposition of mandatory birth control, the world faced “mass starvation” in the short term (Ehrlich 1968). This prediction was not fulfilled. In a subsequent defence of their early work, the Ehrlichs declared that the most serious flaw in their original analysis “was that it was much too optimistic about the future”, and comment that “Since The Bomb was written, increases in greenhouse gas flows into the atmosphere, a consequence of the near doubling of the human population and the near tripling of global consumption, indicate that the results will likely be catastrophic climate disruption caused by greenhouse heating” (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2009, 66). It was also in 1968 that Garrett Hardin published his much cited article on the “tragedy of the commons” arguing that common resources can always be subject to degradation and extinction in the face of the rational pursuit of self-interest. For Hardin, the increasing pressure on shared resources, and increasing pollution, are inevitable results of the fact that “there is no technical solution to the population problem” (Hardin 1968). The problem may be analysed from the perspective of the so-called prisoner’s dilemma (also see the entry on the free rider problem ). Despite the pessimism of writers at the time, and the advocacy of setting limits to population growth, there was also an optimism that echoes Mill’s own view that a “stationary state” would not be one of misery and decline, but rather one in which humans could aspire to more equitable distribution of available and limited resources. This is clear not only among those who recognize limits to economic growth (Meadows et al. 1972) but also among those who champion the move to a steady state economy (Daly 1991) or at least want to see more account taken of ecology in economics (Norgaard 1994, Rees 2020).

The Brundtland report puts less emphasis on limits than do Mill, Malthus and later writers. It depicts sustainability as a challenge and opportunity for the world to become more socially, politically and environmentally fair. In pursuit of intergenerational justice , it suggests that there should be new human rights added to the standard list, for example, that “All human beings have the fundamental right to an environment adequate for their health and well being” (WCED 1987, Annexe 1, paragraph 1). The report also argues that “The enjoyment of any right requires respect for the similar rights of others, and recognition of reciprocal and even joint responsibilities. States have a responsibility towards their own citizens and other states” (ibid., chapter 12, paragraph 83). Since the report’s publication, many writers have supported and defended the view that global and economics [normative] and economic justice require that nations which had become wealthy through earlier industrialization and environmental exploitation should allow less developed nations similar or equivalent opportunities for development especially in term of access to environmental resources (Redclift 2005). As intended by the report the idea of sustainable development has become strongly integrated into the notion of environmental conservation. The report has also set the scene for a range of subsequent international conferences, declarations, and protocols many of them maintaining the emphasis on the prospects for the future of humanity, rather than considering sustainability in any wider sense.

Some non-anthropocentric environmental thinkers have found the language of economics used in the report unsatisfactory in its implications since it already appears to assume a largely instrumental view of nature. The use of notions such as “asset”, “capital” and also the word “resources” in connection with natural objects and systems has been identified by some writers as instrumentalizing natural things which are in essence wild and free. The objection is that such language promotes the tendency to think of natural things as mere resources for humans or as raw materials with which human labour could be mixed, not only to produce consumable goods, but also to generate human ownership (Plumwood 1993, Sagoff 2004). If natural objects and systems have intrinsic value independent of their possible use for humans, as many environmental philosophers have argued, then a policy approach to sustainability needs to consider the environment and natural things not only in instrumental and but also in intrinsic terms to do justice to the moral standing that many people believe such items possess. Despite its acknowledgment of there being “moral, ethical, cultural, aesthetic, and purely scientific reasons for conserving wild beings” (WCED 1987, Overview, paragraph 53), the strongly anthropocentric and instrumental language used throughout the Brundtland report in articulating the notion of sustainable development can be criticised for defining the notion too narrowly, leaving little room for addressing sustainability questions directly concerning the Earth’s environment and its non-human inhabitants: should, and if so, how should, human beings reorganise their ways of life and the social-political structures of their communities to allow sustainability and equity not only for all humans but also for the other species on the planet?

The concern for preserving nature and non-human species is addressed to some extent by making a distinction between weaker and stronger conceptions of sustainability (Beckerman 1995). Proponents of weak sustainability argue that it is acceptable to replace natural capital with human-made capital provided that the latter has equivalent functions. If, for example, plastic trees could produce oxygen, absorb carbon and support animal and insect communities, then they could replace the real thing, and a world with functionally equivalent artificial trees would seem just as good—from an economic perpective—as one with real or natural trees in it. For weak sustainability theorists, the aim of future development should be to maintain a consistently productive stock of capital on which to draw, while not insisting that some portion of that capital be natural. Strong sustainability theorists, by contrast, generally resist the substitution of human for natural capital, insisting that a critical stock of natural things and processes be preserved. By so doing, they argue, rivers, forests and biodiverse systems are maintained, hence providing maximum options—options in terms of experience, appreciation, values, and ways of life—for the future human inhabitants of the planet (Norton 2005). The Brundtland report can also be seen as advocating a form of strong sustainability in so far as it recommends that a “first priority is to establish the problem of disappearing species and threatened ecosystems on political agendas as a major resource issue” ( ibid ., chapter 6, paragraph 57). Furthermore, despite its instrumental and economic language, the report in fact endorses a wider moral perspective on the status of and our relation to nature and non-human species, evidenced by its statement that “the case for the conservation of nature should not rest only with development goals. It is part of our moral obligation to other living beings and future generations” (WCED 1987, chapter 2, paragraph 55). Implicit in the statement is not only a strong conception of sustainability but also a non-anthropocentric conception of the notion. Over time, strong sustainability came to be focused not only on the needs of human and other living things but also on their rights (Redclift 2004, 218). In a further development, the discourses on forms of sustainability have generally given way to a more ambiguous usage, in which the term “sustainability” functions to bring people into a debate rather than setting out a clear definition of the terms of the debate itself. As globalization leads to greater integration of world economies, the world after the Brundtland report has seen greater fragmentation among viewpoints, where critics of globalization have generally used the concept of sustainability in a plurality of different ways (Sneddon, Howarth and Norgaard 2006). Some have argued that “sustainability”, just like the word “nature” itself, has come to mean very different things, carrying different symbolic meanings for different groups, and reflecting very different interests (Redclift 2004, 220). For better or for worse, such ambiguity can on occasion allow different parties in negotiations to claim a measure of agreement. For example, commenting on the connections between agricultural systems, sustainability and climate change, one writer has argued that there is exciting scope for negotiation across different world views in working out the conditions for a future sustainable form of agriculture (Thompson 2017).

Meadows’ and Daly’s arguments about the need to recognize that planetary resources are limited have continued to resonate with thinkers, especially those working in ecological economics (Daly and Farley 2011). As one author puts it, “the overriding aim [of ecological economics] ... is to seek viable responses to the biggest dilemma of our times: reconciling our aspirations for the good life with the limitations and constraints of a finite planet” (Jackson 2017, 3). While economic growth is a central focus of neoclassical economic theory (see the entry on philosophy of economics ) a minority of thinkers have joined in supporting an agenda of “de-growth” (or “degrowth”) as an alternative to what is sometimes called “growthism” (for a popular overview see Hickel 2020). From small beginnings in the late 20th century, the idea of de-growth developed from “a political slogan with theoretical implications” to become a significant challenge to the idea of sustainable development considered as a kind of sustainable growth (Martinez-Alier et al . 2010). Advocates of de-growth advocate that the transition to sustainability will be aided by pursuing de-growth instead of economic growth (D’Alisa et al. 2015, Khamara and Kronenbeg 2020). At the same time some ecological economists argue for a rejection of the anthropocentrism they claim is central to neoclassical economics and support embracing a new ecological economics that explicitly incorporates an ecological ethic (Washington and Maloney 2020). Having drawn attention to the huge impact of the human ecological footprint, Rees has gone on to gloomily ponder the kind of economics needed to deal with a situation in which “we are currently ‘financing’ economic growth by liquidating the biophysical systems upon which humanity ultimately depends” (Rees 2020, 1). He concludes that “the mainstream fantasy…...this obsession with growth, cannot end well” ( ibid. , 6). Assuming that some forms of consumption are important to a satisfying human life, some writers have explored the idea that developing more modes of virtual consumption, while reducing physical forms of consumption, might be a significant contribution to sustainable lifestyles (Pike and DesRoches 2020).

The preservation of opportunities to live well, or at least to have a minimally acceptable level of well being, is at the heart of population ethics and many contemporary conceptions of sustainability. Many people believe such opportunities for the existing younger generations, and also for the yet to arrive future generations, to be under threat from continuing environmental destruction, including loss of fresh water resources, continued clearing of wild areas, decreasing biodiversity and a changing climate thus raising questions not only about sustainability but also about environmental justice (see Gonzalez, Atapattu, and Seck 2021). Of these, climate change has come to prominence as an area of intense policy and political debate, to which applied philosophers and ethicists were slow to contribute (Heath 2021). An early exploration of the topic by John Broome shows how the economics of climate change could not be divorced from considerations of intergenerational justice and ethics (Broome 1992), and this has set the scene for subsequent discussions and analyses (see the entry on climate justice ). More than a decade later, when Stephen Gardiner analyses the state of affairs surrounding climate change in an article entitled “A Perfect Moral Storm” (Gardiner 2006), his starting point is also that ethics plays a fundamental role in all discussions of climate policy. But he argues that even if difficult ethical and conceptual questions facing climate change (such as the so-called “ non-identity problem ” along with the notion of historic injustices ) could be answered, it would still be close to politically and socially impossible to formulate, let alone to enforce, policies and action plans to deal effectively with climate change. This is due to the multi-faceted nature of a problem that involves vast numbers of agents and players. At a global level, there is first of all the practical problem of motivating shared responsibilities (see the entry on moral motivation ) in part due to the dispersed nature of greenhouse gas emissions which makes the effects of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon and methane not always felt most strongly in the regions where they originate. Add to this the fact that there is an un-coordinated and also dispersed network of agents—both individual and corporate—responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, and that there are no effective institutions that can control and limit them. But this tangle of issues constitutes, Gardiner argues, only one strand in the skein of quandaries that confronts us. There is also the fact that by and large only the future (and perhaps the current younger) generations will carry the brunt of the impacts of climate change, explaining why so many people in the current generations seem not to have strong enough incentive to act. Finally, he argues it is evident that mainstream political, economic, and ethical models are not up to the task of reaching global consensus, and in many cases not even national consensus, on how best to design and implement fair climate policies. Some consequentialist theorists, however, have argued that a form of rule consequentialism can take account of the interests of future generations who may be inhabiting a "broken world" (Mulgan 2011, 2017). Mulgan argues that by imagining a broken world of limited resources and precarious human survival, it may be possible to devise an ideal moral ooutlook that differs from the ideal code of many rule consequentialists who usually presuppose that the future will be just like the present.

However, Gardiner takes a pessimistic view of the prospects for progress on climate issues. His view includes pessimism about technical solutions, such as geoengineering as the antidote to climate problems, echoing the concerns of others that large scale interventions in—and further domination of—nature may turn out to be an even worse climate catastrophe (Gardiner 2011, ch 11, Jamieson 1996 and see also the papers in Gardiner and McKinnon 2020). A key point in Gardiner’s analysis is that the problem of climate change involves a tangle of issues, the complexity of which conspires to encourage buck-passing, weakness of will, distraction and procrastination, “mak[ing] us extremely vulnerable to moral corruption” ( ibid ., 397; cf. Gardiner 2011; see also the concept of “wicked problem” in Brennan 2004). Because of the grave risk of serious harm to current and future generations of people and other living things, our failure to take timely mitigating actions on climate issues can be seen as a major moral failing, especially in the light of our current knowledge and understanding of the problem (IPCC 2021).

In a related reinterpretation of a classic study in psychology, Russell and Bolton re-examine Milgram’s classic “obedience studies” (see the entry on the concept of evil , section 4.5). In these experiments, Milgram explored the conditions under which ordinary people would be disposed to perform evil actions (such as administering electric shocks to strangers). Russell and Bolton argue that, when properly interpreted, Milgram’s studies show that political, administrative and bureaucratic structures can lead to a general and tacit agreement for those in an advantaged situation to harm the interests of those less powerful. In Russell and Bolton’s new interpretation of the Milgram experiments, those who are in the advantaged situation are those living comfortably in wealthy countries, while the powerless are distant strangers and members of future generations. Corporate structures and long organizational chains, Russell and Bolton argue, encourage inaction, denial and diffusion of responsibility that typifies both the common responses to climate change and also the behaviour of participants in Milgram’s experiments. They conjecture that Milgram’s work thus explains the phenomenon of what they call “responsibility ambiguity” that underlies hesitancy to take action on climate change (Russell and Bolton 2019, and see also Rees 2020). While they make no mention of the work of Hannah Arendt, their analysis recalls some of Arendt’s analysis of the banality of evil (see the entry on the concept of evil , section 2.3). There appears to be scope for more empirical research and interdisciplinary study on topics such as the diffusion of responsibility and denialism. A similar analysis might also apply to inaction in the face of declining biodiversity.

John Broome tries to show some of the ways that one form of climate denialism takes, when it uses ingenious but, Broome claims, flawed reasoning to depict individuals as making no significant contribution to climate change (Broome 2019, see also McKinnon 2014). A stronger form of denialism refuses to acknowledge the fact of anthropogenic climate change at all. A puzzle remains over why much ingenuity is expended on such denial in the face of the urgent problems that now confront the world (see the entry on science and pseudo-science ). In response, some argue that the persisting denialism over the reality of the environmental and climate crises may be a product of shame or guilt over the human treatment of natural things and systems (Aaltola 2021). These emotions may interfere with and block a much-needed and honest confrontation of a frightening situation—even if it is one humans have brought upon themselves. There is also a well-known psychological phenomenon of “knowing but not knowing” which can contribute, along with other factors, to denialism (Norgaard 2011, 404, and compare the classic studyof this in Cohen 2001, ch. 2). Many countries’ initial and ongoing response to the 2020s COVID-19 pandemic, for example, appears to show that denialism, typically accompanied by widespread misinformation and unfounded hypotheses about conspiracies, may be a very human way to react in the face of a global catastrophe. Using factor analysis studies, some psychologists have claimed to demonstrate that anti-scientific views have close association with beliefs in creationism and animism. Further, they conjecture that purposive or teleological thinking is the gateway to such associations (Wagner-Egger et al. 2018). Note that the role of teleological notions in biology remains contested and subject to further research. Other research claims to show that people simply reject scientific findings that make them uncomfortable and threaten their worldviews (see Lewandowsky and Oberauer 2016).

Writers have also tried to make sense of why so much misinformation about climate change and other catastrophes is so widespread. On the part of some theorists (see McIntyre 2018), the blame for the evils of a “post-truth” era has been laid at the feet of some postmodern thinkers who endorse social epistemology . But social constructionist writers have their own diagnosis of the social forces that have given rise to the “new climatic regime” (Latour 2017), which combines science denialism and what has be called “out-of-this-world”—fanciful and over-optimistic—thinking about the human prospects for escaping climate catastrophe. One suggested remedy for these cognitve failings is to encourage the recognition that natural systems respond to human action and are not merely the material resources for economic development. It has been proposed that awareness that humans and the natural systems that support them share a dwelling place might pave the way to a new kind of “terrestrial politics” (Lenton and Latour 2018, Latour 2018). The shape of such a politics is still under-theorized, and could take many forms (Mann and Wainwright 2018). Meanwhile, some animal ethicists blame “speciesist anthropocentrism” (see the entry on the moral status of animals ) for blinding humanity to the evils of its overpopulation and denialism (Almiron and Tafalla 2019). Whatever the future holds, many thinkers insist that solving the problem of climate change is an essential ingredient of sustainability and that the alternative to decisive action may result in the degrading not only of nature and natural systems, but also of human dignity itself (see Nanda (ed.) 2011, especially chapters by Heyd, Balafrej, Gutrich and Brennan and Lo, see also section 3.4 of the entry on human rights ). As humanity faces an uncertain future of declining biodiversity and increasing extreme weather events driven by escalating planetary heating—causing suffering and alienation for humans and non-humans alike—the moral challenges listed at the start of this entry seem more pressing than ever.

Supplementary Document: Pathologies of Environmental Crisis: Theories and Empirical Research

