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 counterclaims that these people are likely to make. To begin with, they would argue that forests are irreplaceable when it comes to contribution to the fertility of the soil. In other words, by clearing them, people act opposite to what they want to 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 the 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 for animals that are later used as food by the people. Ethnocentrism, Geocentrism and Polycentrism.
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
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples