From your ethical perspective, should government have an absolute prohibition on commercial access or should there be a working compromise with companies?
In my opinion, the government should have absolute prohibition on commercial access to forestland. With the advancement of urban sprawl, there needs to be appropriate safeguards put in place to preserve the forest for future generations to enjoy. With urbanization and commercialization come chemicals that can adversely affect the environment. As stated in our text “Ethically, though, the effects do need to be considered, and so we have a conflict between pursuing personal freedom (to wash in chemicals) and the environmentalist desire to restrict that freedom (because of its unseen effects)” (Fieser, Moseley, 2012, p 9.7). If not for government agencies such as the National Parks Service, areas such as Yosemite, Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon might not be around today and would be just another town or city.
From the ethical perspective, a particular group to which you currently belong, or previously belonged, should government have an absolute prohibition on commercial access or should there be a working compromise with companies?
The United States Army uses vast expanses of land to do their military training; however, there are rules in place witch focus on the environmental stewardship of the land they use. It has been noted, “The US Army has a sophisticated system for the protection and restoration of training lands (integrated training area management) which, it would no doubt contend, reduces the impacts of live training or restores land to good heart. (Doxford, Judd, 2002, p. 262).
Fieser, J. & Moseley, A. (2012). Introduction to business ethics. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUPHI445.12.1/sections/sec9.7
Doxford, D., & Judd, A. (2002). Army Training: The Environmental Gains