I have decided to construct a dilemma that questions development vs.. Degradation. Do we continue to build commercialese industries, new homes, plants and factories to support the growing population of our economic development or do we cut down the natural habitat of many animals as well as pollute our air? Pollution is a very alarming problem that has been battled with for years. However, with the rise in economic development and rapid growth of industries it is inevitable to fight.
As demands for goods and services increase industrial expansion, he pollution increases as well. The dilemma also raises questions about the quality of material that is being used, the location, the technique of production, discharge of wastes and the absence of recycling. All of which affect the overall quality of life. Economic development also rears the fact that many natural habitats are being destroyed as well. With many forest preserves being demolished, the absence of tress and wildlife habitat also affects the quality of life.
Although many nonprofit organizations have been set in place it is still a great deal of work that is still in regress. Bill is a very distinguished entrepreneur. He has built dozens of shopping centers all over Tacoma Washington. He has increased his expansion of shopping centers over the last few years. With his business booming, Bill finds a large piece of land that would be great to build a new commercialese shopping center. The opportunity to build on this large wooded area would help Bill expand his business even more. The land is over 15 acres with lots of trees and natural wildlife habitat.
Cutting down this land will destroy thousands of animals’ homes as well destroying the tress will UT down the amount of clean air produced by the trees, which in turn will adversely affect the clean air. However, by creating this new shopping center it will open up hundreds of Job opportunities to the people of Tacoma. Do you think it is okay to build this center at the expense of the wildlife? According to Emmanuel Kant human morality is derived from rationality. Kant argued that all moral Judgments are rationally supported. He said that’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong, there were no grey areas.
He formed the idea of categorical imperative. Categorical imperative stresses the idea of universality and ends rather than a means to an end. Universality states that you should only do something if it’s okay that everyone did it all the time. If everyone went around chopping down wildlife habitats and destroying tress what would be left? If it’s not a desirable world to live in, then it’s not okay to do. Kant also stressed the idea that it is the ends rather than a means to end. You are not allowed to lie under any circumstances. No one should be allowed to manipulate someone else to achieve their own goals.
So if Kant was solving this dilemma he would say that cutting down the forest to achieve his own goals of wealth and happiness was wrong to do. If I were to solve this dilemma according to Locke, he would probably disagree with Kant and say that it was morally Justified to build on that land. Locke states that we are all driven by our sell-interests He also believes that we learn by example. Unlike Kant, Locke believed that we must look out for the good of everyone. Locke would say that Bill was not only providing money for his family and business but he as also opening up many Job opportunities to the people of the city.
If I were to solve this dilemma I would probably go with Kant in saying that it is morally wrong to build on this land. Although it would give Job opportunities to many families, I don’t think that it should be at the expense of innocent animals and trees. I do believe in both Locke and Cant’s ethical dilemmas. However for this specific situation I would have to favor Kant more. Works Cited Sangria, Chapin. (2013). Urban development and environment. Indian Streams Research journal, 3(3), dot: 2230-7850