• Aaltola, Elisa, 2021. “Defensive over Climate Change? Climate Shame as a Method of Moral Cultivation”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 34. doi:10.1007/s10806-021-09844-5
• Almiron, N. and Tafalla, M., 2019. “Rethinking the Ethical Challenge in the Climate Deadlock: Anthropocentrism, Ideological Denial and Animal Liberation”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 32: 255–67.
• Abram, D., 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous, New York: Vintage Books.
• Agapow, P.M., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Crandall, K.A., and Gittleman, J.L., Mac, G.M., Marshall, J.C. and Purvis, A. 2004. “The impact of species concept on biodiversity studies”, Quarterly Review of Biology , 79: 161–79.
• Agar, N., 2001. Life’s Intrinsic Value , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Aiken, W., 1984. “Ethical Issues in Agriculture”, in T. Regan (ed) Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics , New York: Random House, pp. 274–88.
• Akamani, K., 2020. “Integrating Deep Ecology and Adaptive Governance for Sustainable Development: Implications for Protected Areas Management”, Sustainability , 12: 5757; doi:10.3990/su12145757
• Allison, S. K., 2004. “What Do We Mean When We Talk About Ecological Restoration?” Ecological Restoration , 22: 281-286.
• Andersson, E., Barthel, S., Borgström, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Gren, Å., 2014. “Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services”. Ambio , 43: 445–453.
• Anker, P. 1999. “From Scepticism to Dogmatism and Back: Remarks on the History of Deep Ecology”, in Witoszek and Brennan 1999, pp. 431–43.
• Anker, P. and Witoszek, N., 1998. “The Dream of the Biocentric Community and the Structure of Utopias”, Worldviews , 2: 239–56.
• Aquinas, T., Summa Contra Gentiles , trans. V. J. Bourke, London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.
• Aristotle, Politics , trans. E. Barker, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1948.
• Attfield, R., 1987. A Theory of Value and Obligation , London: Croom Helm.
• –––, 1998. “Saving Nature, Feeding People, and Ethics”, Environmental Values , 7: 291–304.
• Attfield, R., 2001. “Christianity”, Chapter 7 in D. Jamieson (ed.), A Companion to Environmental Philosophy , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Barry, J., 1999. Rethinking Green Politics , London: Sage.
• Beckerman, W., 1995. “How Would You Like Your Sustainability, Sir? Weak or Strong? A Reply to my Critics”, Environmental Values , 3: 160–79.
• Beeson, Mark, 2010. “The Coming of Enviromental Authoritarianism”, Environmental Politics , 19: 276–94.
• Bentham, J., 1789. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948.
• Benton, Ted, 1993. Natural Relations: Ecology, Animal Rights and Social Justice , London: Verso.
• Bernstein, Jay, 2001. Adorno: Disenchantment and Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Berry, R. J., 2018. Environmental Attitudes Through Time, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Biermann, F., and Kim, R.E., 2020. “The Boundaries of the Planetary Boundary Framework: A Critical Appraisal of Approaches to Define a ‘Safe Operating Space’ for Humanity”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 45: 497–521. doi:10.1146/annurevenviron-012320-080337
• Birch, T., 1990. “The Incarceration of Wilderness: Wilderness Areas as Prisons”, Environmental Ethics , 12: 3–26.
• Bookchin, M., 1980. Toward an Ecological Society , Montreal: Black Rose Books.
• –––, 1982. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy , Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books.
• –––, 1987. “Social Ecology Versus Deep Ecology”, Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project , numbers 4, 5; reprinted in Witoszek and Brennan 1999, pp. 281–301.
• –––, 1990. The Philosophy of Social Ecology , Montreal: Black Rose Books.
• Boyd, Heather, 1999. “Christianity and the environment in the American public”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 38: 36–44.
• Bradley, B., 2006. ‘Two Concepts of Intrinsic Value’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 9: 111–30
• Brady, E. and Phemister, P. (eds.), 2012. Human-Environment Relations: Transformative Values in Theory and Practice , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Brady, E., 2014. “Aesthetic Value, Ethics and Climate Change”, Environmental Values , 23: 551–70
• Brennan, A., 1984. “The Moral Standing of Natural Objects”, Environmental Ethics , 6: 35–56
• –––, 1995. “Ethics, Ecology and Economics”, Biodiversity and Conservation , 4: 798–811.
• –––, 1998a. “Poverty, Puritanism and Environmental Conflict”, Environmental Values , 7: 305–31.
• –––, 1998b. “Bioregionalism—a Misplaced Project?”, Worldviews , 2: 215–37.
• –––, 1999. “Comment: Pluralism and Deep Ecology”, in Witoszek and Brennan 1999.
• –––, 2004. “Biodiversity and Agricultural Landscapes: Can the Wicked Policy Problems Be Solved?”, Pacific Conservation Biology , 10: 124–44.
• –––, 2014 [1988]. Thinking About Nature , London Routledge.
• Brennan, A. and Lo, Y.S., 2007. “Two Conceptions of Dignity: Honour and Self-determination”, in N. Lickiss and J. Malpas (eds), Perspectives on Human Dignity , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 43–58.
• –––, 2010. Understanding Environmental Philosophy , London: Routledge.
• Broome, J., 1992. Counting the Cost of Global Warming , Isle of Harris, UK: White Horse Press.
• –––, 2019. “Against Denialism”, The Monist , 102: 110–29.
• Callicott, J.B., 1980. “Animal Liberation, A Triangular Affair”, reprinted in Callicott 1989, pp. 15–38.
• –––, 1985. “Intrinsic Value, Quantum Theory, and Environmental Ethics”, reprinted in Callicott 1989, pp. 157–74.
• –––, 1988. “Animal liberation and Environmental Ethics: Back Together Again”, reprinted in Callicott 1989, pp. 49–59.
• –––, 1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy , Albany: SUNY Press.
• –––, 1991. “The Wilderness Idea Revisited: The Sustainable Development Alternative”, in J. B. Callicott and M.P. Nelson (eds), The Great New Wilderness Debate , Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 337–66.
• –––, 1999. Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy , Albany: SUNY Press.
• –––, 2013. Thinking Like a Planet: The Land Ethic and Earth Ethic , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Callicott, J. Baird, and Ames, Roger T., 1989. Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Carson, R., 1963. Silent Spring , London: Hamish Hamilton.
• Cheney, J., 1989. “Postmodern Environmental Ethics: Ethics as Bioregional Narrative”, Environmental Ethics , 11: 117–34.
• Clark, J., 1997. “A Social Ecology”, Capitalism Nature Socialism , 8: 3–33; reprinted in M. Zimmerman et al., Environmental Philosophy , 2nd edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Clark, J. and Martin, C., 1996. Liberty, Equality, Geography: The Social Thought of Elisée Reclus , Littleton, CO: Aigis Publications.
• Clark, S.R.L., 1977. The Moral Status of Animals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, M.P., 1984. The Pathless Way: John Muir and American Wilderness , Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Cohen S., 2001. States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering , New York: Wiley.
• Collins, S., 1974. A Different Heaven and Earth , Valley Forge: Judson Press.
• Crisp, R., 1998. “Animal Liberation is not an Environmental Ethic: A Response to Dale Jamieson”, Environmental Values , 7: 476–8.
• D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F and Kailis, G. (eds.), 2015. Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era , London: Routledge.
• Daly, H. E., 1991. Steady State Economics , Washington, DC: Island Press
• –––, and Farley, J., 2011 Ecological Economics , second edition, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
• Dasgupta, P., 2001. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment , New York: Oxford University Press
• d’Eaubonne, F., 1974. Le Feminisme ou la Mort , Paris: P. Horay
• de Shalit, A., 1994. Why Does Posterity Matter? , London: Routledge.
• –––, 1996. “Ruralism or Environmentalism?” Environmental Values , 5: 47–58.
• deLaplante, K. and Picasso, V., 2011. “The Biodiversity-Ecosystem Function Debate in Ecology”, in K. deLaplante, B. Brown and K.A. Peacock (eds.), Philosophy of Ecology , Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Dereniowska, M., and Matzke, J., 2014. “Introduction: Interdisciplinary Foundations for Environmental and Sustainability Ethics”, Ethics in Progress , 5: 7–32.
• Devall, B., and Sessions, G., 1985. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered , Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith.
• Diesendorf, M. and Hamilton, C., 1997. Human Ecology, Human Economy , St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin.
• Dixon, B., 2017. “Value Pluralism and Consistency Maximisation in the Writings of Aldo Leopold: Moving Beyond Callicott’s Interpretation of the Land Ethic”, Environmental Values , 26: 269–95.
• Dobson, A., 1990. Green Political Thought , London: Harper Collins.
• Dobson, A. (ed.), 1999. Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Dominick, R., 1998. “Capitalism, Communism and Environmental Protection: Lessons from the German Experience”, Environmental History , 3: 311–32.
• Dryzek, J.S., 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dunlap, R.E, and van Liere, K.D., 1978. “The New Environmental Paradigm: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results”, Journal of Environmental Education , 9: 10–9.
• Dunlap, R.E., van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A. and Jones, R.E., 2000. “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a Revised NEP Scale”, Journal of Social Issues , 56: 425–42.
• Du Toit, J.T., and Pettorelli, N., 2019. “The Differences Between Rewilding and Restoring an Ecologically Degraded Landscape”, Journal of Applied Ecology 56:2467–2471.
• Eckberg, D.L. and Blocker, T.J., 1996. “Christianity, environmentalism, and the theoretical problem of fundamentalism”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 35: 343–55.
• Eckersley, R., 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory , London: UCL Press.
• Ehrlich, P.R., 1968. The Population Bomb , New York: Ballantine Books.
• Ehrlich, P.R. and Ehrlich, A.H., 2009. “The Population Bomb Revisited”, Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development , 1: 63–71.
• Elliot, R., 1982. “Faking Nature”, Inquiry 25: 81–93.
• –––, 1997. Faking Nature , London: Routledge.
• Elliot, R. and Gare, A. (eds.), 1983. Environmental Philosophy: A Collection of Readings , Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Feinberg, J., 1974. “The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations”, in W. T. Blackstone (ed.), Philosophy and Environmental Crisis , Athens: University of Georgia Press, pp. 43–68.
• Ferré, F., 1996. “Persons in Nature: Toward an Applicable and Unified Environmental Ethics”, Ethics and the Environment , 1: 15–25.
• Ferry, L., 1995. The New Ecological Order , trans. C. Volk, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Fox, W., 1984. “Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy of Our Time?” The Ecologist , 14: 194–200.
• –––, 1995. Toward a transpersonal ecology: Developing new foundations for environmentalism , Albany: State University Of New York Press.
• –––, 2007. A Theory of General Ethics: Human Relationships, Nature and the Built Environment , Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
• Fraser, C., 2009. Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution , New York: Metropolitan Books.
• Freudenstein, J.V., Broe, M.B., Folk, R.A., Sinn, B.T., 2017. “Biodiversity and the Species Concept—Lineages are not Enough”, Systematic Biology , 66: 644–656
• Gaard, G. (ed.), 1993. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature , Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
• Gardiner, S., 2006. “A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption”, Environmental Values , 15: 397–413.
• –––, 2011. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change , Oxford; Oxford University Press.
• Gardiner, S., and McKinnon, C. (eds.), 2020. “The Justice and Legitimacy of Geoengineering”, Special Issue, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 23(5).
• Garrard, G. (ed.), 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Ecocriticism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gonzalez, C.G., Atapattu, S., Seck, S.L. (eds.), 2021. The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Justice and Sustainable Development , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Goodin, R.E., 1992. Green Political Theory , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Goulson, D., 2021. Silent Earth: Averting the Insect Apocalypse , London: Jonathan Cape.
• Greeley, A.M., 1993. “Religion and attitudes toward the environment”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 32: 19–28.
• Green, K., 1994. “Freud, Wollstonecraft and Ecofeminism”, Environmental Ethics , 16: 117–34.
• Grey, W., 1993. “Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology”, Australialasian Journal of Philosophy , 71: 463–75.
• Grosz, E., 1989. Sexual Subversions , London: Allen and Unwin.
• Gruen, L. and Jamieson, D. (eds.), 1994. Reflecting on Nature , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Guha, R., 1989. “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique”, Environmental Ethics , 11: 71–83.
• –––, 1996. “Lewis Mumford, the Forgotten American Environmentalist: An Essay in Rehabilitation”, in D. Macauley (ed.), Minding Nature: The Philosophers of Ecology , New York: Guilford Press.
• –––, 1999. “Radical American Environmentalism Revisited”, in Witoszek and Brennan (eds.) 1999, pp. 473–9
• Hardin, G., 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science , 162: 1243–48.
• Harvey, G., 2005. Animism: Respecting the Living World , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Hayward, T. and O’Neill, J. (eds.), 1997. Justice, Property and the Environment: Social and Legal Perspectives , Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Co., 1997.
• Heath, J., 2021. “The Failure of Traditional Environmental Philosophy”, Res Publica ; available online .
• Hettinger, N and Throop, B., 1999. “Refocusing Ecocentrism”, Environmental Ethics , 21: 3–21
• Hickel, J., 2020. Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World , Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Hill, Thomas, 1983. “Ideals of Human Excellences and Preserving Natural Environments”, Environmental Ethics 5: 211–24.
• Horkheiner, M. and Adorno, T., 1969. Dialectic of Enlightenment , trans. J. Cumming, New York: Seabury Press 1972.
• Hume, D., 1751. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals , ed. T.L. Beauchamp, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
• IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, in press, IPCC 2021 available online
• Jackson, T., 2017. Prosperity without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow , second edition, London, Routledge.
• Jamieson, D., 1996. “Intentional Climate Change”, Climatic Change , 33: 326–36.
• –––, 1998. “Animal Liberation is an Environmental Ethic”, Environmental Values , 7: 41–57.
• –––, 2001. A Companion to Environmental Philosophy , Oxford: Blackwell 2001.
• –––, 2002. Morality’s Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kant, I., Lectures on Ethics , trans. P. Heath, eds. P. Heath and J.B. Schneewind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• Karliner, J., 1997. The Corporate Planet , San Francisco: Sierra Club Books
• Katz, E., 1991. “Restoration and Redesign: The Ethical Significance of Human Intervention in Nature”, Restoration and Management Notes , 9: 90–6.
• –––, 1997. Nature as Subject , New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
• –––, 2012. “Further Adventures in the Case Against Restoration”, Environmental Ethics , 34: 67–97.
• –––, 2021. “The Holocaust as an Environmental Problem”, Journal of Genocide Research , first online 02 June 2021. doi:10.1080/14623528.2021.1924588
• Kheel, M., 1985. “The Liberation of Nature: A Circular Affair”, Environmental Ethics , 7: 135–49
• Khmara, Y., and Kronenberg, J., 2020. “Degrowth in the Context of Sustainability Transitions: In Search of Common Ground”, Journal of Cleaner Production ; doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122072.
• Kimmerer, R. W., 2020. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants , Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• King, R., 2000. “Environmental Ethics and the Built Environment”, Environmental Ethics , 22: 115–31
• King, Y., 1989a. “The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology”, in J. Plant (ed.), Healing the Wounds , Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 18–28.
• –––, 1989b. “Healing the Wounds: Feminism, Ecology, and Nature/Culture Dualism”, in A. M. Jaggar and S. R. Bordo (eds.) Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstruction of Being and Knowing , New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 115–41.
• Klein, Naomi, 2019. On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal , Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Komonen, A., Halme, P., and Kotiaho, J.S., 2019. “Alarmist By Bad Design: Strongly Popularized Unsubstantiated Claims Undermine Credibility of Conservation Science”, Rethinking Ecology , 4: 17–19 doi:10.3897/rethinkingecology.4.34440
• Korten, D., 1999. The Post-CorporateWorld , Hartford: Kumarian Press
• Kramm, M., 2020. “When a River Becomes a Person”, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities , 21: 307–319.
• Ladkin, D., 2005. “Does ‘Restoration’ Necessarily Imply the Domination of Nature?”, Environmental Values , 14: 203–19.
• Lawton, G., 2019. “The rise of real eco-fascism”, New Scientist , 243(3243): 24. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(19)31529-5
• Latour, Bruno, 2017. Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime , New York: John Wiley and Soins.
• –––, 2018. Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime , Paris: Polity.
• Lenton, T. and Latour, B., 2018. “Gaia 2.0: Could humans add some level of self-awareness to Earth’s self-regulation?”, Science , 361: 1066–68
• Leopold, A., 1949. A Sand County Almanac , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., 2016. “Motivated Rejection of Science”, Current Directions in Psychological Science , 25: 217-222.
• Lewis, D.K., 1989. “Dispositional Theories of Value”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume), 63: 113–37.
• Light, A., 1996. “Callicott and Næss on Pluralism”, Inquiry , 39: 273–294.
• –––, 2001. “The Urban Blindspot in Environmental Ethics”, Environmental Politics , 10: 7–35.
• Light, A. and Katz, E., 1996. Environmental Pragmatism , London: Routledge.
• Light, Andrew and Rolston, Holmes (eds.), 2003. Environmental Ethics: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Light, Andrew and de-Shalit, Avner (eds.), 2003. Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• List, P. C., 1993. Radical Environmentalism , Belmont: Wadsworth.
• Lo, Y. S., 1999. “Natural and Artifactual: Restored Nature as Subject”, Environmental Ethics , 21: 247–66.
• –––, 2001. “The Land Ethic and Callicott’s Ethical System (1980–2001): An Overview and Critique”, Inquiry , 44: 331–58.
• –––, 2006. “Making and Finding Values in Nature”, Inquiry , 49: 123–47.
• Lo, Y S and Brennan, A., 2013. “The Last Man”, in J. Huss (ed.), Planet of the Apes and Philosophy , Chicago: Open Court, pp. 265–78.
• Luke, Timothy W., 1997. Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy, and Culture , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Maier, D.S., 2012. What’s So Good About Biodiversity? A Call For Better Reasoning About Nature’s Value , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Malm, Andreas, 2018. The Progress of this Storm: Nature and Society in a Warming World , London: Verso Books.
• Mann, G., and Wainwright, J., 2018. Climate Leviathan: A political theory of our planetary future , London: Verso Books.
• Mason Dentinger, R.M., Woods, A., 2018. “Introduction to ‘Working Across Species’”, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences , 40(2): 30. doi: 10.1007/s40656-018-0197-y
• Martinez-Alier, J., 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation d,. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Martinez-Alier, J., Pascal, U., Vivien, F-D., and Zacca, E., 2010. “Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm”, Ecological Economics , 69: 1741–7
• Mathews, F., 2003. For Love of Matter , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• –––, 2005. Reinhabiting Reality: Towards a Recovery of Culture , Sydney: UNSW Press.
• –––, 2016. “From biodiversity-based conservation to an ethic of bio-proportionality”, Biological Conservation , 200: 140–48.
• McIntyre, L., 2018. Post-Truth , Cambridge: MIT Press.
• McKinnon, C., 2014. “Climate Change: Against Despair”, Ethics and the Environment , 19: 31-48
• McShane, K., 2014. “The Bearers of Value in Environmental Ethics”, in A. Hiller, R. Ilea and L. Kahn (eds.), Consequentialism and Environmental Ethics , New York: Routledge, pp. 17–34.
• Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth , New York: New American Library. available online .
• Mies, M. and Shiva, V., 1993. Ecofeminism , London: Zed Books
• Milgate, M., and Stimson S. C., 2009. After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Mill, J.S., 1848. Principles of Political Economy , in J.M. Robson (ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill , Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963ff, vol. 2–3; references by book, chapter, and section number.
• –––, 1874. “On Nature”, in Three Essays on Religion , in J.M. Robson (ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill , Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963ff, vol. 10, pp. 369–489.
• Millstein, R., 2015. “Re-examining the Darwinian Basis of Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic”, Ethics, Policy and Environment , 18: 301–17.
• Minteer, B., 2015. “The Perils of De-extinction”, Minding Nature , 8: 11–17.
• Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Brooks, T.M., Pilgrim, J.D., Konstant, W.R., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kormos, C., 2003. “Wilderness and biodiversity conservation”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 100: 10309–13.
• Monbiot, G., 2013. Feral: Searching for Enchantment on the Frontiers of Rewilding , London: Allen Lane.
• Montaigne, M. de, 1991. The Complete Essays , trans. M.A. Screech, Harmondworth: Penguin.
• Morris, James. D. K. and Ruru, Jacinta, 2010. “Giving Voice to Rivers: Legal Personality as a Vehicle for Recognising Indigenous Peoples’ Relationship to Water”, Australian Indigenous Law Review , 14: 49–62.
• Morton, T., 2007. Ecology without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics , Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
• Muir, J., 1916. A Thousand Mile Walk to the Gulf , Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Mulgan, T. 2011. Ethics for a Broken World: Reimagining Philosophy After Catastrophe , Durham: Acumen.
• –––, 2017. “How Should Utilitarians Think About the Future?”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 47: Special Issue: Ethics and Future Generations: 290–312; doi:10.1080/00455091.2017.1279517
• Mumford, L., 1934. Technics and Civilization , London: Secker and Warburg.
• –––, 1944. The Condition of Man , New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
• –––, 1961. The City in History , New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich
• Næss, A., 1973. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement”, Inquiry , 16, reprinted in Sessions 1995, pp. 151–5.
• –––, 1989. Ecology, Community, Lifestyle , trans. and ed. D. Rothenberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nanda, V. P. (ed.), 2011. Climate Change and Environmental Ethics , New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
• Nash, R., 1989. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics , Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
• ––– (ed.), 1990. American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History , New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Newman, J.A., Varner, G., and Linquist, S., 2017. Defending Biodiversity: Environmental Science and Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Norgaard, K. M., 2011. “Ch. 27: Climate denial: emotion, psychology, culture and political economy”, in Dryzek, J.S., Norgaard, R.B. and Scholsberg, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Norgaard, R.B., 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future , London: Routledge.
• Norton, B.G. (ed.), 1986. The Preservation of Species , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1987. Why Preserve Natural Variety , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1988. “Commodity, Amenity, and Morality: The Limits of Quantification in Valuing Biodiversity”, in E.O. Wilson (ed.), Biodiversity , Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Science Press, pp. 200–5.
• –––, 1991. Toward Unity Among Environmentalists , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2005. Sustainability: a Philosophy of Adaptive ecosystem Management , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Norton, B.G., Hutchins, M., Stevens, E. and Maple, T.L. (eds.), 1995. Ethics on the Ark , Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
• Novak, B.J., 2018. “De-extinction”, Genes , 9: 548. doi:10.3390/genes9110548
• O’Neill, J., 1992. “The Varieties of Intrinsic Value”, Monist , 75: 119–37.
• –––, 1993. Ecology, Policy and Politics , London: Routledge.
• O’Neill, J., Holland, A. and Light, A., 2008. Environmental Values , London: Routledge.
• Ouderkirk, W. and Hill, J. (eds.), 2002. Land, Value, Community: Callicott and Environmental , Albany: State University of New York.
• Palmer, C., 2003. “Placing Animals in Urban Environmental Ethics”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 34: 64–78.
• Passmore, J., 1974. Man’s Responsibility for Nature , London: Duckworth, 2nd edition, 1980.
• Pew 2018. Majorities See Government Efforts to Protect the Environment as Insufficient , Pew Research Center May 14, 2018; available online .
• Pike, K.R. and DesRoches, C.T., 2020. “Virtual Consumption, Sustainability, and Human Well-Being.” Environmental Values , 29(3): 361–378. doi:10.3197/096327119X15678473650938
• Plumwood, V., 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature , London: Routledge.
• –––, 1999. “Comments: Self-Realization and Man Apart? The Reed-Næss Debate”, in Witoszek and Brennan (eds.) 1999, pp. 206–10.
• –––, 2002. Environmental Culture , London: Routledge
• Porter, G. and Brown, J.W., 1991. Global Environmental Politics , Boulder: Westview Press.
• Poushter, J, and Huang, C., 2019. “Climate Change Still Seen as the Top Global Threat, but Cyberattacks a Rising Concern”, Pew Research Center Report , February 2019; available online
• Redclift, M., 2005. “Sustainable Development (1987–2005): An Oxymoron Comes of Age”, Sustainable Development , 13: 212–27.
• Rees, W.E., 1992. “Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out”, Environment and Urbanization , 4: 121–130.
• –––, 2020. “Ecological economics for humanity’s plague phase”, Ecological Economics 169: doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106519
• Regan, T., 1983. The Case for Animal Rights , London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Regan, T. and Singer, P. (eds.), 1976. Animal Rights and Human Obligations , Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
• Richards, R., 2010. The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å. et al ., 2009. “Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity”, Ecology and Society , 14: 32. Available Rockström et al. available online
• Rolston, H., 1975. “Is There an Ecological Ethic?”, Ethics , 85: 93–109.
• –––, 1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World , Indiana: Temple University Press.
• –––, 1989. Philosophy Gone Wild , New York: Prometheus Books.
• –––, 1996. “Feeding People versus Saving Nature?”, in W. Aiken and H. LaFollette (eds.) World Hunger and Morality , Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, pp. 248–67
• Rousseau, J.J., 1782. Reveries of the Solitary Walker , trans. P. France, Penguin Books, 1979.
• Routley, R., 1973. “Is there a need for a new, an environmental ethic?” Proceedings of the 15th World congress of Philosophy , 1: 205–10, Sophia: Sophia Press (see also Sylvan, R.).
• Routley, R. and Routley, V., 1980. “Human Chauvinism and Environmental Ethics” in Mannison, D., McRobbie, M.A., and Routley, R. (eds.) Environmental Philosophy , Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Social Sciences, pp. 96–189.
• Sagoff, M., 1984. “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal , 22: 297–307.
• –––, 1988. The Economy of the Earth , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2001. “Consumption”, in Jamieson 2001.
• Sánchez-Bayo, F., and Wyckhuys, K.A.G., 2019. “ Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers”, Biological Conservation , 232: 8–27.
• Sandler, R., 2007. Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Sarkar, S., 2005. Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schmidtz, D. and Willott, E., 2002. Environmental Ethics: What Really Matters, What Really Works , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sessions, G. (ed.), 1995. Deep Ecology for the 21st Century , Boston: Shambhala 1995.
• Shahar, D.C., 2015. “Rejecting Eco-Authoritarianism, Again”. Environmental Values , 24: 345-366
• Shaiko, R.G., 1987. “Religion, politics, and environmental concern: A powerful mix of passions”, Social Science Quarterly , 68: 244–262.
• Shrader-Frechette, K., 1984. Science Policy, Ethics and Economic Methodology , Dordrecht: D Reidel
• –––, 1987. “The real risks of risk-cost-benefit analysis”, in P.T. Durbin (ed.), Technology and Responsibility , Dordrecht: D Reidel, pp. 343–57.
• –––, 1996. “Individualism, Holism, and Environmental Ethics”, Ethics and the Environment , 1: 55–69.
• –––, 2002. Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Shue, H., 2001. “Climate”, in Jamieson 2001.
• Siipi, H., 2008. “Dimensions of Naturalness”, Ethics and the Environment , 13: 71–103.
• –––, 2011. “Non Backward-Looking Naturalness as an Environmental Value”, Ethics, Policy and the Environment , 14: 329–44.
• Siipi, H. and Finkelman, L., 2017. “The Extinction and De-extinction of Species”, Philosophy and Technology 30: 427-441.
• Singer, P., 1975. Animal Liberation , New York: Random House.
• –––, 1993. Practical Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
• Sneddon, C., Howarth , R. and Norgaard R. B., 2006. “Sustainable Development in a Post-Brundtland World”, Ecological Economics , 57: 253–68.
• Stone, A., 2006. “Adorno and the Disenchantment of Nature”, Philosophy and Social Criticism , 32: 231–253.
• Stone, C.D., 1972. “Should Trees Have Standing?”, Southern California Law Review , 45: 450–501; later published with a descriptive introduction as Should Trees Have Standing? , Los Angeles: Kaufmann, 1974, and reprinted in Schmidtz and Willott 2002.
• Stretton, H., 1976. Capitalism, Socialism and the Environment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Svoboda, T., 2019. Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Environmental Ethic , London, Routledge.
• Sylvan, R. and Bennett, D., 1994. The Greening of Ethics , Cambridge: White Horse Press.
• Taylor, B. and Zimmerman, M., 2005. “Deep Ecology”, in B. Taylor (ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Nature , London: Continuum.
• Taylor, B., Van Wieren, G. and Zaleha, B. D., 2016. “Lynn White jr, and the greening-of-religion hypothesis”, Conservation Biology , 30: 1000-1009
• Taylor, P., 1981. “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, Environmental Ethics , 3: 197–218.
• –––, 1986. Respect for Nature , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Thayer, Jr., R.L., 2003. LifePlace: Bioregional Thought and Practice , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Thompson, P., 2001. “Land and Water”, in Jamieson 2001.
• Tilman, D., 2000. “Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity”, Nature , 405: 208–11.
• UN, 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity , United Nations. available online .
• Van der Sluijs, J.P., Vaage, N.S., 2016. “Pollinators and Global Food Security: the Need for Holistic Global Stewardship”, Food Ethics , 1: 75–91; doi:10.1007/s41055-016-0003-z
• Van Wyck, P.C., 1997. Primitives in the Wilderness: Deep Ecology and the Missing Human Subject , New York: SUNY Press.
• Varner, G., 1998. In Nature’s Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press
• –––, 2000. “Sentientism”, in D. Jamieson (ed.) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy , Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 192–203.
• Vogel, S., 1996. Against Nature: The Concept of Nature in Critical Theory , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• –––, 2015. Thinking Like a Mall: Environmental Philosophy After the End of Nature , Boston: MIT Press
• Wackernagel, M., Galli, A., Hanscom, L., Lin, D., Mailhes, L., Drummond, T., 2018. “Ecological Footprint Accounts: Principles”, in Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators , Simon Bell and Stephen Morse (eds.), London: Routledge, ch. 16.
• Wagner-Egger, P, Delouvée, S., Gauvrit, N., Dieguez, S., 2018, “Creationism and conspiracism share a common teleological bias”, Current Biology , 28: R847–R870. available online
• Warren, K.J., 1987. “Feminism and Ecology: Making Connections”, Environmental Ethics , 9: 3–21.
• –––, 1990. “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”, Environmental Ethics , 12: 125–46.
• –––, 1999. “Ecofeminist Philosophy and Deep Ecology”, in Witoszek and Brennan (eds.) 1999, pp. 255–69.
• Warren, K.J. (ed.), 1994. Ecological Feminism , London: Routledge.
• Washington, H., and Maloney, M., 2020. “The need for ecological ethics in a new ecological economics”, Ecological Economics , 169; doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106478
• WCED 1987. Our Common Future , United Nations General Assembly, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. WCED 1987 available online .
• Wensveen, Louke van, 2000. Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue Ethics , Amherst, NY: Humanity.
• White, K., 2015. “How Similar Are Indigenous North American and Leopoldian Environmental Ethics?”, SSRN , revised version published online 3 Jun 2015. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2022038
• White, L., 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, Science , 155: 1203–7; reprinted in Schmidtz and Willott 2002.
• Whitney, E., 1993. “Lynn White, Ecotheology, and History.” Environmental Ethics , 15: 151–69.
• Williams, B., 1992. “Must a Concern for the Environment be Centred on Human Beings?”, reprinted in his Making Sense of Humanity and Other Philosophical Papers , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995: 233–40.
• Wilson, E.O., 1992. The Diversity of Life , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Witoszek, N., 1997. “Arne Næss and the Norwegian Nature Tradition”, Worldviews , 1: 57–73.
• Witoszek, N. and Brennan, A. (eds.), 1999. Philosophical Dialogues: Arne Næss and the Progress of Eco-Philosophy , New York: Rowan and Littlefield.
• Woodrum, E. and Hoban, T., 1994. “Theology and religiosity effects on environmentalism”, Review of Religious Research , 35: 193–206.
• Zaheva, B.D. and Szasz, A., 2015. “Why conservative Christians don’t believe in climate change”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . doi:10.1177/0096340215599789
• Zimmerman, M., 1994. Contesting Earth’s Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• The International Society for Environmental Ethics (ISEE)
• International Association for Environmental Philosophy (IAEP)
• Center for Environmental Philosophy
• Centre for Applied Ethics
• Schwartz, P. and Randall, D., 2003. “ An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security , download from climate.org.

