Ethnocentrism, Geocentrism and Polycentrism - Assignment Example

Ethnocentrism, Geocentrism and Polycentrism Introduction Is it ethical for the people to clear forests in order to expand farmlands and enhance food production? It would not be a mistake to suggest that human technology has advanced so much that people are able to introduce various changes into the environment in order to achieve certain goals. At the present moment the nagging question that the humanity is facing is food crisis. The latter was not brought up by shortage of food; quite the opposite: it was caused by the increased number of people on the planet. Indeed, nowadays there are more people living in the world than in any other historical period and they all need to consume food. I will argue that people should clear forests to expand farm lands. There are several reasons for that. First of all, the use of such lands enhances food production. Secondly, it helps to connect rural and urban areas. Finally, it will enable people to reclaim lands which used to be rejected by agriculture. The aim of the paper is to support this position and present evidence that would convince the readers to adopt it. In order to do so, the paper will explore reasons that fall in line with this approach and engage two ethical theories, Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics, to assess them. In the next section it will provide most likely objections and refute them. Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning To begin with, it may be logical to present reasons that support the position in question. First of all, it must be noted that the use of land which once used to be a forest will significantly enhance food production which will benefit the entire mankind. Indeed, the new territories will be free of pollution and other negative impact of the humanity which will contribute to the quality of food that is produced on it. Other than qualitative enhancement, one may also observe quantitative enhancement since people will have more soil to grow crops and this will boost thethe production of food making sure that there is enough for every one and the people will no longer experience hunger. Another point that should be mentioned lies in the fact that by clearing the forests and using the territories as new farmlands people will connect urban and rural areas. Indeed, it often happens so that the former have excess of food resources, but there are few people to consume them; on the other hand, cities virtually have no farmlands per se, but they are inhabited by people who are willing to pay for food. Therefore, if the forests are cleared, the infrastructure that connects the two kinds of areas will improve and so will the quality of life of the people on the both sides. So, this will be an important strategic move. Finally, one should also note that by using the lands that are cleared from forests the people will reclaim certain territories that used to be outside the scope of agriculture. Indeed, it must be noted that in some cases forests appeared when territories were abandoned by people as they could not grow crops there. However, as the the agricultural technology has advanced, the scope of its application is widened. Therefore, people can use lands which they abandoned long ago for various reasons. Under these conditions, clearing forests seems reasonable since the latter developed as a result of negligence and not natural causes. That is why by reclaiming these lands, people will show that they have developed a better approach to management of this difficult territories. Now, it may be logical to apply some ethical theories in order to assess the position that is advocated by this paper. The first approach which will be utilized is Utilitarianism. According to this theory, an action is recognized as an ethical one when it is able to maximize the amount of pleasure with regard to all the parties that are involved (Mill, 2002). As it has been shown before, different consequences of clearing forests for farmlands benefits people directly or indirectly. On the one hand, it enhances food production which is surely beneficial in the long run. In addition to that it helps to connect urban and rural areas directly benefiting all the people who live there. So, by any measure the amount of pleasure that is generated by this decision outweighs the amount of pain that is associated with it (Gustafson, 2013). However, if one applies a different ethical theory, one will be able to see that the actions in question will receive a completely different judgment. Thus, according to Deontological Ethics people should not perform acts that the humanity will not benefit from in case they became universal laws (Kant, 2013). In other words, if the policy for clearing forests for farmland is applied as a universal law the planet would not benefit from it since forests constitute and important part of the global ecosystem. Another point that should be mentioned is that one can hardly prove that deforestation is always carried out of good will (Sensen, 2011). Therefore, according to Deontological Ethics, clearing forests for farmland will be perceived as an unethical action. Objection and Response It must be noted that not all the people are likely to agree with the position that is supported by this paper. There are several counter claims that these people are likely to make. To begin with, they would argue that forests are irreplaceable when it comes to contribution to fertility of the soil. In other