Margherita's school presentation

215 views
167 views

Published on

An example of how the illegal destruction of protected woodland within Granny Kettle Wood is now being used as a case study within schools all over the world.

Published in: Spiritual
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
215
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Margherita's school presentation

  1. 1. Margherita Bernardi
  2. 2. An investigation into two moralcases involving deforestationGranny KettleWood, Sunningdale, UKBosawas BiosphereReserve, Nicaragua.
  3. 3.  Granny Kettle Wood, in Sunningdale, comprisesmore than 40 acres of woodland and is a wildlifeplace, loved by the local community . Illegal clear felling of one acre of protected woodlandtook place in May 2012. A petition is being conducted in order to ask theauthorities to prosecute this deforestation. Disagreeing with each other, protectors anddestructors seem to apply different moral argumentsto justify their position.GRANNY KETTLEWOOD, THEDEFORESTATION.
  4. 4.  ‘’To what extent is it ethical and reasonable to exploitthe planets protected forests and woods bydeforesting them for personal gain?’’ Before answering the question, it is important toclarify the concept of ethical and reasonable.KNOWLEDGE ISSUE
  5. 5.  Ethics is the moral principle governing or influencingconduct. In TOK it is the branch of knowledgeconcerned with moral principles. Reasonable is the ability of the mind tothink, understand and judge logically, consideringwhat is right, practical, or possible.ETHICAL & REASONABLE
  6. 6.  Ethical actions should be judged in an impartial way,thinking objectively and without making exceptionfor particular cases. Agreeing with Kant, the action questioned as aknowledge issue is not ethical, because it is doneexpecting something in return. A preferential treatment is the main focus of the cause,and this is completely against Kant’s philosophy.KANT’S THEORY
  7. 7.  Kant’s approach on ethic by reason has somelimitations: It creates a ‘’rule worship’’ It creates a conflict of dutyOn the other hand
  8. 8.  Mill sustained that the only thing that is good initself is happiness. His theory is simple and rational. According to his theory, the deforestation is right if itproduces a pleasure for the person who does it.MILL’S UTILITARIANISMTHEORY.
  9. 9.  It is not possible to measure pleasure. Two different actions contrast themselves byproducing different kind of pleasures.On the other hand
  10. 10.  Extending over 2,000,000 km², Bosawas BiosphereReserve protects the second-largest rainforest area inthe Western Hemisphere. Woodcutters destroy thirty thousand acres of forestper year.ANOTHER REAL LIFE SITUATIONWoodcutters in Bosawas Biosphere Reserve
  11. 11.  This situation can de justified under the thought of Mill The economic returns make woodcutters richer andhappier Kant thought is against this situation A preferential treatment is createdKANT & MILL
  12. 12. KANT: Deforestation is not ethical because it is done in orderto have a personal gain.  Not reasonableMILL: Deforestation is ethical because it is done in order tocreate happiness.  ReasonableETHICAL & REASONABLE(Bosawas Biosphere Reserve )
  13. 13.  Granny Kettle Wood Personal happiness Preferential treatment Neither ethical nor reasonable according to Kant Ethical and reasonable according to Mill Bosawas Biosphere Reserve Personal happiness Preferential treatment Neither ethical nor reasonable according to Kant Ethical and reasonable according to MillGRANNY KETTLE WOOD &BOSAWAS BIOSPHERE RESERVE
  14. 14.  The cases are closely related The cases are both unethical and not reasonableaccording to Kant The cases are both ethical and reasonable accordingto MillCOMPARING THE CASESAND CONCLUSION
  15. 15.  Both cases are not ethical. When personal happiness is the first objective andother impacts are not considered, the action cannotbe justifiable or reasonable Personal interests are less important than thegeneral impactsMY OPINION
  16. 16.  http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/royal-borough-of-windsor-and-maidenhead-prosecute-those-responsible-for-illegal-destruction-of-protected-woodland?utm_campaign=share_button_action_box&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition http://tinyurl.com/blacknest http://www.greenenergyjournal.it/index.php/42-notizie-green/701-deforestazione-illegale-bosawas-sta-scomparendo#.UahDQpj6CbkBIBLIOGRAPHY

×