aesthetics: environmental | animals, moral status of | communitarianism | consequentialism | critical theory | ecology | ecology: biodiversity | ethics: virtue | feminist philosophy, interventions: ethics | globalization | justice: intergenerational | metaethics | panpsychism | respect | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic

Acknowledgments

The authors are deeply grateful to the following people who gave generously of their time and advice to help shape the final structure of this entry: Clare Palmer, Mauro Grün, Lori Gruen, Gary Varner, William Throop, Patrick O’Donnell, Thomas Heyd, Dale Jamieson and Edward N. Zalta.

Copyright © 2021 by Andrew Brennan < A . Brennan @ latrobe . edu . au > Norva Y. S. Lo < norvayslo @ gmail . com >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

      The following list of short-titles is presented here by way of stimulating ideas for research on problems of environmental ethics in several general subject categories. In addition, individual authors who have contributed important works to this field are listed under the general rubric, "Authors of Works on or Related to Environmental Ethics." In-depth research on these topics can be conducted through the Library of Congress on line search engines or the relevant catalogues and collections of approrpiate university or public research libraries around the world. The Subject Bibliographies in Environmental Ethics provide a starting point for extended research on particular topics.       Please feel free to propose additional research categories with material concerning environmental ethics that you feel could be usefully included in this list by sending an e-mail message with your suggestions to its editor, Timothy C. Weiskel .       Thank you for your interest in the emerging field of environmental ethics.

Acquaculture Agricultural Chemicals and the Environment Agricultural Ecology Agricultural Meterology Agricultural Use of Water Resources Agriculture - Agronomy and Ecology Agriculture -- Environmental Aspects Agriculture -- History Agriculture -- Moral and Religious Aspects Albert Schweitzer Aldo Leopold Animal Rights Antartica Antartica -- International Aspects Arne Naess Authors of Works on or Related to Environmental Ethics Arne Naess Thomas Berry Wendell Berry Lester R. Brown J. Baird Callicott Rachael Carson Herman E. Daly Paul R. Ehrlich Ramachandra Guha Wes Jackson Aldo Leopold Alasdair MacIntyre Lynn Margulis John Muir David W. Orr Tim Palmer Albert Schweitzer Vandana Shiva Gary Snyder Henry David Thoreau -- Life and Works Karen J. Warren Edward O. Wilson Biotechnology, Agriculture and Ethics Agricultural Chemicals and the Environment Agriculture - Agronomy and Ecology Biotechnology - Moral and Ethical Aspects Endangered Plants Environmental Aspects of Pesticides Ethics and Biotechnology Plant Conservation Plant Varieties Seed Industry and Trade Biological Diversity Biological Diversity Conservation Biotechnology - Moral and Ethical Aspects Birth Control -- Religious Aspects Buddhism -- Social Aspects Business, the Economy and the Environment Business -- Environmental Aspects Environmental Auditing Environmental Economics Environmental Engineering Environmental Mediation Environmental Planning and Management Environmental Policy -- Cost Effectiveness Environmental Responsibility Environmental Risk Assessment External Debt -- Developing Countries Factory and Trade Waste Green Technology Industrial Management -- Environmental Aspects Industries -- Environmental Aspects Planning -- Environmental Aspects Social Responsibility of Business Sustainable Development Sustainable Development -- Environmental Aspects Sustainable Development -- Business Aspects Business -- Environmental Aspects China -- Population Christianity and Human Ecology Christianity and Nature Climate Changes Climatic Change -- Social Aspects Climatic Changes Coastal Ecology Coastal Zone Management Crops and Climate Deep Ecology Designing With Water: Principles and Practices Dinoflagellate Blooms Diseases -- History Ecofeminism Ecological Anthropology Ecological Integrity Ecological Politics Ecology and Ethics Ecology and Philosophy Ecology and Religion Ecology and Theology Economic Development -- Environmental Aspects Economics of Population El Nino Current Endangered Plants Engineering - Hydraulic Environmental Archaeology Environmental Aspects of Pesticides Environmental Auditing Environmental Economics Environmental Education Environmental Engineering Environmental Ethics Environmental History Environmental Justice Environmental Law Environmental Mediation Environmental Permits Environmental Planning and Management Environmental Policy Environmental Policy -- Cost Effectiveness Environmental Policy -- Developing Countries Environmental Policy -- Social Aspects Environmental Protection - Citizen Participation Environmental Protection -- Religious Aspects Environmental Responsibility Environmental Risk Assessment Environmental Security Environmental Sociology Environmental Toxicology Environmentalism -- United States Epidemics Epidemics - History Epidemiology -- 19th Century Epidemiology -- History Epidemiology -- Social Aspects Ethics & Moral Philosophy Ethics -- History of Ethics and Biotechnology External Debt -- Developing Countries Factory and Trade Waste Feminism and Human Ecology Fish Habitat Improvement Freshwater Ecology Gaia Hypothesis Gary Snyder Geographical Perception Global Climate Changes -- Historical and Present Day Agricultural Meterology Agriculture -- Moral and Religious Aspects Climate Changes Climatic Change -- Social Aspects Climatic Changes Crops and Climate El Nino Current Environmental Permits Global Warming Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Gases Human Beings -- Effect of Climate on Joint Implementation Ozone Layer Depletion Paleoclimatology Paleoecology Global Warming Green Movement Green Technology Greenhouse Effect Greenhouse Gases Groundwater Groundwater - Pollution Health Risk Assessment Henry David Thoreau -- Life and Works Human Beings -- Effect of Climate on Human Ecology -- Christianity Human Ecology -- Effect of Human Beings on Human Ecology -- Moral and Ethical Aspects Human Ecology -- Philosophy Human Ecology -- Religious Aspects Human Ecology and Ethics Human Geography Human Population Hydraulic Structures Design India -- Agriculture India -- Environmental Degradation India -- Environmental Policy India -- Social Ecology Industrial Management -- Environmental Aspects Industries -- Environmental Aspects Infectuous Disease Influenza International Environmental Law J. Baird Callicott John Muir Joint Implementation Juvenile Environmental Studies Lake Ecology Land Settlement Land Use -- Environmental Aspects Law of the Sea Limnology Marine Ecology Marine Pollution Marine Resource Conservation Medicine, Public Health and the Environment Dinoflagellate Blooms Diseases -- History Environmental Toxicology Epidemics Epidemics - History Epidemiology -- 19th Century Epidemiology -- History Epidemiology -- Social Aspects Health Risk Assessment Infectuous Disease Influenza Medical Geography Paleopathology -- Disease in History Social Medicine Medical Geography Nature -- Effect of Human Beings on Nature -- Religious Aspects Nature and Christianity Nature Writing / Essays NIMBY [ Not-In-My-Back-Yard ] Syndrome Ocean Overpopulation Ozone Layer Depletion Paleoclimatology Paleoecology Philosophy -- Environmental Aspects Philosophy -- Moral and Ethical Aspects Philosophy of Nature Philosophy of Sociobiology Planning -- Environmental Aspects Plant Conservation Plant Varieties Ponds Population Issues Birth Control -- Religious Aspects China -- Population Economics of Population Human Population Overpopulation Population -- Environmental Aspects Population -- Developing Countries Population Control Population Policy Population Policy - Developing Countries Population Policy -- Moral and Ethical Aspects Population -- Environmental Aspects Population -- Developing Countries Population Control Population Policy Population Policy - Developing Countries Population Policy -- Moral and Ethical Aspects Rachael Carson Regional Planning -- Environmental Aspects Religious, Ethical and Philosophical Understandings of Nature Christianity and Human Ecology Christianity and Nature Deep Ecology Ecology and Ethics Ecology and Philosophy Ecology and Religion Ecology and Theology Environmental Ethics Environmental Justice Environmental Protection -- Religious Aspects Ethics & Moral Philosophy Ethics -- History of Gaia Hypothesis Human Ecology -- Christianity Human Ecology -- Moral and Ethical Aspects Human Ecology -- Philosophy Human Ecology -- Religious Aspects Human Ecology and Ethics Nature -- Religious Aspects Nature and Christianity Philosophy -- Environmental Aspects Philosophy -- Moral and Ethical Aspects Philosophy of Nature Philosophy of Sociobiology Religion and Science Religion and Science Resevoirs Rivers Seed Industry and Trade Small Scale Agriculture Social Ecology Social Medicine Social Responsibility of Business Stream Conservation Stream Ecology Structural Adjustment -- World Bank Economic Policies Sustainable Agriculture Sustainable Development Sustainable Development -- Environmental Aspects Sustainable Development -- Business Aspects Symbiogenesis The 'Commons' -- The Ethics of Common Resource Management Waste Disposal Sites Water -- Substance and Symbol of Life Acquaculture Agricultural Use of Water Resources Coastal Ecology Coastal Zone Management Designing With Water: Principles and Practices Dinoflagellate Blooms Ecological Integrity Engineering - Hydraulic Fish Habitat Improvement Freshwater Ecology Groundwater Groundwater - Pollution Hydraulic Structures Design Lake Ecology Limnology Marine Ecology Ocean Ponds Resevoirs Rivers Stream Conservation Stream Ecology Symbiogenesis Water and Literature Water and Marine Resources Management Water Balance Water Management Water Resources Conservation Water Resources Development Water Rights Water Supply Water Supply - Developing Countries Water Supply -- Middle East Water Use Wetland Ecology Wetlands Water and Literature Water and Marine Resources Management Water Balance Water Management Water Resources Conservation Water Resources Development Water Rights Water Supply Water Supply - Developing Countries Water Supply -- Middle East Water Use Wetland Ecology Wetlands

Are you seeking one-on-one college counseling and/or essay support? Limited spots are now available. Click here to learn more.

