UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIEthicsPractice question

Role of Environmental Ethics in Development-Conservation Conflicts

What is Environmental Ethics? Explain its significance in resolving conflicts between development and conservation.

Explain~250 words2 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Begin by clearly defining environmental ethics and highlighting its key philosophical paradigms. Then, analyze its practical significance in resolving tensions between developmental imperatives and ecological conservation using constitutional provisions and judicial precedents. Conclude with a forward-looking perspective on sustainable ecocentrism.

Model answer

327 words

Introduction

Environmental ethics refers to the branch of applied philosophy that defines the moral relationship, values, and duties of human beings toward the natural environment and its non-human components. It provides an evaluative foundation to address humanity's role as either an exploiter or a custodian of ecological systems.

Core Paradigms of Environmental Ethics

  • Anthropocentrism: A human-centric perspective where nature is valued primarily for human utility and economic exploitation, such as diverting forests for infrastructure and industrialization.
  • Biocentrism: Extends moral standing to all living beings, holding that every organism has intrinsic worth regardless of its direct utility to humanity.
  • Ecocentrism: An earth-centered holistic worldview prioritizing the ecological balance and integrity of entire ecosystems over individual species or economic interests.

Significance in Resolving Development vs. Conservation Conflicts

  • Constitutionalizing Environmental Rights: Environmental ethics serves as a bridge linking the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 with Directive Principles (Article 48A) and Fundamental Duties (Article 51A(g)). In M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court applied an ethical approach to recognize a distinct right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change.
  • Applying Ecocentric Proportionality: Ethical paradigms prevent purely utilitarian policy choices. Through principles like ecocentric proportionality, the judiciary checks arbitrary administrative actions, such as routine ex-post-facto environmental clearances, balancing developmental necessity with ecological thresholds.
  • Guiding Policy Mediation and Nuanced Compromise: Environmental ethics provides a framework for multi-stakeholder resolution rather than rigid binaries. For example, in managing the Great Indian Bustard habitat versus solar infrastructure conflict, an ethical synthesis allowed targeted underground cabling and corridor-based transmission planning rather than an absolute developmental standstill.
  • Upholding Intergenerational Equity: It embeds the duty of stewardship into public policy, ensuring that present resource consumption does not compromise the carrying capacity of the biosphere for future generations.

Conclusion

Transitioning from exploitative anthropocentrism toward sustainable ecocentrism is essential for resolving resource conflicts. Embedding environmental ethics into legal, corporate, and public policy decisions ensures equitable development that respects the ecological boundaries of the planet.

Key facts to remember

definition
Environmental Ethics

A branch of applied ethics examining the moral obligations and ethical duties human societies owe to non-human life and natural ecosystems.

case study
M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024)

The Supreme Court recognized a fundamental right to be free from the adverse impacts of climate change under Articles 14 and 21, resolving tension between solar expansion and protecting the endangered Great Indian Bustard.

Frequently asked questions

How does ecocentrism differ from anthropocentrism?

Anthropocentrism assigns value to nature purely based on its instrumental utility to humans, whereas ecocentrism recognizes intrinsic ecological value in entire ecosystems, irrespective of direct human benefits.