words by clearing them, people act opposite to what they want achieve. Moreover, forests are great when it comes to water catching and the role that is played by water is agriculture is obvious. The next argument that they are likely to bring up deals with climate change. The latter is thought to occur because of the excess of greenhouse gases and the best way to get rid of them is to process them by plants. Therefore, forests are seen as irreplaceable elements of the process that clears the atmosphere and reduces greenhouse effect. As a result, by cutting down forests and turning the territories into farmlands people intensify the problem of climate change. All this leads to the understanding that such practice should be regarded as not a sustainable one. Therefore, it should be put to an end. Finally, the opponents of the point of view expressed in this paper would argue that forests often provide habitat to animals that are latter used as food by the people. In other words, it is not logical to destroy a perfectly functioning ecosystem that provides food to create a different one on its place. What is more important is that by clearing forests people do not address the major cause of food shortage which is the increased number of people on the planet. One would make no mistake, suggesting that there is some logic behind these actions, but their effectiveness is relatively low if compared to actions that could have been directed to other elements of the problem. The position that contradicts with the approach which is advocated by this paper is rather convincing. Nevertheless, each of the counter claims which were made above can be refuted. Speaking of the important role that played by forests in terms of land fertility and water catchment, one should note that the same results can be achieved with the contemporary agricultural practices. In other words, the production of food nowadays is much more efficient and it can also enhance land fertility, not draining the juices from it, but quite the opposite. In other words, the positive effect of forests will not be lost if they are replaced by farmlands which means that this counter claim was successfully refuted. The second claim which was made before related to climate change. It is true that preservation of forests is likely to have a positive impact on this environmental phenomenon. However, it must be noted that this should be seen as the only way to cope with it. For example, if the world decreases the emission of greenhouse gases simultaneously with the clearing forests the balance will be maintained and if the emission will be decreased even more, the humanity will enjoy progress in the solution of this problem. In other words, large territories with forests are needed in case the contemporary level of emission is not changes; however, the humanity might decrease it. In this case conversion of forest lands will not have a negative impact in the long run. Finally, it is true that forest is able to provide habitat to animals which are seen as a source of food. That is why from this point of view clearing forests is not logical. However, what people seem to overlook is that a forest and a farmland of equal size are able to produce a different amount of food. It is beyond any doubt that a farmland will produce more food than a forest. That is why conversion is beneficial for the people. Of course, this might mean that the locals will have to introduce certain changes to their diet; however, in the long run they will enjoy different positive consequences. Conclusion Having examined all the points which were mentioned in the paragraphs above, it is obvious that clearing forests to expand farmlands should be regarded as an ethical action and should be performed by the people. First of all, it will enhance food production by making more lands available for it and contributing to the quality of food. In other words, when the scope of agriculture is expanded to include territories which used to be forests, it is a beneficial change for the industry. Secondly, the policy in question will connect rural and urban areas, contributing to the connection between them. Finally, by using the lands that are cleared from forests people will reclaim these territories and use them more effectively. This approach is approved by Utilitarianism since it ultimately leads to the biggest amount of pleasure and, therefore, is considered to be ethical. Contrary to that Deontological Ethics would condemn such policy and disapprove of clearing forests. There are certain objects that might be raised with regard to the issue in question. Thus, it is argues that forests contribute to soil fertility and water catchment, they process greenhouse gases, and produce food. However, each of these counter arguments can be easily refuted: the contemporary farmlands are sustainable, the humanity might fight global warming with the help of decreasing greenhouse emission and farmlands are more effective in terms of production of food. References Gustafson, A. (2013). In Defense of a Utilitarian Business Ethic. Business & Society Review (00453609), 118(3), 325-360. doi:10.1111/basr.12013 Kant, I. (2013). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. New York, NY: Start Publishing LLC. Mill, J. (2002). Utilitarianism (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing. Sensen, O. (2011). Kants Conception of Inner Value. European Journal Of Philosophy, 19(2), 262-280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2009.00385.x Read More