50 Best Environmental Science Research Topics

May 31, 2023

Environmental science is a varied discipline that encompasses a variety of subjects, including ecology, atmospheric science, and geology among others. Professionals within this field can pursue many occupations from lab technicians and agricultural engineers to park rangers and environmental lawyers. However, what unites these careers is their focus on how the natural world and the human world interact and impact the surrounding environment. There is also one other significant commonality among environmental science careers: virtually all of them either engage in or rely on research on environmental science topics to ensure their work is accurate and up to date.

In this post, we’ll outline some of the best environmental science research topics to help you explore disciplines within environmental science and kickstart your own research. If you are considering majoring in environmental science or perhaps just need help brainstorming for a research paper, this post will give you a broad sense of timely environmental science research topics.

What makes a research topic good?

Before we dive into specific environmental science research topics, let’s first cover the basics: what qualities make for a viable research topic. Research is the process of collecting information to make discoveries and reach new conclusions. We often think of research as something that occurs in academic or scientific settings. However, everyone engages in informal research in everyday life, from reading product reviews to investigating statistics for admitted students at prospective colleges . While we all conduct research in our day-to-day lives, formal academic research is necessary to advance discoveries and scholarly discourses. Therefore, in this setting, good research hinges on a topic in which there are unanswered questions or ongoing debates. In other words, meaningful research focuses on topics where you can say something new.

However, identifying an interesting research topic is only the first step in the research process. Research topics tend to be broad in scope. Strong research is dependent on developing a specific research question, meaning the query your project will seek to answer. While there are no comprehensive guidelines for research questions, most scholars agree that research questions should be:

1) Specific

Research questions need to clearly identify and define the focus of your research. Without sufficient detail, your research will likely be too broad or imprecise in focus to yield meaningful insights. For example, you might initially be interested in addressing this question: How should governments address the effects of climate change? While that is a worthwhile question to investigate, it’s not clear enough to facilitate meaningful research. What level of government is this question referring to? And what specific effects of global warming will this research focus on? You would need to revise this question to provide a clearer focus for your research. A revised version of this question might look like this: How can state government officials in Florida best mitigate the effects of sea-level rise?

 2) Narrow

Our interest in a given topic often starts quite broad. However, it is difficult to produce meaningful, thorough research on a broad topic. For that reason, it is important that research questions be narrow in scope, focusing on a specific issue or subtopic. For example, one of the more timely environmental science topics is renewable energy. A student who is just learning about this topic might wish to write a research paper on the following question: Which form of renewable energy is best? However, that would be a difficult question to answer in one paper given the various ways in which an energy source could be “best.” Instead, this student might narrow their focus, assessing renewable energy sources through a more specific lens: Which form of renewable energy is best for job creation?

 3) Complex

As we previously discussed, good research leads to new discoveries. These lines of inquiry typically require a complicated and open-ended research question. A question that can be answered with just a “yes” or “no” (or a quick Google search) is likely indicative of a topic in which additional research is unnecessary (i.e. there is no ongoing debate) or a topic that is not well defined. For example, the following question would likely be too simple for academic research: What is environmental justice? You can look up a definition of environmental justice online. You would need to ask a more complex question to sustain a meaningful research project. Instead, you might conduct research on the following query: Which environmental issue(s) disproportionately impact impoverished communities in the Pacific Northwest? This question is narrower and more specific, while also requiring more complex thought and analysis to answer.

4) Debatable

Again, strong research provides new answers and information, which means that they must be situated within topics or discourses where there is ongoing debate. If a research question can only lead to one natural conclusion, that may indicate that it has already been sufficiently addressed in prior research or that the question is leading. For example, Are invasive species bad? is not a very debatable question (the answer is in the term “invasive species”!). A paper that focused on this question would essentially define and provide examples of invasive species (i.e. information that is already well documented). Instead, a researcher might investigate the effects of a specific invasive species. For example: How have Burmese pythons impacted ecosystems in the Everglades, and what mitigation strategies are most effective to reduce Burmese python populations?

Therefore, research topics, including environmental science topics, are those about which there are ample questions yet to be definitively answered. Taking time to develop a thoughtful research question will provide the necessary focus and structure to facilitate meaningful research.

10 Great Environmental Science Research Topics (With Explanations!)

Now that we have a basic understanding of what qualities can make or break a research topic, we can return to our focus on environmental science topics. Although “great” research topics are somewhat subjective, we believe the following topics provide excellent foundations for research due to ongoing debates in these areas, as well as the urgency of the challenges they seek to address.

1) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Although climate change is now a well-known concept , there is still much to be learned about how humans can best mitigate and adapt to its effects. Mitigation involves reducing the severity of climate change. However, there are a variety of ways mitigation can occur, from switching to electric vehicles to enforcing carbon taxes on corporations that produce the highest carbon emission levels. Many of these environmental science topics intersect with issues of public policy and economics, making them very nuanced and versatile.

In comparison, climate change adaptation considers how humans can adjust to life in an evolving climate where issues such as food insecurity, floods, droughts, and other severe weather events are more frequent. Research on climate change adaptation is particularly fascinating due to the various levels at which it occurs, from federal down to local governments, to help communities anticipate and adjust to the effects of climate change.

Both climate change mitigation and adaptation represent excellent environmental science research topics as there is still much to be learned to address this issue and its varied effects.

2) Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is another fairly mainstream topic in which there is much to learn and research. Although scientists have identified many forms of sustainable energy, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, questions remain about how to best implement these energy sources. How can politicians, world leaders, and communities advance renewable energy through public policy? What impact will renewable energy have on local and national economies? And how can we minimize the environmental impact of renewable energy technologies? While we have identified alternatives to fossil fuels, questions persist about the best way to utilize these technologies, making renewable energy one of the best environmental science topics to research.

3) Conservation

Conservation is a broad topic within environmental science, focusing on issues such as preserving environments and protecting endangered species. However, conservation efforts are more challenging than ever in the face of a growing world population and climate change. In fact, some scientists theorize that we are currently in the middle of a sixth mass extinction event. While these issues might seem dire, we need scientists to conduct research on conservation efforts for specific species, as well as entire ecosystems, to help combat these challenges and preserve the planet’s biodiversity.

4) Deforestation

The Save the Rainforest movement of the 1980s and 90s introduced many people to the issue of deforestation. Today, the problems associated with deforestation, such as reduced biodiversity and soil erosion, are fairly common knowledge. However, these challenges persist due, in part, to construction and agricultural development projects. While we know the effects of deforestation, it is more difficult to identify and implement feasible solutions. This is particularly true in developing countries where deforestation is often more prevalent due to political, environmental, and economic factors. Environmental science research can help reduce deforestation by identifying strategies to help countries sustainably manage their natural resources.

Environmental Science Topics (Continued)

5) urban ecology.

When we think of “the environment,” our brains often conjure up images of majestic mountain ranges and lush green forests. However, less “natural” environments also warrant study: this is where urban ecology comes in. Urban ecology is the study of how organisms interact with one another and their environment in urban settings. Through urban ecology, researchers can address topics such as how greenspaces in cities can reduce air pollution, or how local governments can adopt more effective waste management practices. As one of the newer environmental science topics, urban ecology represents an exciting research area that can help humans live more sustainably.

6) Environmental Justice

While environmental issues such as climate change impact people on a global scale, not all communities are affected equally. For example, wealthy nations tend to contribute more to greenhouse-gas emissions. However, less developed nations are disproportionately bearing the brunt of climate change . Studies within the field of environmental justice seek to understand how issues such as race, national origin, and income impact the degree to which people experience hardships from environmental issues. Researchers in this field not only document these inequities, but also identify ways in which environmental justice can be achieved. As a result, their work helps communities have access to clean, safe environments in which they can thrive.

7) Water Management

Water is, of course, necessary for life, which is why water management is so important within environmental science research topics. Water management research ensures that water resources are appropriately identified and maintained to meet demand. However, climate change has heightened the need for water management research, due to the occurrence of more severe droughts and wildfires. As a result, water management research is necessary to ensure water is clean and accessible.

8) Pollution and Bioremediation

Another impact of the increase in human population and development is heightened air, water, and soil pollution. Environmental scientists study pollutants to understand how they work and where they originate. Through their research, they can identify solutions to help address pollution, such as bioremediation, which is the use of microorganisms to consume and break down pollutants. Collectively, research on pollution and bioremediation helps us restore environments so they are sufficient for human, animal, and plant life.

9) Disease Ecology

While environmental science topics impact the health of humans, we don’t always think of this discipline as intersecting with medicine. But, believe it or not, they can sometimes overlap! Disease ecology examines how ecological processes and interactions impact disease evolution. For example, malaria is a disease that is highly dependent on ecological variables, such as temperature and precipitation. Both of these factors can help or hinder the breeding of mosquitoes and, therefore, the transmission of malaria. The risk of infectious diseases is likely to increase due to climate change , making disease ecology an important research topic.

10) Ecosystems Ecology

If nothing else, the aforementioned topics and their related debates showcase just how interconnected the world is. None of us live in a vacuum: our environment affects us just as we affect it. That makes ecosystems ecology, which examines how ecosystems operate and interact, an evergreen research topic within environmental science.

40 More Environmental Science Research Topics

Still haven’t stumbled upon the right environmental science research topic? The following ideas may help spark some inspiration:

• The effects of agricultural land use on biodiversity and ecosystems.
• The impact of invasive plant species on ecosystems.
• How wildfires and droughts shape ecosystems.
• The role of fire ecology in addressing wildfire threats.
• The impact of coral bleaching on biodiversity.
• Ways to minimize the environmental impact of clean energies.
• The effects of climate change on ocean currents and migration patterns of marine species.

Environmental Justice and Public Policy

• Opportunities to equalize the benefits of greenspaces for impoverished and marginalized communities.
• The impact of natural disasters on human migration patterns.
• The role of national parks and nature reserves in human health.
• How to address inequalities in the impact of air pollution.
• How to prevent and address the looming climate refugee crisis.
• Environmentally and economically sustainable alternatives to deforestation in less developed countries.
• Effects of environmental policies and regulations on impoverished communities.
• The role of pollutants in endocrine disruption.
• The effects of climate change on the emergence of infectious diseases.

AP Environmental Science Research Topics (Continued)

Soil science.

• Effects of climate change on soil erosion.
• The role of land management in maintaining soil health.
• Agricultural effects of salinization in coastal areas.
• The effects of climate change on agriculture.

Urban Ecology

• How road construction impacts biodiversity and ecosystems.
• The effects of urbanization and city planning on water cycles.
• Impacts of noise pollution on human health.
• The role of city planning in reducing light pollution.

Pollution and Bioremediation

• The role of bioremediation in removing “forever” chemicals from the environment.
• Impacts of air pollution on maternal health.
• How to improve plastic recycling processes.
• Individual measures to reduce consumption and creation of microplastics.
• Environmental impacts of and alternatives to fracking.

Environmental Law and Ethics

• Ethical implications of human intervention in the preservation of endangered species.
• The efficacy and impact of single-use plastic laws.
• Effects of religious and cultural values in environmental beliefs.
• The ethics of climate change policy for future generations.
• Ethical implications of international environmental regulations for less developed countries.
• The impact and efficacy of corporate carbon taxes.
• Ethical and environmental implications of fast fashion.
• The ethics and efficacy of green consumerism.
• Impacts of the hospitality and travel industries on pollution and emissions.
• The ethical implications of greenwashing in marketing.
• Effects of “Right to Repair” laws on pollution.

Final Thoughts: Environmental Science Research Topics

Environmental science is a diverse and very important area of study that impacts all aspects of life on Earth. If you’ve found a topic you’d like to pursue, it’s time to hit the books (or online databases)! Begin reading broadly on your chosen topic so you can define a specific research question. If you’re unsure where to begin, contact a research librarian who can connect you with pertinent resources. As you familiarize yourself with the discourse surrounding your topic, consider what questions spring to mind. Those questions may represent gaps around which you can craft a research question.

Interested in conducting academic research? Check out the following resources for information on research opportunities and programs:

• Research Opportunities for High School Students
• Colleges with the Best Undergraduate Research Programs
• College Success
• High School Success

Emily Smith

Emily earned a BA in English and Communication Studies from UNC Chapel Hill and an MA in English from Wake Forest University. While at UNC and Wake Forest, she served as a tutor and graduate assistant in each school’s writing center, where she worked with undergraduate and graduate students from all academic backgrounds. She also worked as an editorial intern for the Wake Forest University Press as well as a visiting lecturer in the Department of English at WFU, and currently works as a writing center director in western North Carolina.

• 2-Year Colleges
• ADHD/LD/Autism/Executive Functioning
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Essay
• College Search/Knowledge
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Data Visualizations
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• General Knowledge
• Graduate School Admissions
• High Schools
• Homeschool Resources
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Outdoor Adventure
• Private High School Spotlight
• Research Programs
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Teacher Tools
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 39, 2014, review article, environmental ethics.

• Clare Palmer 1 , Katie McShane 2 , and Ronald Sandler 3
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77845; email: [email protected] 2 Department of Philosophy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1781; email: [email protected] 3 Department of Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 39:419-442 (Volume publication date October 2014) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-121112-094434
• First published as a Review in Advance on August 13, 2014
• © Annual Reviews

Environmental ethics—the study of ethical questions raised by human relations with the nonhuman environment—emerged as an important subfield of philosophy during the 1970s. It is now a flourishing area of research. This article provides a review of the secular, Western traditions in the field. It examines both anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric claims about what has value, as well as divergent views about whether environmental ethics should be concerned with bringing about best consequences, respecting principles and rights, or embodying environmental virtues. The article also briefly considers two critical traditions—ecofeminism and environmental pragmatism—and explores some of the difficult environmental ethics questions posed by anthropogenic climate change.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Preston CJ . 1.  2005 . Epistemology and environmental philosophy. Special issue. Ethics Environ. 10 : 2 1– 216 [Google Scholar]
• Odenbaugh J . 2.  2007 . Seeing the forest and the trees. Philos. Sci. 74 : 628– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Carlson A . 3.  2008 . Nature and Landscape: An Introduction to Environmental Aesthetics New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Jenkins W , Chapple C . 4.  2011 . Religion and environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36 : 441– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Kelbessa W . 5.  2005 . The rehabilitation of indigenous environmental ethics in Africa. Diogenes 52 : 3 17– 34 [Google Scholar]
• James SP , Cooper D . 6.  2008 . Buddhism and the environment. Special edition. Contemp. Buddhism 8 : 2 93– 108 [Google Scholar]
• Brown C , Toadvine T . 7.  2003 . Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself Albany: State Univ. N.Y. Press [Google Scholar]
• Foltz B , Frodeman B . 8.  2004 . Rethinking Nature: Essays in Environmental Philosophy Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Westra L , Robinson T . 9.  1997 . The Greeks and the Environment Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
• Leopold A . 10.  1968 [1949] . A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Taylor P . 11.  1986 . Respect for Nature Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Rolston H . 12.  1986 . Philosophy Gone Wild New York: Prometheus [Google Scholar]
• Elliot R , Gare A . 13.  1983 . Environmental Philosophy: A Collection of Readings Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Des Jardins JR . 14.  1993 . Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy Belmont, CA: Wadsworth [Google Scholar]
• VanDeVeer D , Pierce C . 15.  1993 . The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book Belmont, CA: Wadsworth [Google Scholar]
• Minteer BA . 16.  2012 . Refounding Environmental Ethics: Pragmatism, Principle, and Practice Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• O'Neill J . 17.  1992 . The varieties of intrinsic value. Monist 75 : 2 119– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Jamieson D . 18.  2008 . Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• McShane K . 19.  2007 . Why environmental ethics shouldn't give up on intrinsic value. Environ. Ethics 29 : 1 43– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Attfield R . 20.  1995 . Value, Obligation, and Meta-Ethics Amsterdam: Rodopi [Google Scholar]
• Norton BG . 21.  1987 . Why Preserve Natural Variety? Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Rolston H . 22.  1988 . Environmental Ethics Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Weston A . 23.  1985 . Beyond intrinsic value: pragmatism in environmental ethics. Environ. Ethics 7 : 4 321– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Maguire LA , Justus J . 24.  2008 . Why intrinsic value is a poor basis for conservation decisions. BioScience 58 : 10 910– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Fox W . 25.  1993 . What does the recognition of intrinsic value entail?. Trumpeter 10 : 3 http://trumpeter.athabascau.ca/index.php/trumpet/article/view/379/601 [Google Scholar]
• Callicott JB . 26.  1992 . Can a theory of moral sentiments support a genuinely normative environmental ethic?. Inquiry 35 : 183– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Warren MA . 27.  2000 . Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Goodpaster KE . 28.  1978 . On being morally considerable. J. Philos. 75 : 6 308– 25 [Google Scholar]
• White L Jr . 29.  1967 . The historic roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155 : 3767 1203– 7 [Google Scholar]
• Naess A . 30.  1973 . The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry 16 : 1 95– 100 [Google Scholar]
• Devall B , Sessions G . 31.  1985 . Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs Smith [Google Scholar]
• Norton BG . 32.  1991 . Towards Unity Among Environmentalists New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Singer P . 33.  1975 . Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals New York: Avon [Google Scholar]
• Regan T . 34.  1983 . The Case for Animal Rights Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
• Cahen H . 35.  1988 . Against the moral considerability of ecosystems. Environ. Ethics 10 : 3 195– 216 [Google Scholar]
• Thompson J . 36.  1990 . A refutation of environmental ethics. Environ. Ethics 12 : 147– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Johnson L . 37.  1991 . A Morally Deep World Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Nelson M . 38.  1993 . A defense of environmental ethics: a reply to Janna Thompson. Environ. Ethics 45 : 245– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Sandler R . 39.  2013 . The Ethics of Species London: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Callicott JB . 40.  1980 . Animal liberation: a triangular affair. Environ. Ethics 2 : 311– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Varner G . 41.  1998 . In Nature's Interests? Interests, Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• 42.  US Environ. Prot. Agency (EPA) 2013 . Plan EJ 2014 Progress Report Washington, DC: EPA http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/plan-ej-2014/plan-ej-progress-report-2014.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Camacho D . 43.  1998 . Environmental Injustices, Political Struggles: Race, Class, and the Environment Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bullard RD , Mohai P , Saha R , Wright B . 44.  2007 . Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1989–2007 Cleveland, OH: United Church Christ [Google Scholar]
• Westra L , Lawson B . 45.  2001 . Faces of Environmental Racism: Confronting Issues of Global Justice Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
• Sandler R , Pezzullo PC . 46.  2007 . Environmental Justice and Environmentalism Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
• Schlosberg D . 47.  2007 . Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements and Nature New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Shrader-Frechette K . 48.  2002 . Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bryant B . 49.  1995 . Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions Washington, DC: Island [Google Scholar]
• Guha R . 50.  1989 . Radical American environmentalism and wilderness preservation: a third world critique. Environ. Ethics 11 : 71– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Shiva V . 51.  1999 . Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge Cambridge, MA: South End [Google Scholar]
• Hassoun N . 52.  2012 . The problem of debt-for-nature swaps from a human rights perspective. J. Appl. Philos. 29 : 4 359– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Gardiner S . 53.  2009 . The Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Singer P . 54.  2004 . One World: The Ethics of Globalization New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• 55.  World Comm. Environ. Dev 1987 . Our Common Future. New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Thompson PB . 56.  2012 . Sustainability: ethical foundations. Nat. Educ. Knowledge 3 : 10 11 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/sustainability-ethical-foundations-71373239 [Google Scholar]
• Norton BG . 57.  2005 . Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Thompson PB . 58.  2010 . The Agrarian Vision: Sustainability and Environmental Ethics Lexington: Univ. Ky. Press [Google Scholar]
• Posner E , Sunstein C . 59.  2008 . Climate change justice. Georget. Law J. 96 : 1565– 612 [Google Scholar]
• Caney S . 60.  2012 . Just emissions. Philos. Public Aff. 40 : 4 255– 300 [Google Scholar]
• Broome J . 61.  2012 . Climate Matters New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
• Parfit D . 62.  1984 . Reasons and Persons Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Mulgan T . 63.  2006 . Future People New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Roberts M , Wasserman D . 64.  2009 . Harming Future Persons New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
• 65.  U.N. Food Agric. Organ. (UNFAO) 2012 . State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture Rome: Food Agric. Organ. U.N. [Google Scholar]
• Haberl H , Erb KH , Krausmann F , Gaube V , Bondeau A . 66.  et al. 2007 . Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in Earth's terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104 : 31 12942– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Singer P . 67.  1979 . Killing humans and killing animals. Inquiry 22 : 145– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Palmer C . 68.  2010 . Animal Ethics in Context New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Donaldson S , Kymlicka W . 69.  2011 . Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Carruthers P . 70.  1992 . The Animals Issue London: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Cohen C . 71.  1986 . The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 315 : 14 865– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Nobis N . 72.  2004 . Carl Cohen's ‘kind’ argument for animal rights and against animal rights. J. Appl. Philos. 21 : 1 43– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Schweitzer A . 73.  1987 [1923] . The Philosophy of Civilization New York: Prometheus [Google Scholar]
• Attfield R . 74.  1987 . A Theory of Value and Obligation Beckenham, UK: Croom Helm [Google Scholar]
• Agar N . 75.  2001 . Life's Intrinsic Value New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Schmidtz D . 76.  1998 . Are all species equal?. J. Appl. Philos. 15 : 57– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Sterba JP . 77.  1998 . A biocentrist strikes back. Environ. Ethics 20 : 361– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Callicott JB . 78.  1989 . In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy Albany: State Univ. N.Y. Press [Google Scholar]
• Norton BG . 79.  1988 . The constancy of Leopold's land ethic. Conserv. Biol. 2 : 1 93– 102 [Google Scholar]
• Callicott JB . 80.  1987 . Companion to ‘A Sand County Almanac’: Interpretive and Critical Essays Madison: Univ. Wis. Press [Google Scholar]
• Sagoff M . 81.  2013 . What does environmental protection protect?. Ethics Policy Environ. 16 : 3 239– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Costanza R , Norton BG , Haskell BD . 82.  1992 . Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management Washington, DC: Island [Google Scholar]
• Westra L . 83.  1994 . An Environmental Proposal for Ethics: The Principle of Integrity Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
• Jamieson D . 84.  1995 . Ecosystem health: some preventive medicine. Environ. Values 4 : 333– 44 [Google Scholar]
• McShane K . 85.  2004 . Ecosystem health. Environ. Ethics 26 : 3 227– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Soulé M . 86.  1985 . What is conservation biology?. BioScience 35 : 11 727– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Katz E . 87.  1992 . The big lie: human restoration of nature. Res. Philos. Technol. 12 : 231– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Bradley B . 88.  2001 . The value of endangered species. J. Value Inq. 35 : 43– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Maier DS . 89.  2012 . What's So Good About Biodiversity? A Call for Better Reasoning About Nature's Value Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Preston CJ . 90.  2011 . Re-thinking the unthinkable: environmental ethics and the presumptive argument against geoengineering. Environ. Values 20 : 457– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Elliot R . 91.  1982 . Faking nature. Inquiry 25 : 81– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Hettinger N , Throop W . 92.  1999 . Refocusing ecocentrism. Environ. Ethics 21 : 1 3– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Callicott JB , Nelson MP . 93.  1999 . The Great New Wilderness Debate Athens: Univ. Georgia Press [Google Scholar]
• Kareiva P , Marvier M . 94.  2012 . What is conservation science?. BioScience 62 : 11 962– 69 [Google Scholar]
• McKibben B . 95.  1989 . The End of Nature New York: Random House [Google Scholar]
• Carter A . 96.  2005 . Inegalitarian biocentric consequentialism, the minimax implication and multidimensional value theory: a brief proposal for a new direction in environmental ethics. Utilitas 17 : 1 62– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Singer P . 97.  1989 . All animals are equal. Animal Rights and Human Obligations T Regan, P Singer 148– 62 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [Google Scholar]
• Holbrook D . 98.  1997 . The consequentialist side of environmental ethics. Environ. Values 6 : 1 87– 96 [Google Scholar]
• McMahan J . 99.  2010 . The meat eaters. New York Times Sept. 19. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/the-meat-eaters/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 [Google Scholar]
• Sagoff M . 100.  1984 . Animal liberation and environmental ethics: bad marriage, quick divorce. Osgoode Hall Law J. 22 : 297– 307 [Google Scholar]
• Hayward T . 101.  2005 . Constitutional Environmental Rights Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Francione G . 102.  2000 . Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Cochrane A . 103.  2012 . Animal Rights Without Liberation New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Hill TE Jr . 104.  1983 . Ideals of human excellence and preserving natural environments. Environ. Ethics 5 : 3 211– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Sandler R . 105.  2007 . Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Sandler R , Cafaro P . 106.  2005 . Environmental Virtue Ethics Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
• van Wensveen L . 107.  2000 . Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue Ethics Amherst, NY: Prometheus [Google Scholar]
• Warren K . 108.  1993 . Introduction. Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology ME Zimmerman, JB Callicott, J Clark, KJ Warren, IJ Klaver, J Clark 253– 67 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall [Google Scholar]
• Ruether RR . 109.  1975 . New Woman, New Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation New York: Seabury [Google Scholar]
• Plumwood V . 110.  1991 . Nature, self and gender: feminism, environmental philosophy and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia 6 : 1 3– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Kheel M . 111.  1993 . From heroic to holistic ethics: the ecofeminist challenge. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature G Gaard 243– 71 Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Plumwood V . 112.  1993 . Feminism and the Mastery of Nature London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Light A , Katz E . 113.  1996 . Environmental Pragmatism New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Norton BG . 114.  1997 . Convergence and contextualism: some clarifications and a reply to Steverson. Environ. Ethics 19 : 1 87– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Light A . 115.  2002 . Contemporary environmental ethics: from metaethics to public philosophy. Metaphilosophy 33 : 4 426– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Ferkany M , Whyte K . 116.  2012 . The importance of participatory virtues in the future of environmental education. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 25 : 3 419– 34 [Google Scholar]
• O'Neill J . 117.  1993 . Ecology, Policy and Politics London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
• Attfield R . 118.  2011 . Climate change, environmental ethics, and biocentrism. Climate Change and Environmental Ethics VP Nanda 31– 41 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction [Google Scholar]
• Sarkar S . 119.  2005 . Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Basl J , Sandler R . 120.  2013 . Designer Biology: The Ethics of Intensively Engineering Biological and Ecological Systems Lanham, MD: Lexington [Google Scholar]
• Streiffer R , Basl J . 121.  2013 . The ethics of agricultural animal biotechnology. Ethics and Emerging Technologies R Sandler 501– 5 New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
• Preston CJ . 122.  2008 . Synthetic biology: drawing a line in Darwin's sand. Environ. Values 17 : 1 23– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Comstock G . 123.  2001 . Vexing Nature? On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Thompson PB . 124.  2013 . Artificial meat. Ethics and Emerging Technologies R Sandler 516– 30 New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
• Light A . 125.  2000 . Ecological restoration and the culture of nature: a pragmatic perspective. Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Humanities and Social Sciences P Gobster, B Hull 49– 70 Washington, DC: Island [Google Scholar]
• Throop W . 126.  2012 . Environmental virtues and the aims of restoration. See Ref. 149 47– 62
• Higgs E . 127.  2012 . History, novelty and virtue in ecological restoration. See Ref. 149 81– 102
• Sandler R . 128.  2012 . Global warming and virtues of ecological restoration. See Ref. 149 63– 80
• Light A . 129.  2012 . The death of restoration. See Ref. 149 105– 24
• Nolt J . 130.  2011 . Nonanthropocentric climate ethics. WIREs Clim. Change 2 : 701– 11 [Google Scholar]
• McCoy ED , Berry K . 131.  2008 . Using an ecological ethics framework to make decisions about the relocation of wildlife. Sci. Eng. Ethics 14 : 505– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Camacho A . 132.  2010 . Assisted migration: redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale J. Regul. 27 : 171– 255 [Google Scholar]
• Aubin I , Garbe CM , Colombo S , Drever CR , McKenney DW . 133.  et al. 2011 . Why we disagree about assisted migration: ethical implications of a key debate regarding the future of Canada's forest. For. Chron. 87 : 755– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Albrecht G , Brooke C , Bennett D , Garnett S . 134.  2013 . The ethics of assisted colonization in the age of anthropogenic climate change. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 26 : 827– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Ricciardi A , Simberloff D . 135.  2008 . Why assisted migration is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 : 248– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Sandler R . 136.  2010 . The value of species and the ethical foundations of assisted colonization. Conserv. Biol. 24 : 2 424– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Buma B . 137.  2013 . Don't give up just yet: maintaining species, services and systems in a changing world. Ethics, Policy Environ. 16 : 33– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Larson B , Palmer C . 138.  2013 . Assisted migration is no panacea, but let's not discount it either. Ethics, Policy Environ. 16 : 16– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Jamieson D . 139.  1996 . Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim. Change 33 : 323– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Hamilton C . 140.  2013 . The ethical foundations of climate engineering. Climate Change Geoengineering: Philosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues and Governance Frameworks W Burns, A Strauss 39– 58 London: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Tuana N . 141.  2013 . The ethical dimensions of geoengineering: solar radiation management through sulfur particle injection. Geoengineering our climate? Ethics, policy and governance. Work. Pap. 2, Geoeng. Our Clim. Work. Pap. Opin. Artic. Ser., Penn State Univ. Press http://geoengineeringourclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/tuana-2013-ethics-of-geoengineering-click-for-download.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Hale B . 142.  2012 . The world that would have been: moral hazard arguments against geoengineering. See Ref. 147 113– 32
• Davies G . 143.  2010 . Geoengineering: a critique. Clim. Law 1 : 3 429– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Svoboda T , Keller K , Goes M , Tuana N . 144.  2011 . Sulfate aerosol geoengineering: the question of justice. Public Aff. Q. 25 : 3 157– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Preston CJ . 145.  2012 . Solar radiation management and vulnerable populations: the moral deficit and its prospects. See Ref. 147 77– 94
• Hamilton C . 146.  2013 . No, we should not just ‘at least do the research.’. Nature 496 : 7444 139 [Google Scholar]
• Preston CJ . 147.  2012 . Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Lanham, MD: Lexington [Google Scholar]
• Gardiner S . 148.  2010 . Is arming the future with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about intentionally manipulating the climate system. Climate Ethics: Essential Readings S Gardiner, S Caney, D Jamieson 284– 314 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, adaptive governance of social-ecological systems, dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions, climate change and food systems, wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability, global water pollution and human health, adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework, i ndustrial s ymbiosis : literature and taxonomy, environmental governance, c arbon d ioxide e missions from the g lobal c ement i ndustry 1, global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review.

• Advanced Search
• All new items
• Journal articles
• Manuscripts
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• Submit a book or article
• Upload a bibliography
• Personal page tracking
• Archives we track
• Information for publishers
• Introduction
• Submitting to PhilPapers
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriptions
• Editor's Guide
• The Categorization Project
• For Publishers
• For Archive Admins
• PhilPapers Surveys
• Bargain Finder
• About PhilPapers
• Create an account

Topics in Environmental Ethics, Misc

• Climate Change ( 1,912 )
• Ecology and Conservation Biology ( 2,643 | 1,430)
• Environmental Justice ( 388 )
• Future Generations ( 522 | 451)
• Nature ( 742 )
• Pollution ( 46 )
• Species ( 810 | 363)
• Sustainability ( 284 )
• Wilderness ( 244 )

Environmental Ethics

• In book: Oxford Bibliographies in Environmental Science
• Chapter: Environmental Ethics
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Editors: Ellen Wohl

• Oregon State University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Rita Retnowati
• Muhammad Taufik Awaludin
• Esa Rahma Heryawati

• K. G. P. K. Weerakoon
• William Chirwa
• Adesina Odunayo Blessing
• Martha Kalumbi

• Soc Theor Pract
• James P. Sterba

• Kathleen Dean Moore
• John McPhee
• Wendell Berry
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

376 Ethical Topics & Questions for Research Papers, Essays, Debates, & More

Are there white lies with good intentions? Should euthanasia be permitted by law?

Both of these questions are ethical dilemmas – situations with two or more conflicting moral choices. Ethical dilemmas involve conflicting values and moral obligations. To ease the understanding of such predicaments, you can approach ethics (or moral philosophy). This branch of philosophy suggests the concepts of good and bad and provides theories to determine moral behavior.

In this article, we will explore different ethical topics and theories applicable to them. You will also find practical tips on how to write an essay on the most complex ethical issue. Let’s start!

• 💥 TOP 12 Ethical Topics

📚 Normative Ethical Theories

• 🤔 How to Answer Ethical Dilemmas

📝 Ethical Research Paper Topics

🧑🏾‍⚕️ ethical topics in healthcare.

• 🌳 Environmental Ethical Issues

🖥️ Ethical Topics in Technology

⚡ ethical argument topics.

• 🏺 Philosophy Essay Topics
• 👩🏽‍🎓 Ethical Questions for Students

💬 Ethical Persuasive Speech Topics

🔦 ethical topics for presentation, ❓ ethical questions: faq, 🔗 references, 💥 top-12 ethical topics.

Here are some ethical topics that are popular for discussion in 2023:

• Privacy concerns in social media advertisement.
• Ethics of using artificial intelligence for marketing.
• Digital surveillance and personal data protection.
• Genetic engineering and ethical boundaries.
• Ethical issues in educational technology.
• Ethical challenges in healthcare data sharing.
• Environmental ethics and sustainable development.
• Ethical dilemmas of autonomous vehicles.
• Bioethics in medical research and experimentation.
• Ethical considerations in cybersecurity practices.
• Ethical concerns in the use of big data.
• Ethical implications of blockchain technology.

Normative ethical theories provide principles or guidelines for determining what is morally right or wrong. There are three broad (and competing) groups of ethical theories:

• Consequentialism believes that the consequences of an action determine its moral value.
• Deontology emphasizes adherence to moral rules and duties.
• Virtue ethics focuses on developing moral character and embodying virtuous traits.

🤔 How to Answer Ethical Dilemma Questions

Sometimes it seems that ethical dilemmas don’t have the right answers . But you can choose the best one for yourself if you establish a certain decision-making algorithm.

To answer ethical dilemma questions, follow these steps:

Below, you will see lists of ethical topics from different areas of human knowledge and activities. There are plenty of topics to write about, no matter what your focus of study is.

Ethical Topics in Business

• Corporate social responsibility in multinational companies.
• The role of business ethics in insurance companies .
• Ethical challenges in international supply chain management.
• Transparency and accountability in financial reporting.
• The role of business ethics in recruiting new employees using social media .
• Workplace diversity and inclusion ethics in the USA.
• Data privacy and security of employees in the workplace.
• Global warming and business ethics .
• Bribery and corruption in business transactions.
• Whistleblowing and ethical reporting mechanisms.
• Business ethics: Indian tea plantation workers .
• Ethical considerations in advertising and marketing practices.
• Fairtrade and ethical sourcing in global business.
• Business ethics of concealing facts in reports .
• Ethical leadership and decision-making in organizations.

Ethical Fashion Topics

• Sustainability and eco-friendly practices in fashion.
• Maintaining ethical standards in fashion .
• Ethical implications of fast fashion and overconsumption.
• Fair wages and labor rights in garment manufacturing.
• Supply chain as a crucial component of sustainability in the fashion industry .
• Animal cruelty-free and ethical sourcing of materials.
• Transparency in supply chains and traceability of products.
• Child labor in the fashion industry .
• Body image and ethical representation in fashion advertising.
• Recycling and upcycling in the fashion industry.
• Overseas sweatshops in the fashion industry .
• Cultural appropriation and respect for traditional designs.
• Ethical considerations in fashion collaborations and partnerships.
• Fashion Nova’s labor standards and transparency .
• Fashion industry’s impact on local communities and artisans.

Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Topics

• Use of force and police brutality in the United States.
• The code of ethics in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice .
• Racial profiling and discriminatory practices in law enforcement.
• Ethical considerations in undercover operations and informant handling.
• Criminal justice: philosophies of corrections .
• Integrity and honesty in witness testimony and evidence presentation.
• Ethical challenges in the use of informants and confidential sources.
• Professional ethics in criminal justice: Singleton vs. Norris .
• Juvenile justice and ethical treatment of young offenders.
• Capital punishment and ethical implications of the death penalty.
• Criminal justice ethics: police corruption & drug sales .
• Ethical issues in plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion.
• Ethical responsibilities of defense attorneys and client representation.
• The criminal justice service violations and ethical issues .
• Rehabilitation and ethical approaches to offender reintegration.

Media Ethics Paper Topics

• Accuracy and fact-checking in media reporting.
• Communication and social media ethics in the United Arab Emirates .
• Journalism ethics in the era of misinformation.
• Privacy concerns and ethical boundaries in media coverage.
• Media ethics: censorship of online material and behavior .
• Ethical considerations in photojournalism and image manipulation.
• Sensationalism and ethical dilemmas in news reporting.
• Media ethics: principle of privacy .
• Conflict of interest and transparency in media ownership.
• Diversity and representation in media storytelling and content.
• Mass media ethics in news coverage .
• Ethical challenges in social media and online journalism.
• Intellectual property and plagiarism in media production.
• Media censorship in the US .
• The role of media in promoting ethical discourse.

Ethics in healthcare ensures that medical professionals prioritize patient well-being, maintain confidentiality, and make decisions rooted in moral principles. Choose one of the topics below for a paper on ethics in medicine:

• Informed consent and patient autonomy in healthcare decisions.
• Healthcare ethics: physician-assisted death .
• Ethical considerations in end-of-life care and medical assistance.
• Allocation of scarce resources and equitable healthcare distribution.
• Abortion: an ethical dilemma .
• Confidentiality and privacy of patient health information.
• Ethical challenges in clinical research and human experimentation.
• Medical ethics: implications of a confidentiality breach .
• Ethics of physician-assisted suicide in healthcare.
• Organ transplantation and ethical considerations in donor selection.
• Obamacare and healthcare reform: ethical challenges .
• Ethical dilemmas in reproductive medicine and assisted reproduction .
• Cultural competence and ethical practices in healthcare delivery.
• Medical ethics: pet euthanasia .
• Ethical considerations in the use of emerging technologies in healthcare.

Ethical Topics in Nursing

• Ethical considerations of artificial intelligence in nursing care.
• Nursing ethics in patient advocacy .
• Understanding and managing confidentiality breaches in nursing.
• Ethical implications of assisted suicide for nursing practice.
• Hospice care and nursing ethics provisions .
• The moral dilemma of resource allocation in nursing.
• Addressing the tension between cultural sensitivity and medical guidelines.
• Euthanizing handicapped people: ethical and moral concerns .
• Discussing the impact of health inequities on nursing ethics.
• Ethical challenges in implementing telehealth in nursing.
• Circumcision: ethical dilemma and a nurse’s role in it .
• The moral landscape of mandatory vaccination for nurses.
• The nursing profession’s role in addressing medical errors.
• Ethic-of-care and ethic-of-justice in nursing leadership .
• Exploring the nurse’s role in patient advocacy.

Biomedical Ethics Topics

• Impact of gene editing on the future of healthcare.
• Cryonics and its ethical side .
• Ethical issues surrounding prenatal genetic testing.
• The role of bioethics in emerging infectious diseases.
• Embryo harvesting: ethical implications .
• Ethical challenges in stem cell research .
• Ethical considerations in human organ and tissue transplantation.
• Bioethics: the use of marijuana for medical purposes .
• Privacy and consent in the age of digital health data.
• Addressing animal rights in the context of biomedical research.
• Neuroimaging methods and arising ethical issues .
• The ethics of personalized medicine and genetic discrimination.
• Bioethics of advancements in neurotechnology and brain-computer interfaces.
• Cloning research ethics: ethical dispute and issues .
• The ethics of extending human lifespan through biotechnology.
• Surgery complications and bioethical decision-making .

🌳 Environmental Ethical Issues Topics

Environmental ethics guide individuals and organizations to act responsibly towards the planet. Such actions promote sustainable practices and biodiversity conservation and mitigate the adverse impacts of human activities on ecosystems. Here is a list of ethical environmental topics for research:

• Ethical responsibility for climate change for future generations.
• Sea dumping: legal and ethical issues .
• The role of environmental justice in urban planning.
• Ethical considerations in the use and disposal of plastics.
• The issue of global climate change from an ethical perspective .
• Implications of luxury fashion on the environment and ethics.
• The ethical responsibility of corporations in pollution.
• Land use and environmental ethics .
• The intersection of environmental ethics and indigenous rights.
• The ethical debate surrounding geoengineering as a climate solution.
• Environmental ethics: genetically modified organisms .
• The moral duty towards the preservation of biodiversity.
• Ethical considerations in the transition to renewable energy sources.
• Environmental ethics: intrinsic value of objects .
• The role of capitalism in environmental degradation.
• Commercial fishing: environmental ethics case study .

Animal Ethics Topics

• Ethical considerations in the treatment of companion animals.
• Nestlé animal testing and business ethics .
• The role of ethics in wildlife conservation efforts.
• The ethics of animal testing in scientific research.
• Ethical issues in animal research .
• The environmental and ethical impact of factory farming.
• The moral status of animals in ecological ethics.
• Is animal testing ethical ?
• Ethical approaches to invasive species management.
• Addressing the ethical implications of zoos and animal captivity.
• Ethics of using animals in medical research .
• The ethical debate around hunting as a conservation strategy.
• Ethics of the human-wildlife conflict resolution.
• Scientific experiments on animals from ethical perspectives .
• The moral side of animal cloning and bioengineering.

Food Ethics Topics

• Ethical concerns of genetically modified foods’ impact on the environment.
• Underweight products and deontological ethics .
• Food waste and its ethical concerns.
• The ethical debate on organic versus conventional farming.
• Ethical eating in daily food practices .
• The ethical and ecological effects of the meat industry.
• Balancing the demand for seafood with sustainable practices.
• Food safety issues in modern agriculture .
• The ethics of the global food supply chain in developing countries.
• Evaluation of the environmental ethics of palm oil production.
• Food ads ban for childhood obesity prevention .
• Food sovereignty and its significance in ecological ethics.
• The ethical implications of mono-cropping and biodiversity loss.
• Do marketers condition us to buy more junk food ?
• Ethical dilemmas in the use of pesticides in agriculture.

In the technology sphere , ethics can influence the development and use of innovations. Ethical approach ensures privacy protection and promotes inclusive technology solutions. Below, you will find several topic lists regarding ethics in technology:

Computer Science Ethics Topics

• The ethical concerns of artificial intelligence development.
• Electronic surveillance as an unethical practice .
• Outdoor privacy and surveillance in the digital age.
• The ethics of data collection and use by tech companies.
• Computer attacks and critical privacy threats .
• Implications of autonomous vehicles on societal ethics and safety.
• Ethical considerations in the development and use of deepfakes.
• Obscenity and computer ethics .
• Cybersecurity and ethical considerations in protecting user data.
• The ethics of algorithmic bias in machine learning.
• Computer ethics and privacy .
• Ethical challenges in the application of facial recognition technology.
• The responsibility of tech companies in spreading disinformation.
• Computer ethics and data protection .
• The ethics behind AI’s influence on job displacement and unemployment.

Aviation Ethics Topics

• Ethical challenges of automation in aviation safety.
• Aviation security and Al-Qaeda in Yemen .
• The balance between profitability and safety in commercial aviation.
• Ethical responsibilities of air traffic controllers.
• Safety risks in the modern aviation industry .
• Ethical considerations in the age of crewless aerial vehicles.
• Ethics of environmental sustainability in the aviation industry.
• Criminalization of aviation accidents .
• Ethical challenges in aviation maintenance practices.
• The moral dilemma of overbooking flights in the airline industry.
• Aviation security is over-reliant on technology .
• Ethical issues in the crisis management in aviation.
• The role of whistleblowers in promoting aviation safety.
• Sustainability in global aviation companies .
• Ethical implications of advanced surveillance technologies in aviation security.

Engineering Ethics Research Paper Topics

• Navigating the ethics of autonomous vehicles in society.
• Engineering professionalism and ethics .
• The role of ethics in sustainable engineering practices.
• Ethical considerations in the age of artificial intelligence engineering.
• Chernobyl disaster and engineering ethics .
• Conflicts between innovation and safety in civil engineering projects.
• The responsibility of engineers in managing climate change.
• Engineering ethics: patent rights and legal issues .
• Ethical challenges in the disclosure of engineering failures.
• The implications of biotechnology in bioengineering ethics.
• Machinery accident from an ethical standpoint .
• The role of ethics in software engineering and data privacy.
• Ethical considerations in the use of drones for engineering.
• Ethical manufacturing and technology trends .
• The ethical dilemmas in nuclear engineering.
• Engineering competence and the code of ethics .
• The ethics of using performance-enhancing drugs in sports.
• Circumcision: medical, ethical, and human rights issues .
• Should artificial intelligence be allowed to make life-or-death decisions?
• Do celebrities have a moral responsibility to be role models?
• Nightingale Pledge: medical ethics perspectives .
• The ethical debate on privacy versus security in the digital age.
• Are autonomous vehicles a boon or a bane for society?
• Hurricane Katrina: government ethical dilemmas .
• Should schools be allowed to use surveillance cameras on students?
• Is it ethical to use animals for scientific experimentation?
• Debate on circumcision: is it unethical and unlawful ?
• Is the use of gene editing in babies ethically acceptable?
• Is it ethically right to deny healthcare based on lifestyle choices?
• Samsung and child labor: business ethics case .
• The ethics of commercialization of organ transplants.
• Are social platforms ethically responsible for the spread of fake news?
• Obesity in Afro-Americans: ethics of intervention .
• Should governments be allowed to censor the internet for national security?
• Is it ethically right to use facial recognition technology in public?
• Fetal abnormality and the ethical dilemma of abortion .
• Is it ethical to prioritize economic growth over environmental sustainability?
• The ethical implications of giving minorities benefits in college admissions.
• Discrimination as an unethical business situation .
• Should companies have the right to track their employees’ online activities?
• The ethical debate on the death penalty as a justice form.
• Ethical dilemmas in business: KFC Company’s case .
• Is it ethically acceptable to use AI for predictive policing ?
• Should parents have the right to choose their child’s genetic traits?
• The relationship between economic rationality and ethical behaviour .
• Is it ethically right to implement social credit systems in society?

🏺 Philosophy Essay Topics: Ethics

• The role of cultural relativism in moral philosophy.
• Aristotle’s views on ethics .
• Ethics of the philosophy of existentialism.
• Kantian ethics in contemporary society.
• Kant’s deontological ethical theory .
• The use of virtue ethics in modern moral dilemmas.
• The influence of Stoicism on contemporary ethical thinking.
• Cicero’s views on citizenship and ethics .
• The ethical debate on utilitarianism versus deontology .
• The philosophical implications of moral objectivism versus moral subjectivism.
• Kant’s and Mill’s ethical philosophies .
• Ethical implications of free will in the era of AI.
• The philosophy of ethical egoism in capitalist societies.
• Aristotle’s ethical theory about euthanasia .
• The relevance of Nietzsche’s master-slave morality in modern ethics.
• The role of empathy in moral philosophy and ethics.
• Moral philosophical views: from Plato to Nussbaum .
• Ethical questions raised by determinism and indeterminism.
• The influence of Eastern philosophies on contemporary ethics.
• Aristotle and virtue ethics .
• The role of ethics in postmodern philosophy.
• The ethics of responsibility in existentialist thought.
• Theories of ethics: consequentialism and ethical relativism .
• Moral obligations towards future generations in environmental ethics.
• Individual ethics versus collective ethics.
• Philosophical views of ethics and morality .
• Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia in modern society.
• The ethical questions raised by the philosophy of solipsism.
• Nonconsequential theory of ethics: case analysis .
• The ethics of hedonism in contemporary societies.

👩🏽‍🎓 List of Ethical Questions for Students

We have ensured that you can find the perfect ethical topic depending on the type of assignment you received. You can find debate, discussion, speech, and presentation topics here.

Ethical Debate Topics

• What are the ethical implications of capital punishment?
• Fetus with deformities: what is its moral status ?
• Should there be a moral limit to scientific discoveries?
• Is it ethical to use animals in circus performances?
• How do ethical theories view gay marriage ?
• Is the commercialization of human organs ethical?
• Is it ethical to use DNA from extinct species?
• Should parents be responsible for children’s crimes ?
• Should physicians be allowed to assist in patient suicide?
• Is it ethical to clone humans for medical purposes?
• Should parents spank their children ?
• Is the use of child labor ethical?
• Should religious beliefs influence public health policy?
• Why should you be moral when it is not in your best interest to do so ?
• Should gene editing in unborn children be allowed?
• Is it ethical to implement robotic soldiers in warfare?
• Should the United States abolish the death penalty ?
• Is euthanasia in terminally ill patients ethical?
• Should society implement universal basic income?
• Should the sale of human organs be legalized ?
• Is it ethical to design babies with specific traits?
• Is the censorship of artistic expression ethical?
• Should animals be used in medical research ?

Ethical Discussion Topics

• The ethical implications of social media on personal privacy.
• Should sex and violence be restricted on television ?
• How should we address ethical issues in global outsourcing?
• The ethical implications of data breaches and digital privacy.
• Should same-sex couples be allowed to adopt children ?
• The ethics of sustainable consumption of electronic devices.
• The ethics of wealth disparity in capitalist societies.
• Should we not abolish capital punishment ?
• The role of ethics in sustainable development and climate change.
• Ethical considerations of health disparities in society.
• Should smoking be illegal ?
• Ethical considerations of pandemic response and vaccine distribution.
• The role of ethics in animal rights and testing.
• Should parents avoid vaccinating their children ?
• Ethical considerations in the rise of the gig economy.
• The ethical implications of facial recognition technology in public.
• The right-to-die bill: why should all states pass it ?
• Ethical dilemmas in genetic testing and personalized medicine.
• The role of ethics in global migration and refugee crisis.
• Should cigarette manufacturers be prohibited ?
• The ethics of using AI in predictive policing.
• The ethical considerations of child labor in global supply chains.
• Should Kant be criticized for his absolutism ?
• Why should animal testing for cosmetics be globally banned?
• Corporate fraud as an ethical and leadership dilemma .
• The need for ethical considerations in AI development.
• Why the right to privacy should be prioritized in the digital age?
• Stem cell research ethics, pros and cons, and benefits .
• The importance of ethical farming practices for a sustainable future.
• Why must corporations take responsibility for their carbon emissions?
• Ethics of Obamacare and Trumpcare .
• The necessity of ethical treatment of workers in global supply chains.
• The importance of ethical considerations in medical research.
• Should Americans adopt a vegan lifestyle ?
• Why should technology companies be held accountable for data breaches?
• The need for ethical standards in reporting and journalism.
• Should we withhold life support ?
• Why should businesses prioritize corporate social responsibility?
• The importance of ethical considerations in education system reforms.
• Should children be tried as adults for murder ?
• Why should organ donation be encouraged as an ethical duty?
• The necessity of transparency in governmental decision-making.
• Ethical dilemma: should gene editing be performed on human embryos ?
• Why should we consider the ethical implications of autonomous weapons?
• The importance of sustainable consumption in the fight against climate change.
• Animal testing for cosmetic or medical purposes should not be allowed .
• Why should we prioritize ethics in the fashion industry?
• The necessity for implementing ethical norms in genetic engineering.
• Should human cloning be allowed ?
• Why should we consider ethical implications of wealth disparity ?
• The importance of ethically addressing refugee and migration crises.
• How much should we do for our fellow men ?
• The necessity of ethical governance in the use of facial recognition.
• Ethical concerns in using virtual reality for psychological treatment.
• Patient’s violence and the use of doctor force – medical ethics .
• The role of ethical dilemmas in shaping public policy.
• The ethical issues and carbon footprint of global supply chains.
• British Petroleum: corruption involving ethics .
• The ethical implications of data breaches in technology companies.
• The ethical landscape of genetic engineering.
• Domino’s Pizza: ethical dilemma case .
• Ethical considerations in the use of personal data for political microtargeting.
• Evaluating the ethical considerations in predictive policing.
• The code of ethics of the American Nurses Association .
• The role of ethics in responsible journalism and fake news.
• The ethics of personalized pricing based on consumer data analysis.
• Apple Corporation: ethical and social responsibility .
• Ethical implications of intensive livestock farming on animal welfare.
• Visualizing the environmental impact of single-use plastics in marine ecosystems.
• Business ethics and dilemmas in the film Michael Clayton .
• Ethical considerations in access to healthcare for marginalized populations.
• Ethical dimensions of cultural appropriation.
• International legal and ethical issues in business .
• The role of ethics in organ donation and transplantation.
• The ethical implications of economic disparity in capitalist societies.
• Chevron Company: ethical analysis .
• Ethical considerations in journalism and media ethics.
• The role of ethics in sustainable development and consumption.
• College sport: ethical issues .
• Visualizing the environmental impact of fast fashion through data.
• Ethical dilemmas in pharmaceutical industry marketing strategies.
• Ethical dilemmas in Shakespeare’s Hamlet .
• The ethical challenges in the education reform policies.

What Are Ethical Questions?

Ethical questions are inquiries that explore moral issues, challenging us to consider right and wrong, good and bad. They often deal with dilemmas where a decision about the appropriate behavior or action must be made. Ethical questions are relevant in many fields, such as business, healthcare, politics, science, and education.

What Are the Seven Ethical Principles?

The seven ethical principles are common guidelines in ethical decision-making across various fields:

• Autonomy – respect for individuals’ right to decide for themselves.
• Beneficence – obligation to promote well-being and good.
• Non-maleficence – duty to cause no harm.
• Justice – ensuring fairness and equitable distribution of resources.
• Fidelity – maintaining loyalty and keeping promises.
• Veracity – commitment to truthfulness and honesty.
• Confidentiality – respecting the privacy of others.

What Are Some Ethical Topics?

Ethical topics cover a broad spectrum of issues across multiple domains. In healthcare, topics like euthanasia, patient confidentiality, and genetic engineering are common. In business, we discuss corporate social responsibility, whistleblowing, and fair trade. Environmental ethics covers animal rights, sustainability, and climate change. In technology, topics like data privacy, AI ethics, and cybersecurity are popular.

• Ethics Awareness: UC San Diego  
• Solving Ethical Dilemmas; Ethics in Law Enforcement  
• A Framework for Ethical Decision Making – Markkula Center for Applied Ethics  
• 5 Ethical Issues in Technology to Watch for in 2023 | CompTIA    
• The Very Best 127 Philosophical Questions 2023  
• Identifying Ethical Issues; Exploring Business  
• How to Write About an Ethical Dilemma – Synonym  
• The RIGHT Decision Method: An approach for solving ethical dilemmas | Institute on Community Integration Publications  
• A Brief Guide to Writing the Philosophy Paper | Harvard College Writing Center  

428 Criminology Research Topics & Questions for Students

Self-discipline for students: tips, & practices, associate degree: is it worth it types, jobs, & tips for students, 392 proposal essay topics for arguments, projects, and more, 1045 dissertation topics & thesis ideas to research in 2024, 364 education research topics about school issues, special education, and more.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Environmental Ethics

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Last »
• Environmental Philosophy Follow Following
• Environmental Justice Follow Following
• Ethics Follow Following
• Applied Ethics Follow Following
• Animal Ethics Follow Following
• Bioethics Follow Following
• Political Philosophy Follow Following
• Political Ecology Follow Following
• Environmental Studies Follow Following
• Environmental Humanities Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 13 September 2024

Research ethics matter

Nature Methods volume  21 ,  page 1569 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Biological sciences
• Biological techniques
• Institutions
• Research management

All life sciences research is potentially subject to ethical considerations. Institutions should support collaborations with professional ethicists and philosophers to help life scientists navigate ethical crossroads.

For scientists working with animals, human data or stem cells, or collecting ecological data in resource-poor settings, the ethical considerations of their research are something they must grapple with regularly. For those working at the molecular or cellular level or purely in silico, however, their experiences with ethics may be limited to a brief training course mainly covering issues of data manipulation and plagiarism.

Many molecular, cellular and computational biologists may think that research ethics — that is, whether the scientific questions being explored are ethical to pursue, whether the approaches used to pursue such questions are ethical, and whether the communication of that research is ethical — just do not apply to their work. But in this issue of Nature Methods , a Comment from Jeantine Lunshof and Julia Rijssenbeek 1 implores life scientists of all stripes to integrate discussions with professional ethicists and philosophers into the research planning process.

For some research fields, ethical guidelines are readily available. Research on human subjects — for example, the use of fMRI to study alterations to brain connectivity networks in disease — must be approved by ethics committees (in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki ), and such subjects must provide informed consent. Experiments with lab mice must also be preapproved by an ethics committee, and researchers should follow the ARRIVE reporting guidelines 2 , as well as the American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines for animal euthanasia. Developmental biologists working with human embryos should abide by ethics guidelines set by the International Society for Stem Cell Research . Ecologists collecting data in the global South are encouraged to follow the TRUST Code recommendations — in particular, by including local researchers in the work.

There are many areas of life sciences research, however, where research does not require ethics oversight and ethics guidelines are not readily available, but where ethical considerations may yet be important. There are likely several examples of methodologies and tools that, in the wrong hands, may lead to harmful gain-of-function experiments or dual-use threats to public health or national security. A molecular biologist tinkering to improve genome editing tools would be wise to ponder the implications of the unethical use of the technology for human germline editing, as in the ‘CRISPR babies’ case 3 . Computational biologists using AI technology for drug discovery need to be aware that such models could be misused to design biochemical weapons 4 .

In their Comment, Lunshof and Rijssenbeek describe a model called ‘collaborative ethics’, which calls for life sciences researchers to work closely with professional ethicists or philosophers starting at the earliest stages of research planning. As they write, collaboration can “improve the efficiency and robustness of outcomes” for the research team and also “prepare a team for a formal ethics review and criticism after publication.” Such collaborations also benefit the field of philosophy, “as direct involvement with the sciences allows long-held assumptions and arguments to be put to the test.”

In the collaborative ethics model, a research team will discuss their ideas and concepts with a professional ethicist or philosopher, who may ask probing questions about the nature of the work. The ethicist will help the researchers understand whether there are any ethical considerations and whether the potential harms of sharing the resulting new knowledge with society outweigh the potential benefits of advancing science. Lunshof and Rijssenbeek highlight how the collaborative ethics model played a role in three different projects: the engineering of synthetic human entities with embryo-like features, the development of brain organoids and the programming of computer-designed ‘biobots’. They note that collaborative ethics may also have a role to play in many other fields, such as protein engineering, systems biology, aging research and computational biology.

As described in our journal policy , performing ethical research is the responsibility of all scientists. Professional ethicists are not the police; their role is not to punish or curb scientific progress. Rather, ethicists can serve as a ‘conscience’ and help scientists understand the ethical implications of their work. Without such collaborations, the after-the-fact consequences could be much worse — yes, papers can be retracted, but reputations are already damaged and harmful gain-of-function work may be out there for the world to see.

For scientists used to dealing with quantitative measures and statistical significance, the concept of research ethics can feel a bit vague or murky, at best an afterthought to their work. This is even more a reason for breaking down the walls between science and ethics, especially in this age of rapid technology development and especially with swift advances in AI. We strongly encourage institutions to go beyond minimal ethics training courses and do much more to support close collaborations between scientists and professional ethicists.

Lunshof, J. E. & Rijssenbeek, J. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02320-8 (2024).

Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M. & Altman, D. G. PLoS Biol. 8 , e1000412 (2010).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cyranoski, D. & Ledford, H. Nature 563 , 607–608 (2018).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Urbina, F., Lentzos, F., Invernizzi, C. & Ekins, S. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4 , 189–191 (2022).

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Research ethics matter. Nat Methods 21 , 1569 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02425-0

Download citation

Published : 13 September 2024

Issue Date : September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-024-02425-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Ethics Topics for Research Papers: 140+ Ideas

Derived from the Greek word “ethos,” meaning “way of living,” ethics is a branch of philosophy that involves well-founded standards of right and wrong, as well as just and unjust behaviors. By defining concepts such as right, wrong, vice, justice, and crime, ethics examines an individual’s behavior in society.

When writing an ethics research paper, the first step is to come up with an appropriate ethics topic. Framing a research project on ethics requires understanding essential principles like honesty, morals, and integrity, and demonstrating the findings needed to support your hypothesis. This fundamental research can be challenging for many students, particularly those who have chosen complex research topics. Therefore, the first step is brainstorming excellent ethical topics to transform this challenging process into a smooth journey.

With this in mind, we are here to help ease this burden. This blog post compiles over 140+ captivating ethics topics across various disciplines. Each of these topics will assist you in writing a persuasive research paper that will captivate your readers and impress your professors.

Table of Contents

Ethics Comes in a Variety of Forms

Over the centuries, different philosophers have proposed numerous ethical theories. Before diving into the ethical topics that we have categorized, it is crucial to understand the various types of ethics. Ethics can be broadly classified into four branches, as follows:

Descriptive ethics: This branch of ethics deals with the theory that explains the moral norms, attitudes, and practices that societies believe to be right or wrong. It examines how people actually behave and the moral standards they claim to follow.

Normative or prescriptive ethics: The study of “norms” or “principles” that determine what is morally right or wrong and accordingly holds individuals accountable. In simpler terms, this is the study of “ethical actions.” Deontological ethics, virtue ethics, consequentialism, and Nishkam Karmayoga are some examples of normative theories.

Meta-ethics: Meta-ethics studies the nature of ethics as a whole. This branch of ethics analyzes the foundations of our ethical principles and why we use them daily. It involves the investigation of the meaning and justification of moral claims, as well as the nature of moral values and properties.

Applied ethics: This is the most practical branch of ethics. Applied ethics involves the general principles that we apply in our daily lives. This branch deals with the philosophical examination, from a moral standpoint, of specific issues in various fields, such as medicine, business, and the environment.

Selecting the Right Research Topic in Ethics

To create an engaging research paper, the initial step is to select a high-quality research topic that will make your research stand out from the crowd. To score excellent grades, you must develop captivating ethics topics of your choice. Here are a few tips that will help you choose the best option among all the ethics paper topics:

• When framing an ethical research paper, consider choosing a research topic with enough supporting facts, evidence, and details. Avoid any false or fabricated data, as it can ruin the credibility of your paper.
• Select topics involving complex on-going issues or moral quandaries, as they would pique the interest of your professors. Look for topics that are occasionally covered by the media.
• Try to write your research concisely, making it interesting, informative, and relevant. Overly long research is a major turnoff for readers.
• Search for unsolved research paradigms that will allow you to include your opinions and arguments.
• Engage in critical thinking on the best topics. Narrow down some of the best topics that spark your and your readers’ interests and will expand their knowledge.

Identifying the perfect topic that suits all your requirements can be challenging. You can use the tips mentioned above to identify the best topics that meet your needs. However, depending on individual students, this process can still be time-consuming. Instead of brainstorming for hours, delving into research, and writing lengthy research papers , you can seek professional assistance from our research paper writers.

140+ Ethics Topics for Research Papers

Crafting a research paper on ethics can be more challenging than it initially appears. This is because, while most people understand basic ethical values, their interpretations can vary significantly. Ethics is not just about black and white; it delves much deeper into the shades of grey. In this article, our experts from Edumagnate.com have provided you with an extensive list of ethics topics to help jumpstart your research paper. For a better understanding, we recommend reading through each list thoroughly.

Compelling Topics on Ethical Issues

Ethical dilemmas arise when individuals must evaluate whether their actions are morally right. Topics related to such dilemmas often explore complex questions, requiring one to defend their position convincingly. These ethical issues span various fields, including religion, psychology, and sociology. Consequently, incorporating perspectives from these disciplines can help create a unique and insightful research paper.

• Ethical Codes for Sports Refereeing
• Ethical issues in animal research
• The ethical issues with euthanasia
• Ethical Issues in Sports Administration
• Legal Ethics in National and international businesses
• Organizational Ethics and Individual Responsibility
• Understanding sports ethics as a significant tool for accessing moral behavior in sports
• The Ethical Challenges and Controversies of Healthcare Reform
• The Challenge of Terri Schiavo from an ethical perspective
• The Ethical Issues of Pharmaceutical Companies
• Ethical Issues with Abortion
• Sports ethics: use of drugs in sports competition
• Healthcare systems and associated healthcare ethics
• Ethical and cultural issues with group work
• Political and socioeconomic issues amongst different nations
• Religion and Ethics in healthcare provisions
• Ethical Issues and Concerns of a professional sports person
• The ethical side of Motorsports
• The foundation of computer ethics

Since ethics is a branch of philosophy, students can also consider choosing philosophy research topics.

Social Media Business Ethics Topics

To make things easier, our experts have enumerated a list of the most interesting social media business ethics topics for you. These topics are thoroughly reviewed in depth to ensure optimum results for students. Check them out!

• An Introduction to social media ethics
• Is the notion of “controversial fit” on social media ethical?
• Enhancing business performance on social media without eroding business ethics
• The ethical judgment of consumers and controversial advertising avoidance on social media
• Managing ethical responses on social media: effective guidance for business entrepreneurs
• The ethical environment in online communities: information credibility from a social media standpoint
• Employing big data in business organizations and business ethics
• Social media business ethics: a view from the trenches
• Corporate Firing for sharing questionable social media posts: a detailed analysis
• What is the role of social media ethics in achieving responsible business?
• The Influence of social media ethics on Enhancing the effective online presence of Businesses
• The Influence of social media ethics in the ongoing industries
• Social media ethics and Etiquette
• The Impact of social media ethics on Businesses
• The Ethical Issues of Colonizing Mars
• Social media ethics and journalism: a detailed analysis
• The ethical implications of social media: issues and recommendations for entrepreneurs

The Best Bio-Medical Ethics Topics

If you’re interested in bio-medical, then consider choosing a research topic from the following list of suggestions:

• A detailed analysis of the relationship between medical ethics and religious beliefs
• Medical Ethics in Asia versus Europe
• Medical ethics: a detailed analysis
• Ethical Issues in stem cell research and Therapy
• The ethical issues and legal considerations with euthanasia
• Ethical behavioral issues and Problems in Medicine
• A detailed analysis for monitoring the application of idol ethics in medical fields
• The ethical challenges and Considerations for practicing medicine overseas
• Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of pregnant women as research participants
• How do medical ethics confront religious beliefs?
• Bio-ethics versus medical ethics: a comparative analysis
• Contemporary medical ethics: a research analysis of Iran
• Ethical issues, including bioethics (conduct a case study)
• Principles of bio-medical ethics
• Human testing of drugs: is it ethical?
• Debunking the Ethics of Neuroenhancement
• The imperativeness of medical ethics
• The perception of biomedical ethics
• The Ethics of Development: an integral Approach

Read Also – Interesting biology research topics

Bioethics Research Paper Topics

Bioethics talks about topics related to health, life, genetics, neurology, and even plastic surgery. Research paper topics in bioethics are brilliant topics to write about. The following list is a compilation of 20 bioethics research paper topics that you can consider:

• Ethical conflicts over disclosure and barring services
• Bioethics: Why is philosophy essential for progress?
• Contemporary Issues in Bioethics
• A critical understanding of the ethical responsibilities associated with CRISPR
• Bioethics and stem cell research
• 5 strange and sinister medical procedures from History
• Bioethics and political ideology: The case of active voluntary euthanasia
• Availability of vaccines for everyone: an overview
• The ethics of brain-boosting
• Euthanasia: An Overview and the Jewish Perspective
• The legal and ethical considerations of dealing with a brain-dead person
• A descriptive analysis of Bioethics in Society
• Ethics and genetic engineering—lessons to learn
• Islam and bioethics: Beyond abortion and euthanasia
• Exploring the ethical principles and Practice of plastic surgery
• Pediatric neuroenhancement: ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications
• Bioethics, disability, and death: Uncovering cultural bias in the euthanasia debate
• Secular Bioethics and Euthanasia in a democratic public space

Read Also – 200+ Science Research Topics

Medical Ethics Topics to Score Excellent Grades

The list of medical ethics topics below can assist you with some of these amazing medical ethics topics. For a better understanding, consider reading each topic among these recommendations:

• Is physician-assisted suicide legal? Is it ethical?
• The ethical and legal issues with surrogacy
• The Ethical and Medical Implications of Circumcision
• The Ethics of Surrogacy
• The ethics of abortion: Is it ethically right?
• Ethical and policy issues associated with uterine transplants
• Ethical considerations associated with living donations: an overview
• The Ethics of Condemned Prisoner Organ Donation
• Ethical theories and laws associated with medical ethics
• The Ethics of employing human embryos in genetic engineering research
• Medical ethics dilemma: an overview
• The ethical perspectives of the Nightingale pledge
• The ethics of animal research
• Current ethical issues and Challenges in Healthcare
• Religion, beliefs, and medical ethics: an overview
• Bioethics, human rights, and childbirth
• Understanding Morality without ethics

Enthralling Computing Ethics Topics

Technological advancements have revolutionized all facets of human existence. Computer ethics encompass a collection of fundamental principles aimed at addressing concerns associated with the improper use of computers and outlining preventive measures. The list provided below features some of the most compelling ethical research topics in the realm of computer ethics.

• Should ethics boards be required for IT companies?
• Discussing the risks associated with keeping sensitive data online.
• Is hacking a moral act?
• Examine the ethical issues raised by artificial intelligence.
• Exploring computer privacy-related problems and their solutions
• The moral dilemmas associated with drone use
• Evaluating the moral implications of internet users’ Anonymity
• Ethical prevention of cyberbullying: What can be done for a permanent termination?
• Sabotaging others’ computers: how is this ethically wrong?
• Mapping the foundationalist debate in computer ethics
• A method in computer ethics: Towards a multi-level interdisciplinary approach
• Computer ethics: the significance of personal, formal, and informal codes
• Gender and computer ethics
• Reasons, relativity, and Responsibility in computer ethics
• The Ethics of Computing: A Survey of the computing-oriented Literature
• Computer Ethics and moral methodology
• The ethics of online Anonymity or Zuckerberg vs.” Moot.”
• Propose an educational plan for computer ethics and information security

Research Paper Topics in Sports Ethics

Sports ethics extend beyond mere behavior and thought processes, as they are fundamentally rooted in respect, fairness, integrity, and responsibility within the sports arena. Athletes often face dilemmas regarding what actions to take or avoid due to the ethical considerations in sports. Although this subject can be complex, a deep understanding allows for exceptional research on sports ethics. Here are some example topics:

• Sports Ethics: An Anthology
• Ethics in sports
• Performance-enhancing drugs in sport: The ethical issue
• The key components of sports ethics
• The primary moral obligations of athletes
• The imperativeness of ethics in sports
• A detailed analysis of the ethical responsibilities of a sportsperson
• Are professional sporting activities moral in today’s society?
• The Paralympic Games and the Promotion of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• Athletes’ healthcare and ethical Concerns
• Impact of ethical behavior outside the Pitch
• The moral dimensions of Motorsports
• Child exploitation to become elite athletes
• Moral and ethical responsibilities of a sportsperson
• How do people enter the world of professional sports, and what ethical issues do they face?
• Alienation of sports from real life
• How sports and games serve as the primary outlet for human ethics
• Sports ethics and medicine
• The unique ethics of sports medicine

Top-Notch Business Ethics Topics

Your ethics paper topic on business must be engaging and provide a practical solution to the ongoing economic challenges. Here is a compilation of some of the best business ethical topics for research papers. Each topic on this list will allow you to draft an excellent research paper and earn brilliant grades. Read on.

• Roots of business ethics in Psychology
• A Model of business ethics
• A detailed study of the ethical philosophy behind Bitcoin
• The unique connection between business success and personal integrity
• Moral Leadership and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior
• How closely can managers monitor their employees’ behavior?
• Business ethics and social responsibility education: shifting the worldview
• Ethical behaviors and economic rationality: an overview
• Business ethics and social responsibilities
• Who determines whether private or personal information should be collected?
• The business ethics case of McDonald’s
• Understanding and preventing ethical failures in leadership
• Ethical Dilemmas in Conducting Business
• Moral policing: It’s more business than ideology.
• Data Security Enhancement and Business Ethics
• Perceptions of business ethics: Students vs. business people
• American business culture and ethical norms
• Does business ethics make economic sense?
• Moral Leadership and business ethics
• Business Ethics in Islam: the glaring gap in Practice

Read Also – Business Research Topics

Criminal Justice Research Topics in Ethics

We always hear how law enforcement is made to protect the commoner’s rights. Unfortunately, it is not always the case. These law enforcers sometimes end up in morally ambiguous situations. Now and then, we often hear news about how a fellow police officer exploited a commoner. So, if this topic piques your interest, this list might be helpful for you. Below are some interesting topics in criminal justice ethics.

• The Codes of ethics for criminal justice
• Integrity in the Criminal Justice System
• A detailed analysis of the ethics of criminal justice
• Model affairs and impartial statutory policies.
• Arguments for and against capital punishment
• Discussion on the ethical ramifications of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle
• Examination of the Stanford Prison Experiment’s ethical issues.
• What moral ramifications do school shooter exercises have?
• Discuss if Julian Assange’s prosecution is appropriate.
• Examining the ethical difficulties of privatized prisons
• Imprisonment of young offenders: Is it ethically right?
• Ethics in criminal justice: theory and practices
• Ethical Dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice

Read Also – 150 Advanced Law Research Paper Topics

Environmental Ethics Topics

If you are willing to compare and contrast topics for environmental ethics, you can take ideas from some of the below-given research topics. Read through the entire list, narrow down the best topics, and finally, set your tone to make your point.

• An Introduction to environmental ethics
• The bio-ethical standards of Coca-Cola
• A detailed study of the global warming ethics
• Assessing the US Government’s environmental ethics
• Should companies be held accountable for preserving the environment?
• A deeper look at the EU Administration’s environmental policy and commercial ethics
• Environmental Regulations and business ethics
• A detailed study on the primary environmental and ethical issues in business?
• Ethics of setting up residential structures in sensitive habitats.
• Animal testing in the cosmetic industry
• Recreational environmental ethics: A more detailed examination of the effects of hunting
• Ethical evaluation of initiatives to combat climate change
• Commercial whaling: an ethical analysis
• A detailed evaluation of insider trading: can we call it ethical?
• Is there a moral case for pollution trade-off programmers?
• What do people think about good versus bad ethics?
• Electric vehicles can help rescue the environment.
• Tax evasion and tax avoidance: what exactly is legally right?
• A critical evaluation of the global warming ethics
• Pollution trade-off programs: are they ethically justified?
• Ethical Analysis of climate change mitigation efforts

Read Also – List of 150 Enticing Chemistry Research Topics

Final Thoughts

From the array of ethics topics provided, choose one that captures your interest and aligns with your academic preferences. We hope this list proves insightful for your upcoming research paper. If you ever feel stuck, remember that help is available!

Consider using our paper help service if you’re searching for a topic for your research proposal, thesis , dissertation, or any other academic writing. Our skilled paper helpers can assist you in developing a unique ethics research paper topic. Should you require expert guidance, don’t hesitate to seek outstanding writing assistance at a reasonable price.

By Alex Brown

I'm an ambitious, seasoned, and versatile author. I am experienced in proposing, outlining, and writing engaging assignments. Developing contagious academic work is always my top priority. I have a keen eye for detail and diligence in producing exceptional academic writing work. I work hard daily to help students with their assignments and projects. Experimenting with creative writing styles while maintaining a solid and informative voice is what I enjoy the most.

Peer Reviewed

GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.

Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden

Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden

Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Research Questions

• Where are questionable publications produced with generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) that can be found via Google Scholar published or deposited?
• What are the main characteristics of these publications in relation to predominant subject categories?
• How are these publications spread in the research infrastructure for scholarly communication?
• How is the role of the scholarly communication infrastructure challenged in maintaining public trust in science and evidence through inappropriate use of generative AI?

research note Summary

• A sample of scientific papers with signs of GPT-use found on Google Scholar was retrieved, downloaded, and analyzed using a combination of qualitative coding and descriptive statistics. All papers contained at least one of two common phrases returned by conversational agents that use large language models (LLM) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google Search was then used to determine the extent to which copies of questionable, GPT-fabricated papers were available in various repositories, archives, citation databases, and social media platforms.
• Roughly two-thirds of the retrieved papers were found to have been produced, at least in part, through undisclosed, potentially deceptive use of GPT. The majority (57%) of these questionable papers dealt with policy-relevant subjects (i.e., environment, health, computing), susceptible to influence operations. Most were available in several copies on different domains (e.g., social media, archives, and repositories).
• Two main risks arise from the increasingly common use of GPT to (mass-)produce fake, scientific publications. First, the abundance of fabricated “studies” seeping into all areas of the research infrastructure threatens to overwhelm the scholarly communication system and jeopardize the integrity of the scientific record. A second risk lies in the increased possibility that convincingly scientific-looking content was in fact deceitfully created with AI tools and is also optimized to be retrieved by publicly available academic search engines, particularly Google Scholar. However small, this possibility and awareness of it risks undermining the basis for trust in scientific knowledge and poses serious societal risks.

Implications

The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated  (Simon et al., 2023).

Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.

To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.

The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few.  While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.

Evidence hacking and backfiring effects

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.

The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.

However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.

Recommendations

Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of  science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.

Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.

Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.

Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.

Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.

The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs.  Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.

As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.

A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster.  Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”

The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).

Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.

Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.

We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .

We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.

The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.

To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.

We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”

• Artificial Intelligence
• / Search engines

Cite this Essay

Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156

• / Appendix B

Bibliography

Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018

Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2

Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024

Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain

Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117

Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801

Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6

Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090

DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/

Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013

Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237

Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html

Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217.   https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669

Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/

Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6

Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171

Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518

Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127

Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188

Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/

Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc

The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263

Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879

Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869

Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch

This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.

Applied Ethics Research Paper Topics

This page provides a comprehensive list of applied ethics research paper topics , offering a valuable resource for students studying ethics. Explore the diverse and thought-provoking subjects within applied ethics, ranging from environmental ethics to medical ethics and beyond. Whether you’re seeking inspiration or guidance for your research paper, this page offers an extensive selection of topics to delve into.

Applied ethics covers a wide spectrum of ethical dilemmas and considerations that shape our world. It provides an opportunity for in-depth examination and critical analysis of real-world issues, making it a fascinating and relevant field of study. By perusing these topics, you can uncover the ethical dimensions of contemporary challenges and engage in meaningful academic exploration.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

From discussions on the ethical implications of emerging technologies to debates about the moral responsibilities in business practices, applied ethics invites you to question, reflect, and develop a deeper understanding of the ethical underpinnings of various aspects of our lives. Whether you are a student looking to embark on a research journey or an instructor seeking to guide your students in ethical investigations, this page serves as a valuable starting point.

Browse through the list of applied ethics research paper topics presented here, and let them spark your curiosity and critical thinking. Explore the ethical landscapes that surround us and find inspiration for your next research paper within the diverse and complex realm of applied ethics.

100 Applied Ethics Research Paper Topics

Exploring applied ethics research paper topics is a journey into the heart of ethical considerations that shape our world. The field of applied ethics offers a diverse array of subjects, each with its unique set of moral dilemmas and challenges. As students of ethics, you have the opportunity to delve deep into these issues, critically examine them, and contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding ethical decision-making. In this section, we present ten categories, each featuring ten research paper topics, to guide your exploration and inspire your academic pursuits in applied ethics.

Environmental Ethics

• The Ethics of Climate Change Mitigation Policies
• Biodiversity Conservation and Moral Responsibility
• Eco-Centric Ethics and Environmental Preservation
• Ethical Dilemmas in Environmental Impact Assessments
• Sustainable Agriculture and Ethical Consumer Choices
• Environmental Justice: Bridging the Gap
• Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Greenwashing
• The Ethics of Wildlife Management
• Pollution Control and Moral Implications
• Indigenous Knowledge and Environmental Ethics

Medical Ethics

• Autonomy vs. Paternalism in Medical Decision-Making
• The Ethics of Genetic Engineering and Designer Babies
• End-of-Life Care: Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide
• Organ Transplantation and Allocation Ethics
• Human Cloning: Ethical Boundaries
• Informed Consent and Medical Research
• Medical Data Privacy and Ethical Concerns
• Pharmaceutical Industry Ethics
• Access to Healthcare: A Moral Imperative
• Ethical Dilemmas in Pandemic Response

Business Ethics

• Corporate Social Responsibility and Profit Maximization
• Ethical Leadership in the Business World
• The Ethics of Advertising and Consumer Manipulation
• Whistleblowing: Ethical Dilemmas and Protection
• Gender Equality in the Workplace: Ethical Perspectives
• Ethical Challenges in Supply Chain Management
• Environmental Sustainability in Business Practices
• Ethical Implications of AI in Decision-Making
• Bribery and Corruption: Global Perspectives
• Ethical Considerations in Mergers and Acquisitions
• Cloning and Reproductive Ethics
• The Ethics of Human Genome Editing
• Access to Healthcare and Global Health Inequities
• Stem Cell Research: Ethical Controversies
• Privacy and Genetic Information
• Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement Technologies
• Ethical Dimensions of Neuroenhancement
• Surrogacy: Legal and Ethical Complexities
• Research Ethics in Biomedical Studies
• Ethical Challenges in Organ Trafficking and Transplantation

Technology Ethics

• AI and Ethics: Autonomy vs. Control
• The Ethics of Data Privacy and Surveillance
• Robot Rights: Ethical Considerations
• Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning Algorithms
• Cybersecurity and Ethical Responsibility
• Ethical Implications of Biometric Technologies
• Technology’s Impact on Human Relationships
• The Ethics of Autonomous Vehicles
• Virtual Reality and Ethical Realities
• Ethical Hacking: Balancing Security and Privacy

Political Ethics

• Ethics of Political Campaigning and Propaganda
• Human Rights Violations and International Ethics
• The Morality of Political Lobbying
• Ethics in Political Decision-Making
• Corruption in Politics: Causes and Consequences
• The Ethics of Interventionism in International Relations
• Transparency and Accountability in Government
• Ethical Dimensions of Immigration Policies
• Social Contract Theory and Political Legitimacy
• Environmental Ethics in Political Decision-Making

Social Ethics

• Equality vs. Equity: Ethical Perspectives
• Social Justice Movements and Ethical Activism
• Poverty and Ethical Responsibility
• Ethical Considerations in Education
• Discrimination and Stereotyping: Ethical Implications
• Ethical Dimensions of Social Media Use
• Ethical Challenges in Globalization
• Healthcare Access and Social Ethics
• Ethical Aspects of Criminal Justice Reform
• Aging Population and Ethical Healthcare Allocation

Animal Ethics

• Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare
• Factory Farming and Ethical Concerns
• Wildlife Conservation and Ethical Dilemmas
• Animal Testing: Ethical Alternatives
• The Ethics of Pet Ownership
• Ethical Considerations in Zoos and Aquariums
• Biotechnology and Animal Ethics
• Ethics of Hunting and Trophy Hunting
• Ethical Implications of Animal Extinction
• The Ethics of Animal Research

Ethical Theories

• Utilitarianism: Applications and Critiques
• Deontology and Its Role in Ethical Decision-Making
• Virtue Ethics and Personal Character
• Feminist Ethics and Gender Relations
• Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Ethical Principles
• Principlism in Bioethics
• Ethical Egoism: Individual vs. Collective Good
• Rights-Based Ethics and Human Rights
• Environmental Ethics Theories: Deep Ecology vs. Shallow Ecology
• Ethics of Care: Relationships and Responsibilities

Ethical Issues in Science

• Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics
• Ethical Implications of Gene Editing Technologies
• Dual Use Dilemmas in Science and Technology
• Ethical Challenges in Animal Research
• Environmental Ethics in Scientific Research
• Data Fabrication and Falsification in Scientific Studies
• Ethical Issues in Human Subject Research
• Scientific Responsibility in Emerging Fields
• Ethical Dimensions of Biomedical Research
• Ethical Considerations in Space Exploration and Colonization

As you peruse this extensive list of applied ethics research paper topics, we hope you find inspiration for your academic endeavors. These topics represent the ethical complexities and dilemmas that permeate various aspects of our society, demanding critical examination and thoughtful reflection. Whether you are interested in the intersection of ethics and technology, the moral considerations in healthcare, or the ethical implications of business practices, there’s a wealth of subjects to explore within applied ethics. Your research in this field can contribute to the ongoing discourse on ethical decision-making and help shape a more ethical future for our world.

The Range of Applied Ethics and Research Paper Topics

In the realm of academic inquiry, few fields offer the richness and relevance of Applied Ethics. This branch of ethics stands as a sentinel, guarding the intersections where moral principles meet real-world dilemmas. For students of ethics, delving into Applied Ethics is akin to embarking on a profound intellectual journey, one that not only sharpens critical thinking but also fosters a profound understanding of the ethical complexities that shape our society. In this article, we delve into the significance of Applied Ethics as a field of study and highlight the vast array of research paper topics it offers, showcasing the depth and breadth of ethical inquiry available.

Significance of Applied Ethics

At the heart of Applied Ethics lies the quest to navigate the intricate web of ethical considerations inherent in our daily lives. It is a field that challenges us to confront moral dilemmas across various domains, encouraging us to grapple with questions like, “What is the right thing to do?” or “What are our moral obligations in this context?” In essence, Applied Ethics transcends abstract ethical theories and immerses us in the tangible and often thorny ethical issues we encounter in our personal, professional, and societal spheres.

One of the primary reasons for the significance of Applied Ethics is its practicality. Unlike some other philosophical disciplines, Applied Ethics is not confined to the ivory tower of academic discourse. Instead, it directly addresses the ethical challenges and moral decisions that individuals, organizations, and societies face daily. Whether it’s assessing the ethics of a medical procedure, evaluating the environmental impact of a business practice, or examining the morality of political decisions, Applied Ethics provides a toolkit for ethical analysis and decision-making in the real world.

Furthermore, Applied Ethics serves as a moral compass for society. It helps us navigate the ever-evolving landscape of technological advancements, global interconnectedness, and ethical dilemmas that accompany these changes. In essence, it empowers us to make informed and ethical choices in an increasingly complex world.

The Broad Range of Research Paper Topics

One of the distinctive features of Applied Ethics is its diversity. Applied Ethics research paper topics span a wide spectrum of domains, making it a field ripe for exploration and scholarly investigation. Below, we highlight just a few areas within Applied Ethics, demonstrating the range of topics available for research and analysis.

Environmental Ethics : Within this subfield, you can delve into topics such as the ethics of climate change mitigation policies, the moral dilemmas of wildlife conservation, or the ethical implications of sustainable agriculture. These topics are of utmost importance in our efforts to address pressing environmental challenges.

Medical Ethics : The ethical dimensions of healthcare are multifaceted. Research paper topics may include the autonomy vs. paternalism debate, ethical considerations in end-of-life care, or the impact of genetic engineering on our moral framework. These topics are at the forefront of contemporary ethical discussions in the medical field.

Business Ethics : Business practices and ethics often intersect. Topics like corporate social responsibility, the ethics of advertising, or the challenges of ethical leadership offer a rich terrain for exploration, shedding light on the moral underpinnings of corporate decisions.

Technology Ethics : In the age of rapid technological advancements, questions about data privacy, artificial intelligence, and the ethics of autonomous vehicles abound. Researching these topics allows students to engage in debates that will shape our technological future.

Political Ethics : Ethical dilemmas in politics, diplomacy, and international relations are perennial concerns. Research topics may encompass issues like human rights violations, transparency in government, or the moral implications of interventionism.

Social Ethics : In examining social issues, you might explore topics related to social justice, discrimination, or ethical challenges in education. These topics delve into the moral fabric of society and offer insights into pressing contemporary issues.

Animal Ethics : The ethical treatment of animals is a matter of growing concern. Research paper topics can cover issues such as animal rights, factory farming, or the ethics of animal testing, contributing to discussions on animal welfare and ethical responsibility.

Ethical Theories : Beyond specific issues, Applied Ethics also delves into ethical theories. Exploring topics related to utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and others provides a foundational understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of ethical decision-making.

Ethical Issues in Science : Science and technology raise unique ethical questions. Topics like scientific integrity, gene editing, and ethical considerations in space exploration delve into the moral dimensions of scientific progress.

The breadth of Applied Ethics research paper topics is a testament to the field’s vitality and relevance. Students who choose to study Applied Ethics have the opportunity to engage deeply with these topics, contributing to our collective understanding of ethics in action.

In conclusion, Applied Ethics research paper topics are not just academic exercises; they represent the ethical fabric of our society. As you embark on your journey into this field, you’ll discover a wealth of subjects that challenge your intellect, refine your ethical compass, and equip you to make informed and morally sound decisions in the complex world we inhabit. So, dive in, explore, and let Applied Ethics guide your ethical exploration and academic pursuits.

Custom Writing Services by iResearchNet

When it comes to crafting a compelling research paper on applied ethics research paper topics, having the right support can make all the difference. At iResearchNet, we understand the importance of academic excellence, and that’s why we’re proud to offer a suite of services designed to help students like you succeed. Our cornerstone is our team of expert degree-holding writers who bring years of academic experience to the table. Let’s explore the range of features that make iResearchNet your ideal partner for top-notch research paper assistance.

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers: At the heart of our service is a team of seasoned writers, each holding advanced degrees in their respective fields. Your research paper will be entrusted to experts with a deep understanding of applied ethics and the ethical dilemmas you aim to explore.
• Custom Written Works: We believe in crafting unique, tailored solutions for every research paper. Your project will be custom-written from scratch, ensuring originality and adherence to your specific requirements.
• In-Depth Research: Our writers are skilled researchers, adept at digging deep into academic literature and credible sources to provide well-researched and evidence-based content.
• Custom Formatting: We understand the importance of adhering to specific formatting guidelines. Whether it’s APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard, we’ll ensure your research paper is formatted impeccably.
• Top Quality: Quality is our hallmark. We uphold rigorous quality standards to ensure your research paper meets the highest academic benchmarks, both in terms of content and structure.
• Customized Solutions: No two research papers are the same. Our approach is highly personalized, tailoring our services to meet your unique research paper needs.
• Flexible Pricing: We recognize that students have varying budgets. Our pricing is competitive and flexible, allowing you to select the services that align with your requirements.
• Short Deadlines: We thrive on challenges. If you have tight deadlines, our team can deliver high-quality research papers within as little as three hours, ensuring you never miss a due date.
• Timely Delivery: We take pride in our punctuality. Rest assured, your research paper will be delivered on time, allowing you ample time for review and submission.
• 24/7 Support: Questions or concerns can arise at any time. Our round-the-clock customer support team is here to assist you, ensuring a seamless experience throughout the research paper writing process.
• Absolute Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. We guarantee complete confidentiality, safeguarding your personal and academic information.
• Easy Order Tracking: Stay in the loop with our user-friendly order tracking system. Monitor the progress of your research paper and communicate with your writer effortlessly.
• Money-Back Guarantee: We stand behind the quality of our work. If, for any reason, you’re not satisfied with the final product, we offer a money-back guarantee, providing you with peace of mind.

Choosing iResearchNet for your research paper assistance means tapping into a world of expertise, reliability, and convenience. Our team of expert degree-holding writers, coupled with our comprehensive list of features, ensures that your research paper on applied ethics research paper topics will not only meet but exceed your expectations. We’re dedicated to helping you achieve academic excellence while easing the often stressful process of research paper writing. Trust iResearchNet to be your partner in academic success, and experience the difference that expertise and commitment can make in your academic journey.

Unleash Your Academic Potential with iResearchNet

Ready to turn your academic aspirations into reality? At iResearchNet, we’re here to help you make it happen. Our custom research paper writing services are tailored to meet your unique needs, ensuring that your journey through academia is not only smooth but also marked by excellence.

Experience the iResearchNet Advantage

When you choose iResearchNet, you’re choosing a partner committed to your success. Here’s why you should take the next step and place your order for a custom research paper on your chosen applied ethics research paper topic:

• Unmatched Convenience: We understand that the demands of academia can be overwhelming. With our services, you gain the convenience of expertly crafted research papers without the stress and time constraints. Focus on what matters most to you while we handle the academic rigors.
• Premium Quality: Your academic journey deserves nothing less than the best. Our team of degree-holding experts is dedicated to delivering research papers that not only meet but exceed your expectations. We take pride in producing work of the highest quality.
• On-Time Delivery: Punctuality is our promise. We appreciate the importance of meeting deadlines, and with our team, you can be confident that your research paper will be delivered promptly, allowing you ample time for review.
• Tailored Solutions: Your research paper should reflect your unique perspective and requirements. With iResearchNet, you receive a fully customized solution that aligns with your academic goals and research paper topic.
• 24/7 Support: Your questions and concerns are important to us, and we’re here for you round the clock. Our dedicated support team is ready to assist you at any time.

Take the Next Step

Now, it’s time to take action. Unleash your academic potential with iResearchNet by your side. Let us transform your research paper on applied ethics research paper topics into a masterpiece that reflects your dedication to ethical exploration and critical thinking.

Place Your Order Today!

Don’t wait any longer. Reach out to iResearchNet and place your order for a custom research paper that will set you on the path to academic excellence. Your journey towards a deeper understanding of applied ethics and a successful academic career begins here. Reach out to us today, and let’s embark on this journey together.

Your research paper aspirations are within reach—seize them with iResearchNet!

Order high quality custom paper.